and on that note, let me say that if they ever do whore themselves out, I hope they make a SHITLOAD of money..
..because they DESERVE IT!!
If they figure out how to do that without slowing their site down or filling our screen with slow big ads, cool. But if not, I won't hold it against them, simply because they've given me such a spectacular level of service up until now.
Seriously, the best three things on the net, that made me agog and say to myself "this is the way things should be", are:
1. Google
2. Napster
3. Counter Strike (substitute your favorite online multiplayer game here)
"Our auditors have expressed doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern."
Bwahahahahahahaaaa!
This explaines why their stock is currently trading at 9 cents.
Of course all this raises the spectre of someone else buying their 'IP' and persuing everyone under the sun, shaking them down for the 'cheap settlements out of court'...
He's not saying a gifted artist shouldn't be compensated. He's saying a gifted artist shouldn't get 100 Million dollars for 4 months work, nor receive royalties for 100 million years.
Many people agree with him, and we also think that in an age where information distribution can cost almost nothing, that we shouldn't be forced to pay 400% overhead to corporations whose profits revolve around grossly expensive distribution models and advertising.
Of course the *right* thing to do would be to only watch legally free or nearly free content over the net. IE: Give your business to mp3.com and all the other new-age competitors, where you can enjoy 100 times as much content for the same price. Donate $5-10 apiece to the 10 artists you like the best on mp3.com, instead of spending $500 on their albums over the next 2 years. Of course that will only work if there is a critical mass of people doing it.
Also some of the most enjoyed types of movies have very high market "entry barriers" as opposed to music (the cost of all the SFX, etc). Thus there is no "mp3.com" of movies with tons of decent amateur movies. Just places showing ads.
There are arguments of markets where free/try-then-buy models actually incrase sales, in spite of the illegalities of it. (I recently got into online-gaming, and have spent $300 on software and $600 on hardware, and it wouldn't have happened if a couple friends hadn't lent me a couple pirated games.) So the argument goes that who cares what the MPAA and the RIAA actually say or get made into law, they don't know what's good for them.
And then there's the line of thought that no-one is actually being hurt. That if I couldn't watch this copied movie or mp3, that I'd be doing something else that doesn't cost me anything and that also doesn't contribute to the world. So who cares if I watch it or not!
On an aborted countdown a general insisted that the rocket be serviced while it is fully loaded with propellant so it might still make the launch window. It exploded on the pad killing many technicians.
Yup. It was one of those cases where the procedure should have been "wait a long long while until we know everything is stable". Just like when you hit the 'ignition' on your model rocket or fireworks, and nothing happens. Instead the launch commander/general ordered them in too soon, whereupon it blew up.
I have seen the video (TLC or some other show on the Soviet space program). Pretty horrific stuff. Would have been worse in color.
No kidding. And what about the electro-magnetic noise! These things are encased to prevent polluting of the airwaves with EM noise that may interfere with other people's communications or reception.
I know this example was ages ago, but when I was young if the C64 was turned on in the house, the TV reception got a little fuzzier. That was with the case on! Yes yes, everybody uses cable. NOT. And there are a hell of a lot of other things out there besides broadcast TV.
At least put a faraday cage around it, ok boys and girls? (a grounded mesh screen, preferrably copper.)
BTW: I have a friend who opens his case in the winter and wraps his curtain around his box. This is Canada, so -20 degrees Celcius inside-case temperature, no fuss, no muss.
>> If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong. Raw construction does not account for the majority of time during project development.
I know, replying to my own post is bad ettiquette. It just occurred to me that I didn't completely get my point across with that comment.
Since construction does not account for the majority of time during project development, you might think I was saying that the effects of XP would be even less!
However what I forgot to say was that the impact of quality and design on project development is huge! If XP increases the quality and does the right things to the design early enough, that effect alone could have huge beneficial repercussions for the project schedule.
> If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Raw construction does not account for the majority of time during project development. (We are talking about software development, not l33t hacking or informal collabrative projects, right?)
> And there's no guarantee that you'll get better code.
And there's no guarantee that the moon will stay where it is for the next year. What kind of statement is that? Clearly people are saying that you do get better code.
> Collective code ownership = chaos.
No one has 'ownership' of their code for very long, at least not in any medium sized or larger concern. So this isn't a 'problem' to begin with. You're problem isn't an XP problem, it's a change control team or management issue.
> Maybe I should invent my own methodology! I could make millions! I can make up my own jargon! Doesn't this all sound a bit too much like scientology?
This would be a fair comment if XP was just coming out of the hands of a pair of l33t buddies. But it's not. It's been around for a while now. If you want to stand around ridiculing every bus that comes by just for the sake of it, I guess that's you're call. Instead we could really use an unbiased analytical comparison of what XP claims to encompass against what one would have to do to equal it. (Pair programming plus... what?)
Nahhh, I want everyone to do what I do. Then marketing will be worthless, and it'll die a natural death, and the money that would go to it would go into better products, or our pockets.
> Independent reviews and comparisons should fill the void quite nicely.
Here here!!! When I want to buy a product, I go out and compare the competing products technical specifications, read the independent reviews and tests done by other people, cross reference that, the prices, and my requirements, then buy, and then contribute back to the reviews.
We need a trillion dollars worth of marketing MACHINES like we need holes in our heads.
Unfortunately most humans do have holes in their heads, big ones. And marketing works very well on all of them.
Yeah, but a couple months ago I was just astounded to find out that only 5-20% of all the people on the net know about or use Google. (It must be better now that Yahoo uses Google, so we can add those two numbers up..)
Even then, searching can be a bit of an art or science. There are people that sit next to me at work, whose IQs must rival mine, who complain bitterly about not being able to find anything using Google. I can find anything within minutes or less.
Remember all those years in school when people bitched and bitched about "why do we have to learn this shit??".
Slashdot Mirror
and on that note, let me say that if they ever do whore themselves out, I hope they make a SHITLOAD of money..
If they figure out how to do that without slowing their site down or filling our screen with slow big ads, cool. But if not, I won't hold it against them, simply because they've given me such a spectacular level of service up until now.
Seriously, the best three things on the net, that made me agog and say to myself "this is the way things should be", are:
1. Google
2. Napster
3. Counter Strike (substitute your favorite online multiplayer game here)
Not only that, but they're burning $10 million dollars a year. They might not be around very long.
I especially like this sentence from their April 17 2001 10KSB SEC form:
"Our auditors have expressed doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern."
Bwahahahahahahaaaa!
This explaines why their stock is currently trading at 9 cents.
Of course all this raises the spectre of someone else buying their 'IP' and persuing everyone under the sun, shaking them down for the 'cheap settlements out of court'...
I was unable to beat the chess program entered in the 5k webpage challenge!
You're distorting his points.
He's not saying a gifted artist shouldn't be compensated. He's saying a gifted artist shouldn't get 100 Million dollars for 4 months work, nor receive royalties for 100 million years.
Many people agree with him, and we also think that in an age where information distribution can cost almost nothing, that we shouldn't be forced to pay 400% overhead to corporations whose profits revolve around grossly expensive distribution models and advertising.
Of course the *right* thing to do would be to only watch legally free or nearly free content over the net. IE: Give your business to mp3.com and all the other new-age competitors, where you can enjoy 100 times as much content for the same price. Donate $5-10 apiece to the 10 artists you like the best on mp3.com, instead of spending $500 on their albums over the next 2 years. Of course that will only work if there is a critical mass of people doing it.
Also some of the most enjoyed types of movies have very high market "entry barriers" as opposed to music (the cost of all the SFX, etc). Thus there is no "mp3.com" of movies with tons of decent amateur movies. Just places showing ads.
There are arguments of markets where free/try-then-buy models actually incrase sales, in spite of the illegalities of it. (I recently got into online-gaming, and have spent $300 on software and $600 on hardware, and it wouldn't have happened if a couple friends hadn't lent me a couple pirated games.) So the argument goes that who cares what the MPAA and the RIAA actually say or get made into law, they don't know what's good for them.
And then there's the line of thought that no-one is actually being hurt. That if I couldn't watch this copied movie or mp3, that I'd be doing something else that doesn't cost me anything and that also doesn't contribute to the world. So who cares if I watch it or not!
On an aborted countdown a general insisted that the rocket be serviced while it is fully loaded with propellant so it might still make the launch window. It exploded on the pad killing many technicians.
Yup. It was one of those cases where the procedure should have been "wait a long long while until we know everything is stable". Just like when you hit the 'ignition' on your model rocket or fireworks, and nothing happens. Instead the launch commander/general ordered them in too soon, whereupon it blew up.
I have seen the video (TLC or some other show on the Soviet space program). Pretty horrific stuff. Would have been worse in color.
No kidding. And what about the electro-magnetic noise! These things are encased to prevent polluting of the airwaves with EM noise that may interfere with other people's communications or reception.
I know this example was ages ago, but when I was young if the C64 was turned on in the house, the TV reception got a little fuzzier. That was with the case on! Yes yes, everybody uses cable. NOT. And there are a hell of a lot of other things out there besides broadcast TV.
At least put a faraday cage around it, ok boys and girls? (a grounded mesh screen, preferrably copper.)
BTW: I have a friend who opens his case in the winter and wraps his curtain around his box. This is Canada, so -20 degrees Celcius inside-case temperature, no fuss, no muss.
Hell yes, it's very simple. I want Microsoft to die for all the pain they've caused me. Microsoft don't deserve to live.
>> If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong. Raw construction does not account for the majority of time during project development.
I know, replying to my own post is bad ettiquette. It just occurred to me that I didn't completely get my point across with that comment.
Since construction does not account for the majority of time during project development, you might think I was saying that the effects of XP would be even less!
However what I forgot to say was that the impact of quality and design on project development is huge! If XP increases the quality and does the right things to the design early enough, that effect alone could have huge beneficial repercussions for the project schedule.
> If you put two people on one task, unless that task is done at least twice as fast, you lose.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Raw construction does not account for the majority of time during project development. (We are talking about software development, not l33t hacking or informal collabrative projects, right?)
> And there's no guarantee that you'll get better code.
And there's no guarantee that the moon will stay where it is for the next year. What kind of statement is that? Clearly people are saying that you do get better code.
> Collective code ownership = chaos.
No one has 'ownership' of their code for very long, at least not in any medium sized or larger concern. So this isn't a 'problem' to begin with. You're problem isn't an XP problem, it's a change control team or management issue.
> Maybe I should invent my own methodology! I could make millions! I can make up my own jargon! Doesn't this all sound a bit too much like scientology?
This would be a fair comment if XP was just coming out of the hands of a pair of l33t buddies. But it's not. It's been around for a while now. If you want to stand around ridiculing every bus that comes by just for the sake of it, I guess that's you're call. Instead we could really use an unbiased analytical comparison of what XP claims to encompass against what one would have to do to equal it. (Pair programming plus... what?)
Nahhh, I want everyone to do what I do. Then marketing will be worthless, and it'll die a natural death, and the money that would go to it would go into better products, or our pockets.
> Independent reviews and comparisons should fill the void quite nicely.
Here here!!! When I want to buy a product, I go out and compare the competing products technical specifications, read the independent reviews and tests done by other people, cross reference that, the prices, and my requirements, then buy, and then contribute back to the reviews.
We need a trillion dollars worth of marketing MACHINES like we need holes in our heads.
Unfortunately most humans do have holes in their heads, big ones. And marketing works very well on all of them.
Yeah, but a couple months ago I was just astounded to find out that only 5-20% of all the people on the net know about or use Google. (It must be better now that Yahoo uses Google, so we can add those two numbers up..)
Even then, searching can be a bit of an art or science. There are people that sit next to me at work, whose IQs must rival mine, who complain bitterly about not being able to find anything using Google. I can find anything within minutes or less.
Remember all those years in school when people bitched and bitched about "why do we have to learn this shit??".