The marketplace is ready for radical change. No one should have to suffer underpaid, stupid jobs where the benefits suck. For too long the employer has held the upperhand by making it seem that there were few options for people in terms of employment.
I have the solution: Everyone quit their job on the same day.
While I didn't know that podcasting wasn't an Apple invention, it doesn't invalidate the comment that Apple is using this to bridge the Marketing gap. Thanks for the wiki link, I'll read up on it.
Agreed. The odd thing is that there isn't really an incentive to create more from owning copyrights. The incentive of artist, it's been my experience, is to create and communicate. It's the distributors that buy the copyrights from the artist who are intent on controlling information as if it were property.
Most musicians just want people to hear their music. It's about communication, not money. If they can somehow live off the act of creation, then so much the better.
Market economics breaks when you effectively have an infinite supply of something, but only one supplier.
I remember vividly the first time I played a marathon session of GTA and then got behind the wheel of a real car. I had to force myself to acknowledge red lights when there were no other cars around. This was after training myself NOT to stop for them in GTA because the cops didn't care.
Now this is a small example of how you can train or untrain yourself to certain stimulus, but I never beat anyone with a bat, or rigged a bomb to anyone's car. Perhaps because no one was offering me the jobs.
We are obviously affected by what we see and hear. We learn from our environment and observations what is acceptable and what isn't.
Movies, books, conversations, music and games are all ways that ideas get past from person to person. The message can sometimes get confused by the messenger. How many people have refused to read Lolita because they think other people would think they were pedophile?
As a parent, it's your job to isolate your children from input that might alter their psyche. You don't show 3 year olds Faces of Death.
Should the industry have some part in that? Yes. They should certainly give a relatively detailed list of the content. But should games be MORE responsible than other industries, like Movie Makers and the Book Industry? No.
I have tested some of the online Non-American Football (Futball,Soccer) simulations, but the appeal to me was the creation of plays. I've contemplated doing something with the programmable robot Soccer stuff.
I have friends in the UK that really like the Non-American Football Manager and it apparently sells well, so who knows.
"The Music Industry" controls two parts of a long chain:
artist -> art -> marketing/advertising -> distribution -> retailer -> listener
It's pretty obvious that people can only like music they have heard, so "The Music Industry" tried to control radio, where listeners could hear music for free (if you consider being forced to hear commercials free) what "The Music Industry" wanted you to buy. In fact, the playlist was often created by a single person at the station who more or less made money from the industry by pushing certain "products".
An artist had two choices. Sell out and let "The Music Industry" take care of marketing/advertising -> distribution and give up large control over their art in their contracts -or- go indie with a smaller label that didn't have the power to really get a large audience to hear the music.
The internet has taken care of one half of the problem. So distribution is now available more or less for free when compared to shipping CD's to retail stores.
What's missing right now is marketing/advertising. You have to get people to hear a song before they can decide they like it or not. Apple figured this out and now that's what PodCasting is about. If you find a PodCast you like, then you are likely to find music there you want... and Apple hopes you buy it from the iTunes Music Store.
But the whole current system is flawed, IMO. I'm certainly in the minority with this opinion, but I view artist, musicians in this case, as part of a service industry. They don't make property, like a chair or a computer, they create music, which is not physical and hence can't be owned. But that's a debate for another thread.
The good news? Big Music is going to die and it doesn't even know it. The bad news? Artist need to switch to a neo-patronage system to get paid when information trading gets to the point that it kills Big Music.
Madden certain fills the genre for those who want a twitch game. You get to be the QB or the Running Back, on defense you can be a Middle Linebacker or Corner...
But I miss the Coaching Simulations. We used to play leagues were everyone was a coach and we drafted the (NFL) players, made our own offensive and defensive plays, worried about salary caps and made play calls. The game would show you what happened just like you would see it from a coach's perspective.
I don't want to Throw the ball... I don't want to press the spin move button... I want to build a team using my own philosophies of what makes a great team and I want to make plays that out-think my opposing coachs.
Gridiron (Bethesda Soft) was a great example of a game where you could make your own plays and the physics worked. It was just a bunch of X's and O's but I had more fun playing that game than I've ever had playing Madden.
Before the growth of the merchant class, nobility used their money, power, and influence to promote ideas through the use of patronage. If they favored an artist, philosopher, musician, writers, orator, scientist or even a jester, they would patronize them and in this way their ideas would flourish. The patrons, who were often egotistical, would take credit for the ideas and would circulate them to further their own fame.
After the growth of the merchant class, nobility lost sole control over money, power and influence and patronage was partially replaced with commerce. Artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists and even jesters were forced to please many people instead of just one in order to survive. Spreading their creative ideas became much harder because they did not have the money, power, or influence of the nobility.
With the advent of marketing artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists, and even jesters were forced to associate with advertisers, distributors, branders, promoters and other middlemen in order to reach an audience. In essence these marketers became the new patrons.
So ideally what you want is for your readers to patronize you. That means they get some kind of control over what you make. Give them a method to directly influence your content in exchange for currency.
This really isn't as bad as it sounds. I'll give you two quick examples:
Make a list of potential articles that you want to report on. Rather than have your editor pick which he thinks your audience wants to read, allow your own readers to vote on them. Each vote costs $1. The highest voted article ideas get written.
Other things your readers want control over that you can get them to pay for... let them give you ideas for articles, for $1. Let them assign writers for article ideas, for $1.
Basically you have what no newspaper or magazine ever had, which is direct contact with your readers. Let them pay you to give you feedback on what they want from you.
Nonsense. Maybe your on a different plane of thought, explain to me in detail what the above statment by you means. I'm always looking for better ways of doing things.
Are you high? I'm drinking, but I'm not at the level of bliss that your at.
Ok. But you asked for it.
First things first... empty your tea cup. Forget everything you know about programming and how it currently gets done. Done that? Ok
Imagine a system where any number of people could simultaneously modify a codebase and each version (and combination of versions) would be checked for fitness. Each person would have their own version of the codebase to play with, while a central source accepted changes from any contributor based on design fitness (either arbitrarily, through functionality testing, or user testing all simultaneous). You could peak in on other's versions of the running code and grab enhancements you liked. There would be no way for code to break as a feature of the language... it will always run, but that doesn't mean it wont have errors. In otherwords, there's no syntactical errors possible because of the way the language is designed.
I'm no expert, but I have completed all my projects whether they be lone coder efforts or in a team of 3 to 10 diverse programmers (been doing it now for twenty years).
It sounds like your company has no clue about contract by design or any other solution driven programming model. Do you assign two different people to the same module? Language or environment makes no difference when the whole team is driven by the same specification (customer requirements).
I'm not suggesting that solution driven programming models don't work. Of course they do, you mention 20 years of it working, but what I'm suggesting is the current paradigm experienced by programmers would radically shift if parallel access coding with active state versioning were natural parts of both new computer languages and programming environments.
It's the difference between single processor computing and parallel computing and it requires a totally different mindset, one you may not be able to (yet) understand. No flame or offense intended.
That's certainly part of the issue, but you're missing the whole point by focusing on a single tangent. Of course communication is key to getting any group project done, but current programming languages and enviroments make it almost painful to communicate.
But what you're missing here is that when you can effectively attack a problem as a team you get much better progress and results (for most problems). A language that allowed for multiple programmers to create code at once would be a great improvement over what we currently have.
So, yes, communication is key, but you're not seeing my entire point.
Right now we have horrid CVS systems and isolated programmers each taking a chunk of a problem... forcing everyone else to catch up after the fact. Programming *can* be a group activity (see Extreme Programming for the lightest taste) , with all the advantages that groups can bring to any creative process.
Right now, almost all programming languages are written for the single programmer, and the programming environments are retrofitted to make it possible for multiple programmers to work on the same project. It's a messy bottleneck that doesn't need to exist but is maintained by social convention.
What's needed is a model where the language is open to multiple creators through an interface that makes collaboration easy and seamless while allowing project managers a way to keep track of contributions and responsibilities.
If they don't have 100,000 trains then there's going to be some really f*cked up action on those tracks. What the hell where they thinking? Three russian hacker groups are already fighting for control of the B & O Switch engine 5006 Diesel, and half of Berkley is trying to ram the American Flyer # 613 GN Box Car off the table.
"And now we test program number one which computes Pi to the 13th digit.... wait...um, the whole system is smoking and there are sparks. Oh crap, the test computer is melted. End of contest, sorry guys!"
Slashdot Mirror
Let your programs fight each other while surreptitiously learning about assembly language.
www.corewar.info
I love your black list system. Where can I sign up. I want to be sure I'm on your list.
The marketplace is ready for radical change. No one should have to suffer underpaid, stupid jobs where the benefits suck. For too long the employer has held the upperhand by making it seem that there were few options for people in terms of employment.
I have the solution: Everyone quit their job on the same day.
http://www.quityourjobday.com/
Features
Blah Blah Blah
* In a nutshell: Everything you could want... and more.
But it can't be everything I want... and more. I don't want "more."
While I didn't know that podcasting wasn't an Apple invention, it doesn't invalidate the comment that Apple is using this to bridge the Marketing gap. Thanks for the wiki link, I'll read up on it.
Agreed. The odd thing is that there isn't really an incentive to create more from owning copyrights. The incentive of artist, it's been my experience, is to create and communicate. It's the distributors that buy the copyrights from the artist who are intent on controlling information as if it were property.
Most musicians just want people to hear their music. It's about communication, not money. If they can somehow live off the act of creation, then so much the better.
Market economics breaks when you effectively have an infinite supply of something, but only one supplier.
Freakonomics does a pretty interesting job of explaining crime rates and a direct connection to parental investment.
Basically if you wanted the kid and care about them, they commit less crime than if you didn't want them or care about them.
I remember vividly the first time I played a marathon session of GTA and then got behind the wheel of a real car. I had to force myself to acknowledge red lights when there were no other cars around. This was after training myself NOT to stop for them in GTA because the cops didn't care.
Now this is a small example of how you can train or untrain yourself to certain stimulus, but I never beat anyone with a bat, or rigged a bomb to anyone's car. Perhaps because no one was offering me the jobs.
We are obviously affected by what we see and hear. We learn from our environment and observations what is acceptable and what isn't.
Movies, books, conversations, music and games are all ways that ideas get past from person to person. The message can sometimes get confused by the messenger. How many people have refused to read Lolita because they think other people would think they were pedophile?
As a parent, it's your job to isolate your children from input that might alter their psyche. You don't show 3 year olds Faces of Death.
Should the industry have some part in that? Yes. They should certainly give a relatively detailed list of the content. But should games be MORE responsible than other industries, like Movie Makers and the Book Industry? No.
I have tested some of the online Non-American Football (Futball,Soccer) simulations, but the appeal to me was the creation of plays. I've contemplated doing something with the programmable robot Soccer stuff.
I have friends in the UK that really like the Non-American Football Manager and it apparently sells well, so who knows.
"The Music Industry" controls two parts of a long chain:
artist -> art -> marketing/advertising -> distribution -> retailer -> listener
It's pretty obvious that people can only like music they have heard, so "The Music Industry" tried to control radio, where listeners could hear music for free (if you consider being forced to hear commercials free) what "The Music Industry" wanted you to buy. In fact, the playlist was often created by a single person at the station who more or less made money from the industry by pushing certain "products".
An artist had two choices. Sell out and let "The Music Industry" take care of marketing/advertising -> distribution and give up large control over their art in their contracts -or- go indie with a smaller label that didn't have the power to really get a large audience to hear the music.
The internet has taken care of one half of the problem. So distribution is now available more or less for free when compared to shipping CD's to retail stores.
What's missing right now is marketing/advertising. You have to get people to hear a song before they can decide they like it or not. Apple figured this out and now that's what PodCasting is about. If you find a PodCast you like, then you are likely to find music there you want... and Apple hopes you buy it from the iTunes Music Store.
But the whole current system is flawed, IMO. I'm certainly in the minority with this opinion, but I view artist, musicians in this case, as part of a service industry. They don't make property, like a chair or a computer, they create music, which is not physical and hence can't be owned. But that's a debate for another thread.
The good news? Big Music is going to die and it doesn't even know it. The bad news? Artist need to switch to a neo-patronage system to get paid when information trading gets to the point that it kills Big Music.
Madden certain fills the genre for those who want a twitch game. You get to be the QB or the Running Back, on defense you can be a Middle Linebacker or Corner...
But I miss the Coaching Simulations. We used to play leagues were everyone was a coach and we drafted the (NFL) players, made our own offensive and defensive plays, worried about salary caps and made play calls. The game would show you what happened just like you would see it from a coach's perspective.
I don't want to Throw the ball... I don't want to press the spin move button... I want to build a team using my own philosophies of what makes a great team and I want to make plays that out-think my opposing coachs.
Gridiron (Bethesda Soft) was a great example of a game where you could make your own plays and the physics worked. It was just a bunch of X's and O's but I had more fun playing that game than I've ever had playing Madden.
A short patronizing history
Before the growth of the merchant class, nobility used their money, power, and influence to promote ideas through the use of patronage. If they favored an artist, philosopher, musician, writers, orator, scientist or even a jester, they would patronize them and in this way their ideas would flourish. The patrons, who were often egotistical, would take credit for the ideas and would circulate them to further their own fame.
After the growth of the merchant class, nobility lost sole control over money, power and influence and patronage was partially replaced with commerce. Artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists and even jesters were forced to please many people instead of just one in order to survive. Spreading their creative ideas became much harder because they did not have the money, power, or influence of the nobility.
With the advent of marketing artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists, and even jesters were forced to associate with advertisers, distributors, branders, promoters and other middlemen in order to reach an audience. In essence these marketers became the new patrons.
So ideally what you want is for your readers to patronize you. That means they get some kind of control over what you make. Give them a method to directly influence your content in exchange for currency.
This really isn't as bad as it sounds. I'll give you two quick examples:
Make a list of potential articles that you want to report on. Rather than have your editor pick which he thinks your audience wants to read, allow your own readers to vote on them. Each vote costs $1. The highest voted article ideas get written.
Other things your readers want control over that you can get them to pay for... let them give you ideas for articles, for $1. Let them assign writers for article ideas, for $1.
Basically you have what no newspaper or magazine ever had, which is direct contact with your readers. Let them pay you to give you feedback on what they want from you.
Quoting the article:
The Chinese exchange student was arrested by police in Kagawa prefecture, southern Japan, the Mainichi Daily News reports.
I bet if it was a Japanse kid this wouldn't have happened. They're just using some Chinese exchange student as a scape goat.
Information isn't property in the real world. There is no such thing as a "productized" software.
If you think you own something when you buy software, you did... the medium.
Writing software, playing music, and making movies are services... not the creations of goods.
I agree if you don't like a licence, then don't agree to it, but don't pretend that information is a item.
There's still space in that thing for a whole computer.
Nonsense. Maybe your on a different plane of thought, explain to me in detail what the above statment by you means. I'm always looking for better ways of doing things.
Are you high? I'm drinking, but I'm not at the level of bliss that your at.
Ok. But you asked for it.
First things first... empty your tea cup. Forget everything you know about programming and how it currently gets done. Done that? Ok
Imagine a system where any number of people could simultaneously modify a codebase and each version (and combination of versions) would be checked for fitness. Each person would have their own version of the codebase to play with, while a central source accepted changes from any contributor based on design fitness (either arbitrarily, through functionality testing, or user testing all simultaneous). You could peak in on other's versions of the running code and grab enhancements you liked. There would be no way for code to break as a feature of the language... it will always run, but that doesn't mean it wont have errors. In otherwords, there's no syntactical errors possible because of the way the language is designed.
Now have another beer and get back to me.
I'm no expert, but I have completed all my projects whether they be lone coder efforts or in a team of 3 to 10 diverse programmers (been doing it now for twenty years).
It sounds like your company has no clue about contract by design or any other solution driven programming model. Do you assign two different people to the same module? Language or environment makes no difference when the whole team is driven by the same specification (customer requirements).
I'm not suggesting that solution driven programming models don't work. Of course they do, you mention 20 years of it working, but what I'm suggesting is the current paradigm experienced by programmers would radically shift if parallel access coding with active state versioning were natural parts of both new computer languages and programming environments.
It's the difference between single processor computing and parallel computing and it requires a totally different mindset, one you may not be able to (yet) understand. No flame or offense intended.
Isn't that called communication?
That's certainly part of the issue, but you're missing the whole point by focusing on a single tangent. Of course communication is key to getting any group project done, but current programming languages and enviroments make it almost painful to communicate.
But what you're missing here is that when you can effectively attack a problem as a team you get much better progress and results (for most problems). A language that allowed for multiple programmers to create code at once would be a great improvement over what we currently have.
So, yes, communication is key, but you're not seeing my entire point.
Allowing for true teamwork in programming.
Right now we have horrid CVS systems and isolated programmers each taking a chunk of a problem... forcing everyone else to catch up after the fact. Programming *can* be a group activity (see Extreme Programming for the lightest taste) , with all the advantages that groups can bring to any creative process.
Right now, almost all programming languages are written for the single programmer, and the programming environments are retrofitted to make it possible for multiple programmers to work on the same project. It's a messy bottleneck that doesn't need to exist but is maintained by social convention.
What's needed is a model where the language is open to multiple creators through an interface that makes collaboration easy and seamless while allowing project managers a way to keep track of contributions and responsibilities.
Or New Orleans during Mardi Gras.
There are a few places left in the world where people are reasonably sane and the police are friendly and helpful...
Like the time the policeman pointed to the corner where the hunted player was. TAG! Hahahaha the cop totally gave you away!!!
If they don't have 100,000 trains then there's going to be some really f*cked up action on those tracks. What the hell where they thinking? Three russian hacker groups are already fighting for control of the B & O Switch engine 5006 Diesel, and half of Berkley is trying to ram the American Flyer # 613 GN Box Car off the table.
Bastards.
"And now we test program number one which computes Pi to the 13th digit.... wait...um, the whole system is smoking and there are sparks. Oh crap, the test computer is melted. End of contest, sorry guys!"
dot dash dash dash dash dash dot dash dot dash .dash dot dot dot / dot dot dash dot dot dot dash dot dot
There's simply no way this is possible. It's rediculous. Hold on, there's a knock at my door.
Like I was saying, you have to really trust a source like the BBC.