However, I think it can't be ignored that we have seen an explosion of musical talent in the 20th century that is primarily owed to the recording industry.
I gotta disagree on that one. The 'explosion' is due to affordable musical instruments and improved recording techniques/equipment. The 'recording industry' helped create exactly 0 musical 'talents'. They have however created such 'greats' as N'Sync, The Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, Ricky Martin, etc. They are not 'musical talents'.
And how much less music would we have if he had to lay bricks by day?
Lay bricks when he was eight? Somehow I don't think life was quite that bad back then, at least for upper class families.
Ah, but why did they choose to become great musicians, rather than great burger-flippers
or great supermarket shelf-stackers? There are probably many reasons, but I expect
you'll find that the prospect of being rewarded with fame and riches figures fairly large
among them
Only for the musicians who are not really great. The musicians that are (IMO) really good do it because they love it, and are willing to tour continuously, make no $, and be dirt-poor.
There was a time, about 8 BN [1], when I wanted to be a professional musician myself...My heart wasn't really
in it, but what eventually made me decide against it was that the odds are heavily stacked
against any newcomer who wants a record deal.
Sorry to hear it. No offense, but I find it hard to believe that you would have ever 'made it big', since it sounds like you were doing it for $ not for the love of music. Most musicians spend many, many years touring (or practicing in their free time while holding day jobs) before getting any record deal.
For some reason, I have this irrational aversion to
working for no money...
You could have
Done local shows/toured
Kept a day job and played at night (in clubs for $ or in your garage for nothing)
But you're not going to get handed a record contract out of the blue, sorry...
The idea behind DSL was to eliminate the usage of acoustic signals for data transfer. By modulating the DSL signal into an audio stream, you're defeating the
purpose.
On the contrary, that was not the idea behind DSL. A telephone line is a single Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) of wires, of which only the first 4kHz is used (for voice transmission). The bandwidth (true bandwidth, measured in Hz not bits per second) of the line is much wider than 4kHz so DSL puts analog signals in the unused freuquencies. On each end (telco and user), there is a D/A and A/D converter that handles this translation. The signal on the phone line is an analog signal, not digital. See this diagram (and the rest of that document) for a somewhat better explanation of xDSL.
So turning a sound card into a DSL modem saves $ of the DSL modem (the sound card does the D/A and A/D and the CPU handles 'talking' to the other DSL modem). But I agree with you that it's basically becoming a 'Winmodem' where the CPU usage will shoot up to (IMHO) unacceptable levels. DSL modems aren't that much $...
I think you have a seriously naive view of how musicians, and the music industry, works.
Almost all the great musicians have become great before getting 'signed' and 'famous'. They get good by playing in small, cheap shows over and over and over. Then, once they can make good music, they become famous (usually when they are signed by a record company). They don't get signed, start getting paid big $, and then get good.
In recent times, the record companies have noticed that 'sex sells' and started signing good-looking people with no or little talent. These people are paid insane amounts of money but I guarantee that their skill does not improve at all.
If there is no money in music, then a lot of the best musicians will simply cease to exist.
You are so very, very wrong. If you do some background research into past musicians, you will find that NONE of them became rich and famous before they became a great musician. They all became great musicians, then became rich and famous (some, maybe most, never became rich and only famous after they died).
a lot of the best musicians will never happen unless they are able to practice all day, every day, and you can't do
that unless you do it professionally.
I see you're not a musician!
And no, 200 years ago Mozart or whoever DID NOT do it on an amateur basis. They were paid by either royalty, upper class citizens or the church.
Hmm...I think it's called 'a gig'? Believe it or not, there are a lot of musicians who are paid exactly that way today! And, Mozart was composing at the age of eight. Exactly how much cash do you think he was getting at that age?
PHBs aren't interested in why not to use Microsoft.They look for reasons not to use Linux
I don't know what PHBs you're talking about, but all the PHBs I've ever met care only about reducing their dept's spending and increasing their dept's output. They most certainly are 'interested in why not to use Microsoft', and it's called money. But they don't think there is anything else out there that they could possibly use.
In the recent past, some of them have learned of this 'Lee-nooks' thing that they might be able to use instead of the oh-so-expensive Microsoft stuff! However, they're very cautious since 'no one was ever fired for buying Microsoft', and if Linux fails (many of them worry Linux and OSS may 'fail' as a concept, but in reality it's their deployment that might fail) then it's their ass for using it.
Reports like this one do make them nervous about Linux, but only because they are worried that there's no comapny to blame when this happens (they think).
PHBs may be stupid but they can add and subtract. Unless it's relevant to their business, they care very little about 'uptime' (usually) or 'reliability' (usually), but stuff like 'price' and 'liability' they are very well aware of. Linux intrigues them with the price, but they are very worried about the lack of centralized liability. That's why Redhat is doing so well, the PHBs have to have someone to
get everything to work if their in-house techies can't, and
It is hard to disprove the open source myth that it leads to bad security because of easier-to-find holes when PHBs read things like this, that happen to major
Linux servers.
From the massive PR that Apple lavishes on QT to watching Steve Jobs soil himself yearly at Macworld and Comdex whilst
marvelling the latest and greatest QT innovations, etc., you get the sense that Apple really thinks they're sitting on the greatest thing since sliced bread here (they're not).
By holding tightly onto that Sorenson codec, Jobs is going to turn it into the Token Ring of the Video codec world. IBM has held just as tightly to many, many things; MCA, RS485, Token Ring, etc. By holding technology with a closed fist people eventually leave for a more open technology.
As I understand it, one of the main differences is that the IBM Public License
could only apply to files that were originally created by IBM, while the Common
Public License would allow non-IBM employees to contribute new files to a
project and apply the Common Public License to those files.
Also, you can start a new project and license it under the CPL. With the IPL, the 'Original Contributor' had to be IBM, so any projects started outside IBM could not be licensed under the IPL (without giving your project to IBM).
The CPL changes this; it does not make the assumption that the 'Original Contributor' is IBM.
I wonder as an IBM employee if the ideas I
create as such are my own, or still belong to ibm.
No, everything you do belongs to IBM. If you want to contribute to an OSS project during IBM's time, you must get approval (very specific approval!) from IBM's OSSC (Open Source Steering Committee). Their approval generally takes 2-4 months, from my experience. The approval includes a excruciatingly detailed form describing the project, why you are modifying it, exactly what files you are modifiying, the dates (start and end) that you will be working on it, and your local lawyer's assessment of any associated IP risk. If you decide to work on any other file in the project, or past the 'expire' date, you must go through the process for approval again.
If you want to get approval to work on OSS projects on your own time, you must get an unspecified manager's approval for each project (sometimes, each part of each project). And the manager may deny approval. If they do give you approval, it ususally takes around 1 month, or they pass it to a higher level manager.
Also you have to follow specific guidlines set forth by IBM's LTC (Linux Technology Center) about how to contribute to an OSS project. If you're on the IBM intranet, it's http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/open_source/prz2html/inde x.htm. (That's the personal time guidelines).
For desktop applications, you're right, but for Point of Sale applications, it's a different ballpark. The user is going to be an employee who is trained in how to use the application. It should provide an interface that is simple and lets the user (cashier, usually) perform their job. Widgets, popups, etc are distracting, not helpful; there should be one simple way to do something and the interface should remain relatively stable and simple. POS apps are different from desktop apps.
Re:carrying on after wilbur and orville
on
To the Moon, Alice
·
· Score: 1
I think he is carrying on a fine tradition where one person with guts can make a big
impact on the world.
Yeah, he's going to make a very big impact on a dry Oregon lake bed.
I can imagine Orville Wright saying the same thing...
Ok, maybe if Orville Wright was saying that before he tested his plane at the Grand Canyon (instead Kitty Hawk, NC which is flat and not dangerous), while the Air Force flies around in jets above him...
The Wright brothers were the first people to fly. This guy isn't. He doesn't want to advance science, he just wants to have champagne poured on him by Hooters girls.
A nuclear blast from a weapon inside a ship at port will destroy not only the port it's at but the entire city.
Also, US Navy sonar will most certainly detect something appraching underwater at over 250mph (and maybe they could do something about it, or maybe not...) but if a nuke is hidden on a ship then the Navy very well may allow them to dock.
EMP will destroy most electronics equiment in a large area. A nuclear blast over a city would destroy every electronic item in the city, regardless of whether it's got power or not. It creates a large EM field that induces a large current that fries everything.
Of course, the military knows this and they shield much of their electronics. So while civilian VCRs, TVs, phones, cars, etc. would be history, military units (like the UCAV) would live.
Yeah, it sounds basically like low-power digital frequency modulation (FM).
Digital transmission is pretty interesting, and the low power is certainly interesting, but I don't see how this can be used for the vast amount of applications they are proposing. And I also can't see how they can say it won't interfere with conventional (analog) radio signals.
Since it's (apparently) pretty much guaranteed that suing a spammer will result in a winning judgement, I am wondering why there aren't more law offices that are advertising to handle these cases?
I would be happy to give 50%, or 75%, even 100%, or whatever fines the spammer had to pay me, to any law office that would handle the case for me.
Then, all anyone would have to do is contact one of these law offices (probably in the spammer's local area) and hire them (at no cost to the victim). The law office makes money, I stop getting spammed, everyone's happy! (except the spammer!)
The only difficulty is identifying the spammer, but that's not impossible.
Mmm, ok...so we're sending ALL traffic then through the waypoint...
first off, anyone who happens to be behind a NAT box that they can setup to do this, (i.e. probably a home network) will most likely not have a spare 'waypoint' hanging around outside their NATted network.
second, if all traffic goes through the waypoint, what the hell are we involving the NATted system for? Just use the 'waypoint'.
I cannot see how this would be useful to anyone. There are too many potential problems and requirements, and not much benefit.
I am pretty sure that in at least my state (NC) you must be either a registered EE or work for a company that is registered. You can't just work as an EE without being registered (and a prereq. for registration is a 8-hour test).
But I could be wrong. I lost most interest in EE when I got (heavily) into computers, too late to switch majors.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I think it can't be ignored that we have seen an explosion of musical talent in the 20th century that is primarily owed to the recording industry.
I gotta disagree on that one. The 'explosion' is due to affordable musical instruments and improved recording techniques/equipment. The 'recording industry' helped create exactly 0 musical 'talents'. They have however created such 'greats' as N'Sync, The Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, Ricky Martin, etc. They are not 'musical talents'.
And how much less music would we have if he had to lay bricks by day?
Lay bricks when he was eight? Somehow I don't think life was quite that bad back then, at least for upper class families.
Only for the musicians who are not really great. The musicians that are (IMO) really good do it because they love it, and are willing to tour continuously, make no $, and be dirt-poor.
There was a time, about 8 BN [1], when I wanted to be a professional musician myself...My heart wasn't really in it, but what eventually made me decide against it was that the odds are heavily stacked against any newcomer who wants a record deal.
Sorry to hear it. No offense, but I find it hard to believe that you would have ever 'made it big', since it sounds like you were doing it for $ not for the love of music. Most musicians spend many, many years touring (or practicing in their free time while holding day jobs) before getting any record deal.
For some reason, I have this irrational aversion to working for no money...
You could have
- Done local shows/toured
- Kept a day job and played at night (in clubs for $ or in your garage for nothing)
But you're not going to get handed a record contract out of the blue, sorry...The idea behind DSL was to eliminate the usage of acoustic signals for data transfer. By modulating the DSL signal into an audio stream, you're defeating the purpose.
On the contrary, that was not the idea behind DSL. A telephone line is a single Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) of wires, of which only the first 4kHz is used (for voice transmission). The bandwidth (true bandwidth, measured in Hz not bits per second) of the line is much wider than 4kHz so DSL puts analog signals in the unused freuquencies. On each end (telco and user), there is a D/A and A/D converter that handles this translation. The signal on the phone line is an analog signal, not digital. See this diagram (and the rest of that document) for a somewhat better explanation of xDSL.
So turning a sound card into a DSL modem saves $ of the DSL modem (the sound card does the D/A and A/D and the CPU handles 'talking' to the other DSL modem). But I agree with you that it's basically becoming a 'Winmodem' where the CPU usage will shoot up to (IMHO) unacceptable levels. DSL modems aren't that much $...
I think you have a seriously naive view of how musicians, and the music industry, works.
Almost all the great musicians have become great before getting 'signed' and 'famous'. They get good by playing in small, cheap shows over and over and over. Then, once they can make good music, they become famous (usually when they are signed by a record company). They don't get signed, start getting paid big $, and then get good.
In recent times, the record companies have noticed that 'sex sells' and started signing good-looking people with no or little talent. These people are paid insane amounts of money but I guarantee that their skill does not improve at all.
If there is no money in music, then a lot of the best musicians will simply cease to exist.
You are so very, very wrong. If you do some background research into past musicians, you will find that NONE of them became rich and famous before they became a great musician. They all became great musicians, then became rich and famous (some, maybe most, never became rich and only famous after they died).
a lot of the best musicians will never happen unless they are able to practice all day, every day, and you can't do that unless you do it professionally.
I see you're not a musician!
And no, 200 years ago Mozart or whoever DID NOT do it on an amateur basis. They were paid by either royalty, upper class citizens or the church.
Hmm...I think it's called 'a gig'? Believe it or not, there are a lot of musicians who are paid exactly that way today! And, Mozart was composing at the age of eight. Exactly how much cash do you think he was getting at that age?
I don't know what PHBs you're talking about, but all the PHBs I've ever met care only about reducing their dept's spending and increasing their dept's output. They most certainly are 'interested in why not to use Microsoft', and it's called money. But they don't think there is anything else out there that they could possibly use.
In the recent past, some of them have learned of this 'Lee-nooks' thing that they might be able to use instead of the oh-so-expensive Microsoft stuff! However, they're very cautious since 'no one was ever fired for buying Microsoft', and if Linux fails (many of them worry Linux and OSS may 'fail' as a concept, but in reality it's their deployment that might fail) then it's their ass for using it. Reports like this one do make them nervous about Linux, but only because they are worried that there's no comapny to blame when this happens (they think).
PHBs may be stupid but they can add and subtract. Unless it's relevant to their business, they care very little about 'uptime' (usually) or 'reliability' (usually), but stuff like 'price' and 'liability' they are very well aware of. Linux intrigues them with the price, but they are very worried about the lack of centralized liability. That's why Redhat is doing so well, the PHBs have to have someone to
It is hard to disprove the open source myth that it leads to bad security because of easier-to-find holes when PHBs read things like this, that happen to major Linux servers.
Right...because it never happens to Microsoft. That's very clearly known.
Running queso on sourceforge.net reports :
216.136.171.196:80 * Novell Netware TCP/IP
I think 'queso' is wrong.
Purhaps the best thing would be for it to be illegal to send bulk e-mail in the U.S. without a license
Boy, that sure would suck for opt-in mailing lists like linux-kernel.
From the massive PR that Apple lavishes on QT to watching Steve Jobs soil himself yearly at Macworld and Comdex whilst marvelling the latest and greatest QT innovations, etc., you get the sense that Apple really thinks they're sitting on the greatest thing since sliced bread here (they're not).
By holding tightly onto that Sorenson codec, Jobs is going to turn it into the Token Ring of the Video codec world. IBM has held just as tightly to many, many things; MCA, RS485, Token Ring, etc. By holding technology with a closed fist people eventually leave for a more open technology.
As I understand it, one of the main differences is that the IBM Public License could only apply to files that were originally created by IBM, while the Common Public License would allow non-IBM employees to contribute new files to a project and apply the Common Public License to those files.
Also, you can start a new project and license it under the CPL. With the IPL, the 'Original Contributor' had to be IBM, so any projects started outside IBM could not be licensed under the IPL (without giving your project to IBM).
The CPL changes this; it does not make the assumption that the 'Original Contributor' is IBM.
Now that IBM has it's own license
e x.htm. (That's the personal time guidelines).
IBM has had the IBM Public Licnese for quite a while.
I wonder as an IBM employee if the ideas I create as such are my own, or still belong to ibm.
No, everything you do belongs to IBM. If you want to contribute to an OSS project during IBM's time, you must get approval (very specific approval!) from IBM's OSSC (Open Source Steering Committee). Their approval generally takes 2-4 months, from my experience. The approval includes a excruciatingly detailed form describing the project, why you are modifying it, exactly what files you are modifiying, the dates (start and end) that you will be working on it, and your local lawyer's assessment of any associated IP risk. If you decide to work on any other file in the project, or past the 'expire' date, you must go through the process for approval again.
If you want to get approval to work on OSS projects on your own time, you must get an unspecified manager's approval for each project (sometimes, each part of each project). And the manager may deny approval. If they do give you approval, it ususally takes around 1 month, or they pass it to a higher level manager.
Also you have to follow specific guidlines set forth by IBM's LTC (Linux Technology Center) about how to contribute to an OSS project. If you're on the IBM intranet, it's http://ltc.linux.ibm.com/open_source/prz2html/ind
For desktop applications, you're right, but for Point of Sale applications, it's a different ballpark. The user is going to be an employee who is trained in how to use the application. It should provide an interface that is simple and lets the user (cashier, usually) perform their job. Widgets, popups, etc are distracting, not helpful; there should be one simple way to do something and the interface should remain relatively stable and simple. POS apps are different from desktop apps.
I think he is carrying on a fine tradition where one person with guts can make a big impact on the world.
Yeah, he's going to make a very big impact on a dry Oregon lake bed.
I can imagine Orville Wright saying the same thing...
Ok, maybe if Orville Wright was saying that before he tested his plane at the Grand Canyon (instead Kitty Hawk, NC which is flat and not dangerous), while the Air Force flies around in jets above him...
The Wright brothers were the first people to fly. This guy isn't. He doesn't want to advance science, he just wants to have champagne poured on him by Hooters girls.
A nuclear blast from a weapon inside a ship at port will destroy not only the port it's at but the entire city.
Also, US Navy sonar will most certainly detect something appraching underwater at over 250mph (and maybe they could do something about it, or maybe not...) but if a nuke is hidden on a ship then the Navy very well may allow them to dock.
EMP will destroy most electronics equiment in a large area. A nuclear blast over a city would destroy every electronic item in the city, regardless of whether it's got power or not. It creates a large EM field that induces a large current that fries everything.
Of course, the military knows this and they shield much of their electronics. So while civilian VCRs, TVs, phones, cars, etc. would be history, military units (like the UCAV) would live.
Yeah, it sounds basically like low-power digital frequency modulation (FM).
Digital transmission is pretty interesting, and the low power is certainly interesting, but I don't see how this can be used for the vast amount of applications they are proposing. And I also can't see how they can say it won't interfere with conventional (analog) radio signals.
but it's signifigantly lower than the $8000+ mentioned earlier.
The $8000 was in reference to Windows Server TCO, not Linux.
Since it's (apparently) pretty much guaranteed that suing a spammer will result in a winning judgement, I am wondering why there aren't more law offices that are advertising to handle these cases?
I would be happy to give 50%, or 75%, even 100%, or whatever fines the spammer had to pay me, to any law office that would handle the case for me.
Then, all anyone would have to do is contact one of these law offices (probably in the spammer's local area) and hire them (at no cost to the victim). The law office makes money, I stop getting spammed, everyone's happy! (except the spammer!)
The only difficulty is identifying the spammer, but that's not impossible.
Forget about air ducks
air ducts. air ducks quack too much. Picky, I know. Sorry.
Mmm, ok...so we're sending ALL traffic then through the waypoint...
first off, anyone who happens to be behind a NAT box that they can setup to do this, (i.e. probably a home network) will most likely not have a spare 'waypoint' hanging around outside their NATted network.
second, if all traffic goes through the waypoint, what the hell are we involving the NATted system for? Just use the 'waypoint'.
I cannot see how this would be useful to anyone. There are too many potential problems and requirements, and not much benefit.
I am pretty sure that in at least my state (NC) you must be either a registered EE or work for a company that is registered. You can't just work as an EE without being registered (and a prereq. for registration is a 8-hour test).
;-)
But I could be wrong. I lost most interest in EE when I got (heavily) into computers, too late to switch majors.
Doh.
oops my bad
Aha, I stand corrected. Thanks.
However I don't see it on their license page; I guess they're busy.
Geez who moderated that FlameBait? That's not FlameBait...?