Another thing that he's developed is a nice little VB application that lets people at the part search through his tracks for an artist and then add it to the playlist in a similar way to a jukebox in a bar.
Net radio is already there. Just try here (You have to start the stream first, of course). I've seen a couple of these "program as you go" bitcasters, and I like 'em. Hats off to ya Nazz.
Pick a small company in a non-computer related, slow-paced sector. Forgot getting a degree and get lots of experience instead. For preference, get some experience of the business first. Sticking with one company for as long as you can bear it helps as you can acquire seniority simply by being there.
While it might not be the sexiest work around BEING the IT department is kinda fun. Finding a small, successful company and filling that role can be a lot of fun (with the right company). There is little specialization (for me at least) but I do DBs, network sec./arch., web stuff, support (blech), and like davey said "fix pretty much anything with a plug."
They are also rather dependent on you so when you walk in after a year and ask for a 70% pay hike, they give in happily.:-)
100's of providers of DVD technology who have invested time and money to produce technology to benefit their customers.
I don't see how their encryption "benefits consumers". The ONLY way you could argue that is it was *because* of the encryption that we ever got DVDs. This is a poor argument because, well, that's a really poor reason to do something. If they wanted to "benefit consumers" they would have widely distributed cheap content that consumers could then use to benefit each other.
Sorry but IP and copyright don't benefit consumers, they benefit corporations. The time and money was invested to benefit the company which is their purpose. Please don't tell me they are protecting me "for my own good".
..now I'll say it again. The Internet makes control of digital media IMPOSSIBLE. Until the record/movie/entertainment companies realize this and embrace it, we will continue to see walls of Lawyers trying to hold back an invisible tide.
hmm.. I was comparing "borrowing" CD's from your friends with sharing copies of the digital signal on the CD's with the same closed group of people.
I personally don't see anything wrong with MP3's until you burn 'em to a CD and sell them as your own. Up to that point you are using a transitory media, much too vulnerable to random corruption to warrant $1 a song pricing (especially using a windoze machine), which is more like listening to rebroadcasts on the radio than any other form of old media.
I could go on, but I like eating lunch, so e-mail me if you want the full treatise.
And, um, yea, like I have, a, uh, cooledge degrea.
I totally support copyright in all of tis forms. It is up to an author whether or not to sell or give away their creation.
Yup, and as soon as the Artists call CMU and tell them to take their creations off the local network I will support that decision.
My problem with the RIAA and it's practices is the abuse of artists by the big 5 recording companies. Making them sign away their lifelong right to their own music and URL simply to get the foot in the door of a building that the RIAA (for simplicity's sake) has bolted shut.
When I have to chose between supporting what I see as immoral market actions with slightly illegal actions (made illegal by the same people who wish to control it), well, I think it's fairly obvious where I stand. This is the same moral market decision that has allowed me to install the same copy of Win95 on *gasp* three machines.
(Most of the streaming MP3's I listen to are either electronica/ambient/tech or from Phish, who have seen in thier wisdom that freely distributing live music is a GREAT way to promote a band)
Within 5 minutes of sending the above e-mail I received a phone call from Alan Boyle (the editor of the original article). We talked for a few minutes about the weather, slashdot, and his grandkids, no wait....
Anyway, I requested that he remove my comment from the story (not a bad idea since it wasn't even a sentence to begin with) and he said he would be happy to. He also said that the purpose of the article was to point people towards the lively discussion that occurs here. Nice guy.
This goes down as the day I challenged MS(NBC) and won, yippee! hehe
..but I don't think it quite falls under this. Excerpting for a book review or critiqe is a special case, as in a classroom example. In this case actual content for MSNBC (a for-profit compnay) was taken w/o my permission. So here's the e-mail I wrote and am awaiting a response.(I found the author's e-mail on a different story)
------ Alan, In your recent article on/.'s reaction to the MS verdict, you wrote..
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote."
Which are my comments first made on/. at this location.
What I would like to know is why my comment was stolen, edited, and reprinted without my permission. Each page on Slashdot clearly states "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster." and this is the agreement under which my comments were submitted.
It would not bother me nearly as much if you had contacted me, not edited the comment or at least attibuted the comment by name. As it stands the comment, originally made in jest, was edited and reused in another context. In reading the original comment one's eyes MUST pass over a link that goes straight to my e-mail address (minus a couple spaces) so I know there was a conscious decision to NOT contact me for permission.
I am unhappy that such action has been taken and am anxious to hear your reply.
was what I saw your comment at. Unfortunately your rant about it being moderated down call into question that rating. Relax, even Karma has to work under the contrainsts of Time.
made more money this last year by a factor of two over every "respectable" media personality. He also interacts with pr0n stars on a daily basis, if that's what you're looking for in life, he's a solid role model....
since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.
What is discussed might be located on other sites, but the reason I read/. is the comments. So all the actual good reading content is in fact generated by/.'s readers. Look ma, truly interactive media.
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote.
Which is remarkably similar to comments from this posting. It would seem that my comments (Comments are owned by the Poster.) have been taken and reproduced without my permission. Not to mention edited and taken out of context from a comment made in jest (this was a reply to the story that the ruling would be out in a few hours, and included a smily).
So my comments were stolen, changed and reused without permission when they are clearly owned by me and contact information was easily available.
Legal recourse? Should I bitch and moan? e-mail bomb msnbc?(j/k) Ask for my cut of the ad revenue from that page? This is more of a curiosity, but I am still taken aback that someone would so blatantly steal another's idea without attribution (I am not paid by/. and therefore it would be incorrect to call me a/. correspondent)
Don't send this guy a dang thing. Everything I have seen from both his side and those of his detractors has painted him as a sham and a joke. I really don't give a sh*t what he thinks, I know his opinions are biased and baseless. Don't taint what have been quality interviews with this tripe.
No one forced you or anyone else to use Microsoft products, ever!
You need to walk in to Best Buy/Circuit City, visit Dell online, Gateway, Microworkz,etc., etc. etc. and try and buy a normal home-use computer. Come back in 10 minutes and tell me how much choice you have. Try and buy a machine w/o an OS. Not take away all your years of computer experience and do it again.
Not to mention that I haven't been able to use a full install 95 disk on a new machine in years, why? Because they all come with software basically licensed to ONLY THAT MACHINE. Monopoly power used to hurt consumers is Illegal, we'll see that when JudgeJ releases his findings of law.
to be superior you have to have something inferior, that something doesn't exist. If the goal for any business is to hurt consumers (read the FoF if you don't agree) than M$ is a great company.
if you haven't been watching Southpark lately, try to. It's hilarious. "Alabama Man" action figures, sue happy schoolchildren, kenny's halloween costume and ensuing death, (an at-at harponed by circling snowspeeders) and chinpokomon ("ooh, you all have such very large penises").
In political tyranny (dictatorship) if you decide to start your own government you will be killed.
In market tyranny (monopoly) if you decide to start your own company and compete you will be put out of business.
The example holds even factoring in Linux to the OS market, simply because Linux is a totally different beast, a community not a company. It takes political tyranny to stop a community from competing (to pull the analogy into a tight little bow)
that is the part that struck me. If 3 years is the "near future" than this statement is wrong. What's the legal definition of "near future"? Does it move at the speed of e-business!!?!?!*chuckle*
Slashdot Mirror
..
of the new Katz book.
"So in conclusion, the whole point of technology is to create really large and expensive shopping malls that you have to pay to see."
People create things and solve problems, and technology is both the solution to problems, and the source of new ones.
Homer: "Here's to alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems"
Another thing that he's developed is a nice little VB application that lets people at the part search through his tracks for an artist and then add it to the playlist in a similar way to a jukebox in a bar.
Net radio is already there. Just try here (You have to start the stream first, of course). I've seen a couple of these "program as you go" bitcasters, and I like 'em. Hats off to ya Nazz.
Pick a small company in a non-computer related, slow-paced sector. Forgot getting a degree and get lots of experience instead. For preference, get some experience of the business first. Sticking with one company for as long as you can bear it helps as you can acquire seniority simply by being there.
:-)
While it might not be the sexiest work around BEING the IT department is kinda fun. Finding a small, successful company and filling that role can be a lot of fun (with the right company). There is little specialization (for me at least) but I do DBs, network sec./arch., web stuff, support (blech), and like davey said "fix pretty much anything with a plug."
They are also rather dependent on you so when you walk in after a year and ask for a 70% pay hike, they give in happily.
100's of providers of DVD technology who have invested time and money to produce technology to benefit their customers.
I don't see how their encryption "benefits consumers". The ONLY way you could argue that is it was *because* of the encryption that we ever got DVDs. This is a poor argument because, well, that's a really poor reason to do something. If they wanted to "benefit consumers" they would have widely distributed cheap content that consumers could then use to benefit each other.
Sorry but IP and copyright don't benefit consumers, they benefit corporations. The time and money was invested to benefit the company which is their purpose. Please don't tell me they are protecting me "for my own good".
..now I'll say it again. The Internet makes control of digital media IMPOSSIBLE. Until the record/movie/entertainment companies realize this and embrace it, we will continue to see walls of Lawyers trying to hold back an invisible tide.
(thnx for the link BTW)
hmm.. I was comparing "borrowing" CD's from your friends with sharing copies of the digital signal on the CD's with the same closed group of people.
I personally don't see anything wrong with MP3's until you burn 'em to a CD and sell them as your own. Up to that point you are using a transitory media, much too vulnerable to random corruption to warrant $1 a song pricing (especially using a windoze machine), which is more like listening to rebroadcasts on the radio than any other form of old media.
I could go on, but I like eating lunch, so e-mail me if you want the full treatise.
And, um, yea, like I have, a, uh, cooledge degrea.
I totally support copyright in all of tis forms. It is up to an author whether or not to sell or give away their creation.
Yup, and as soon as the Artists call CMU and tell them to take their creations off the local network I will support that decision.
My problem with the RIAA and it's practices is the abuse of artists by the big 5 recording companies. Making them sign away their lifelong right to their own music and URL simply to get the foot in the door of a building that the RIAA (for simplicity's sake) has bolted shut.
When I have to chose between supporting what I see as immoral market actions with slightly illegal actions (made illegal by the same people who wish to control it), well, I think it's fairly obvious where I stand. This is the same moral market decision that has allowed me to install the same copy of Win95 on *gasp* three machines.
(Most of the streaming MP3's I listen to are either electronica/ambient/tech or from Phish, who have seen in thier wisdom that freely distributing live music is a GREAT way to promote a band)
..they cracked down on people letting others borrow their CD's. Using the Universities hallways to traffic in copyright material, for shame.
they usually don't get fed quacamole :-)
Don't feed the trolls.
..who'da thunk it?
Within 5 minutes of sending the above e-mail I received a phone call from Alan Boyle (the editor of the original article). We talked for a few minutes about the weather, slashdot, and his grandkids, no wait....
Anyway, I requested that he remove my comment from the story (not a bad idea since it wasn't even a sentence to begin with) and he said he would be happy to. He also said that the purpose of the article was to point people towards the lively discussion that occurs here. Nice guy.
This goes down as the day I challenged MS(NBC) and won, yippee! hehe
..but I don't think it quite falls under this. Excerpting for a book review or critiqe is a special case, as in a classroom example. In this case actual content for MSNBC (a for-profit compnay) was taken w/o my permission. So here's the e-mail I wrote and am awaiting a response.(I found the author's e-mail on a different story)
/.'s reaction to the MS verdict, you wrote..
/. at this location.
5 1216&cid=132
------
Alan,
In your recent article on
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote."
Which are my comments first made on
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/05/09
What I would like to know is why my comment was stolen, edited, and reprinted without my permission. Each page on Slashdot clearly states "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster." and this is the agreement under which my comments were submitted.
It would not bother me nearly as much if you had contacted me, not edited the comment or at least attibuted the comment by name. As it stands the comment, originally made in jest, was edited and reused in another context. In reading the original comment one's eyes MUST pass over a link that goes straight to my e-mail address (minus a couple spaces) so I know there was a conscious decision to NOT contact me for permission.
I am unhappy that such action has been taken and am anxious to hear your reply.
Sincerely,
Roy Taylor
-------
Roy/Wah, get it?
was what I saw your comment at. Unfortunately your rant about it being moderated down call into question that rating. Relax, even Karma has to work under the contrainsts of Time.
Is that where the 'Net has left us (and will leave the rest of the world when they catch up:) ?
made more money this last year by a factor of two over every "respectable" media personality. He also interacts with pr0n stars on a daily basis, if that's what you're looking for in life, he's a solid role model....
since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.
/. is the comments. So all the actual good reading content is in fact generated by /.'s readers. Look ma, truly interactive media.
What is discussed might be located on other sites, but the reason I read
From the MSNBC article...
/. and therefore it would be incorrect to call me a /. correspondent)
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote.
Which is remarkably similar to comments from this posting. It would seem that my comments (Comments are owned by the Poster.) have been taken and reproduced without my permission. Not to mention edited and taken out of context from a comment made in jest (this was a reply to the story that the ruling would be out in a few hours, and included a smily).
So my comments were stolen, changed and reused without permission when they are clearly owned by me and contact information was easily available.
Legal recourse? Should I bitch and moan? e-mail bomb msnbc?(j/k) Ask for my cut of the ad revenue from that page? This is more of a curiosity, but I am still taken aback that someone would so blatantly steal another's idea without attribution (I am not paid by
...from a loyal /.'er
Don't send this guy a dang thing. Everything I have seen from both his side and those of his detractors has painted him as a sham and a joke. I really don't give a sh*t what he thinks, I know his opinions are biased and baseless. Don't taint what have been quality interviews with this tripe.
No one forced you or anyone else to use Microsoft products, ever!
You need to walk in to Best Buy/Circuit City, visit Dell online, Gateway, Microworkz,etc., etc. etc. and try and buy a normal home-use computer. Come back in 10 minutes and tell me how much choice you have. Try and buy a machine w/o an OS. Not take away all your years of computer experience and do it again.
Not to mention that I haven't been able to use a full install 95 disk on a new machine in years, why? Because they all come with software basically licensed to ONLY THAT MACHINE. Monopoly power used to hurt consumers is Illegal, we'll see that when JudgeJ releases his findings of law.
to be superior you have to have something inferior, that something doesn't exist. If the goal for any business is to hurt consumers (read the FoF if you don't agree) than M$ is a great company.
funny as hell. a heisenberg attack on marketing.
if you haven't been watching Southpark lately, try to. It's hilarious. "Alabama Man" action figures, sue happy schoolchildren, kenny's halloween costume and ensuing death, (an at-at harponed by circling snowspeeders) and chinpokomon ("ooh, you all have such very large penises").
Each of those clips has a big "Live" in the upper left corner. Albright and Gates must be getting tired of repeating themselves by now.
"Recorded-LIVE!" hehe
In political tyranny (dictatorship) if you decide to start your own government you will be killed.
In market tyranny (monopoly) if you decide to start your own company and compete you will be put out of business.
The example holds even factoring in Linux to the OS market, simply because Linux is a totally different beast, a community not a company. It takes political tyranny to stop a community from competing (to pull the analogy into a tight little bow)
that is the part that struck me. If 3 years is the "near future" than this statement is wrong. What's the legal definition of "near future"? Does it move at the speed of e-business!!?!?!*chuckle*