When I was in school, using any encyclopedia as a source was frowned upon or entirely disallowed. I think the author of this article has too high of an opinion of the value of his own work. Neither Wikipedia nor Britannica is valuable for meaningful research of a specific topic. Rather, their strength lies in their broad coverage of nearly every available topic.
Of course, this article is really just a meta process of Wikipedia itself, and as such, should really only be viewed within that context. He's simply taking the editing and discussion process out of the builtin Wikipedia forum, bringing it before the eyes of a wider audience that probably isn't and shouldn't be concerned.
However, the one valuable aspect of his article outside the context of Wikipedia culture is his reference to poor standards in public school education. This is the real issue that the author should have been dealing with. Rather than critiquing the Wikipedia process, he could have been suggesting that more emphasis be put on teaching children how to evaluate the reliability of reference material in general or how to go to first sources as much as possible to find the best sources of information on a topic. Instead, he seems to be implying that a paper encyclopedia is better than Wikipedia, when he should be quite aware that both are actually very shallow sources of information.
How about a program that turns around and spams the hell out of them with Pop-ups? Surely they couldn't sue you for exercising your 1st amendment right to advertise to them. I'm sure what's his name needs some herbal viagra, or maybe he'd like to help the Nigerians with a little financial snafu.
It's been done, with quite a bit of success, true. But, these people are playing a quite different game than most of the recording artists out there.
1. Most if not all of those labels were initially funded with drug money. I'm not making an ethical/moral judgement here, but it's true. In order to look at the subject honestly, we should take that into account, because it makes it a lot easier to self-finance any project you undertake.
2. The sound engineering skills required to record a song/album of rap music are negligible. You only have to know how to record two types of input: sampler and vocal. For the purposes of rap music, and especially the aptly-named dirty-south version thereof, the depth of knowledge required for recording is so minimal as to reach below the level of rudimentary. Evidence of this is available especially in many of the No Limit recordings, which are almost invariably poorly engineered. An exception to this is Dr. Dre's productions, which though low-fi back in the NWA days, already showed ample evidence of his golden ear. Fortunately, production values are not the driving force for this market segment, not hardly.
3. Live shows are very easy. To prepare, you record your tracks (without vocals) to a DAT tape and make sure your rappers show up. There's no comparison between this and preparation, rehearsal and musical skill necessary to successfully play a live show as a band.
4. The gear necessary to record, mix and master a CD of rap music is very little compared to that necessary to record a band correctly. Three DA-88's, a Mackie mixer, a two channel stereo linkable compressor, an SM58, some cabling, a pair or two of studio quality monitors, and a sampler are about all that's need to produce commercially viable rap music. Compare this with the variety of instruments, effects, microphones, and space necessary to record a band, and you'll see why it's so easy to record rap yourself. It takes a professional and a studio to make a band sound commercially viable, and even then it takes LOTS of time to pull it all together and get it down right on tape. Not true in the rap game. Rap is a wham bam thank-you ma'am style of recording. Only idiots or visionaries spend a million dollars to record an album of rap.
Need I go on? Let me conclude simply by saying that the examples you offered, though exceptions to the rule, are not at all representative of the artists that are in a position to need the services of the big-time record companies. They can afford it because they turn out cheap and dirty product whose funding was kickstarted by the sale of contraband. I don't hate them because they were smart enough to realize the advantages in front of their faces, but that doesn't really make them relevant to the larger discussion. It's just not practical for most artists to follow Master P's example.
I'm not at home, so I can't be sure, but I think G2 solves this by linking/usr/doc to/usr/share/doc, or the other way around. But, like I said: I can't check now. Just thought I remembered seeing that while poking around on my system.
I completely agree. Maybe Lucas is just trying to show us what a complete asshole Anakin is before he turns completely to the dark side, but it sure doesn't help the story hang together at all. However, if I see one more motherfucker on here misspell RIDICULOUS, I'm going to go seriously postal!
Re:AotC's performance has a simpler explanation
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 1
Yep, it's amazing how people refuse to buy inferior products once they have a chance to find out that they truly ARE inferior. On the other hand, it's amazing how many people will pay for a good product repeatedly because they recognize that it actually IS good. The MPAA just isn't happy when they can't reliably sell inferior over-hyped product anymore. Poor assholes.
Just had to throw my support behind that. I am continually amazed at Jon Katz's ability to so thoroughly miss every single important element of a given topic, even when he's the one choosing the topic! I'm convinced that/. keeps him around and encourages him for this very reason. He provokes debate through showing himself to be a fool. Reading Jon Katz is like watching a train wreck, it's a big fuckin mess but then everyone pitches in to clean it up.
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this phenomenon? Are movie makers, game designers, and the rest editing out the WTCs because they are afraid it would remind people of 9-11 and thus negatively impact the sales of their stuff? In the long run wouldn't it add more value to the stuff if the no-longer-existing WTCs WERE there? Why is everyone denying reality? When the movie was made, the towers were there, now they are not. I just don't get it.
And while we're at it... Damn those dastardly half-price book resellers, too!!! Pirates, the lot of them!!! ARRR!! And, the next time a friend tries to loan me a book, I'll serve him up to the feds!! That'll teach the IP-stealing little bastard!!
Fascist or no, he's a scam artist, IMO. Or at least his supporters are. They have quotas of donations that they have to collect in a certain period of time. They will harass you and try to intimidate you into giving them money. It's best to deal with these people clearly and honestly. Meaning, "Do NOT EVER call me or contact me again." Such usually is enough to give them the clue that they could be getting into some trouble if they don't stay away and that, besides, the money train does not lie at this doorstep. Oh well, just some words of advice for the unaware.
Even so, some of his stuff is fairly interesting, but I haven't delved deeply enough into it to draw a conclusion about the true worth of his ideas.
Either way, I have no clue what the parent of your post was trying to say, since Larouche doesn't really address the topic within the quoted passage.
In the long run, you're may be right. But in the short term, Verizon has a vested interest in spurring demand for broadband internet service. Right now, their ownership of the pipe is a losing proposition. If they can bitch slap the RIAA well enough to get Congress to back their proposal the "wire business" may start to look good again.
Down the road, their interest in owning and selling content starts to look pretty debatable. If their plan were to take effect, they'd be competing in an extremely saturated market for their share of a measly $2 billion, and they'd have to own the artists first. More likely would be their interest in owning a piece of the organization that doles out the Internet tax to artists, so that they can take their cut for performing the bookkeeping on the content trade.
I'm no fan of verizon/genuity/hell atlantic/whoever. I understand their disgusting corporate tactics from first hand knowledge. I just think you're looking for demons in the wrong places on this one. I think Verizon is stepping up to this plate because the need demand for high speed internet services. Anything else they might hope to gain from promoting this idea is gravy, but by no means a diabolical plan of the omnipotent corporate super-overlord.
Beyond all that, I think the plan is a little vague and impractical, but this is the first I've heard of it. The technological underpinnings and system of accounting for the plan have not yet been divulged and probably haven't even been thought out. As I said in an earlier post, I think their bluffing. I think Verizon is just trying to push the RIAA/music industry to get their shit together in a hurry, by suggesting a possibly viable plan that would cut the industry out of the profit loop. They're trying to scare them straight, that's all.
By ignoring those rights. This plan is more of a bluff than a practical solution, IMO. It's really much to vague to actually work in a fair and practical manner.
The real problem is that the smart artists would then all setup beowulf clusters on OC-3's to pipe their own songs in massive parallel to/dev/null, racking up as much as they can of that $2 billion.
Well, close. I was thinking more along these lines. What if I was trying to break into pick the lock on someone's garage door in the middle of the night, but I had a crack-whore riding around with me. I sure as hell wouldn't trust he/she/it to not steal my car while I was fscking around with the lock, but I'd need the lights to allow me to see what the hell I was doing. Automagical light systems create a Catch-22 for me in this situation..;)
Either way, I'm a believer in simple systems. When I'm driving a twenty year old car, I don't want my headlights controlled by a complex logic system that's trying to guess whether I want the lights on or off. Any time you put a logical question between the control and the effect, you are creating a potential point of failure in the system. In this case, it's just soooo much easier and more reliable for me to be the competent party. And, in my drunken state, I'd much rather drive with my lights on than be stricken by a malfunction in an IC caused by humidity inspired corrosion of electrical contacts. But, hey, we all choose are risks. I guess mine are just a little bit more unlikely and irrational than most;)
That's EXACTLY what I'd do with a car I was reviewing. I'd trash that shit to hell and back so that I knew every aspect of its character. The dude owns a dog, what's he gonna do if he actually owns a 7? Put the dog in the trunk? Leash it to the bumper? Tie it to the roof? C'mon.. Who's showing intelligence?
It's already what happens with Windows. The point is, who cares. It's just a computer operating system. I'd hate to see a world where the leading cause of death is PEBCAK.
That's ridiculous. That's not a flaw, it's a feature. One day, when you least expect it, you will find yourself in the one situation where you NEED to have your lights on when the engine is shutoff and the key is outside of the car. My drunken state prevents me from recalling "exactly" when this has been useful for me, but I damn well know I'd rather have manual control of my headlights than be treated like an idiot by my car. Are you too stupid to remember to turn off your headlights?
Yes, I saw that as well. Sounds like Microsoft logic to me. A weight shift in the back seat could only mean one thing. Imagine trying to reach back to get your child's toy from the area under the back window. The headrests would block you and try to crush your head against the roof every time you switched sides to try to reach it.
Just had to mention that the "break" is not on the left. The clutch is on the left. When was the last time you say a Model T with an automatic transmission? Either way, clutch left/gas right may not be the case in Europe, where people drive while sitting in the right hand seat. Yet, I believe it was a wise decision to put the brake in the middle, because, in an emergency, you can stomp on the brake with both feet, which might have given you more braking power back in the days when brakes were not power-assisted. It's really less a matter of intuitive as finding the "best" way to do something. It's possible that we will figure out better ways to control cars in the future that allow for a safer and more functional driving experience, but the current configuration of controls has served us fairly well for close to 100 years. Honestly, when was the last time you got in a car and said to yourself: "Goddammit!!! Why the fuck did they put the gas on the right!?!?! And, WTF is up with this clunky steering wheel interface for turning left and right!?!?! I just can't control this FSCKING thing. If only they had done it the INTUITIVE way!!"
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in school, using any encyclopedia as a source was frowned upon or entirely disallowed. I think the author of this article has too high of an opinion of the value of his own work. Neither Wikipedia nor Britannica is valuable for meaningful research of a specific topic. Rather, their strength lies in their broad coverage of nearly every available topic.
Of course, this article is really just a meta process of Wikipedia itself, and as such, should really only be viewed within that context. He's simply taking the editing and discussion process out of the builtin Wikipedia forum, bringing it before the eyes of a wider audience that probably isn't and shouldn't be concerned.
However, the one valuable aspect of his article outside the context of Wikipedia culture is his reference to poor standards in public school education. This is the real issue that the author should have been dealing with. Rather than critiquing the Wikipedia process, he could have been suggesting that more emphasis be put on teaching children how to evaluate the reliability of reference material in general or how to go to first sources as much as possible to find the best sources of information on a topic. Instead, he seems to be implying that a paper encyclopedia is better than Wikipedia, when he should be quite aware that both are actually very shallow sources of information.
It's working fine for me so far.
You might want to remove that extraneous space from your sig. It kind of kills the mood.
How about a program that turns around and spams the hell out of them with Pop-ups? Surely they couldn't sue you for exercising your 1st amendment right to advertise to them. I'm sure what's his name needs some herbal viagra, or maybe he'd like to help the Nigerians with a little financial snafu.
It's been done, with quite a bit of success, true. But, these people are playing a quite different game than most of the recording artists out there.
1. Most if not all of those labels were initially funded with drug money. I'm not making an ethical/moral judgement here, but it's true. In order to look at the subject honestly, we should take that into account, because it makes it a lot easier to self-finance any project you undertake.
2. The sound engineering skills required to record a song/album of rap music are negligible. You only have to know how to record two types of input: sampler and vocal. For the purposes of rap music, and especially the aptly-named dirty-south version thereof, the depth of knowledge required for recording is so minimal as to reach below the level of rudimentary. Evidence of this is available especially in many of the No Limit recordings, which are almost invariably poorly engineered. An exception to this is Dr. Dre's productions, which though low-fi back in the NWA days, already showed ample evidence of his golden ear. Fortunately, production values are not the driving force for this market segment, not hardly.
3. Live shows are very easy. To prepare, you record your tracks (without vocals) to a DAT tape and make sure your rappers show up. There's no comparison between this and preparation, rehearsal and musical skill necessary to successfully play a live show as a band.
4. The gear necessary to record, mix and master a CD of rap music is very little compared to that necessary to record a band correctly. Three DA-88's, a Mackie mixer, a two channel stereo linkable compressor, an SM58, some cabling, a pair or two of studio quality monitors, and a sampler are about all that's need to produce commercially viable rap music. Compare this with the variety of instruments, effects, microphones, and space necessary to record a band, and you'll see why it's so easy to record rap yourself. It takes a professional and a studio to make a band sound commercially viable, and even then it takes LOTS of time to pull it all together and get it down right on tape. Not true in the rap game. Rap is a wham bam thank-you ma'am style of recording. Only idiots or visionaries spend a million dollars to record an album of rap.
Need I go on? Let me conclude simply by saying that the examples you offered, though exceptions to the rule, are not at all representative of the artists that are in a position to need the services of the big-time record companies. They can afford it because they turn out cheap and dirty product whose funding was kickstarted by the sale of contraband. I don't hate them because they were smart enough to realize the advantages in front of their faces, but that doesn't really make them relevant to the larger discussion. It's just not practical for most artists to follow Master P's example.
I'm not at home, so I can't be sure, but I think G2 solves this by linking
Lates..
I completely agree. Maybe Lucas is just trying to show us what a complete asshole Anakin is before he turns completely to the dark side, but it sure doesn't help the story hang together at all. However, if I see one more motherfucker on here misspell RIDICULOUS, I'm going to go seriously postal!
Yep, it's amazing how people refuse to buy inferior products once they have a chance to find out that they truly ARE inferior. On the other hand, it's amazing how many people will pay for a good product repeatedly because they recognize that it actually IS good. The MPAA just isn't happy when they can't reliably sell inferior over-hyped product anymore. Poor assholes.
Just had to throw my support behind that. I am continually amazed at Jon Katz's ability to so thoroughly miss every single important element of a given topic, even when he's the one choosing the topic! I'm convinced that
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this phenomenon? Are movie makers, game designers, and the rest editing out the WTCs because they are afraid it would remind people of 9-11 and thus negatively impact the sales of their stuff? In the long run wouldn't it add more value to the stuff if the no-longer-existing WTCs WERE there? Why is everyone denying reality? When the movie was made, the towers were there, now they are not. I just don't get it.
And while we're at it... Damn those dastardly half-price book resellers, too!!! Pirates, the lot of them!!! ARRR!! And, the next time a friend tries to loan me a book, I'll serve him up to the feds!! That'll teach the IP-stealing little bastard!!
Fascist or no, he's a scam artist, IMO. Or at least his supporters are. They have quotas of donations that they have to collect in a certain period of time. They will harass you and try to intimidate you into giving them money. It's best to deal with these people clearly and honestly. Meaning, "Do NOT EVER call me or contact me again." Such usually is enough to give them the clue that they could be getting into some trouble if they don't stay away and that, besides, the money train does not lie at this doorstep. Oh well, just some words of advice for the unaware.
Even so, some of his stuff is fairly interesting, but I haven't delved deeply enough into it to draw a conclusion about the true worth of his ideas.
Either way, I have no clue what the parent of your post was trying to say, since Larouche doesn't really address the topic within the quoted passage.
Just hand them a can of poisoned pringles.
In the long run, you're may be right. But in the short term, Verizon has a vested interest in spurring demand for broadband internet service. Right now, their ownership of the pipe is a losing proposition. If they can bitch slap the RIAA well enough to get Congress to back their proposal the "wire business" may start to look good again.
Down the road, their interest in owning and selling content starts to look pretty debatable. If their plan were to take effect, they'd be competing in an extremely saturated market for their share of a measly $2 billion, and they'd have to own the artists first. More likely would be their interest in owning a piece of the organization that doles out the Internet tax to artists, so that they can take their cut for performing the bookkeeping on the content trade.
I'm no fan of verizon/genuity/hell atlantic/whoever. I understand their disgusting corporate tactics from first hand knowledge. I just think you're looking for demons in the wrong places on this one. I think Verizon is stepping up to this plate because the need demand for high speed internet services. Anything else they might hope to gain from promoting this idea is gravy, but by no means a diabolical plan of the omnipotent corporate super-overlord.
Beyond all that, I think the plan is a little vague and impractical, but this is the first I've heard of it. The technological underpinnings and system of accounting for the plan have not yet been divulged and probably haven't even been thought out. As I said in an earlier post, I think their bluffing. I think Verizon is just trying to push the RIAA/music industry to get their shit together in a hurry, by suggesting a possibly viable plan that would cut the industry out of the profit loop. They're trying to scare them straight, that's all.
By ignoring those rights. This plan is more of a bluff than a practical solution, IMO. It's really much to vague to actually work in a fair and practical manner.
The real problem is that the smart artists would then all setup beowulf clusters on OC-3's to pipe their own songs in massive parallel to
.
Well, close. I was thinking more along these lines. What if I was trying to break into pick the lock on someone's garage door in the middle of the night, but I had a crack-whore riding around with me. I sure as hell wouldn't trust he/she/it to not steal my car while I was fscking around with the lock, but I'd need the lights to allow me to see what the hell I was doing. Automagical light systems create a Catch-22 for me in this situation..
Either way, I'm a believer in simple systems. When I'm driving a twenty year old car, I don't want my headlights controlled by a complex logic system that's trying to guess whether I want the lights on or off. Any time you put a logical question between the control and the effect, you are creating a potential point of failure in the system. In this case, it's just soooo much easier and more reliable for me to be the competent party. And, in my drunken state, I'd much rather drive with my lights on than be stricken by a malfunction in an IC caused by humidity inspired corrosion of electrical contacts. But, hey, we all choose are risks. I guess mine are just a little bit more unlikely and irrational than most
That's EXACTLY what I'd do with a car I was reviewing. I'd trash that shit to hell and back so that I knew every aspect of its character. The dude owns a dog, what's he gonna do if he actually owns a 7? Put the dog in the trunk? Leash it to the bumper? Tie it to the roof? C'mon.. Who's showing intelligence?
It's already what happens with Windows. The point is, who cares. It's just a computer operating system. I'd hate to see a world where the leading cause of death is PEBCAK.
That's ridiculous. That's not a flaw, it's a feature. One day, when you least expect it, you will find yourself in the one situation where you NEED to have your lights on when the engine is shutoff and the key is outside of the car. My drunken state prevents me from recalling "exactly" when this has been useful for me, but I damn well know I'd rather have manual control of my headlights than be treated like an idiot by my car. Are you too stupid to remember to turn off your headlights?
Yes, I saw that as well. Sounds like Microsoft logic to me. A weight shift in the back seat could only mean one thing. Imagine trying to reach back to get your child's toy from the area under the back window. The headrests would block you and try to crush your head against the roof every time you switched sides to try to reach it.
Just had to mention that the "break" is not on the left. The clutch is on the left. When was the last time you say a Model T with an automatic transmission? Either way, clutch left/gas right may not be the case in Europe, where people drive while sitting in the right hand seat. Yet, I believe it was a wise decision to put the brake in the middle, because, in an emergency, you can stomp on the brake with both feet, which might have given you more braking power back in the days when brakes were not power-assisted. It's really less a matter of intuitive as finding the "best" way to do something. It's possible that we will figure out better ways to control cars in the future that allow for a safer and more functional driving experience, but the current configuration of controls has served us fairly well for close to 100 years. Honestly, when was the last time you got in a car and said to yourself: "Goddammit!!! Why the fuck did they put the gas on the right!?!?! And, WTF is up with this clunky steering wheel interface for turning left and right!?!?! I just can't control this FSCKING thing. If only they had done it the INTUITIVE way!!"
Sucker.
Apparently the microbioligist obituary column is hiring at statistically astronomical odds as well.
Don't forget to include yourself among that group ;)