It didn't even say his grades were slipping, which is a more common video game problem
Thus sayeth the article: "Jaysen Perkins used to spend up to six hours a day running missions with the U.S. Navy Seals. Until it started hurting his social life. And his grades."
Looking for something to do in Long Beach, Ca [lbcpc.com]?
Totally offtopic, but I wish i would have seen your sig 6 months ago. My girl went to CSULB and we didn't really find anything to do without driving outside of the LBC. Ah well.
know what's funny? maybe 5 years ago I used Dialpad.com... VoIP, 'cept through your soundcard... and you could call actual phone numbers. (this was in the day before free long distance was a staple in the cell phone community).
In other news, Santa has eleminated all ELF positions from his North Pole outpost:
"Improvements in toy-making technology and the changing requirements of Today's Santa made the ELF system no longer necessary," said the news release.
A North Pole spokesman said the decision to shut down ELFs came out of an assessment concluding that improvements in technology made ELFs unnecessary.
He did it not once, but twice. Is proper spelling too much to ask? I'm not insulting his point, because it's quite good. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that people spell correctly. Come on now.
*Yes, QWERTY spreads the letters out.
*No, it wasn't because the close letters jammed. It was because _any_ letters typed quickly enough caused a jam.
*Yes, in the end it sped people up because of fewer malfunctions, but the goal was to be easy on the machine.
I disagree. It is a perfectly fine idea and in fact an ideal situation which pretty much necessarily happens.
I understand where you're coming from, and if I could give away the music I write and perform and know I'll have food and a roof over my head, I'd be more than happy. I think most artists would be. But as another poster commented, musicians are "famously poor". I'm not sugguesting that we give artist every possible dollar at every opportunity, life just doesn't work that way (have you ever at work given a potential customer useful information and then they didn't buy anything from you? It's ok. Eventually someone will pay, and you'll eat.)
In a perfect world, everyone would do what made them happy for a profession and wouldn't worry about things like bills and feeding their kids. Perhaps I'm just more of a realist than you are. I truly hope someday that your model will work.
I mean, I enjoy the plays of Shakespeare. I have several copies of them. I enjoy reading them for fun. And I don't pay a penny to Shakespeare.
On one hand, this comment is without merit because the works of Shakespeare are in the public domain, unlike music (in the context of this discussion). On the other hand it does have merit, because in his day, Shakespeare was rewarded (with 1,000 pounds by Southampton for some Sonnets, for example). I dunno. Food for thought, I suppose.
While your attempt to compare music to air is... silly to say the least, I should point out an error.
Yeah, like the air I'm exhaling. I should get paid for that because you are literally just TAKING it for your damn trees and shrubbery. THIEF!
In case you forgot (or skipped high school biology), people exhale carbon dioxide, and plants "inhale" it for photosynthesis. You're not "TAKING" it from the trees, you're helping them out.
I can't say the same for the music you might steal.
As an aside, I think your painting analogy makes more sense than mine, so props on that.
Just because someone does a job doesn't mean they have to be paid well for it, if at all.
You're absolutely right. Nobody has to buy a painting, no one must buy a CD, nobody has to buy poetry. But, it's just silly to say that if you want it you shouldn't have to pay for it. Say you loved a certain painting (also a creative piece of art) and you just took it without paying. Did you commit a crime? Of course. But more importantly, was it an immoral thing to do? Absolutely. Consuming art without compensating the artist is an absurd idea -- unless, of course, that's what the artist wants for one reason or another. Do you disagree?
for the love of god stop saying that we "owe" you something.
That's an interesting point, as you are saying precisely what you're telling artists not to say. We're saying someone who consumes our work should compensate us for it. You're saying we owe you all the free music you want. Did I misunderstand you? Can you restate your point in a less hypocritical way?
I can tell from experience that while (in the beginning) it's just awesome when someone simply "wants to hear the music" you've created, that appeal tends to wanes.
Basically, wanting people "just to hear" your stuff is inversely correlated with "time and money invested".
Believe me, after spending a solid week in a studio and dropping more than $7,000 on an album, you'd appreciate it if someone paid you the $5 for the CD you just pressed.
Eventually, someone wanting to hear your music translates into them wanting to hear it so badly that they pay for it. In a perfect world. Would-be fans who don't care to buy your stuff don't pay the bills.
The easy solution? Pipe in Musak to your business. Totally legit, and you can choose either CD distribution or live Satellite feeds. (disclaimer: Is this available in Canada?)
Ultimately, it's probably wrong/illegal for a business to purchase a CD and then play it for its customers. On the other hand, what's the difference between this and playing the radio for them? I can't see why publicly available radio broadcasts should be surcharged for this reason; they record company plays the music on the radio for all to hear anyway, so what's the big deal?
Incidentally, a retail-type business would never do what those dentists are doing anyway. Their music is carefully selected to slow a shopper's pace down and encourage more sales.
Although it's late to reply, I've got to correct you....
The the TNG season 3 cliffhanger, The Best of Both Worlds they attemped to use the dish in that manner and failed for reasons you'd have to see the episode to understand. So go see it!:)
Umm.. again, that means that low-paid public-facing staff have lost their jobs and better-paid technicians have been hired. This does not disprove my point !
Well, you might have a personal bone to pick with this ATM thing, but suffice it to say that you need to have posessed something in order to lose it. The best we can extrapolate from the article is, again, that tellers were hired at a slower rate than before -- not that anyone "lost their jobs".
Whoa there, professor. You're the one who made the comparison to outsourcing. I'm just saying your analogy is unsound. Tellers didn't lose their jobs, did they? All your math can prove is that new tellers were just hired at a slower rate, which may be important, sure. It's just not what you intended to prove.
I don't believe that. One mechanism drops the bills, another hands them out to you (hence the fact that you can't reach in the slot and grab some out of the stack). So add another hopper that has 5s, not a huge deal. Then use the same "handout mechanism".
It can be done, have you never seen a bill-changing machine?
How ironic, that a site that complains about (mainly American) tech workers losing their jobs to Indians gives favourable coverage to an inventor who made thousands of bank workers lose their jobs to a machine....
A good try, but you didn't RTFA, did you:
(from page 3) The ATM clearly fell short of expectations in one area, though. It never reduced the number of tellers or filled the demand for bank branches--something the machine's pioneers had promised. According to the FDIC's count, there are close to 75,000 branches today, up from under 58,000 in 1985. Tellers number 539,000, vs. the 484,000 in 1985
However, if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album has no choice but to break the law. [...]the logic becomes quite simple.
Speaking of logic, you committed the fallacy of the false dichotomy. A fan who wants to hear the album DOES have a choice: wait. Or download illegally.
think U2's desire is to get something out that they feel is close to a finish product rather than having an album out for months that isn't near what they wanted the final album to be. For me that's a respectable decision.
From what *I* got out of the article, the album was already in post-production. Believe me, anything of significant value rarely goes on there. They'll finish post-production and ship on time. No big deal.
Edge said they lifted "one piece of plastic". Unless the band kept their sole copy of the album on one CD - which as you know isn't the case - the album isn't gone.
I would bet real money that the post-produced version isn't significantly different than the version lifted.
Slashdot Mirror
It didn't even say his grades were slipping, which is a more common video game problem
Thus sayeth the article:
"Jaysen Perkins used to spend up to six hours a day running missions with the U.S. Navy Seals. Until it started hurting his social life. And his grades."
"...everything from SOAP stuff (ITMJ is part of OSTG) to wholesale ASP...
Uhhh.... WTF?
Looking for something to do in Long Beach, Ca [lbcpc.com]?
Totally offtopic, but I wish i would have seen your sig 6 months ago. My girl went to CSULB and we didn't really find anything to do without driving outside of the LBC. Ah well.
know what's funny? maybe 5 years ago I used Dialpad.com... VoIP, 'cept through your soundcard... and you could call actual phone numbers. (this was in the day before free long distance was a staple in the cell phone community).
The funny part?
It was free.
In other news, Santa has eleminated all ELF positions from his North Pole outpost: "Improvements in toy-making technology and the changing requirements of Today's Santa made the ELF system no longer necessary," said the news release. A North Pole spokesman said the decision to shut down ELFs came out of an assessment concluding that improvements in technology made ELFs unnecessary.
And an insult to the insult rates where?
He did it not once, but twice. Is proper spelling too much to ask? I'm not insulting his point, because it's quite good. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that people spell correctly. Come on now.
Safty First.
And spelling second.
We've got several halves of the story.
*Yes, QWERTY spreads the letters out.
*No, it wasn't because the close letters jammed. It was because _any_ letters typed quickly enough caused a jam.
*Yes, in the end it sped people up because of fewer malfunctions, but the goal was to be easy on the machine.
Sorry for the nitpicking, but I just wanted to get it straight (thanks to Cecil Adams' Straight Dope http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_248.html -- good bit on Dvorak, too)
...boy I'm glad my life isn't more like 1983! Those prices...eek!
Holy shit, $400 is more than 3 months' rent?! Man am *I* living in the wrong country.
(click his sig.)
dude, i seriously have noticed that. maybe it's:
You have to go to the bathroom. What do you do?
[Piss out the window]
[Piss on Mission]
zzzing! Dark Side points gained.
I disagree. It is a perfectly fine idea and in fact an ideal situation which pretty much necessarily happens.
I understand where you're coming from, and if I could give away the music I write and perform and know I'll have food and a roof over my head, I'd be more than happy. I think most artists would be. But as another poster commented, musicians are "famously poor". I'm not sugguesting that we give artist every possible dollar at every opportunity, life just doesn't work that way (have you ever at work given a potential customer useful information and then they didn't buy anything from you? It's ok. Eventually someone will pay, and you'll eat.)
In a perfect world, everyone would do what made them happy for a profession and wouldn't worry about things like bills and feeding their kids. Perhaps I'm just more of a realist than you are. I truly hope someday that your model will work.
I mean, I enjoy the plays of Shakespeare. I have several copies of them. I enjoy reading them for fun. And I don't pay a penny to Shakespeare.
On one hand, this comment is without merit because the works of Shakespeare are in the public domain, unlike music (in the context of this discussion). On the other hand it does have merit, because in his day, Shakespeare was rewarded (with 1,000 pounds by Southampton for some Sonnets, for example). I dunno. Food for thought, I suppose.
While your attempt to compare music to air is... silly to say the least, I should point out an error.
Yeah, like the air I'm exhaling. I should get paid for that because you are literally just TAKING it for your damn trees and shrubbery. THIEF!
In case you forgot (or skipped high school biology), people exhale carbon dioxide, and plants "inhale" it for photosynthesis. You're not "TAKING" it from the trees, you're helping them out.
I can't say the same for the music you might steal.
As an aside, I think your painting analogy makes more sense than mine, so props on that.
I guess my implied point was unclear.
Just because someone does a job doesn't mean they have to be paid well for it, if at all.
You're absolutely right. Nobody has to buy a painting, no one must buy a CD, nobody has to buy poetry. But, it's just silly to say that if you want it you shouldn't have to pay for it. Say you loved a certain painting (also a creative piece of art) and you just took it without paying. Did you commit a crime? Of course. But more importantly, was it an immoral thing to do? Absolutely. Consuming art without compensating the artist is an absurd idea -- unless, of course, that's what the artist wants for one reason or another. Do you disagree?
for the love of god stop saying that we "owe" you something.
That's an interesting point, as you are saying precisely what you're telling artists not to say. We're saying someone who consumes our work should compensate us for it. You're saying we owe you all the free music you want. Did I misunderstand you? Can you restate your point in a less hypocritical way?
I can tell from experience that while (in the beginning) it's just awesome when someone simply "wants to hear the music" you've created, that appeal tends to wanes.
Basically, wanting people "just to hear" your stuff is inversely correlated with "time and money invested".
Believe me, after spending a solid week in a studio and dropping more than $7,000 on an album, you'd appreciate it if someone paid you the $5 for the CD you just pressed.
Eventually, someone wanting to hear your music translates into them wanting to hear it so badly that they pay for it. In a perfect world. Would-be fans who don't care to buy your stuff don't pay the bills.
The easy solution? Pipe in Musak to your business. Totally legit, and you can choose either CD distribution or live Satellite feeds. (disclaimer: Is this available in Canada?)
Ultimately, it's probably wrong/illegal for a business to purchase a CD and then play it for its customers. On the other hand, what's the difference between this and playing the radio for them? I can't see why publicly available radio broadcasts should be surcharged for this reason; they record company plays the music on the radio for all to hear anyway, so what's the big deal?
Incidentally, a retail-type business would never do what those dentists are doing anyway. Their music is carefully selected to slow a shopper's pace down and encourage more sales.
Although it's late to reply, I've got to correct you....
:)
The the TNG season 3 cliffhanger, The Best of Both Worlds they attemped to use the dish in that manner and failed for reasons you'd have to see the episode to understand. So go see it!
well, here in the states they aren't :)
Umm.. again, that means that low-paid public-facing staff have lost their jobs and better-paid technicians have been hired. This does not disprove my point !
Well, you might have a personal bone to pick with this ATM thing, but suffice it to say that you need to have posessed something in order to lose it. The best we can extrapolate from the article is, again, that tellers were hired at a slower rate than before -- not that anyone "lost their jobs".
Whoa there, professor. You're the one who made the comparison to outsourcing. I'm just saying your analogy is unsound. Tellers didn't lose their jobs, did they? All your math can prove is that new tellers were just hired at a slower rate, which may be important, sure. It's just not what you intended to prove.
I don't believe that. One mechanism drops the bills, another hands them out to you (hence the fact that you can't reach in the slot and grab some out of the stack). So add another hopper that has 5s, not a huge deal. Then use the same "handout mechanism".
It can be done, have you never seen a bill-changing machine?
How ironic, that a site that complains about (mainly American) tech workers losing their jobs to Indians gives favourable coverage to an inventor who made thousands of bank workers lose their jobs to a machine....
A good try, but you didn't RTFA, did you:
(from page 3)
The ATM clearly fell short of expectations in one area, though. It never reduced the number of tellers or filled the demand for bank branches--something the machine's pioneers had promised. According to the FDIC's count, there are close to 75,000 branches today, up from under 58,000 in 1985. Tellers number 539,000, vs. the 484,000 in 1985
It's a fantastic invention, indeed...
But it'll be much, much cooler when I can snag $10 or $15 or $75 out of the machine. Why do we get only 20s?
However, if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album has no choice but to break the law.
[...]the logic becomes quite simple.
Speaking of logic, you committed the fallacy of the false dichotomy. A fan who wants to hear the album DOES have a choice: wait. Or download illegally.
Downloading is never the ONLY option.
think U2's desire is to get something out that they feel is close to a finish product rather than having an album out for months that isn't near what they wanted the final album to be. For me that's a respectable decision.
From what *I* got out of the article, the album was already in post-production. Believe me, anything of significant value rarely goes on there. They'll finish post-production and ship on time. No big deal.
Edge said they lifted "one piece of plastic". Unless the band kept their sole copy of the album on one CD - which as you know isn't the case - the album isn't gone.
I would bet real money that the post-produced version isn't significantly different than the version lifted.