I think, tried talking to an RIAA musician whose output you admire.
If that's what he meant then yeah, though I admit I don't do it often. I'm definitely no stalker of famous people. I find most artists mindbogglingly boring and self centered. Jonathan is one notable exception. He came across as a rational gentleman, and I got the impression that instead of the usual dull tortured artist or arrogant self-loving twit I was actually talking to someone with something substantial between his ears.
I considered using his music at our wedding. The song "I'm your moon" would have worked nicely. In the end we did choose to go exclusively for stuff that people knew. (On the geeky front it didn't help that Pluto has recently been declared a non-planet).
With "main stream" artists, sometimes if you discover the artist before they're famous they're a little more approachable. You're way more likely to get a form letter from a fan club though. However your chances are much better if they're independent.
I guess one problem is that the sort of people who are driven to become pop icons are always going to be creative but ego-centric, and perhaps not quite mentally stable. At least the process and the lifestyle favours these types. There will always be exceptions.
Have I actually tried what exactly? I'm actually confused by your one line rant because I have no idea what you're trying to say except for your dig at my "real life experience" (when you know nothing about what real life experience I do or don't have)....and it's modded insightful?. Probably by some buddy of yours sitting next to you in a computer lab or at work. Typical! Try -1:Incoherent & Requires Validation.
/. led me to Jonathan Coulton whose quirky music I like very much, and who also responded to my email blindingly fast on the same day that a story about him appeared on/. - now he may not always reply quite so quickly but what are the odds I'd have been able to get a conversation going with a RIAA artist? Even some of the unknowns, who you'd think would be chomping at the bit to build a fanbase, seem quite aloof.
Talk about rewarding!!!!
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
If we got head first before writing SQL, maybe the quality would increase. No on second thoughts scratch that. Who'd give a shit about coding SQL if they just gotten head.
I love it, whining about a supposed straw man while in the same sentence throwing the good old "tin ear" insult.
Well Mr. Golden Ear, I'm glad you're always able to listen to your music in the dark and quiet so as to be able to hear those subtle nuances. Personally I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on stereo equipment to hear that last subtle nuance. All the evidence points to requiring that sort of equipment at a sufficiently high bit rate. So for me the whole exercise is pointless. Like worrying about that tiny JPEG artifact in a photo that's not even going to be seen unless you zoom in on a picture or print poster size. I have much better things to do with my life than worry about MP3 artifacts. To me MP3 is amazing. Under $50 of drive space to have your entire music collection at your fingertips, or under $200 for a decent portable music player that stores the lot. I can listen to what I want when I want without having to hunt down or carry a suitcase of CDs. How many players play decent lossless formats again? Thank goodness for my "Tin" ears.
I bet you can tell the difference between those gold cables and standard cables too. Each to their own I guess. Me, I'm glad I can't. Makes "good" music affordable.
That shows a complete lack of understanding of this user's behaviour. Price has almost nothing to do with it.
A techy suggested AVG. She knows no one else using AVG. She knows the techy will be able to fix problems if he encounters them - heck he might even enjoy the challenge. Chances are she doesn't have the interest and to her such a "challenge" would be a waste of time. So she'll ask a few people what they use. When a user with similar needs, techy skill as her and time as her suggests something she'll listen.
Sure the cost of the product might lead her to reason "they probably couldn't sell it if it wasn't worth it" but the more important thing is that it's more mainstream. Take a less mainstream product, charge for it (probably fraudulently in the case of AVG...depends on the license), and watch it become even less attractive.
There isn't a car analogy in this post, so I'll add one. If you were in the market for a car. You need something cheap and reliable, to get to and from work (lets assume if you're late to work the consequences are quite bad). You have no interest in the car itself - it's just a means to an end. If someone offered to sell you a Ford, you'd be interested perhaps. If someone came up to you with a car whose manufacturer you'd never heard of, and offered to give it to you for free, you might not take it. Remember it might be a hassle, you know nothing about it's reliablity, and if you're late for work there are consequences. Even if you did take it (because hell it's free right? until you think about garging, insurance, etc.) you'd probably buy the Ford too. You might try to sell the unknown car (which is what you're suggesting the GP do. If people started raving about how good this car was and it became mainstream, you might switch to it eventually. But you'd be nuts to make it your main vehicle because it's an unknown which requires time, effort and risk to investigate. Sounds very like Antivirus solutions to me.
What's she's actually done is give your opinion a vote of no confidence (or take someone else's opinion over yours).
She probably sees you as someone who's interested in tech (a fair assumption given you're posting here) and that you have time to fiddle with things. She may well believe AVG is great for YOU. However, if she's like most she doesn't want to spend time trying out 6 products to find one that works best. She probably thinks that if it's being sold at a major store it's more mainstream and will suit her better. I'd bet that someone else she knows or has spoken to uses it and that they don't have a techy background. Again arguably her thinking isn't far off. If everyone she knew was using AVG I bet she wouldn't go out and buy McAfee.
Actually that's a fairly incomplete and eclectic set of links with plenty of bias by what appears to be a single author. Don't get me wrong. That has it's place. but it's not what I'd expect from what you described.
Having worked with several groups that are committed (and some should be) to the search of ET I'm less convinced than ever. Twenty years ago I was certain, now, not so much...
That's an emmotional response. If you don't understand that it may take many many many times longer than your lifetime to establish the existence of alien intelligence and that's IF alien life is out there and close enough to us to be detected, then you were fooling yourself all along.
You on the other hand would make a great lawyer. You just did a backflip and a half on what you were saying, while continuing to sling insults. My point was simply that good science wasn't about reproducing results exactly, and that deductive reasoning as per what you might see in a criminal trial is quite valid. Since you appear to have conceded that point, there's nothing left for me to do here unless I wish to continue to trade petty insults. Sorry but that ability doesn't make you a good scientist, nor a good lawyer for that matter. Try politician.
don't you think it's a bit sad? On average one or the other of you were taking a picture every single minute of every waking hour...says a mindless accountant/statistician type. Ever heard of cameras that take more than one frame a minute?
We had lots of fun. Drove 6000km....saw sites you wouldn't believe, and couldn't understand.
Yes, and JPEG is lossy too. I take a lot of pictures (20,000+ between my wife and I on our 3 week honeymoon, and that's because the weather is bad.) If it matters I shoot RAW. However if I'm fiddling I stick with JPEG, encode with good quality and don't continually make changes and re-save, and in MOST practical cases there's no difference. If I really REALLY want to make lots of edits I'll save the original to TIFF and fiddle with it till I'm happy, and then and only then save to JPEG.
With audio it's the same. If it's THAT important or you're going to edit/mix (assuming it's legal), don't buy a lossy product (MP3/AAC/WMA/OGG). If you're just going to listen to it, it probably doesn't matter in practical terms so long as the bit rate is good enough (e.g. you don't want 128kbps for classical, probably 192 and up). There are of course people who'll insist they can tell the difference etc. That's their perogative. I'll stick to my dirt cheap 5.1 surround logitech X-530s and dirt cheap bargain shop cables and be happy as a pig in mud.
A good theory makes predictions that are testable. It doesn't have to predict an exact repeat of past behavior. Deductive reasoning about what did happen in the past is also permissible and quite scientific.
By the way I actually have a Masters in Astronomy, and no law degree. I don't suppose you seeDo you not see the delicious irony in someone making a personal attack while whining about lawyers and unscientific thinking now do you? If you're going to make a personal attack at the very least make one that can't be shot down and turned right around at you, making you look foolish.
Oh and by the way if you think atom smashing in even our largest colliders is a reproduction of the big bang, you're the one who reads too many popular magazines like discover.
Bad analogy. Very bad analogy. Science isn't always about reproducibility. If it were we wouldn't be able to theorize about one time events like the big bang, the formation of our solar system etc.
As I once stated on a thread about Chinese knockoffs the problem is not to "stop them doing it" but is rather "to make them understand they are doing something wrong in the first place".
They're not stupid. They do understand. They just don't care. Good luck changing that!
Thats the problem. Everyone thinks it's okay to restrict other people's ability to think or produce because they got their first. Copyright is abhorent. Patents are abhorent. EVERYONE builds on what OTHER people laid down for them. As far as I'm concerned no one has any right to CONTROL what they've made PUBLIC. Profit perhaps, control not so. Being creative, coming up with an idea is no excuse to stifle the creativity of others. By all means she can express whatever disapproval she likes but to actually limit someone from producing something interesting or creative because they don't match her creative vision is sheer arrogant wankery.
Which is what this is all about. Does anyone else here get suspicious when they see a multi-milionaire defending their property rights supposedly so the proceeds can go to charity?
1. This project is online 2. It's aim is to end stupidity online 3. But ending stupidity online would require the removal of this project. 4. Repeat, Recurse And Profit!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I think, tried talking to an RIAA musician whose output you admire.
If that's what he meant then yeah, though I admit I don't do it often. I'm definitely no stalker of famous people. I find most artists mindbogglingly boring and self centered. Jonathan is one notable exception. He came across as a rational gentleman, and I got the impression that instead of the usual dull tortured artist or arrogant self-loving twit I was actually talking to someone with something substantial between his ears.
I considered using his music at our wedding. The song "I'm your moon" would have worked nicely. In the end we did choose to go exclusively for stuff that people knew. (On the geeky front it didn't help that Pluto has recently been declared a non-planet).
With "main stream" artists, sometimes if you discover the artist before they're famous they're a little more approachable. You're way more likely to get a form letter from a fan club though. However your chances are much better if they're independent.
I guess one problem is that the sort of people who are driven to become pop icons are always going to be creative but ego-centric, and perhaps not quite mentally stable. At least the process and the lifestyle favours these types. There will always be exceptions.
Did we really progress from naked MySpace photos
I for one haven't even progressed to naked mindspace photos. Link please.
Have I actually tried what exactly? I'm actually confused by your one line rant because I have no idea what you're trying to say except for your dig at my "real life experience" (when you know nothing about what real life experience I do or don't have). ...and it's modded insightful?. Probably by some buddy of yours sitting next to you in a computer lab or at work. Typical! Try -1:Incoherent & Requires Validation.
/. led me to Jonathan Coulton whose quirky music I like very much, and who also responded to my email blindingly fast on the same day that a story about him appeared on /. - now he may not always reply quite so quickly but what are the odds I'd have been able to get a conversation going with a RIAA artist? Even some of the unknowns, who you'd think would be chomping at the bit to build a fanbase, seem quite aloof.
I drive the Toyonda Pious myself. Isn't it great!?
Here you go. Found something interesting for you. Have a ball:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off?page=0%2C1
If we got head first before writing SQL, maybe the quality would increase. No on second thoughts scratch that. Who'd give a shit about coding SQL if they just gotten head.
I love it, whining about a supposed straw man while in the same sentence throwing the good old "tin ear" insult.
Well Mr. Golden Ear, I'm glad you're always able to listen to your music in the dark and quiet so as to be able to hear those subtle nuances. Personally I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on stereo equipment to hear that last subtle nuance. All the evidence points to requiring that sort of equipment at a sufficiently high bit rate. So for me the whole exercise is pointless. Like worrying about that tiny JPEG artifact in a photo that's not even going to be seen unless you zoom in on a picture or print poster size. I have much better things to do with my life than worry about MP3 artifacts. To me MP3 is amazing. Under $50 of drive space to have your entire music collection at your fingertips, or under $200 for a decent portable music player that stores the lot. I can listen to what I want when I want without having to hunt down or carry a suitcase of CDs. How many players play decent lossless formats again? Thank goodness for my "Tin" ears.
I bet you can tell the difference between those gold cables and standard cables too. Each to their own I guess. Me, I'm glad I can't. Makes "good" music affordable.
That shows a complete lack of understanding of this user's behaviour. Price has almost nothing to do with it.
A techy suggested AVG. She knows no one else using AVG. She knows the techy will be able to fix problems if he encounters them - heck he might even enjoy the challenge. Chances are she doesn't have the interest and to her such a "challenge" would be a waste of time. So she'll ask a few people what they use. When a user with similar needs, techy skill as her and time as her suggests something she'll listen.
Sure the cost of the product might lead her to reason "they probably couldn't sell it if it wasn't worth it" but the more important thing is that it's more mainstream. Take a less mainstream product, charge for it (probably fraudulently in the case of AVG...depends on the license), and watch it become even less attractive.
There isn't a car analogy in this post, so I'll add one. If you were in the market for a car. You need something cheap and reliable, to get to and from work (lets assume if you're late to work the consequences are quite bad). You have no interest in the car itself - it's just a means to an end. If someone offered to sell you a Ford, you'd be interested perhaps. If someone came up to you with a car whose manufacturer you'd never heard of, and offered to give it to you for free, you might not take it. Remember it might be a hassle, you know nothing about it's reliablity, and if you're late for work there are consequences. Even if you did take it (because hell it's free right? until you think about garging, insurance, etc.) you'd probably buy the Ford too. You might try to sell the unknown car (which is what you're suggesting the GP do. If people started raving about how good this car was and it became mainstream, you might switch to it eventually. But you'd be nuts to make it your main vehicle because it's an unknown which requires time, effort and risk to investigate. Sounds very like Antivirus solutions to me.
Arguably she's right.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
What's she's actually done is give your opinion a vote of no confidence (or take someone else's opinion over yours).
She probably sees you as someone who's interested in tech (a fair assumption given you're posting here) and that you have time to fiddle with things. She may well believe AVG is great for YOU. However, if she's like most she doesn't want to spend time trying out 6 products to find one that works best. She probably thinks that if it's being sold at a major store it's more mainstream and will suit her better. I'd bet that someone else she knows or has spoken to uses it and that they don't have a techy background. Again arguably her thinking isn't far off. If everyone she knew was using AVG I bet she wouldn't go out and buy McAfee.
Actually that's a fairly incomplete and eclectic set of links with plenty of bias by what appears to be a single author. Don't get me wrong. That has it's place. but it's not what I'd expect from what you described.
Having worked with several groups that are committed (and some should be) to the search of ET I'm less convinced than ever. Twenty years ago I was certain, now, not so much...
That's an emmotional response. If you don't understand that it may take many many many times longer than your lifetime to establish the existence of alien intelligence and that's IF alien life is out there and close enough to us to be detected, then you were fooling yourself all along.
You on the other hand would make a great lawyer. You just did a backflip and a half on what you were saying, while continuing to sling insults. My point was simply that good science wasn't about reproducing results exactly, and that deductive reasoning as per what you might see in a criminal trial is quite valid. Since you appear to have conceded that point, there's nothing left for me to do here unless I wish to continue to trade petty insults. Sorry but that ability doesn't make you a good scientist, nor a good lawyer for that matter. Try politician.
don't you think it's a bit sad? On average one or the other of you were taking a picture every single minute of every waking hour ...says a mindless accountant/statistician type. Ever heard of cameras that take more than one frame a minute?
We had lots of fun. Drove 6000km....saw sites you wouldn't believe, and couldn't understand.
Oh well what do I expect out of a/c
I first read that as "We stayed in the hotel and shot lots of porn"
Well I have plenty of proof that's not the case. For starters my balls are in tact (my wife's not a fan of porn), then there's the pics themselves.
Yes, and JPEG is lossy too. I take a lot of pictures (20,000+ between my wife and I on our 3 week honeymoon, and that's because the weather is bad.) If it matters I shoot RAW. However if I'm fiddling I stick with JPEG, encode with good quality and don't continually make changes and re-save, and in MOST practical cases there's no difference. If I really REALLY want to make lots of edits I'll save the original to TIFF and fiddle with it till I'm happy, and then and only then save to JPEG.
With audio it's the same. If it's THAT important or you're going to edit/mix (assuming it's legal), don't buy a lossy product (MP3/AAC/WMA/OGG). If you're just going to listen to it, it probably doesn't matter in practical terms so long as the bit rate is good enough (e.g. you don't want 128kbps for classical, probably 192 and up). There are of course people who'll insist they can tell the difference etc. That's their perogative. I'll stick to my dirt cheap 5.1 surround logitech X-530s and dirt cheap bargain shop cables and be happy as a pig in mud.
A good theory makes predictions that are testable. It doesn't have to predict an exact repeat of past behavior. Deductive reasoning about what did happen in the past is also permissible and quite scientific.
By the way I actually have a Masters in Astronomy, and no law degree. I don't suppose you seeDo you not see the delicious irony in someone making a personal attack while whining about lawyers and unscientific thinking now do you? If you're going to make a personal attack at the very least make one that can't be shot down and turned right around at you, making you look foolish.
Oh and by the way if you think atom smashing in even our largest colliders is a reproduction of the big bang, you're the one who reads too many popular magazines like discover.
Bad analogy. Very bad analogy. Science isn't always about reproducibility. If it were we wouldn't be able to theorize about one time events like the big bang, the formation of our solar system etc.
I thought they were just being rude. Now I know why.
As I once stated on a thread about Chinese knockoffs the problem is not to "stop them doing it" but is rather "to make them understand they are doing something wrong in the first place".
They're not stupid. They do understand. They just don't care. Good luck changing that!
Thats the problem. Everyone thinks it's okay to restrict other people's ability to think or produce because they got their first. Copyright is abhorent. Patents are abhorent. EVERYONE builds on what OTHER people laid down for them. As far as I'm concerned no one has any right to CONTROL what they've made PUBLIC. Profit perhaps, control not so. Being creative, coming up with an idea is no excuse to stifle the creativity of others. By all means she can express whatever disapproval she likes but to actually limit someone from producing something interesting or creative because they don't match her creative vision is sheer arrogant wankery.
Which is what this is all about. Does anyone else here get suspicious when they see a multi-milionaire defending their property rights supposedly so the proceeds can go to charity?
1. This project is online
2. It's aim is to end stupidity online
3. But ending stupidity online would require the removal of this project.
4. Repeat, Recurse And Profit!!!
My brain hurts.
Your employer is trying to screw you and you're debating the legality of the fine print????
Find a job where your employer is at least TRYING to be fair and reasonable.