Pink Floyd didn't release many singles, the bulk of their albums just weren't very radio friendly. For all the other artists you name you're right, but not Floyd. I can't think of any problems with putting all the tracks from Metallica, Madonna or The Beatles into my playlist and hitting shuffle, they generally do songs that stand on their own. Do that with Floyd and you'll get a mess. Tracks tend to flow into each other, some tracks are nothing more than sounds or voices bridging two songs....they were just never intended to be played that way, and hearing them that way is the very definition of damaging the artistic integrity of the album.
Think of it this way: Pizza is delicious, but eating a handful of flour, a scoop of tomato sauce, a bit of cheese and a spoonfull of oil seperately and in random order is disgusting. Pink Floyd used songs as ingredients to build albums, they rarely aimed for a song that stood by itself (although when they did, it was usually great: Comfortably Numb springs to mind).
For most bands, I'd agree with you, but Pink Floyd really is a different animal. As you said yourself, they never really put out many singles, and there's a reason for that. I don't think anything really compares to the type of albums they did, or how tightly interwoven the songs typically were. Sure, I'm all for selling the songs that were released in the past as singles, but there is an argument to be made that a lot of their material just plain old doesn't work well as individual tracks. Even radio stations tend to play Brain Damage/Eclipse back to back, pulling them apart breaks them.
Nobody screams louder about albums that have 3 good tracks and 12 that are filler than me, but I really just don't think that Pink Floyd, especially during the Roger Waters years, ever really did that.
Well, Pink should have realized long ago (like everyone else) that selling a single will attract more to buying the album than just selling the album alone.
What makes you think they care? They've made their money, millions and millions, maybe they really do care more about the presentation than anything else at this point (maybe they always have). Pink Floyd albums are about the concept, not the song. Try putting a few Floyd albums into your MP3 player and hitting shuffle....it's FUCKING HORRIBLE. Songs cut off seemingly in the middle, 10 second tracks of people shouting pop up out of nowhere, it's a mess. If you listen to them as albums though, it's a totally different experience (and IMHO a pretty great one).
There are tons of bands that put out good stand-alone songs, but it's just not really what Pink Floyd does. If I were them, I'd push to keep the albums together, and sell only the songs that worked as singles back when they were released individually, things like Money, Comfortably Numb, Run Like Hell. It just doesn't make sense to buy most of Pink Floyd's music as individual tracks.....
Follow your own advice....if you google for "arrested for resisting arrest" you'll find a bunch of people who were.....wait for it....arrested for something else, and then charged with resisting arrest.
Go ahead, O ancient and wise AC, give an actual example of someone being arrested for resisting arrest. Show this young whipper-snapper what's what, and shatter my youthful naivety before I go back to playing with my Legos. Unless of course you're wrong.
Cop: "You're under arrest" Civilian: "For what?" Cop: "Resisting arrest" Civilian: "But you hadn't arrested me yet" Cop: "Yeah, but, you look like you'd resist if I did arrest you, so we're gonna do that" Civilian: "But if you weren't arresting me, how could I resist?" Cop: "Exactly"
Do you see a little chicken/egg problem there? You can't, by definition, resist something that hasn't happened. You can be *charged* solely with resisting, but that doesn't mean that you were initially arrested for resisting arrest.
By definition, you can't resist arrest until you're being arrested. Impeding an officer, or failure to follow a lawful order are different than resisting arrest. If you fail to follow a lawful order, you can be arrested, and if you resist, you can then also be charged with resisting arrest.
Now, they very well may drop the charge of failure to comply with a lawful order, or impeding an officer but still prosecute for the charge of resisting arrest, but again, you weren't *arrested* for resisting arrest, you were charged with that after the fact when you [allegedly] resisted.
Well, since people can be arrested for the sole crime of "resisting arrest"
Minor nitpick, you can't be *arrested* for resisting arrest, that's a charge that can be applied *after* you've been arrested if you resisted. Yes, if the original charge that got you arrested is dropped or never filed you can be prosecuted solely for resisting, but you still had to be arrested for something else in order to resist. I think you're thinking of being arrested for "failure to follow a lawful order", which can get murky sometimes and doesn't necessarily require any other charges to initiate it.
Droid, autonomous device that empowers the user through its open architecture.
And yet still requires someone to figure out a complicated procedure (I'm not talking about using UnrEVOked, I'm talking about the guys who came up with UnrEVOked to make it easier on the rest of us) to get root if they want to do something crazy like uninstall the crapware that the providers preload.
I love my Evo, and Android is great, and getting better with each iteration, but can we drop the "Android is great because it's OPEN" nonsense? That open-ness isn't available to the guy who wants his phone to just do things out of the box, it's nearly as closed off as an iPhone for that guy. Yeah, you can sideload more easily, big deal, most people never leave the Android market.
I came to the Evo from a Palm Pre, and WebOS was a fantastic and actually open OS from the user perspective. Linux under a pretty UI, and all you had to do for root was to enter a dev-mode code. Hell, even older Windows Mobile (had a couple of Moto Q's as well) was more "open" from the user's perspective than Android phones tend to be.
Now, correct me, please. How does Android "empower the user through its open architecture" in a way that the iPhone doesn't? And I mean for average users, not super-geeks. If we're going to talk super-geeks, you have to account for Jailbreaking just as much as you do rooting 'droid and loading custom ROMs.
They are trying to roll out Switch Digital Video in order to free up bandwidth (80 or so channels which barely anyone watches in a given service group will be swapped in and out when needed).
How does this part work? I thought that digital cable-boxes were basically just a streaming device, with the channel numbers being a code to tell the cable company what stream to show instead of an actual frequency marker. If that's true, then the number of channels should make no difference at all to overall bandwidth, since you're still only streaming content for the one channel (or two if it's a DVR or they're using PiP, whatever) that's been requested. 100 people watching 100 channels should be roughly (assuming similar stream quality) the same as 100 people watching the same channel in terms of bandwidth.
I can't say I've ever actually looked into this, it's just the way I assumed it works so if I'm wrong I'd actually really like a correction....
Nonsense. First of all, I was replying to someone who said they'd rather not have their life to live over again because they were tired of the same old thing. I suggested that if that were the case, you could try something new, which I suspect I would. That doesn't mean that I squandered my youth and made poor choices that I regret now, I'm actually quite happy with what I did and the choices I made. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to try anything else though, given the time to do it.
Now, as for becoming an M.D., or a lawyer, once you pass a certain age, it seems a little pointless to me unless you're seriously driven to do it. Both require a pretty large upfront investment of both time and money. Starting medical school, for instance, could mean what, up to 10 years before you graduate, putting you at around 50. Then you do your residency for a few more years. By the time you acquire a body of experience, you're approaching 60, next thing you know, you're almost to retirement age, as opposed to being in your 30s or early 40s.
Want to be a cop or a fire-fighter when you're in your 40s? Good luck, most departments have age restrictions for the academy, putting the line somewhere in your 30s. There's also the physical elements, most people are simply nowhere near as physically capable at 40 as they are at 20. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's all they are, exceptions. The same goes for the military, maybe I'd like to try that, whereas when I was in my early twenties the first time around I focused on career instead. I just don't buy the idea of a 40 year old army or marine recruit starting boot-camp.
Actor? Yep, I can still do that (and on occasion do), but as you age, the roles change. You're not going to play the "young" parts when you're 50. That's not necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a lot easier to be 25 or 30 playing 50 with makeup, than it is to be 50 or 60 and playing a convincing 20 or 30.
There are plenty of valid reasons why, as people age, they don't tend to change careers or "start over" other than laziness. Yes, sometimes it's motivation, but other times it's just not practical to do considering the cost and effort to enter a career you'll only be able to be in briefly once you've finished the training, or the physical requirements make it impractical after a certain age.
That seems like a failure of imagination on your part. I'm about the same age, and see only limitless possibilities if I could "reboot" now. Imagine going for a shot, and waking up to celebrate your biological 20th birthday tomorrow instead of 40th. It'd be amazing! I could choose to start something new, and see my "whole life" stretching ahead of me again. Tired of what I'm doing now? Okay, time to try law school, or medicine. Hell, if I was physically reset, maybe I'd give being a cop or a fire-fighter a try (can't usually start those jobs after 35 or so). Knowing all the things I know at my age now, coupled with physical youth? Maybe acting, or music or....well, anything.
Yeah, gimme that treatment, I'd be ready to live my life "yet again" in a heartbeat.
911: 911, what's your emergency? Caller: There's a man with a gun in my house! I'm hiding in the closet right now.... 911: Okay, does the intruder know you're there? Caller: Well, he didn't, but unless he's deaf he can probably hear me talking to y-[BANG!] 911: Hello? Hello?
Re:Been running a dev build for a few weeks now
on
Apple iOS 4.2 Hands-On
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would agree with everything you said, but....my experience with the HTC Evo was that in Eclair, having a task manager was a must. Before the Froyo update, I had to regularly kill applications by hand because the phone would become sluggish to the point of being almost unusable and battery life would plummet. Killing apps that I didn't want/need made an immediate and noticeable difference. After the update though, I disabled auto-kill on my task manager and found that everything was pretty much fine.
Is it possible that there was some other change that happened around the time of Froyo that would account for this? I suppose so, but my feeling is that Eclair just didn't manage resources anywhere near as well as Froyo does.
If there ever was a use for Plato's noble lie [wikipedia.org], it's this.
I'm disgusted that this got modded up so high. I don't like the security theater either, but I'm not arrogant enough to propose that I should make up false arguments against these measures to scare people into turning against them. It appears that most, or at least a large enough number of people believe the extra "security" justified to continue having it. Convince them they're wrong or stfu, but don't start knowingly start spreading lies to support your belief. Firstly it just confuses the issue further, and secondly when you're found out, and you probably will be, it damages the credibility of all the rest of us who hold the same basic position but don't feel the need to make things up to support our arguments.
Well, if that's how the people of the EU like it, that's fine, but a reason I wouldn't want to live there anymore. In the U.S. though, freedom of speech, even offensive and awful speech, is a cherished right. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. I may despise what the Neo-Nazis, or KKK or even the radical religious groups have to say, but I'd never consider for a moment telling them that they're not allowed to voice their thoughts. At the very least, I like knowing who the ass-holes are, rather than having them hide and spread their poison secretly. If you silence them, you remove your own opportunity to rebut what they're saying, to convince them or others that they are wrong and to show the flaws in their way of thinking.
Declaring something to be hate-speech is also a potentially convenient way of silencing legitimate criticism. Speak out about $RELIGION, off to a cell with you for your hateful speech. Speak about $POLITICAL_PARY, you can be silenced, because your hate-speech can't be tolerated.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire. Ironically he's from an EU member nation.
the KKK were arrested/imprisoned in the US. why didnt anyone whine about that ?
Possibly because it didn't happen? Klan members were arrested and imprisoned for crimes they commited (murder among them), but they still exist today and hold public rallies and events without being imprisoned for speaking. You seem to be confusing hate-speech with hate-crimes. Going up on a stage and saying that "group X is a bunch of subhuman degenerates" is certainly hateful, but you have the right to do it. Going on stage and saying "group X is a bunch of subhuman degenerates" while beating a member of group-X with a club is a hate crime, and will carry different penalties than just beating someone with a club would normally.
right, how many emergencies is this thing actually going to be used for, versus how many annoying fucking tests are they going to do every month like the cable company does?
Oh no, once a month you might have to delete a text that says "Test" in it? The horror. That of course assumes they do tests at all...
besides, i don't live in a tornado prone area, i'm not a moron living in a trailer park in the middle of buttfucck oklahoma...
So then since you live in Nirvana where there are no tornados, floods, fires, chemical leaks, earthquakes or hurricanes, you won't be getting any of those annoying texts warning you of danger. Still seems fine to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Pink Floyd didn't release many singles, the bulk of their albums just weren't very radio friendly. For all the other artists you name you're right, but not Floyd. I can't think of any problems with putting all the tracks from Metallica, Madonna or The Beatles into my playlist and hitting shuffle, they generally do songs that stand on their own. Do that with Floyd and you'll get a mess. Tracks tend to flow into each other, some tracks are nothing more than sounds or voices bridging two songs....they were just never intended to be played that way, and hearing them that way is the very definition of damaging the artistic integrity of the album.
Think of it this way: Pizza is delicious, but eating a handful of flour, a scoop of tomato sauce, a bit of cheese and a spoonfull of oil seperately and in random order is disgusting. Pink Floyd used songs as ingredients to build albums, they rarely aimed for a song that stood by itself (although when they did, it was usually great: Comfortably Numb springs to mind).
For most bands, I'd agree with you, but Pink Floyd really is a different animal. As you said yourself, they never really put out many singles, and there's a reason for that. I don't think anything really compares to the type of albums they did, or how tightly interwoven the songs typically were. Sure, I'm all for selling the songs that were released in the past as singles, but there is an argument to be made that a lot of their material just plain old doesn't work well as individual tracks. Even radio stations tend to play Brain Damage/Eclipse back to back, pulling them apart breaks them.
Nobody screams louder about albums that have 3 good tracks and 12 that are filler than me, but I really just don't think that Pink Floyd, especially during the Roger Waters years, ever really did that.
What makes you think they care? They've made their money, millions and millions, maybe they really do care more about the presentation than anything else at this point (maybe they always have). Pink Floyd albums are about the concept, not the song. Try putting a few Floyd albums into your MP3 player and hitting shuffle....it's FUCKING HORRIBLE. Songs cut off seemingly in the middle, 10 second tracks of people shouting pop up out of nowhere, it's a mess. If you listen to them as albums though, it's a totally different experience (and IMHO a pretty great one).
There are tons of bands that put out good stand-alone songs, but it's just not really what Pink Floyd does. If I were them, I'd push to keep the albums together, and sell only the songs that worked as singles back when they were released individually, things like Money, Comfortably Numb, Run Like Hell. It just doesn't make sense to buy most of Pink Floyd's music as individual tracks.....
Follow your own advice....if you google for "arrested for resisting arrest" you'll find a bunch of people who were.....wait for it....arrested for something else, and then charged with resisting arrest.
Go ahead, O ancient and wise AC, give an actual example of someone being arrested for resisting arrest. Show this young whipper-snapper what's what, and shatter my youthful naivety before I go back to playing with my Legos. Unless of course you're wrong.
and how exactly does that work?
Cop: "You're under arrest"
Civilian: "For what?"
Cop: "Resisting arrest"
Civilian: "But you hadn't arrested me yet"
Cop: "Yeah, but, you look like you'd resist if I did arrest you, so we're gonna do that"
Civilian: "But if you weren't arresting me, how could I resist?"
Cop: "Exactly"
Do you see a little chicken/egg problem there? You can't, by definition, resist something that hasn't happened. You can be *charged* solely with resisting, but that doesn't mean that you were initially arrested for resisting arrest.
By definition, you can't resist arrest until you're being arrested. Impeding an officer, or failure to follow a lawful order are different than resisting arrest. If you fail to follow a lawful order, you can be arrested, and if you resist, you can then also be charged with resisting arrest.
Now, they very well may drop the charge of failure to comply with a lawful order, or impeding an officer but still prosecute for the charge of resisting arrest, but again, you weren't *arrested* for resisting arrest, you were charged with that after the fact when you [allegedly] resisted.
Minor nitpick, you can't be *arrested* for resisting arrest, that's a charge that can be applied *after* you've been arrested if you resisted. Yes, if the original charge that got you arrested is dropped or never filed you can be prosecuted solely for resisting, but you still had to be arrested for something else in order to resist. I think you're thinking of being arrested for "failure to follow a lawful order", which can get murky sometimes and doesn't necessarily require any other charges to initiate it.
They should probably take away all the other keys too.......
And yet still requires someone to figure out a complicated procedure (I'm not talking about using UnrEVOked, I'm talking about the guys who came up with UnrEVOked to make it easier on the rest of us) to get root if they want to do something crazy like uninstall the crapware that the providers preload.
I love my Evo, and Android is great, and getting better with each iteration, but can we drop the "Android is great because it's OPEN" nonsense? That open-ness isn't available to the guy who wants his phone to just do things out of the box, it's nearly as closed off as an iPhone for that guy. Yeah, you can sideload more easily, big deal, most people never leave the Android market.
I came to the Evo from a Palm Pre, and WebOS was a fantastic and actually open OS from the user perspective. Linux under a pretty UI, and all you had to do for root was to enter a dev-mode code. Hell, even older Windows Mobile (had a couple of Moto Q's as well) was more "open" from the user's perspective than Android phones tend to be.
Now, correct me, please. How does Android "empower the user through its open architecture" in a way that the iPhone doesn't? And I mean for average users, not super-geeks. If we're going to talk super-geeks, you have to account for Jailbreaking just as much as you do rooting 'droid and loading custom ROMs.
I get it now, thanks for the explanations everyone :)
Wait, I'm missing something here....
How does this part work? I thought that digital cable-boxes were basically just a streaming device, with the channel numbers being a code to tell the cable company what stream to show instead of an actual frequency marker. If that's true, then the number of channels should make no difference at all to overall bandwidth, since you're still only streaming content for the one channel (or two if it's a DVR or they're using PiP, whatever) that's been requested. 100 people watching 100 channels should be roughly (assuming similar stream quality) the same as 100 people watching the same channel in terms of bandwidth.
I can't say I've ever actually looked into this, it's just the way I assumed it works so if I'm wrong I'd actually really like a correction....
Nonsense. First of all, I was replying to someone who said they'd rather not have their life to live over again because they were tired of the same old thing. I suggested that if that were the case, you could try something new, which I suspect I would. That doesn't mean that I squandered my youth and made poor choices that I regret now, I'm actually quite happy with what I did and the choices I made. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to try anything else though, given the time to do it.
Now, as for becoming an M.D., or a lawyer, once you pass a certain age, it seems a little pointless to me unless you're seriously driven to do it. Both require a pretty large upfront investment of both time and money. Starting medical school, for instance, could mean what, up to 10 years before you graduate, putting you at around 50. Then you do your residency for a few more years. By the time you acquire a body of experience, you're approaching 60, next thing you know, you're almost to retirement age, as opposed to being in your 30s or early 40s.
Want to be a cop or a fire-fighter when you're in your 40s? Good luck, most departments have age restrictions for the academy, putting the line somewhere in your 30s. There's also the physical elements, most people are simply nowhere near as physically capable at 40 as they are at 20. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's all they are, exceptions. The same goes for the military, maybe I'd like to try that, whereas when I was in my early twenties the first time around I focused on career instead. I just don't buy the idea of a 40 year old army or marine recruit starting boot-camp.
Actor? Yep, I can still do that (and on occasion do), but as you age, the roles change. You're not going to play the "young" parts when you're 50. That's not necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a lot easier to be 25 or 30 playing 50 with makeup, than it is to be 50 or 60 and playing a convincing 20 or 30.
There are plenty of valid reasons why, as people age, they don't tend to change careers or "start over" other than laziness. Yes, sometimes it's motivation, but other times it's just not practical to do considering the cost and effort to enter a career you'll only be able to be in briefly once you've finished the training, or the physical requirements make it impractical after a certain age.
That seems like a failure of imagination on your part. I'm about the same age, and see only limitless possibilities if I could "reboot" now. Imagine going for a shot, and waking up to celebrate your biological 20th birthday tomorrow instead of 40th. It'd be amazing! I could choose to start something new, and see my "whole life" stretching ahead of me again. Tired of what I'm doing now? Okay, time to try law school, or medicine. Hell, if I was physically reset, maybe I'd give being a cop or a fire-fighter a try (can't usually start those jobs after 35 or so). Knowing all the things I know at my age now, coupled with physical youth? Maybe acting, or music or....well, anything.
Yeah, gimme that treatment, I'd be ready to live my life "yet again" in a heartbeat.
But the translation wouldn't be "Jew Gas" though, it'd be "Jew Road" (which is better, but still doesn't sound all that great really).
Which do I use to put out a raging fire in my office building, the gun, or the CPR?
911: 911, what's your emergency?
Caller: There's a man with a gun in my house! I'm hiding in the closet right now....
911: Okay, does the intruder know you're there?
Caller: Well, he didn't, but unless he's deaf he can probably hear me talking to y-[BANG!]
911: Hello? Hello?
I would agree with everything you said, but....my experience with the HTC Evo was that in Eclair, having a task manager was a must. Before the Froyo update, I had to regularly kill applications by hand because the phone would become sluggish to the point of being almost unusable and battery life would plummet. Killing apps that I didn't want/need made an immediate and noticeable difference. After the update though, I disabled auto-kill on my task manager and found that everything was pretty much fine.
Is it possible that there was some other change that happened around the time of Froyo that would account for this? I suppose so, but my feeling is that Eclair just didn't manage resources anywhere near as well as Froyo does.
Never tell me the odds.
I'm disgusted that this got modded up so high. I don't like the security theater either, but I'm not arrogant enough to propose that I should make up false arguments against these measures to scare people into turning against them. It appears that most, or at least a large enough number of people believe the extra "security" justified to continue having it. Convince them they're wrong or stfu, but don't start knowingly start spreading lies to support your belief. Firstly it just confuses the issue further, and secondly when you're found out, and you probably will be, it damages the credibility of all the rest of us who hold the same basic position but don't feel the need to make things up to support our arguments.
Well, if that's how the people of the EU like it, that's fine, but a reason I wouldn't want to live there anymore. In the U.S. though, freedom of speech, even offensive and awful speech, is a cherished right. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. I may despise what the Neo-Nazis, or KKK or even the radical religious groups have to say, but I'd never consider for a moment telling them that they're not allowed to voice their thoughts. At the very least, I like knowing who the ass-holes are, rather than having them hide and spread their poison secretly. If you silence them, you remove your own opportunity to rebut what they're saying, to convince them or others that they are wrong and to show the flaws in their way of thinking.
Declaring something to be hate-speech is also a potentially convenient way of silencing legitimate criticism. Speak out about $RELIGION, off to a cell with you for your hateful speech. Speak about $POLITICAL_PARY, you can be silenced, because your hate-speech can't be tolerated.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire. Ironically he's from an EU member nation.
We probably need a whole new rating system.
Beating someone while shouting racial slurs at them: +10 years
Beating someone while staring into the distance trying to remember if you left the oven on: +0 years
Beating someone while shouting "I love you man!" at them: Actually, that's creepy. +12 years
Possibly because it didn't happen? Klan members were arrested and imprisoned for crimes they commited (murder among them), but they still exist today and hold public rallies and events without being imprisoned for speaking.
You seem to be confusing hate-speech with hate-crimes. Going up on a stage and saying that "group X is a bunch of subhuman degenerates" is certainly hateful, but you have the right to do it. Going on stage and saying "group X is a bunch of subhuman degenerates" while beating a member of group-X with a club is a hate crime, and will carry different penalties than just beating someone with a club would normally.
Oh no, once a month you might have to delete a text that says "Test" in it? The horror. That of course assumes they do tests at all...
So then since you live in Nirvana where there are no tornados, floods, fires, chemical leaks, earthquakes or hurricanes, you won't be getting any of those annoying texts warning you of danger. Still seems fine to me.
Then ignore the message and get killed by a tornado. Gee, that was easy....
but thanks for the laugh :)