Thanks to all of you guys... this has been hilarious to read.
I think the funniest thing is that all of you are at least partially correct.
Here's a little idea... take a walk, clear your heads, and try to think about how the other 'side' could have a valid point, even though it doesn't exactly agree with yours.
It just seems to me that most of these debates get so heated and out of control because the people involved in them are too close-minded to realize that there is a chance that their own opinion may not be 100% correct, or complete. It's like fricking Congress... Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other, and NOTHING gets done. Here's the thought process, IMHO:
"I am right and you are wrong"... "I may not be right, but you are still wrong"... "You may be partially correct, but I'll be God damned if I'm going to admit it to you"
But ya know... why should I be telling you this? If you all take my advice I won't be able to laugh at your posts... hmn... yeah, I know... that was a bit condescending. Maybe I'm hoping I get some juicy replies to this... that I can laugh at.:)
I guess time will tell, maybe no one will reply because they have taken my advice, and world peace will ensue!!!! well anyhow... off to bed.
these "remote control" type programs will allow the RIAA to delete any files on your computer whether you're currently sharing them or not.
and it isn't illegal to make your files available for download... it's illegal to download the file if you don't already own it. I can make all of my mp3 files available for download on my home machine so if I want to access them from another computer I can. There is not a single thing illegal about that! And there is no way for anyone other than myself to know if I actually own a cd that contains the song currently stored as an mp3 on my computer.
Think about it, man... that's the whole reason I posted what I did... I didn't really want to see the algorithm for this. I was trying to make a point, that this algorithm couldn't exist.
maybe you should apply to work for the RIAA, I think you've got the required equipment upstairs.
I'd sure like to see their algorithm for determining which music files are illegal.
I mean, I know there are a lot of stupid people out there... but each time I hear about the latest thing the RIAA has done, I think that they couldn't get any dumber. They continuously prove me wrong, though.
Congress has to be aware of these things... why don't they do something about it? Do they bet each other on what's coming next and just sit back and laugh at the current blunder?
Well, you're sort of right about the de facto standard... *technically* it's illegal, they can get around it now in a way similar to what happens with lobbyists and congress. Basically it's all bullshit... political crap.
I don't think you're taking into account the possibility of new songs being fed into the program in order to reformulate what a "hit" is. I'm not saying this program has this capability... I have no idea, but it would be a pretty damn big design flaw to have not considered that.
I believe music can at least partially be broken down mathematically, but that's just the underlying composition... not necessarily the tone, texture, or style of the vocals... you've also got to look at the appearance of the performers. You can't deny the fact that more people like britney's music because she's hot. Also, it's believed that certain sound waves and frequencies are more pleasing to the brain than others. There was an article linked to here a while back detailing experiments conducted on out of range frequencies being emitted and resulting in emotional responses of the listeners.
You won't have to mourn creativity's death ever. Weezer's music doesn't sound just like Nirvana's does it? Everyone can still put their own little spin on things... musicians have been "borrowing" other musicians' songwriting techniques for years. This program is just a form of artificial intelligence.
Rivers uses a mathematical formula when writing his songs based on songs by several bands including Nirvana. As a huge Weezer fan, I'd have to say he's on to something. He's talked candidly about it in interviews. I'm at least fairly interested in what comes of this.
As far as the media telling you what you'll be listening to... You've got a point, but it's slowly eroding away. Payolla (sp) is now illegal. With all the attention companies like Clear Channel have gotten for owning such a high percentage of the nation's radio stations could soon result in regulation. Then we've got those nasty little P2P file sharing networks lurking around with mp3z to download. *wink*
You've got to face the fact that these record companies and radio stations only care about the money. If they can run a program that will reliably tell them if song A is more likely to be a hit than song B... maybe they can spend less money on promoting song A and get the same results as if they had released song B with extra money for promotion. That's just common sense, man.
Maybe in a perfect world... Unfortunately, the "quality" you speak of is largely obtained through the use of "quality" equipment.
Ya know how they say, "You get what you pay for?"
Well, in this case it is true. Just the microphones alone make an incredible difference in overall sound quality. I've just been finishing up a recording as a singer and the mic I used earlier was about $400. I needed to do some overdubs and went to a friend's house that has a $2000 mic, and you can tell the difference.
Aside from that you've got your preamps and effects units... sure you can use the inserts or plug-ins for your favorite software like Pro Tools, but it's just not the same. And you can hear the difference.
You've also got mics that are designed for a specific instrument, so you need all kinds of mics for the drum kit alone.
I just don't think it's an accurate statement to dismiss equipment as a large cost. In the case of bands that do their own recordings, they have most likely built up their collection of equipment over a large time period... but it still has to be figured into the cost.
1.) Device Drivers - most companies have drivers for everything BUT linux. I will, however, note that with my Gigabyte GA-7VRXP mobo with a Promise ATA/133 controller embedded no distro of linux would recognize it. Then I found Mandrake 9 beta 4... installed without a hitch and has run perfectly for me since then. M$ WindowsXP Professional wouldn't even recognize it... I had to change the setting in the bios to ATA/33, then install and then go back into the bios and change it. This has been my major gripe with using linux... I've since changed my opinioin.
2.) Kazaa, Nero, and Pro Tools. I haven't been able to find a comparable file sharing p2p app under linux... anyone that knows of one... let me know, I would appreciate it greatly! Granted, I haven't messed around with cd-burning under linux much, but Nero is just so easy to use and I've loved it ever since I first used it. Pro Tools is audio recording / mixing software... pretty much industry standard. I can't get the free version to work under WindowsXP, either. So I have to keep Windows 98 SE around as well. Again, any suggestions on audio recording / mixing software for linux would be great.
3.) Games. I did get Quake2 running under linux, but it still wasn't as easy to run and I couldn't find some of the drivers that I needed to use anything but software mode for video. Also, I play Bridge on yahoo games website. It won't load the app with Mozilla or Opera under linux... haven't really investigated why... but this is one of my reasons for using Windows.
Aside from these reasons, I stay under linux all the time now.
Again, if anyone can offer suggestions / alternatives to my above reasons, I would be more than happy to hear them.
You're missing a vital point here... the word "copy".
If someone loans his car to a friend, then he can't use the car at the same time. You can't make a "copy" of a car like you can a computer program.
If someone uses program X and burns a copy onto a cd and gives it to his friend... they can BOTH use it at the same time. Therein lies the problem and what I would believe to be the software author's biggest objection.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and would love to see it done away with... but after stopping to think about it, I don't see it as really possible without consequences for everyone. In the long run, little annoyances like this that get complained about until the government or whoever does something about it, lead to more and more restrictions and more and more freedoms being taken away.
We need to stop and think, "Is it really worth it to give up more of our freedom just to get rid of a few emails that you can easily delete without ever having to read them?" Also, we need to ask ourselves if we think we can really eliminate this problem anyhow. How are we going to be able to determine exactly what constitutes spam? And what happens when some business receives an email from someone requesting information and sends them an email in reply about their products. It could be the case that person forgot they ever requested the info or that someone entirely different submitted the request under a fake name. How can it ever really be proved?
As a developer myself, I have given a lot of thought to protection schemes and what-not, but really feel like it may not be worth the effort at a certain point...
Is there a "magical" formula that can approximate the amount of time and money that goes into protecting your software from being copied? I firmly believe that no matter how hard a person/corporation tries, they're never going to come up with something that can't eventually be cracked. I also believe that it is reasonable to spend some time and money on protecting your software, at least from the everyday user. The amount of people that can/do crack some of these protection schemes is small in relation to the total number of users in most cases. If a person/company can at least protect his software from the masses... then maybe that's good enough at a certain point? I tend to believe that's why the RIAA has really been up in arms about all of this... ever since Napster become so popular and so easy to use that all of the non-technical people could also pirate music.
I guess my question is mainly "do you think it is worth the RIAA's effort and investment to protect music from being copied? And at what point would/wouldn't it be worth it?"
Thanks,
thundercatzlair
Slashdot Mirror
Now *that* is funny .
:)
Thanks to all of you guys... this has been hilarious to read.
I think the funniest thing is that all of you are at least partially correct.
Here's a little idea... take a walk, clear your heads, and try to think about how the other 'side' could have a valid point, even though it doesn't exactly agree with yours.
It just seems to me that most of these debates get so heated and out of control because the people involved in them are too close-minded to realize that there is a chance that their own opinion may not be 100% correct, or complete. It's like fricking Congress... Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other, and NOTHING gets done. Here's the thought process, IMHO:
"I am right and you are wrong"...
"I may not be right, but you are still wrong"...
"You may be partially correct, but I'll be God damned if I'm going to admit it to you"
But ya know... why should I be telling you this? If you all take my advice I won't be able to laugh at your posts... hmn... yeah, I know... that was a bit condescending. Maybe I'm hoping I get some juicy replies to this... that I can laugh at.
I guess time will tell, maybe no one will reply because they have taken my advice, and world peace will ensue!!!! well anyhow... off to bed.
are you dense?
these "remote control" type programs will allow the RIAA to delete any files on your computer whether you're currently sharing them or not.
and it isn't illegal to make your files available for download... it's illegal to download the file if you don't already own it. I can make all of my mp3 files available for download on my home machine so if I want to access them from another computer I can. There is not a single thing illegal about that! And there is no way for anyone other than myself to know if I actually own a cd that contains the song currently stored as an mp3 on my computer.
Think about it, man... that's the whole reason I posted what I did... I didn't really want to see the algorithm for this. I was trying to make a point, that this algorithm couldn't exist.
maybe you should apply to work for the RIAA, I think you've got the required equipment upstairs.
delete music files determined to be illegal
I'd sure like to see their algorithm for determining which music files are illegal.
I mean, I know there are a lot of stupid people out there... but each time I hear about the latest thing the RIAA has done, I think that they couldn't get any dumber. They continuously prove me wrong, though.
Congress has to be aware of these things... why don't they do something about it? Do they bet each other on what's coming next and just sit back and laugh at the current blunder?
It's beyond me.
Well, you're sort of right about the de facto standard... *technically* it's illegal, they can get around it now in a way similar to what happens with lobbyists and congress. Basically it's all bullshit... political crap.
I don't think you're taking into account the possibility of new songs being fed into the program in order to reformulate what a "hit" is. I'm not saying this program has this capability... I have no idea, but it would be a pretty damn big design flaw to have not considered that.
I believe music can at least partially be broken down mathematically, but that's just the underlying composition... not necessarily the tone, texture, or style of the vocals... you've also got to look at the appearance of the performers. You can't deny the fact that more people like britney's music because she's hot. Also, it's believed that certain sound waves and frequencies are more pleasing to the brain than others. There was an article linked to here a while back detailing experiments conducted on out of range frequencies being emitted and resulting in emotional responses of the listeners.
You won't have to mourn creativity's death ever. Weezer's music doesn't sound just like Nirvana's does it? Everyone can still put their own little spin on things... musicians have been "borrowing" other musicians' songwriting techniques for years. This program is just a form of artificial intelligence.
thundercatzlair
Rivers uses a mathematical formula when writing his songs based on songs by several bands including Nirvana. As a huge Weezer fan, I'd have to say he's on to something. He's talked candidly about it in interviews. I'm at least fairly interested in what comes of this.
As far as the media telling you what you'll be listening to...
You've got a point, but it's slowly eroding away. Payolla (sp) is now illegal. With all the attention companies like Clear Channel have gotten for owning such a high percentage of the nation's radio stations could soon result in regulation. Then we've got those nasty little P2P file sharing networks lurking around with mp3z to download. *wink*
You've got to face the fact that these record companies and radio stations only care about the money. If they can run a program that will reliably tell them if song A is more likely to be a hit than song B... maybe they can spend less money on promoting song A and get the same results as if they had released song B with extra money for promotion. That's just common sense, man.
thundercatzlair
but for the most part the recording was free!
Maybe in a perfect world...
Unfortunately, the "quality" you speak of is largely obtained through the use of "quality" equipment.
Ya know how they say, "You get what you pay for?"
Well, in this case it is true. Just the microphones alone make an incredible difference in overall sound quality. I've just been finishing up a recording as a singer and the mic I used earlier was about $400. I needed to do some overdubs and went to a friend's house that has a $2000 mic, and you can tell the difference.
Aside from that you've got your preamps and effects units... sure you can use the inserts or plug-ins for your favorite software like Pro Tools, but it's just not the same. And you can hear the difference.
You've also got mics that are designed for a specific instrument, so you need all kinds of mics for the drum kit alone.
I just don't think it's an accurate statement to dismiss equipment as a large cost. In the case of bands that do their own recordings, they have most likely built up their collection of equipment over a large time period... but it still has to be figured into the cost.
thundercatzlair
The only reasons I switch over to Windows
1.) Device Drivers - most companies have drivers for everything BUT linux. I will, however, note that with my Gigabyte GA-7VRXP mobo with a Promise ATA/133 controller embedded no distro of linux would recognize it. Then I found Mandrake 9 beta 4... installed without a hitch and has run perfectly for me since then. M$ WindowsXP Professional wouldn't even recognize it... I had to change the setting in the bios to ATA/33, then install and then go back into the bios and change it. This has been my major gripe with using linux... I've since changed my opinioin.
2.) Kazaa, Nero, and Pro Tools. I haven't been able to find a comparable file sharing p2p app under linux... anyone that knows of one... let me know, I would appreciate it greatly! Granted, I haven't messed around with cd-burning under linux much, but Nero is just so easy to use and I've loved it ever since I first used it. Pro Tools is audio recording / mixing software... pretty much industry standard. I can't get the free version to work under WindowsXP, either. So I have to keep Windows 98 SE around as well. Again, any suggestions on audio recording / mixing software for linux would be great.
3.) Games. I did get Quake2 running under linux, but it still wasn't as easy to run and I couldn't find some of the drivers that I needed to use anything but software mode for video. Also, I play Bridge on yahoo games website. It won't load the app with Mozilla or Opera under linux... haven't really investigated why... but this is one of my reasons for using Windows.
Aside from these reasons, I stay under linux all the time now.
Again, if anyone can offer suggestions / alternatives to my above reasons, I would be more than happy to hear them.
thundercatzlair
You're missing a vital point here... the word "copy".
If someone loans his car to a friend, then he can't use the car at the same time. You can't make a "copy" of a car like you can a computer program.
If someone uses program X and burns a copy onto a cd and gives it to his friend... they can BOTH use it at the same time. Therein lies the problem and what I would believe to be the software author's biggest objection.
just something to think about...
later,
thundercatzlair
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and would love to see it done away with... but after stopping to think about it, I don't see it as really possible without consequences for everyone. In the long run, little annoyances like this that get complained about until the government or whoever does something about it, lead to more and more restrictions and more and more freedoms being taken away.
We need to stop and think, "Is it really worth it to give up more of our freedom just to get rid of a few emails that you can easily delete without ever having to read them?" Also, we need to ask ourselves if we think we can really eliminate this problem anyhow. How are we going to be able to determine exactly what constitutes spam? And what happens when some business receives an email from someone requesting information and sends them an email in reply about their products. It could be the case that person forgot they ever requested the info or that someone entirely different submitted the request under a fake name. How can it ever really be proved?
I just don't think it's worth pursuing...
later,
thundercatzlair
One odd thing, though, unlike Pompeii, they haven't found bodies in Nola
They pr'y saw the lava coming and said "let's get the hell outta here"...
As a developer myself, I have given a lot of thought to protection schemes and what-not, but really feel like it may not be worth the effort at a certain point... Is there a "magical" formula that can approximate the amount of time and money that goes into protecting your software from being copied? I firmly believe that no matter how hard a person/corporation tries, they're never going to come up with something that can't eventually be cracked. I also believe that it is reasonable to spend some time and money on protecting your software, at least from the everyday user. The amount of people that can/do crack some of these protection schemes is small in relation to the total number of users in most cases. If a person/company can at least protect his software from the masses... then maybe that's good enough at a certain point? I tend to believe that's why the RIAA has really been up in arms about all of this... ever since Napster become so popular and so easy to use that all of the non-technical people could also pirate music. I guess my question is mainly "do you think it is worth the RIAA's effort and investment to protect music from being copied? And at what point would/wouldn't it be worth it?" Thanks, thundercatzlair