Radiohead don't need airplay any more. It's no accident, I'm sure, that their first hit (if not single, I wasn't paying attention) was "Creep", a song that they supposedly hate but everybody knows. If that song hadn't got the airplay it did, they wouldn't have got so big, I'm guessing.
I'm not saying they wouldn't have made it big (they're not my thing but they're good) but some, if not all, might have chosen different career paths if they hadn't made it when they did (I'm speculating - know almost nothing about them!).
Airplay is good for getting music out to people who don't have the time or inclination to go out looking for it. There are a lot of people like that: in fact, probably the majority? There's good money in that market.
I'm sure that advertising and promotion will creep into the download market but think that it will still be fairer for all. Probably radio as we know it will fade in its influence but I would expect it - or something equivalent - to stay popular in workplaces, etc.
There's tons of great music out there: Jamendo, for example. As the listening public tune in to Internet music, the chances for more people to make money increases - but I expect it to be a longer journey for them. And expect the quality of the end product to be higher:-)
That said, money will always get some further than they ought, I suspect.
Canned music is a social outlet for people also: a shared experience, so to speak. Personalised music is not so social, you're sort-of imposing it on your neighbours. Concerts demand attention;-)
You still have to get the airplay. That isn't so much about having money as about having money behind you, so to speak. I think freeing up of distribution is good news for good musicians, anyway: some who might never have got a chance in industry can still reach the public.
That depends on how you define moral realism:-)
If it's an abstract set of rules to which we should aspire in our behaviours, then bear in mind that
people learn primarlly by imitation, just like other animals
a mutation that is useful can only survive if the creature uses it, i.e. knows how to benefit from it
physical feedback mechanisims exist that enable an organism to best survive in their environment: some work very slowly - over generations - but tasks can be learnt (providing data for feedback mechanisms in the process)
mankind domesticated animals by capturing and feeding them until they calmed down
kids like to learn (I presume the reward mechanism for this is evolved)
before the invention of writing, people passed on information by memorising it - which, in turn, exercises the brain
people tell their kids bedtime stories and fables
people lie to their children (in fact, we celebrate lying to our children in a couple of months and someone who doesn't play along is a bad person)
parents teach their kids things that will help them to survive in life
I would suggest that we lie to ourselves and we know it. "Morality", in practice, being a set of behaviours that people try to adhere to (or be seen to) in various circumstances (and with varying motivations): maybe nature's feedback mechanisms will mean that there will be an increasing number of "moral" people (people who find it easy to be moral) as time goes on. The fact that we consider ourselves to be more civilised than in the past would suggest that we think it has worked up to now. But it is not long, in real terms (we don't remember it, so it must have beenlong ago!), since citizens had, for example, no police. How did we survive before then? Many would propose: "morality". There is a Policeman in all our heads, they say.
So I would see morality - in the physical realm - as a visualisation of idealised behaviour. Visualisation is very real - it is how we learn, through reinforcement.
Of course, I didn't even bother to look up "real morality", even on google. Surely real morality is as real as humans are - otherwise, what use is it to us?
Ha! Was trying to be funny - making sense is a start. I recomment previewing;-) Excuse: I'm at a course and shouldn't be typing this at all.
Rephrased, the people who have the money want to hang on to it, not use it so support people who smell...
The question "how much of our national economic capacity should we allocate to non-productive members of society?" is best answered by members of the society. "Society" is a term that refers to a specific social group. Typically, this group has a large say in the allocation of national economic capacity;-)
Maybe I shouldn't have been so presumptious. I would never presume to know another's experience of their nervous system but it reasonable to assume that he has one (i.e. he has physical components that transmit and process information that he interprets as "feeling"). If I cannot assume that the poster has a nervous system, how can I possibly relate any claim he makes about something he feels? I'm happy to call the thing that delivers what I call feeling to what I call my mind "my nervous system".
On the patent side, big companies are profiting from a scheme that was designed to provide incentives for an individual. From the individual's (employee inventor) point of view, the company is like an agency; paying him "x" for something he already earned. I suppose the solution would be for the government to act as agent for both parties and guarantee the employee index-linked (and reasonably capped) income for life from their royalties and exempt the patron company from paying royalties. If the parent company wants to be further rewarded for it's R&D, they can apply for a grant;-) This might lead to the outsourcing of innovation - but only to locations that don't play the IP game anyway. It might lead to more collusion between government and big business, the problem being that irrational innovation (e.g. bio-fuel) might be encouraged. This problem exists anyway!
As for copyright, this is a bit tricky. Creators need patronage (some governments provide grants). Having a government agency in an RIAA-like role would at least guarantee artists (and Open Source programmers) income but the system would be open to abuse by government (censorship).
The nice thing about the schemes I proposed is that profits that exceed the amount necessary for good quality of life for the creator can benefit the whole population. If they had any control over how the money was spent, that is...
You realise this is all Maths lecturers' faults? They keep on doing things like choosing arbitrary points at distance 1 from the origin. Is that random or specific?
You could say that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are equal opportunity trolls;-) It's not like they spare any organisational entity whose deeds - or the deeds of individual members - are hypocritical. If an organisation defends or covers up for a person or deed, they're in for an even greater lampooning.
Lampooned for all eternity - ooh, scary.
There are large - and increasing - numbers of people in the world who are willing to declare that they are atheists. The only thing that has prevented an atheistic organisation from being accused of the kinds of hypocricies that churches have is that no such organisation exists yet, or if one does, it has not become large enough to attract insincere members - yet.
The thing atheism (in its currently fashionable form) has in its favour is logic: an ethos that subscribes completely to rationality is, in a practical sense, taking a "lower" stance than religion or any of the other -isms and therefore more open to scrutiny (a bit like the open source ethos). This does not mean that over time there will not be high profile stories of parasitic or predatory individuals or organisations that purport to be atheistic or working in the interests of atheism. There are plenty of charlatans who claim to subscribe to other -isms.
Threads like this do the atheist cause no favours: it gives people who purport to be atheists an opportunity to deny the truth of the pope's words just because he is a member of a religious organisation. I'm not saying that he's always right but he is doing his job when he says that the use of tax havens by corporations is socially unjust and immoral because it does not serve the greater well-being of society. His job - if it is worth anything - is to serve the greater well-being of society, so he should be able to tell the difference:-) Unfortunately, his view as to what is good for society is shaped by dogma so does not correspond with reality but no religion can deny that everybody needs to eat.
If you think that the pope is hypocritical in defending the rights of poor people while sitting in a gold-plated city, well, let's say that he wouldn't be in the news if he was say, you, standing on a street corner in Manhattan, or something. We should be grateful the recent popes have been, on average, good human beings who have taken the welfare of members into some consideration (although it would appear that some - if not all - have failed to put the welfare of individual members ahead of the organisation's ability to expand), given inspiration to many (e.g. Poland) provided some (but, unfortunately, not all) with a voice in times of need and a with a sense of support simply because it has that money. I'm sure that in their convictions that they are on an upward curve towards the impending re-arrival of god, or whatever, churches don't have emergency plans for redistributing their wealth among their members in times of threat;-)
Do the corporations have a plan to redistribute wealth among those in need? Er, yes: pension plans. Pension funds are the main reason why corporations' earnings must keep on increasing, whether or not these corporations are actually producing products of worth (or worth comparable to asking price). We are working longer hours for less reward - not to mention reduced job security - so that the pension funds will be able to support us later in life (let's put aside for the moment the fact that the money we are generating is going towards current pensions, rather than our own, and that unemployment or some legal loophole may prevent us from ever getting our hands on the money we contributed, never mind the profits). Maybe somebody should explain that to the pope. Do you think he would change his mind?
Let's not delude ourselves: we put with personal injustices and impositions for the sake of being fed. We are willing for others to be subjected to greater
People will always pay for quality. Not the same - or, controversially, as many - as pay for junk. If you take the abusive elements out of the business, will more natural economics prevent talented artists from making a living?
Art and entertainment are not the same thing. There isn't an arts industry. Many classical musicians have recorded for once-off fees. They're not recording musicians, they're musicians.
Some governments support artists financially; presumably this confers some responsibility on said artists. But even if this were not to happen, surely in this era of free economics the opportunities for an artist to get patronage are higher than ever in history?
Technical innovation can be handled by the space, games, military, engineering, communications and porn industries. Entertainment will always be here but the industry will need to change shape, i.e. find something else to be industrious about;-)
As for export dollars: they're not so guaranteed these days, for various reasons...
I'd say you don't have to worry about that: readers choose which articles they read, so should be able put the word in context.
Weareallevil, mathematically.
I expect that you don't mean that 100% but thought it needed to be said.
Knowing that kind of stuff provides you with a way of helping yourself and your fellow man in life; either directly, through application, or indirectly, through having exercised your brain. You could at least help your child with homework.
It's a different kind of "roundedness".
Microsoft cannot reasonably presue individual end users for license fees by legal means. They have preferred to profit from bulk licensing and latterly patent cross-licensing. Collecting money from end users is expensive: a technological solution is preferable to legislation (which at best can only secure revenue within national boundaries).
Microsoft needs a way of delivering its products to end users in a way that guarantees them revenue; the best way is to own the software but an EULA doesn't provide enough guarantee and forced upgrading is expensive. They need a self-contained (so as to avoid lawsuits) way of delivering their software to multiple platforms: people won't just run them on PC's.
Microsoft will sell some of these devices, will have licensing/cross-licensing deals with the manufacturers of others. Even if they run Linux.
I don't think anything will end up being called GNU except GNU. GNU/Linux is Linux, GNU/Win32 is Cygwin. What will GNU/Hurd be called?
BTW can Cygwin run on WINE?
Slashdot Mirror
Radiohead don't need airplay any more. It's no accident, I'm sure, that their first hit (if not single, I wasn't paying attention) was "Creep", a song that they supposedly hate but everybody knows. If that song hadn't got the airplay it did, they wouldn't have got so big, I'm guessing. :-)
;-)
I'm not saying they wouldn't have made it big (they're not my thing but they're good) but some, if not all, might have chosen different career paths if they hadn't made it when they did (I'm speculating - know almost nothing about them!).
Airplay is good for getting music out to people who don't have the time or inclination to go out looking for it. There are a lot of people like that: in fact, probably the majority? There's good money in that market.
I'm sure that advertising and promotion will creep into the download market but think that it will still be fairer for all. Probably radio as we know it will fade in its influence but I would expect it - or something equivalent - to stay popular in workplaces, etc.
There's tons of great music out there: Jamendo, for example. As the listening public tune in to Internet music, the chances for more people to make money increases - but I expect it to be a longer journey for them. And expect the quality of the end product to be higher
That said, money will always get some further than they ought, I suspect.
Canned music is a social outlet for people also: a shared experience, so to speak. Personalised music is not so social, you're sort-of imposing it on your neighbours. Concerts demand attention
You still have to get the airplay. That isn't so much about having money as about having money behind you, so to speak. I think freeing up of distribution is good news for good musicians, anyway: some who might never have got a chance in industry can still reach the public.
If it's an abstract set of rules to which we should aspire in our behaviours, then bear in mind that
- people learn primarlly by imitation, just like other animals
- a mutation that is useful can only survive if the creature uses it, i.e. knows how to benefit from it
- physical feedback mechanisims exist that enable an organism to best survive in their environment: some work very slowly - over generations - but tasks can be learnt (providing data for feedback mechanisms in the process)
- mankind domesticated animals by capturing and feeding them until they calmed down
- kids like to learn (I presume the reward mechanism for this is evolved)
- before the invention of writing, people passed on information by memorising it - which, in turn, exercises the brain
- people tell their kids bedtime stories and fables
- people lie to their children (in fact, we celebrate lying to our children in a couple of months and someone who doesn't play along is a bad person)
- parents teach their kids things that will help them to survive in life
I would suggest that we lie to ourselves and we know it. "Morality", in practice, being a set of behaviours that people try to adhere to (or be seen to) in various circumstances (and with varying motivations): maybe nature's feedback mechanisms will mean that there will be an increasing number of "moral" people (people who find it easy to be moral) as time goes on. The fact that we consider ourselves to be more civilised than in the past would suggest that we think it has worked up to now. But it is not long, in real terms (we don't remember it, so it must have beenlong ago!), since citizens had, for example, no police. How did we survive before then? Many would propose: "morality". There is a Policeman in all our heads, they say.So I would see morality - in the physical realm - as a visualisation of idealised behaviour. Visualisation is very real - it is how we learn, through reinforcement.
Of course, I didn't even bother to look up "real morality", even on google. Surely real morality is as real as humans are - otherwise, what use is it to us?
Ha! Was trying to be funny - making sense is a start. I recomment previewing ;-) Excuse: I'm at a course and shouldn't be typing this at all.
Rephrased, the people who have the money want to hang on to it, not use it so support people who smell...
The question "how much of our national economic capacity should we allocate to non-productive members of society?" is best answered by members of the society. "Society" is a term that refers to a specific social group. Typically, this group has a large say in the allocation of national economic capacity ;-)
Watch it on YouTube.
Not funny at all.
Offtopic?
Wow, I'm suprised that this thread is still open!
Maybe I shouldn't have been so presumptious. I would never presume to know another's experience of their nervous system but it reasonable to assume that he has one (i.e. he has physical components that transmit and process information that he interprets as "feeling"). If I cannot assume that the poster has a nervous system, how can I possibly relate any claim he makes about something he feels? I'm happy to call the thing that delivers what I call feeling to what I call my mind "my nervous system".
I would suggest that you felt your mind with your nervous system: where do you go from there?
Haven't you heard of laser beans?
You mean: "If it's in space, you don't need to focus it." ;-)
I suggest that you read the rest of that sentence.
Looks like it went over two heads...
On the patent side, big companies are profiting from a scheme that was designed to provide incentives for an individual. From the individual's (employee inventor) point of view, the company is like an agency; paying him "x" for something he already earned. I suppose the solution would be for the government to act as agent for both parties and guarantee the employee index-linked (and reasonably capped) income for life from their royalties and exempt the patron company from paying royalties. If the parent company wants to be further rewarded for it's R&D, they can apply for a grant ;-) This might lead to the outsourcing of innovation - but only to locations that don't play the IP game anyway. It might lead to more collusion between government and big business, the problem being that irrational innovation (e.g. bio-fuel) might be encouraged. This problem exists anyway!
As for copyright, this is a bit tricky. Creators need patronage (some governments provide grants). Having a government agency in an RIAA-like role would at least guarantee artists (and Open Source programmers) income but the system would be open to abuse by government (censorship).
The nice thing about the schemes I proposed is that profits that exceed the amount necessary for good quality of life for the creator can benefit the whole population. If they had any control over how the money was spent, that is...
He he :-)
You realise this is all Maths lecturers' faults? They keep on doing things like choosing arbitrary points at distance 1 from the origin. Is that random or specific?
You could say that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are equal opportunity trolls ;-) It's not like they spare any organisational entity whose deeds - or the deeds of individual members - are hypocritical. If an organisation defends or covers up for a person or deed, they're in for an even greater lampooning.
:-) Unfortunately, his view as to what is good for society is shaped by dogma so does not correspond with reality but no religion can deny that everybody needs to eat.
;-)
Lampooned for all eternity - ooh, scary.
There are large - and increasing - numbers of people in the world who are willing to declare that they are atheists. The only thing that has prevented an atheistic organisation from being accused of the kinds of hypocricies that churches have is that no such organisation exists yet, or if one does, it has not become large enough to attract insincere members - yet.
The thing atheism (in its currently fashionable form) has in its favour is logic: an ethos that subscribes completely to rationality is, in a practical sense, taking a "lower" stance than religion or any of the other -isms and therefore more open to scrutiny (a bit like the open source ethos). This does not mean that over time there will not be high profile stories of parasitic or predatory individuals or organisations that purport to be atheistic or working in the interests of atheism. There are plenty of charlatans who claim to subscribe to other -isms.
Threads like this do the atheist cause no favours: it gives people who purport to be atheists an opportunity to deny the truth of the pope's words just because he is a member of a religious organisation. I'm not saying that he's always right but he is doing his job when he says that the use of tax havens by corporations is socially unjust and immoral because it does not serve the greater well-being of society. His job - if it is worth anything - is to serve the greater well-being of society, so he should be able to tell the difference
If you think that the pope is hypocritical in defending the rights of poor people while sitting in a gold-plated city, well, let's say that he wouldn't be in the news if he was say, you, standing on a street corner in Manhattan, or something. We should be grateful the recent popes have been, on average, good human beings who have taken the welfare of members into some consideration (although it would appear that some - if not all - have failed to put the welfare of individual members ahead of the organisation's ability to expand), given inspiration to many (e.g. Poland) provided some (but, unfortunately, not all) with a voice in times of need and a with a sense of support simply because it has that money. I'm sure that in their convictions that they are on an upward curve towards the impending re-arrival of god, or whatever, churches don't have emergency plans for redistributing their wealth among their members in times of threat
Do the corporations have a plan to redistribute wealth among those in need? Er, yes: pension plans. Pension funds are the main reason why corporations' earnings must keep on increasing, whether or not these corporations are actually producing products of worth (or worth comparable to asking price). We are working longer hours for less reward - not to mention reduced job security - so that the pension funds will be able to support us later in life (let's put aside for the moment the fact that the money we are generating is going towards current pensions, rather than our own, and that unemployment or some legal loophole may prevent us from ever getting our hands on the money we contributed, never mind the profits). Maybe somebody should explain that to the pope. Do you think he would change his mind?
Let's not delude ourselves: we put with personal injustices and impositions for the sake of being fed. We are willing for others to be subjected to greater
... to buy SCO out ;-)
To play around with 64-bit Java on my laptop - without installing Linux or Solaris.
People will always pay for quality. Not the same - or, controversially, as many - as pay for junk. If you take the abusive elements out of the business, will more natural economics prevent talented artists from making a living?
;-)
Art and entertainment are not the same thing. There isn't an arts industry. Many classical musicians have recorded for once-off fees. They're not recording musicians, they're musicians.
Some governments support artists financially; presumably this confers some responsibility on said artists. But even if this were not to happen, surely in this era of free economics the opportunities for an artist to get patronage are higher than ever in history?
Technical innovation can be handled by the space, games, military, engineering, communications and porn industries. Entertainment will always be here but the industry will need to change shape, i.e. find something else to be industrious about
As for export dollars: they're not so guaranteed these days, for various reasons...
XP x64 doesn't support AMD :-(
I'd say you don't have to worry about that: readers choose which articles they read, so should be able put the word in context.
We are all evil, mathematically.
I believe the umbrella term is Public Relations?
I expect that you don't mean that 100% but thought it needed to be said.
Knowing that kind of stuff provides you with a way of helping yourself and your fellow man in life; either directly, through application, or indirectly, through having exercised your brain. You could at least help your child with homework.
It's a different kind of "roundedness".
This is what happens when a target is allowed to be more important than a purpose; school staff may have to choose between their families' welfare and that of the people they are paid to help.
It's ironic that Mathematics is the subject to suffer, since it was used to create the situation.
Microsoft cannot reasonably presue individual end users for license fees by legal means. They have preferred to profit from bulk licensing and latterly patent cross-licensing. Collecting money from end users is expensive: a technological solution is preferable to legislation (which at best can only secure revenue within national boundaries).
Microsoft needs a way of delivering its products to end users in a way that guarantees them revenue; the best way is to own the software but an EULA doesn't provide enough guarantee and forced upgrading is expensive. They need a self-contained (so as to avoid lawsuits) way of delivering their software to multiple platforms: people won't just run them on PC's.
Microsoft will sell some of these devices, will have licensing/cross-licensing deals with the manufacturers of others. Even if they run Linux.
I don't think anything will end up being called GNU except GNU. GNU/Linux is Linux, GNU/Win32 is Cygwin. What will GNU/Hurd be called?
BTW can Cygwin run on WINE?