Not saying it would be a perfect solution, but the best way to get shows in big cities is work with a promoter. There are usually only one or two that handle bookings for most all the venues that an original band would want to play. The venues don't take calls from indies usually, because the promoter essentially guarantees a great show [or at least a lot of warm bodies who will show up] and the venue doesn't need to deal with the hassle.
IMExperience, the clubs that want cover bands and don't have promoters are smaller ones [I'm in such a cover band - we have a few places we play and rotate through them - it's for fun, not a job for me].
Anyway, I'm not trying to discount the difficulties your band had. Audiences are fickle, tastes change, and marketing [in the form of promotion, merchandising, etc.] is a necessity. It sometimes just doesn't always click.
I'd call one if I were you. Considering the company admitted to having conflicting offers/policies, there may be some recourse. Especially if you have the original offer in writing. I can't believe they can claim that a secondary offer, after you accepted the first, can be used.
It may be that they have a policy of the relocation department superseding an offer. However, that 'official' position may be open for discussion, especially if you know what rights / recourse you are entitled to.
Just wait until you find out what you can do in terms of recourse [by consulting an expert] before making any brash statements/rash decisions.
The author makes some interesting [and I believe, valid] points. However, the implication is that [by calling it "pyramid" and "Ponzi" scheme], there is something either illegal or at the least, unethical going on.
Call me libertarian, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this is any different in concept from banking in the real world, albeit much higher risk -- you get a small rate of return, the banks take a cut by using the combined saved money of their customers as assets to invest and reap higher rates. Same thing happens if you're rich enough to invest in someone's hedge fund [or buy alpacas, for that matter]. It also seems to me that investing real money in a virtual world that is completely unregulated is a high-risk investment with low potential returns [seeing as how there is no recourse for collecting on successful arbitrage]. Caveat emptor, no surprise there.
Perhaps it wasn't explained clearly enough to me, but the concept of a pyramid or Ponzi scheme requires that investors recruit others to invest, then taking a cut themselves, as the money moves up the chain. Repeated ad nauseum, the farther down the chain investors are, the more they lose until the entire thing collapses. The other element for it to be this type of scheme [in the illegal sense] is that there is nothing being traded per se of value in a Ponzi scheme -- the thing that makes it work is the churn of the money. I guess we could argue whether the assets within the game = something of value, but that's a different point entirely.
Landor polled 2,000 consumers. Knowing what you know about consumers and their knowledge of tech, how many of them do you think were even aware of rootkit issues and bad batteries (unless they were personally affected)?
The article is right, the Playstation cures much bad press.
"everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory."
Ummm, no, that's actually closer to a belief (or a basis for a proof). A theory is something that you CAN prove, with consistency, regardless of who is doing the proving (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point).
I totally agree with you on keeping your science out of your religion and vice versa. But that's why I believe it's important to reinforce the definition of what a theory is. The inaccuracy as you state above is what ID'ers use to teach creationism (or more accurately, resist teaching evolution) in our public education systems ("...evolution is JUST a theory, so...")
Perhaps this is a myth, but IIRC, it's called the World Series because it was first sponsored by a newspaper in Olde New York called [wait for it...] "The World".
Brought to you by the irrelevant fact o'the day(R) club.
Er no [part II]. That's your inability to understand cooking. Frenching is cutting things so that they are in a lengthy pieces, but in a rough cut fashion, as parent correctly noted. Julienne is cutting them much thinner than Frenching.
The parent is also correct that it is an archaic term. I had to look in something ancient like a dictionary to prove it to you:
PS, If you've ever had frites in Belgium you will understand why folks are so pedantic about getting this right. You'll never go back to a McD's fry after tasting the real thing. And the Belgians also put mayo on their frites. Personal preference, but I like 'em plain.
umm, Yes, it has been proved. It has been mentioned on many occasions [too lazy to look for the links, but see screeds by Courtney Love, Steve Albini, et al.]...
1. To record a major label CD, an artist essentially has to go gold or higher to break even [the majors bill you for all that studio / production / promotion]. That means no money in the bank for you the artist. If you don't sell that much you're on the hook to them, and it's likely they'll drop you or force you to do another album exactly like they want it. Just ask Tom Petty, who had to declare bankruptcy once he did the math and realized the more albums he made in his original record deal, the poorer he'd be. Went to the Supreme Court, he won. Most artists aren't so lucky. So, in essence, album sales pay for the production of the album.
2. Tours are expensive. But they also pay for themselves. Excepting someone like Madonna, who made $80 million on her world tour (even if expenses were $50 million, that's still a nice chunk of change), the "regular" performer has tours that range from scraping by to paying the bills to making a decent living. But if your album hasn't gone gold, any profits you make are sucked into the vortex called album production (see above).
3. Merchandise is typically one thing that is more contolled by the artist rather than the label. So more profit goes into the artists hands than the label. Same with other related non-music ventures, like songwriting royalties, licensing deals and producing credits, IIRC. And I have known and asked touring artists about it.
BTW, the numbers are a bit different if you're an indie / self-produced artist, but while the profit percentages might be a bit bigger the real numbers are small. I don't disagree with your point that not paying = not good for the artist, but the the parent's logic on where the money comes from was essentially correct.
"If you obtained the file from an online store, contact the store to find out if it offers media usage rights (license) restoration (some stores refer to this procedure as computer activation, computer authorization, or license synchronization)."
I'm not versed in iTunes specs, but could this be one (of many) avenues to make it more difficult to use iTMS? Or at least cause FUD against Apple?
Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but given M$'s past behavior...and they are releasing their own version of an iPod soon... hmmm....
In WWII, they experimented with cats: "Attach a bomb to a cat and drop it from a dive-bomber on to Nazi ships". That's good enough to be a Monty Python skit.
Although it would be one way to appropriately confuse the cat.
...I stand corrected (via snopes.com) that HB is actually copyrighted. However, my point was that even if it is copyrighted, as long as it's non-commercial use, you can sing it. According to snopes:
"Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit...; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.""
"So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)."
Which was my pedantic point all along. But I do agree... copyright reaches WAY too far AFAIC.
It's actually not illegal to sing happy birthday to a group of people. Public domain and all.
It's also not illegal to sing a copyrighted song to a group of people. The only time copyright would come in to play is if you were charging admission. And then, it would be the venue you sing it in that would have to pay a fee [through an ascap/bmi license] They pay the royalty, not you.
Only time it'd be illegal is if you were the owner of an establishment and were making money off the performance of copyrighted songs. .
1. It's interesting [but not surprising] that once again the original concept is twisted by corporate gree^h^h^ goals. Rather than providing more workspace and some privacy [from the large-rooms-with-desks of the '40s and '50s], they pack 'em in to save on expense.
2. From the comments here, it seems ludicrous to assume every department have the same office set - perhaps lawyers, personnel, etc. need offices with doors, programmers and other creatives need more open space [to collaborate], and sales doesn't need any permanent space. Too bad most companies use the cookie-cutter approach.
What most people seem to forget is that it's not the link between _causing_ violence, but perhaps more important, becoming _desensitized_ to violence.
I'm less concerned about kids going out and attacking someone after playing these games, than looking on unfeelingly while someone else does. That affects their personal social interactions, and over time, can impact society as a whole.
I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist [an Apple-ogist?], but do you have an iPod or have you ever checked out how one works?
You can import all your old ripped MP3s as easy as clicking 'Import File'. And the old MP3 is still there on your HD if you want to send it to your Rio or whatever. Got a CD? Hit 'import' and it's on your iPod. And guess what? It's still there as a CD, to play in your car or home stereo.
Your premise is not entirely right. 1. 'decoding and reencoding... can only lower quality' - you mean like ripping to an MP3? Most out there are 128k sample rate which is lossy compared to cd. You can actually hear the difference. Unless you are ripping your music in a completely uncompressed format, you've lost quality [digital !=lossless].
2. You're assuming that 'digital' equals 'format neutral'. Would you assume that 'analog' would mean the same? Cassette tapes can't be played on turntables. There's no need to do any D/A->A/D conversion to circumvent an iTunes file [your cassette example].
As to whether 99% of people can do that, I'd wager that a vast majority of iPod owners can, since there's a nice little 'burn' button to click once you've created a playlist.
3. iTunes DOES allow other formats to work in its player, SPECIFICALLY, MP3 [and OGG, IIRC]. Therefore, it doesn't 'force' an iPod to play iTunes songs only...it will play other [and 'open'] formats [your Sony CD example].
4. While iPod is the largest, it's definitely not a monopoly [can't be, b/c not all songs are even available there] - there's the new Napster, and other song services, plus the myriad legal mp3 sites out there [although you won't find Kanye or Jessica]. Apple is clearly offering a compelling service for many people, but they aren't using their size to force the market to do things to their competitive advantage [which is what monopolistic behavior is, see: MS]
Again, to my original point...it is the most pragmatic combination of serving the artists need to get paid and the users desire for quick, reasonably priced, mobile content.
While I understand your objections to a proprietary format, my point to parent poster was that it is a) not a brick-wall proprietary format [you can burn iTunes songs to a redbook CD that you can rip to whatever format/player your heart desires], and b) a fairly pragmatic means of distributing music for a reasonable cost, given the current industry environment.
Whether you consider the extra steps to do this to be a valuable use of your time and a blank CD are obviously your choices, and I don't presume that everyone will find Apple's solution suitable [free market, and all]. I'm sure we could also re-visit some of the myriad discussions/arguments about open/proprietary formats of IP, but we've all been there before. Again, for now, Apple's solution IMO is the best out there right now. You disagree.
To your point about whether the iPod will exist in 20 years, well, I don't know if you've kept your 78/45/33-rpm turntable, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette recorders in working condition to listen to your old music, but it's too much work for me. I still have my cds around as backup, though [which should last me only about 50 years, given proper handling].
Consider this: before computers enabled ripping and burning, no one even grumbled too much when we moved from one format standard to the next. We just replaced as we went. Now that it's possible, we're claiming that we want unfettered access via any means that we determine. That's like demanding your CDs can be played on an analog turntable as well as in your cassette machine.
As to whether the iPod is an overpriced player, again, it's what the market [and individual] will bear. But when single-cd players hit the market in the '80s, what do you think the answer would be if you had asked anyone if they would rather have a device that fit in their pocket that held their entire record collection, in digital format?
1. iTunes supports portable music players. Proprietary, granted, but still portable.
2. If you get an iTunes song, you can burn to a [redbook] cd [up to 7 different times], and then rip to whatever you like [MP3, AAC, OGG]. An additional step, but still possible. You can also import 'standard' MP3s into iTunes and play them on your iPod, no problem. I don't believe it converts them to a proprietary format.
3. I've had iTunes before I had an iPod - I bought tunes and burned them to a CD to listen in my car. I also re-ripped it to my MP3 player. So I wasn't stuck playing it on an iPod.
I understand your point [I think]... proprietary formats suck from a standpoint that you are forced to use their hardware and they could control its usage long-term. But Jobs has always seemed to build technology to enable cool stuff - the fact that it is proprietary was to protect the user experience, not control content.
The above story is case in point...he sees the fact that creating artificially expensive music [simply "because it's been 2 years"] is the wrong way to go about things.
I think most people agree that artists should be compensated for their creating art, and that it's the business side that we don't want to feed. I also I believe that most people don't believe the RIAA BS about MP3 downloading causing a negative effect on sales. So in light of the current environment, I see the iTunes model [and perhaps that of it's competitors, I'm not as familiar with them] as a pragmatic way of distributing music inexpensively, while compensating artists.
my $0.02 (per download). YMMV.
Based on the title, I'm guessing...
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
While I don't disagree entirely with your premise [that it might be a stretch to apply a mathematical formula to determine success of comedy], I think you may be off a bit in your definitions.
I think they're talking about recognizability as it relates to the character, not the actor. In other words, how well the audience can identify with the archetype on the show. In the ensemble, you had many different character types that I assume you could at least identify with [or as someone you could know] in any given situation.
Also, all of them had delusions of grandeur at one time or another [Ross' PhD, Joey's soap stardom, Monica's catering, etc.] Given the ensemble cast, it changed, which expanded the possibilities of the script without it getting stale.
I think the verbal wit was fairly high, and the physical comedy was fairly low. But [in my observation], physical comedy seems to be more in tradition with British shows than U.S. ones that I'm familiar with, so this may be a cultural thing.
Social status - I'd agree with you, but again, that may have more to do with British culture and the humor/historical sensitivity to status vs. U.S. shows. Also don't forget, in homogenized U.S. TV-land, a slow-witted out of work actor and a driven PhD could be considered a fairly significant gap.
In terms of strategy success, many of the episodes have to do with the characters caught up in classic misunderstandings or working 'behind the scenes' to orchestrate some plot point against the others - even though the stratagems themselves were not grand, there was always someone scheming something on the show.
At any rate, an interesting idea to reduce abstract concepts to mathematical equation.
Apropos of nothing, I was reading a review of "Freakonomics" today as well - an interesting book that takes economic principals to a whole different area.
"It sees the move as a way of generating more money for the record industry, which would use it to discover new talent."
...I thought the purpose of copyright was to protect the author's ability to earn a wage. Which is why it was originally 75 years [to cover that person's lifespan]. Then it was extended [in the US - see Disney's case], because in the US a corporation = a person in legal terms.
And now the record co's are essentially admitting that copyright law has nothing to do with protecting the artist, but rather protecting the revenue stream of an antiquated business model.
Seems to me, the only one this helps is The Business, not The Artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Not saying it would be a perfect solution, but the best way to get shows in big cities is work with a promoter. There are usually only one or two that handle bookings for most all the venues that an original band would want to play. The venues don't take calls from indies usually, because the promoter essentially guarantees a great show [or at least a lot of warm bodies who will show up] and the venue doesn't need to deal with the hassle.
IMExperience, the clubs that want cover bands and don't have promoters are smaller ones [I'm in such a cover band - we have a few places we play and rotate through them - it's for fun, not a job for me].
Anyway, I'm not trying to discount the difficulties your band had. Audiences are fickle, tastes change, and marketing [in the form of promotion, merchandising, etc.] is a necessity. It sometimes just doesn't always click.
I'd call one if I were you. Considering the company admitted to having conflicting offers/policies, there may be some recourse. Especially if you have the original offer in writing. I can't believe they can claim that a secondary offer, after you accepted the first, can be used.
It may be that they have a policy of the relocation department superseding an offer. However, that 'official' position may be open for discussion, especially if you know what rights / recourse you are entitled to.
Just wait until you find out what you can do in terms of recourse [by consulting an expert] before making any brash statements/rash decisions.
The author makes some interesting [and I believe, valid] points. However, the implication is that [by calling it "pyramid" and "Ponzi" scheme], there is something either illegal or at the least, unethical going on.
Call me libertarian, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this is any different in concept from banking in the real world, albeit much higher risk -- you get a small rate of return, the banks take a cut by using the combined saved money of their customers as assets to invest and reap higher rates. Same thing happens if you're rich enough to invest in someone's hedge fund [or buy alpacas, for that matter]. It also seems to me that investing real money in a virtual world that is completely unregulated is a high-risk investment with low potential returns [seeing as how there is no recourse for collecting on successful arbitrage]. Caveat emptor, no surprise there.
Perhaps it wasn't explained clearly enough to me, but the concept of a pyramid or Ponzi scheme requires that investors recruit others to invest, then taking a cut themselves, as the money moves up the chain. Repeated ad nauseum, the farther down the chain investors are, the more they lose until the entire thing collapses. The other element for it to be this type of scheme [in the illegal sense] is that there is nothing being traded per se of value in a Ponzi scheme -- the thing that makes it work is the churn of the money. I guess we could argue whether the assets within the game = something of value, but that's a different point entirely.
Landor polled 2,000 consumers. Knowing what you know about consumers and their knowledge of tech, how many of them do you think were even aware of rootkit issues and bad batteries (unless they were personally affected)?
The article is right, the Playstation cures much bad press.
"everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory."
...")
Ummm, no, that's actually closer to a belief (or a basis for a proof). A theory is something that you CAN prove, with consistency, regardless of who is doing the proving (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point).
I totally agree with you on keeping your science out of your religion and vice versa. But that's why I believe it's important to reinforce the definition of what a theory is. The inaccuracy as you state above is what ID'ers use to teach creationism (or more accurately, resist teaching evolution) in our public education systems ("...evolution is JUST a theory, so
Perhaps this is a myth, but IIRC, it's called the World Series because it was first sponsored by a newspaper in Olde New York called [wait for it...] "The World".
Brought to you by the irrelevant fact o'the day(R) club.
Er no [part II]. That's your inability to understand cooking. Frenching is cutting things so that they are in a lengthy pieces, but in a rough cut fashion, as parent correctly noted. Julienne is cutting them much thinner than Frenching.
The parent is also correct that it is an archaic term. I had to look in something ancient like a dictionary to prove it to you:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/frenching
PS, If you've ever had frites in Belgium you will understand why folks are so pedantic about getting this right. You'll never go back to a McD's fry after tasting the real thing. And the Belgians also put mayo on their frites. Personal preference, but I like 'em plain.
Now let's return back to the humo[u]r.
about cooking items coated "with an undisclosed material"?
I'll take my potato chips without undisclosed materials, thank you very much.
umm, Yes, it has been proved. It has been mentioned on many occasions [too lazy to look for the links, but see screeds by Courtney Love, Steve Albini, et al.]...
1. To record a major label CD, an artist essentially has to go gold or higher to break even [the majors bill you for all that studio / production / promotion]. That means no money in the bank for you the artist. If you don't sell that much you're on the hook to them, and it's likely they'll drop you or force you to do another album exactly like they want it. Just ask Tom Petty, who had to declare bankruptcy once he did the math and realized the more albums he made in his original record deal, the poorer he'd be. Went to the Supreme Court, he won. Most artists aren't so lucky. So, in essence, album sales pay for the production of the album.
2. Tours are expensive. But they also pay for themselves. Excepting someone like Madonna, who made $80 million on her world tour (even if expenses were $50 million, that's still a nice chunk of change), the "regular" performer has tours that range from scraping by to paying the bills to making a decent living. But if your album hasn't gone gold, any profits you make are sucked into the vortex called album production (see above).
3. Merchandise is typically one thing that is more contolled by the artist rather than the label. So more profit goes into the artists hands than the label. Same with other related non-music ventures, like songwriting royalties, licensing deals and producing credits, IIRC. And I have known and asked touring artists about it.
BTW, the numbers are a bit different if you're an indie / self-produced artist, but while the profit percentages might be a bit bigger the real numbers are small. I don't disagree with your point that not paying = not good for the artist, but the the parent's logic on where the money comes from was essentially correct.
From TFA, on restoring licenses:
"If you obtained the file from an online store, contact the store to find out if it offers media usage rights (license) restoration (some stores refer to this procedure as computer activation, computer authorization, or license synchronization)."
I'm not versed in iTunes specs, but could this be one (of many) avenues to make it more difficult to use iTMS? Or at least cause FUD against Apple?
Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but given M$'s past behavior...and they are releasing their own version of an iPod soon... hmmm....
In WWII, they experimented with cats: "Attach a bomb to a cat and drop it from a dive-bomber on to Nazi ships". That's good enough to be a Monty Python skit.
Although it would be one way to appropriately confuse the cat.
...I stand corrected (via snopes.com) that HB is actually copyrighted. However, my point was that even if it is copyrighted, as long as it's non-commercial use, you can sing it. According to snopes:
"Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit...; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.""
"So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)."
Which was my pedantic point all along. But I do agree... copyright reaches WAY too far AFAIC.
It's actually not illegal to sing happy birthday to a group of people. Public domain and all.
It's also not illegal to sing a copyrighted song to a group of people. The only time copyright would come in to play is if you were charging admission. And then, it would be the venue you sing it in that would have to pay a fee [through an ascap/bmi license] They pay the royalty, not you.
Only time it'd be illegal is if you were the owner of an establishment and were making money off the performance of copyrighted songs. .
But I understand your point.
1. It's interesting [but not surprising] that once again the original concept is twisted by corporate gree^h^h^ goals. Rather than providing more workspace and some privacy [from the large-rooms-with-desks of the '40s and '50s], they pack 'em in to save on expense.
2. From the comments here, it seems ludicrous to assume every department have the same office set - perhaps lawyers, personnel, etc. need offices with doors, programmers and other creatives need more open space [to collaborate], and sales doesn't need any permanent space. Too bad most companies use the cookie-cutter approach.
What most people seem to forget is that it's not the link between _causing_ violence, but perhaps more important, becoming _desensitized_ to violence.
I'm less concerned about kids going out and attacking someone after playing these games, than looking on unfeelingly while someone else does. That affects their personal social interactions, and over time, can impact society as a whole.
is provided a few of the more egregious examples for us to downl^^^ view so we can see how bad it really is!
I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist [an Apple-ogist?], but do you have an iPod or have you ever checked out how one works?
... can only lower quality' - you mean like ripping to an MP3? Most out there are 128k sample rate which is lossy compared to cd. You can actually hear the difference. Unless you are ripping your music in a completely uncompressed format, you've lost quality [digital !=lossless].
You can import all your old ripped MP3s as easy as clicking 'Import File'. And the old MP3 is still there on your HD if you want to send it to your Rio or whatever. Got a CD? Hit 'import' and it's on your iPod. And guess what? It's still there as a CD, to play in your car or home stereo.
Your premise is not entirely right.
1. 'decoding and reencoding
2. You're assuming that 'digital' equals 'format neutral'. Would you assume that 'analog' would mean the same? Cassette tapes can't be played on turntables. There's no need to do any D/A->A/D conversion to circumvent an iTunes file [your cassette example].
As to whether 99% of people can do that, I'd wager that a vast majority of iPod owners can, since there's a nice little 'burn' button to click once you've created a playlist.
3. iTunes DOES allow other formats to work in its player, SPECIFICALLY, MP3 [and OGG, IIRC]. Therefore, it doesn't 'force' an iPod to play iTunes songs only...it will play other [and 'open'] formats [your Sony CD example].
4. While iPod is the largest, it's definitely not a monopoly [can't be, b/c not all songs are even available there] - there's the new Napster, and other song services, plus the myriad legal mp3 sites out there [although you won't find Kanye or Jessica]. Apple is clearly offering a compelling service for many people, but they aren't using their size to force the market to do things to their competitive advantage [which is what monopolistic behavior is, see: MS]
Again, to my original point...it is the most pragmatic combination of serving the artists need to get paid and the users desire for quick, reasonably priced, mobile content.
While I understand your objections to a proprietary format, my point to parent poster was that it is a) not a brick-wall proprietary format [you can burn iTunes songs to a redbook CD that you can rip to whatever format/player your heart desires], and b) a fairly pragmatic means of distributing music for a reasonable cost, given the current industry environment.
Whether you consider the extra steps to do this to be a valuable use of your time and a blank CD are obviously your choices, and I don't presume that everyone will find Apple's solution suitable [free market, and all]. I'm sure we could also re-visit some of the myriad discussions/arguments about open/proprietary formats of IP, but we've all been there before. Again, for now, Apple's solution IMO is the best out there right now. You disagree.
To your point about whether the iPod will exist in 20 years, well, I don't know if you've kept your 78/45/33-rpm turntable, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette recorders in working condition to listen to your old music, but it's too much work for me. I still have my cds around as backup, though [which should last me only about 50 years, given proper handling].
Consider this: before computers enabled ripping and burning, no one even grumbled too much when we moved from one format standard to the next. We just replaced as we went. Now that it's possible, we're claiming that we want unfettered access via any means that we determine. That's like demanding your CDs can be played on an analog turntable as well as in your cassette machine.
As to whether the iPod is an overpriced player, again, it's what the market [and individual] will bear. But when single-cd players hit the market in the '80s, what do you think the answer would be if you had asked anyone if they would rather have a device that fit in their pocket that held their entire record collection, in digital format?
Ummm...
... proprietary formats suck from a standpoint that you are forced to use their hardware and they could control its usage long-term. But Jobs has always seemed to build technology to enable cool stuff - the fact that it is proprietary was to protect the user experience, not control content.
1. iTunes supports portable music players. Proprietary, granted, but still portable.
2. If you get an iTunes song, you can burn to a [redbook] cd [up to 7 different times], and then rip to whatever you like [MP3, AAC, OGG]. An additional step, but still possible. You can also import 'standard' MP3s into iTunes and play them on your iPod, no problem. I don't believe it converts them to a proprietary format.
3. I've had iTunes before I had an iPod - I bought tunes and burned them to a CD to listen in my car. I also re-ripped it to my MP3 player. So I wasn't stuck playing it on an iPod.
I understand your point [I think]
The above story is case in point...he sees the fact that creating artificially expensive music [simply "because it's been 2 years"] is the wrong way to go about things.
I think most people agree that artists should be compensated for their creating art, and that it's the business side that we don't want to feed. I also I believe that most people don't believe the RIAA BS about MP3 downloading causing a negative effect on sales. So in light of the current environment, I see the iTunes model [and perhaps that of it's competitors, I'm not as familiar with them] as a pragmatic way of distributing music inexpensively, while compensating artists.
my $0.02 (per download). YMMV.
...this will be the first /.'ed book review.
While I don't disagree entirely with your premise [that it might be a stretch to apply a mathematical formula to determine success of comedy], I think you may be off a bit in your definitions.
I think they're talking about recognizability as it relates to the character, not the actor. In other words, how well the audience can identify with the archetype on the show. In the ensemble, you had many different character types that I assume you could at least identify with [or as someone you could know] in any given situation.
Also, all of them had delusions of grandeur at one time or another [Ross' PhD, Joey's soap stardom, Monica's catering, etc.] Given the ensemble cast, it changed, which expanded the possibilities of the script without it getting stale.
I think the verbal wit was fairly high, and the physical comedy was fairly low. But [in my observation], physical comedy seems to be more in tradition with British shows than U.S. ones that I'm familiar with, so this may be a cultural thing.
Social status - I'd agree with you, but again, that may have more to do with British culture and the humor/historical sensitivity to status vs. U.S. shows. Also don't forget, in homogenized U.S. TV-land, a slow-witted out of work actor and a driven PhD could be considered a fairly significant gap.
In terms of strategy success, many of the episodes have to do with the characters caught up in classic misunderstandings or working 'behind the scenes' to orchestrate some plot point against the others - even though the stratagems themselves were not grand, there was always someone scheming something on the show.
At any rate, an interesting idea to reduce abstract concepts to mathematical equation.
Apropos of nothing, I was reading a review of "Freakonomics" today as well - an interesting book that takes economic principals to a whole different area.
"It sees the move as a way of generating more money for the record industry, which would use it to discover new talent."
...I thought the purpose of copyright was to protect the author's ability to earn a wage. Which is why it was originally 75 years [to cover that person's lifespan]. Then it was extended [in the US - see Disney's case], because in the US a corporation = a person in legal terms.
And now the record co's are essentially admitting that copyright law has nothing to do with protecting the artist, but rather protecting the revenue stream of an antiquated business model.
Seems to me, the only one this helps is The Business, not The Artist.
umm...maybe I'm blocking, but didn't "Saving Private Ryan" [a Spielberg] start without credits?
Love it. And, it's nice that, at the end of the article, your 'back' button takes you back to the previous site [/.] rather than the previous page.
I'm sure some won't like it b/c of some programming incompatibility, but as a reader, it was very nice.
xlnt point. amen, AC brother/sister [I don't know whether to call you stan or loretta]?