I wondered what his father was babbling about myself. I can only assume it has something to do with him being...
prohibited by court order from using cell phones, the Internet, computers, video games and fax machines.
And now being back in jail, of course. Because everybody knows you can't defend yourself without cell phones and the internet, especially when you're in jail. Right? Just don't tell them the first thing they should do is hire competent counsel.
I found the quoted paragraph particularly offensive. The assumption here is that I won't be able to listen to music or watch movies without buying all new equipment.
My A/V system has 3 major kinds of components: inputs, switches, and outputs. I don't mind being "forced" to add a new input every decade or so, but at no time have I ever been required to buy new output components to have the thing work.
I wasn't forced to buy new speakers (or amps and preamps) to listen to CDs and I wasn't forced to buy a new TV monitor (or amps and preamps) to watch Laser or DVD.
What on Earth possessed these people to think I would want to "upgrade" my entire system to watch a movie or listen to some music? What's the advantage to me? Don't they realize I've got to feel I'm getting something I wasn't getting before for me to spend any money? And to replace the whole system, that had better be a *major* step up!
Point taken, but you're not quite right. Broadband users are logged on whenever their computers are powered up. In my house, that probably averages about 12 hours a day.
Why limit the search to books about how to fly? How about books about bomb making, or how to get fake IDs, or disguise? Books about self defense? You see, all these were used to hijack those aircraft on 9/11 (in fact or in threat).
This means you should be investigated if you read crime or espionage novels. Yes, fiction should be included. For example, The Odessa Files by Frederick Forsythe is great instruction for obtaining false IDs and building car bombs, among other unsavory things.
To be sure you aren't a terrorist, we need to have a list of all books and magazines you have read in the last 10 years or so. Also, a list of all web sites you've visited. Would you feel safer if we all shared this info? If so, what a frightening world you live in.
But remember this: the only reason the 9/11 flights were successful terror attacks is because the flight crews were taught to do as hijackers ask -- you'll end up in the wrong place, but everybody will be okay.
I don't care if you're willing to relinquish *your* freedoms, but please don't be so quick to give mine away.
One of my favorite quotes is from Samuel R Delaney, the SF writer. I don't recall it exactly, but it deals with this issue. He talks of people suggesting story ideas to him and feeling they should share credit. He felt it was like saying to a boxer, "I've got a great idea of somebody you should fight" then expecting to share in the purse.
The idea is just about worthless. It's the execution of the idea that has value.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I do disagree on some of the finer points.
First, you seem to be saying the only reason to chose one retailer over another is because of price. I suggest there are other factors, including (but not limited to) selection, service, and "brand" loyalty.
Second, impulse buying doesn't have much to do with how long it takes to get the product home. People will still buy things they hadn't originally planned on buying as long as they can browse effectively.
That's one way of looking at it. But I see you picked one of their shortest albums (which is also a numbered limited edition) to demonstrate your point. You could, instead, buy Heavy ConstrucKtion which is a 3 CD live recording along with a concert video. It's $20.
Another way of looking at it is that of that $15, the lion's share is going to the artists and not the record company (which, if you believe Robert Fripp, is losing money). This makes it more likely the artist will continue to make music.
A third way of looking at it is that $15 is one of the best entertainment values you can buy. Compare the enjoyment you can get from that $15 to an afternoon at the movie theater, the video arcade, or the sporting event of your choice.
Interesting. I borrowed a friend's copy of Oh Brother Where Art Thou? and ripped mp3's without any errors. Did he get a disc with defective copy protection? Or is Fat Chuck's list defective?
>writers and producers with old fashioned values back on the TV, replacing the ratings whores we have today
Yeah, we've got to get back to things like Gunsmoke, where Marshall Dillon can kill one or two bad guys every week and hang out in the bar at the local whore house.
What does MP3.com or CDNow have to do with artists going independent?
Many of the artists I listen to have their own web sites. Most of them have stuff available only through the artist. Some artists aren't available anywhere but their web sites and their shows. Some even make money at it.
Check out King Crimson's label, Digital Global Mobile. Read Robert Fripp's newsletter #1 for his take on things.
From there, follow some of the other artists' links -- California Guitar Trio, Tony Levin, Curt Golden, many others.
An example of the extreme end of the independent spectrum would be Big Lazy. Download their mp3 and if you like it, send them a check for the $12 and get the CD.
First, you didn't "save" any money on the trench coat unless you didn't buy it. If you paid $200, you didn't save any money. If you paid $100 instead, you don't have an "extra" $100 in your pocket. You have $100 less than you started with. If you think you "saved" $100, try this: you can save even more if you don't buy the coat from me, because I'll sell it to you for $300. Bingo! You just "saved" $200!
There is no financial benefit to mp3 traders, unless they sell the stuff. There is (perhaps) a financial cost to the artists. That is the difference between what they actually sold and what they would have sold if there was no trading. But this is, of course, unmeasurable. It has even been argued that trading may increase sales.
Case 1: Much like I refuse to buy shoes I cannot try on for size first, I may not want to buy music I can't try out first. If I'm interested in artists that don't get radio play, and none of my friends has a copy, I may want to download an mp3 or two to try first. Without this opportunity, I won't buy. With the opportunity, I may buy. This would be a benefit to the artist.
Case 2: I really like a band that has a long discography. This band released dozens of singles with b-sides unavailable on the album. The singles are no longer available, unless I get lucky and find it used. If I buy it used, the artist gets: $0. If I download it, the artist gets: $0. Net cost to the artist: $0.
Case 3a: I'm really cheap and don't want to pay for any music, so I download it all.
Case 3b: I'm really cheap and don't want to pay for any music. I spend $8 on a used CD, rip the tracks, then sell it back to the store for $5 in trade.
Well, 3a and 3b aren't that different. I had to upgrade to broadband to get the bandwith to do 3a so my cost is an extra $20 or so a month. If I do 3b instead of 3a I can get several CDs a month for the same cost.
The RIAA argues that 3a is evil and should be abolished. By logical extension, they might as well argue 3b is just as evil. The net effect to the artist in both cases is the same. So let's make CDs like software and license the use rather than sell them, and prohibit their transfer in the EULA.
Coming up with an original and creative architectural design cannot be estimated with much precision. But a construction schedule is only made after all the variables are known, design is complete, and so on. At this point in the game, you know exactly where every brick is supposed to lay, where every cross-beam will be bolted, and so on.
Well, no. There's a concept called "fast track" where construction is begun before all design is finished. One of the best examples is the Empire State Building.
As a programmer involved with numerous large projects, I've been interested in other kinds of large projects. My favorites are the Empire State Building, the Normandy invasion (D-Day), and the Apollo project. Each involved a huge number of unknowns, creativity in "tool building" and time constraints. Kind of like software development.
The rentee wins since he can invest his capital into something more productive than apartments (such as stock markets).
I'm hard pressed to come up with a better investment than your own home. I bought my first home with $2,000 down and my mortgage payment was only a few percent higher than my rent at the time. Five years later I sold the home and walked away with a check for $28,000. In the mean time, my mortgage only went up about $10 a month (due to insurance and tax increases), while rents in the area rose about 6% a year.
Sure, I put the $28k into another house, but I can use that equity for all sorts of stuff. Leverage is very powerful, and you can get much more leverage from your home than anywhere else.
In my opinion, facial recognition software is of limited use, and in cases such as these it would be a grave misuse of the technology. The false positive rate is in the order of several magnitudes too large to be acceptable, and I dont think it will be possible to improve it enough to matter.
What is the false positive rate for facial recognition software today? What is the false positive rate for people? Why won't it be possible to improve the rate for software? Can you cite any references, or are these just your opinion? If it's just opinion, how long have you been an expert in the field?
Just curious, because I watched that show on TV last night with John Cleese. The software they used worked pretty good. It matched him even when he was in drag.
Therefore to simply scan everyone's face on the off-chance that you may catch known felons is illegal besides being an invasion of privacy.
So what you're saying is "It's illegal for a beat cop to look at people's faces and arrest somebody with an outstanding warrant." If you honestly believe that, I don't want to live in your world.
I don't see how a computer program doing the matching is any different (regarding privacy) than a person doing it. Most people seem to be saying "I don't mind the surveilance cameras watching me all the time as long as it's only people watching the pictures. I don't trust the damn computers!"
Slashdot Mirror
I wondered what his father was babbling about myself. I can only assume it has something to do with him being...
prohibited by court order from using cell phones, the Internet, computers, video games and fax machines.
And now being back in jail, of course. Because everybody knows you can't defend yourself without cell phones and the internet, especially when you're in jail. Right? Just don't tell them the first thing they should do is hire competent counsel.
Igor
I found the quoted paragraph particularly offensive. The assumption here is that I won't be able to listen to music or watch movies without buying all new equipment.
My A/V system has 3 major kinds of components: inputs, switches, and outputs. I don't mind being "forced" to add a new input every decade or so, but at no time have I ever been required to buy new output components to have the thing work.
I wasn't forced to buy new speakers (or amps and preamps) to listen to CDs and I wasn't forced to buy a new TV monitor (or amps and preamps) to watch Laser or DVD.
What on Earth possessed these people to think I would want to "upgrade" my entire system to watch a movie or listen to some music? What's the advantage to me? Don't they realize I've got to feel I'm getting something I wasn't getting before for me to spend any money? And to replace the whole system, that had better be a *major* step up!
Igor
>>Broadband users are logged on 24 hours a day.
Point taken, but you're not quite right. Broadband users are logged on whenever their computers are powered up. In my house, that probably averages about 12 hours a day.
Igor
Why limit the search to books about how to fly? How about books about bomb making, or how to get fake IDs, or disguise? Books about self defense? You see, all these were used to hijack those aircraft on 9/11 (in fact or in threat).
This means you should be investigated if you read crime or espionage novels. Yes, fiction should be included. For example, The Odessa Files by Frederick Forsythe is great instruction for obtaining false IDs and building car bombs, among other unsavory things.
To be sure you aren't a terrorist, we need to have a list of all books and magazines you have read in the last 10 years or so. Also, a list of all web sites you've visited. Would you feel safer if we all shared this info? If so, what a frightening world you live in.
But remember this: the only reason the 9/11 flights were successful terror attacks is because the flight crews were taught to do as hijackers ask -- you'll end up in the wrong place, but everybody will be okay.
I don't care if you're willing to relinquish *your* freedoms, but please don't be so quick to give mine away.
Igor
One of my favorite quotes is from Samuel R Delaney, the SF writer. I don't recall it exactly, but it deals with this issue. He talks of people suggesting story ideas to him and feeling they should share credit. He felt it was like saying to a boxer, "I've got a great idea of somebody you should fight" then expecting to share in the purse.
The idea is just about worthless. It's the execution of the idea that has value.
Igor
Although I agree with most of what you say, I do disagree on some of the finer points.
First, you seem to be saying the only reason to chose one retailer over another is because of price. I suggest there are other factors, including (but not limited to) selection, service, and "brand" loyalty.
Second, impulse buying doesn't have much to do with how long it takes to get the product home. People will still buy things they hadn't originally planned on buying as long as they can browse effectively.
Igor
>i don't know of another band who ... sings
>about the virtrues of white castle
I do. The Smithereens, on their album "Especially for You" have a song called "White Castle Blues."
Igor
That's one way of looking at it. But I see you picked one of their shortest albums (which is also a numbered limited edition) to demonstrate your point. You could, instead, buy Heavy ConstrucKtion which is a 3 CD live recording along with a concert video. It's $20.
Another way of looking at it is that of that $15, the lion's share is going to the artists and not the record company (which, if you believe Robert Fripp, is losing money). This makes it more likely the artist will continue to make music.
A third way of looking at it is that $15 is one of the best entertainment values you can buy. Compare the enjoyment you can get from that $15 to an afternoon at the movie theater, the video arcade, or the sporting event of your choice.
Igor
Interesting. I borrowed a friend's copy of Oh Brother Where Art Thou? and ripped mp3's without any errors. Did he get a disc with defective copy protection? Or is Fat Chuck's list defective?
Igor
>writers and producers with old fashioned values back on the TV, replacing the ratings whores we have today
Yeah, we've got to get back to things like Gunsmoke, where Marshall Dillon can kill one or two bad guys every week and hang out in the bar at the local whore house.
Igor
Please don't remind me that I haven't been able to find Coopers since about 1989. Luckily, some Americans have figured out how to brew a decent beer.
What does MP3.com or CDNow have to do with artists going independent?
Many of the artists I listen to have their own web sites. Most of them have stuff available only through the artist. Some artists aren't available anywhere but their web sites and their shows. Some even make money at it.
Check out King Crimson's label, Digital Global Mobile. Read Robert Fripp's newsletter #1 for his take on things.
From there, follow some of the other artists' links -- California Guitar Trio, Tony Levin, Curt Golden, many others.
An example of the extreme end of the independent spectrum would be Big Lazy. Download their mp3 and if you like it, send them a check for the $12 and get the CD.
Igor
A little flawed logic and a lot of assumptions.
First, you didn't "save" any money on the trench coat unless you didn't buy it. If you paid $200, you didn't save any money. If you paid $100 instead, you don't have an "extra" $100 in your pocket. You have $100 less than you started with. If you think you "saved" $100, try this: you can save even more if you don't buy the coat from me, because I'll sell it to you for $300. Bingo! You just "saved" $200!
There is no financial benefit to mp3 traders, unless they sell the stuff. There is (perhaps) a financial cost to the artists. That is the difference between what they actually sold and what they would have sold if there was no trading. But this is, of course, unmeasurable. It has even been argued that trading may increase sales.
Case 1: Much like I refuse to buy shoes I cannot try on for size first, I may not want to buy music I can't try out first. If I'm interested in artists that don't get radio play, and none of my friends has a copy, I may want to download an mp3 or two to try first. Without this opportunity, I won't buy. With the opportunity, I may buy. This would be a benefit to the artist.
Case 2: I really like a band that has a long discography. This band released dozens of singles with b-sides unavailable on the album. The singles are no longer available, unless I get lucky and find it used. If I buy it used, the artist gets: $0. If I download it, the artist gets: $0. Net cost to the artist: $0.
Case 3a: I'm really cheap and don't want to pay for any music, so I download it all.
Case 3b: I'm really cheap and don't want to pay for any music. I spend $8 on a used CD, rip the tracks, then sell it back to the store for $5 in trade.
Well, 3a and 3b aren't that different. I had to upgrade to broadband to get the bandwith to do 3a so my cost is an extra $20 or so a month. If I do 3b instead of 3a I can get several CDs a month for the same cost.
The RIAA argues that 3a is evil and should be abolished. By logical extension, they might as well argue 3b is just as evil. The net effect to the artist in both cases is the same. So let's make CDs like software and license the use rather than sell them, and prohibit their transfer in the EULA.
Igor
Coming up with an original and creative architectural design cannot be estimated with much precision. But a construction schedule is only made after all the variables are known, design is complete, and so on. At this point in the game, you know exactly where every brick is supposed to lay, where every cross-beam will be bolted, and so on.
Well, no. There's a concept called "fast track" where construction is begun before all design is finished. One of the best examples is the Empire State Building.
As a programmer involved with numerous large projects, I've been interested in other kinds of large projects. My favorites are the Empire State Building, the Normandy invasion (D-Day), and the Apollo project. Each involved a huge number of unknowns, creativity in "tool building" and time constraints. Kind of like software development.
Igor
The rentee wins since he can invest his capital into something more productive than apartments (such as stock markets).
I'm hard pressed to come up with a better investment than your own home. I bought my first home with $2,000 down and my mortgage payment was only a few percent higher than my rent at the time. Five years later I sold the home and walked away with a check for $28,000. In the mean time, my mortgage only went up about $10 a month (due to insurance and tax increases), while rents in the area rose about 6% a year.
Sure, I put the $28k into another house, but I can use that equity for all sorts of stuff. Leverage is very powerful, and you can get much more leverage from your home than anywhere else.
Igor
In my opinion, facial recognition software is of limited use, and in cases such as these it would be a grave misuse of the technology. The false positive rate is in the order of several magnitudes too large to be acceptable, and I dont think it will be possible to improve it enough to matter.
What is the false positive rate for facial recognition software today? What is the false positive rate for people? Why won't it be possible to improve the rate for software? Can you cite any references, or are these just your opinion? If it's just opinion, how long have you been an expert in the field?
Just curious, because I watched that show on TV last night with John Cleese. The software they used worked pretty good. It matched him even when he was in drag.
like the City of Tampa Bay, Florida
Is that anywhere near Tampa, FL?
Therefore to simply scan everyone's face on the off-chance that you may catch known felons is illegal besides being an invasion of privacy.
So what you're saying is "It's illegal for a beat cop to look at people's faces and arrest somebody with an outstanding warrant." If you honestly believe that, I don't want to live in your world.
I don't see how a computer program doing the matching is any different (regarding privacy) than a person doing it. Most people seem to be saying "I don't mind the surveilance cameras watching me all the time as long as it's only people watching the pictures. I don't trust the damn computers!"