I'm curious on how binding contracts are between artists and labels. I wonder if artists are able to simply go directly to iTunes instead of the big 3 music distributors to get their music out. Of course the downside of that would be that their distribution would be primarily digital and they wouldn't get all the marketing and leverage of a big distribution company.
You're right in that no single vendor is responsible, but you're wrong in that it means that a company can't be liable.
Similar analogies can be made towards anything that is built. When Ford builds a car, they don't create every nut, bolt and beam in the car. They probably buy a lot of the parts from third-party manufacturers and assemble them together. This is true for many products out there.
An analogy closer to home, is the system my friend's company puts out. They treat cancer tumors using some custom hardware run with custom software. But this software runs on windows and some computer hardware they purchase. However, there is a standard configuration for windows and the hardware that's approved by some governing federal medical agency to prevent any foul ups.
Depending on the situation, the assembler is or isn't liable. In the case of my friend's company, they aren't liable since this computer setup has been approved by a large, governing, official body. What about the case where Ford Explorer's had tires from another manufacturer and those tires exploded? Is Ford liable or the tire manufacturers? This is what our court system is for.
Clarification found on the web related to the other replier:
Use Tax
In addition to the sales tax, many states also have a use tax. A use tax is very similar to a sales tax and is imposed for the storage, use, or purchase of personal property which is not covered by the sales tax. Usually, it is applied to lease or rental transactions, or to major items purchased outside of the state, such as automobiles.
Anybody feel free to chime in and correct me, but I believe that by law when you buy a car in another state you have to pay the sales tax of the state where you live. I believe the point of this was to prevent people from going to other states and avoiding their home states sales tax (which is enormous when it comes to a car).
No, that would never fly. And the reason is because commerce (and ecommerce) is so heavily concentrated in certain parts of America. Divying up these profits among 50 states would be insanity. This sort of logic only works out if there are other forms of tax that would give the impression that all states contribute equally (per capita or whatever).
- Kids between the age of 12 and 24 shoplift 75% more than those belonging older than 24. The same statistic show that people over 24 make more money than 12 year old and have dispensible income (and they tend to be more mature.
- 50% of adults over 24 have no idea what file sharing is.
- 27% of younger would consider cheating on an exam. Those over 24 wouldn't.. considering they don't take exams anymore.
These "statistics" are absolutely retarded. Young people in general shoplift more, use computers more, use file sharing more, cheat on exams, etc etc. That's why we call them IMMATURE. Once people grow up, go through college and get a job they respect what it takes to earn money. PLUS they have money to spend. As an adult I can afford to buy whatever albums I want. As a child I didn't. I had a bunch of friends stealing when I was a kid who don't steal anymore... it's what kids do.
With all the Google stories lately, there's always the inevitable comment: "Why do we LOVE Google and HATE Microsoft?" This is an example why. They do cool things, work on ideas beneficial to the public and they're collaborating with an agency that's respected by the American public.
With that said, I'm trying to understand Google's roll in this. I don't think it's completely selfless. Considering how much data NASA has to process, I think Google's tools fit right in (since they, too, have so much data they have to process). One tool that I read about long ago that aids them is the GoogleFS.
Other ways that this could potentially be beneficial is the other tools that may need to be built that are parallel with Google's goals (more data management). And I'm guessing that they also see this as a way of contributing towards a dying space program.
Organizations like the World Bank and other large NGOs are already accomplishing this. You can easily find the stats online, but they are active and successfully feeding them, getting them clean water and helping them build more stable shelters. Just because you see a poor kid on tv with some hotline number doesn't mean these issues aren't being addressed.
This may not be practical for a tribe in the middle of the desert, but there are many modernized countries filled with poor people. This would be useful for them.
Many ad-hoc studies have shown that people, especially inquisitive kids, are quite adept at figuring out how computers work. And I'm talking about kids who have 0 experience with computers. They figure out that the icons launch applications, etc etc. It's really quite amazing and if you're interested I'm sure it'll be easy for you to search on it rather than making a blanket statement based simply on your opinion and anecdotal experiences.
Secondly, we already have organizations like the World Bank and other NGOs that work on bringing them direct aid for things like food, water, wells and shelter. If you read up on how much the World Bank accomplishes you'd be amazed.
I think it's great that we provide them with the ability to get an education and close the gaps of information. This might not be the most practical thing for a tribe that's in the middle of the desert, but there are many poor countries that are NOT third world but don't have access to computers and this would serve them very well.
I've recommended some friends/family to switch over to FireFox. The people who don't are usually those that either 1) love Microsoft with a passion and wouldnt' use anything otherwise or 2) too lazy to try something new. Typical the group in 2) are also people who still use Hotmail (wtf?!). But you can't blame people for sticking with something they know.. no matter how horrible it is.:\
As consumers, we fulfill our roles as critics. We're granted that role when we shell out $10 at the movies. Why would we want to produce content when that isn't our job? You make no sense.
I've never used LiveJournal so that's interesting to hear. I wouldn't say that a blog necessarily hinges on the commenting system. I am saying that, in general, categorization is based on functionality.
So maybe Slashdot is a blog. I think I was hinting towards that when I mentioned that the threading/commenting style of Slashdot is not optimal for small group interactivity. That's what I meant by read-only. I didn't mean it in the strictest sense, but sort of loosely. I also said this in the context of comparing it to chat or forums where the core functionality is interactive, read-write chat/replying.
Chat is for real time, but not easy to go back and view previous comments. Galleries are primarily for images. Knowledge management is usually primarily for read-only with some user feedback, but content that rarely changes.
A blog is for content that changes approximately once a day/week. It's mostly read-only (with a few comments) and not made for easy, real-time interaction. It's also typically consumed through feeds.
I wouldn't really classify Slashdot as a blog. While you have a single-threaded story/blog entry type of publishing, the commenting system is an order of magnitude more complex than what you would find on a typical blog. A typical blog only allows single-threaded responses to the original story. Slashdot allows comments as responses to other comments. It adds a whole other dimension of interactivity.
Even with this additional dimension I would humbly say that it's not really the optimal form of interactivity. Nay -- let me rephrase that. It lends itself to a certain style of commenting and itneractivity. All old posts typically get moved to the bottom, and the more popular a topic is the more likely you won't read down to the bottom posts. It's very transient.
As far as whether indexing is evil, not inherently. Neither is providing the OS to 90+% of the personal computers out there, inherently. It's all in what you do with it.
Right! And that's where Microsoft has a track record of acting "evil" but Google doesn't. There's no point to get into details but I'm talking Microsoft leveraging it's OS monopoly in order to crush the competition and take part in some unfriendly business practices.
Google, admittedly, is young and has a lot of time and opportunity to show evil. In my opinion, they haven't yet.
Google has been buying lots of companies lately. I wouldn't say it's from a lack of innovation, but a need to fill complementing technologies quickly instead of building everything from the ground-up. This makes sense as far as leveraging the money they have now. I just hope that it doesn't become their primary means of acquiring technology. So, with that, we'll have to see.
Just to clarify, I'd say a big difference is how you use them. Taking you Slashdot example, Slashdot is used for threading based on stories. This is very much how blog works. Instead of stories you have blog entries. I think the main difference is the commenting structure. Blogs are meant for single-threaded comments, not optimized for commenting. Slashdot's commenting system is orders above what I've ever seen on a blog.
To me, it has more to do with structure than content. Slashdot comes very close to just being a blog for the geek community (not any one person) that revolves around articles, book reviews, interviews, etc.
A webpage with management tools? That's taking the lowest common denominator.
You might as well call forums, chat, galleries, content management systems, and everything else on the web "webpages with management tools."
All of these differ in how the content is presented, the nature of that content, and how it's consumed. Forums are meant for a broad arrange of topics. Threads are meant for easy online conversation but not really meant for real time.
Chat is for real time, but not easy to go back and view previous comments. Galleries are primarily for images. Knowledge management is usually primarily for read-only with some user feedback, but content that rarely changes.
A blog is for content that changes approximately once a day/week. It's mostly read-only (with a few comments) and not made for easy, real-time interaction. It's also typically consumed through feeds.
I would contend that it is a blog. It's a log that's put on the web right?
I don't think blog's are necessarily journals or online diaries, like many people use them for. It's also a way of distributing information that's temporal in nature and which is typically subscribed by other people. I think this differs from other content in that it is structurally meant to be consumed as a single stream on a daily/weekly basis. It has snippets of content easy for consumption.
My impressions of Gates/Ballmer vs Brin/Page (thus far) is that Gates/Ballmer are on a power trip. Maybe I've watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley one too many times, but my impression also comes from their business practices.
So far I haven't seen Brin/Page act this way. Yes, they've bought some companies but it's really in the sense that these business complement theirs.
I'll never forget the day IE was offered for free in order to CRUSH Netscape (back in 1996). When Google starts doing this THEN I'll be scared.
So I wouldn't say it's the greed that gets to these people. These people will have more money than they will ever need in a lifetime. It's the corruption of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Slashdot Mirror
Curious. Do bikes have the same emission policies (adjusted for being smaller engines of course) as cars?
I don't know man. A Smartcar is one of the last things I want to be in when someone else's Yukon or Suburban comes barreling down the road. ;)
Yeah. Unfortunately iTunes is only digital distribution and considering how much profit is made from CD sales it's probably not much of a good idea. :\
Or we will simply hold them for ransom until the next UN resolution.
I'm curious on how binding contracts are between artists and labels. I wonder if artists are able to simply go directly to iTunes instead of the big 3 music distributors to get their music out. Of course the downside of that would be that their distribution would be primarily digital and they wouldn't get all the marketing and leverage of a big distribution company.
You're right in that no single vendor is responsible, but you're wrong in that it means that a company can't be liable.
Similar analogies can be made towards anything that is built. When Ford builds a car, they don't create every nut, bolt and beam in the car. They probably buy a lot of the parts from third-party manufacturers and assemble them together. This is true for many products out there.
An analogy closer to home, is the system my friend's company puts out. They treat cancer tumors using some custom hardware run with custom software. But this software runs on windows and some computer hardware they purchase. However, there is a standard configuration for windows and the hardware that's approved by some governing federal medical agency to prevent any foul ups.
Depending on the situation, the assembler is or isn't liable. In the case of my friend's company, they aren't liable since this computer setup has been approved by a large, governing, official body. What about the case where Ford Explorer's had tires from another manufacturer and those tires exploded? Is Ford liable or the tire manufacturers? This is what our court system is for.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/
Anybody feel free to chime in and correct me, but I believe that by law when you buy a car in another state you have to pay the sales tax of the state where you live. I believe the point of this was to prevent people from going to other states and avoiding their home states sales tax (which is enormous when it comes to a car).
No, that would never fly. And the reason is because commerce (and ecommerce) is so heavily concentrated in certain parts of America. Divying up these profits among 50 states would be insanity. This sort of logic only works out if there are other forms of tax that would give the impression that all states contribute equally (per capita or whatever).
- Kids between the age of 12 and 24 shoplift 75% more than those belonging older than 24. The same statistic show that people over 24 make more money than 12 year old and have dispensible income (and they tend to be more mature.
- 50% of adults over 24 have no idea what file sharing is.
- 27% of younger would consider cheating on an exam. Those over 24 wouldn't.. considering they don't take exams anymore.
These "statistics" are absolutely retarded. Young people in general shoplift more, use computers more, use file sharing more, cheat on exams, etc etc. That's why we call them IMMATURE. Once people grow up, go through college and get a job they respect what it takes to earn money. PLUS they have money to spend. As an adult I can afford to buy whatever albums I want. As a child I didn't. I had a bunch of friends stealing when I was a kid who don't steal anymore... it's what kids do.
.. that I read Slashdot more than the ops do? Just a thought.
.. play-by-play of the growing relationship with Google and Nasa? Because 2 stories in 1 day is certainly not enough for me.
With all the Google stories lately, there's always the inevitable comment: "Why do we LOVE Google and HATE Microsoft?" This is an example why. They do cool things, work on ideas beneficial to the public and they're collaborating with an agency that's respected by the American public.
With that said, I'm trying to understand Google's roll in this. I don't think it's completely selfless. Considering how much data NASA has to process, I think Google's tools fit right in (since they, too, have so much data they have to process). One tool that I read about long ago that aids them is the GoogleFS.
Other ways that this could potentially be beneficial is the other tools that may need to be built that are parallel with Google's goals (more data management). And I'm guessing that they also see this as a way of contributing towards a dying space program.
Organizations like the World Bank and other large NGOs are already accomplishing this. You can easily find the stats online, but they are active and successfully feeding them, getting them clean water and helping them build more stable shelters. Just because you see a poor kid on tv with some hotline number doesn't mean these issues aren't being addressed.
This may not be practical for a tribe in the middle of the desert, but there are many modernized countries filled with poor people. This would be useful for them.
Many ad-hoc studies have shown that people, especially inquisitive kids, are quite adept at figuring out how computers work. And I'm talking about kids who have 0 experience with computers. They figure out that the icons launch applications, etc etc. It's really quite amazing and if you're interested I'm sure it'll be easy for you to search on it rather than making a blanket statement based simply on your opinion and anecdotal experiences.
Secondly, we already have organizations like the World Bank and other NGOs that work on bringing them direct aid for things like food, water, wells and shelter. If you read up on how much the World Bank accomplishes you'd be amazed.
I think it's great that we provide them with the ability to get an education and close the gaps of information. This might not be the most practical thing for a tribe that's in the middle of the desert, but there are many poor countries that are NOT third world but don't have access to computers and this would serve them very well.
I've recommended some friends/family to switch over to FireFox. The people who don't are usually those that either 1) love Microsoft with a passion and wouldnt' use anything otherwise or 2) too lazy to try something new. Typical the group in 2) are also people who still use Hotmail (wtf?!). But you can't blame people for sticking with something they know.. no matter how horrible it is. :\
Typical American media sensationalism. Nothing new. Move on. :)
As consumers, we fulfill our roles as critics. We're granted that role when we shell out $10 at the movies. Why would we want to produce content when that isn't our job? You make no sense.
So maybe Slashdot is a blog. I think I was hinting towards that when I mentioned that the threading/commenting style of Slashdot is not optimal for small group interactivity. That's what I meant by read-only. I didn't mean it in the strictest sense, but sort of loosely. I also said this in the context of comparing it to chat or forums where the core functionality is interactive, read-write chat/replying.
I wouldn't really classify Slashdot as a blog. While you have a single-threaded story/blog entry type of publishing, the commenting system is an order of magnitude more complex than what you would find on a typical blog. A typical blog only allows single-threaded responses to the original story. Slashdot allows comments as responses to other comments. It adds a whole other dimension of interactivity.
Even with this additional dimension I would humbly say that it's not really the optimal form of interactivity. Nay -- let me rephrase that. It lends itself to a certain style of commenting and itneractivity. All old posts typically get moved to the bottom, and the more popular a topic is the more likely you won't read down to the bottom posts. It's very transient.
Google, admittedly, is young and has a lot of time and opportunity to show evil. In my opinion, they haven't yet.
Google has been buying lots of companies lately. I wouldn't say it's from a lack of innovation, but a need to fill complementing technologies quickly instead of building everything from the ground-up. This makes sense as far as leveraging the money they have now. I just hope that it doesn't become their primary means of acquiring technology. So, with that, we'll have to see.
Just to clarify, I'd say a big difference is how you use them. Taking you Slashdot example, Slashdot is used for threading based on stories. This is very much how blog works. Instead of stories you have blog entries. I think the main difference is the commenting structure. Blogs are meant for single-threaded comments, not optimized for commenting. Slashdot's commenting system is orders above what I've ever seen on a blog.
To me, it has more to do with structure than content. Slashdot comes very close to just being a blog for the geek community (not any one person) that revolves around articles, book reviews, interviews, etc.
A webpage with management tools? That's taking the lowest common denominator.
You might as well call forums, chat, galleries, content management systems, and everything else on the web "webpages with management tools."
All of these differ in how the content is presented, the nature of that content, and how it's consumed. Forums are meant for a broad arrange of topics. Threads are meant for easy online conversation but not really meant for real time.
Chat is for real time, but not easy to go back and view previous comments. Galleries are primarily for images. Knowledge management is usually primarily for read-only with some user feedback, but content that rarely changes.
A blog is for content that changes approximately once a day/week. It's mostly read-only (with a few comments) and not made for easy, real-time interaction. It's also typically consumed through feeds.
I see a difference here.
I would contend that it is a blog. It's a log that's put on the web right?
I don't think blog's are necessarily journals or online diaries, like many people use them for. It's also a way of distributing information that's temporal in nature and which is typically subscribed by other people. I think this differs from other content in that it is structurally meant to be consumed as a single stream on a daily/weekly basis. It has snippets of content easy for consumption.
My impressions of Gates/Ballmer vs Brin/Page (thus far) is that Gates/Ballmer are on a power trip. Maybe I've watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley one too many times, but my impression also comes from their business practices.
So far I haven't seen Brin/Page act this way. Yes, they've bought some companies but it's really in the sense that these business complement theirs.
I'll never forget the day IE was offered for free in order to CRUSH Netscape (back in 1996). When Google starts doing this THEN I'll be scared.
So I wouldn't say it's the greed that gets to these people. These people will have more money than they will ever need in a lifetime. It's the corruption of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.