I like classical music, but I'm not interested in that. Solo strings is all kinds of not my thing.
Since you like classical, I encourage you to check it out... it's just solo in the sense of one performer, but not in the sense of the Bach suites or Paganini caprices. She layers several recordings on top of each other using looping software*, so it's music that, without technology, would require an ensemble to play.
(* I think most of her stuff is done through looping, but there are some tracks, including my favorite, where I don't see how that's possible; there are too many layers too soon. So I'm not quite sure what the rules she uses are exactly; maybe sometimes she's fine using tracks that can't be played live, or the "extra" layers are from earlier on that album, or something like that.)
I'm not saying you'll necessarily like it of course, but I think it's great. (In fact, I played cello back in elementary through high school but sort of fell out of it. There are a handful of artists who have inspired me to get it back out and play a little bit a couple times a week, and Zoe is one of them. That's why I've gone a bit overboard defending her -- her attitude toward the Spotify income is way less negative than the article implies it is.)
No crush in that sense; she's not my type anyway. And the fact that people are still making the posts I'm replying to is direct evidence that you (as a group) don't get it.
The alternative is to switch to a job that actually pays money. Frankly, she should quit her whining. A cellist?
Sigh. For the nth time in this thread, the article was misrepresenting her opinion and she is not negative on streaming. Her data dump was much more in the style of "here's information so you can have a more intelligent conversation" than "wah wah Spotify should be giving me more money". At this point I think I'm too lazy to even go get the link again.
Nobody is going to pay money to listen to a cellist at a concert, or buy her CD.
The last laugh is on you apparently because she's doing pretty well for herself. Statistically speaking, she appears to almost certainly make more than you.
However, I'll also note that you just attributed a quote to me that I never made. So it goes, I guess.
Sorry about that; I apologize. (I think I responded to someone else who said that, and so probably when I thought I did a copy of whatever in your original post I was going to reply to, it didn't take.)
As I've posted a couple times [I'm a fan so feel somewhat compelled to clarify that she's not really complaining (I have no further affiliation with her her)], Keating's views aren't well-reflected in the article and she's a lot less negative on the streaming model than the article seems to suggest. The vibe I've gotten is much more of a "here are numbers so you can have more intelligent conversations about things like changes in federal licensing regulations", and pick up basically no "wah wah wah Spotify should give me more money".
Her experience means very little in the real world...
As I posted above (not saying I really expect anyone to see it), Keating's views aren't very well reflected in the article; they're actually pretty neutral. I think a story hit/. a while back about her saying she would rather have more listener data from places like Spotify than more money.
Show me the details on a more mainstream person, show me details on her pre-pandora pre-digital royalties..
Pandora beat Keating's musical life to the market by several years (2000 vs 2005).
Why would you purchase something that you can select to stream to a mobile device any time you want? Seems silly to me.
Um, maybe because of...
There isn't any money in it.
If I like someone's music, and want them to make more of it instead of giving up because they want to be able to eat, why wouldn't I give them money? They have provided me with enjoyment.
That's totally fair, and I'm sure there are artists who would be more agreeable to the article. I just feel compelled a bit to set the record more clear about Keating's attitude as I am a fan.:-)
To be honest? Probably not for anyone who isn't already big. Spotify would probably rather drop small artists than set a precedent for paying much more.
Her statements on the income from online streaming are pretty neutral; she's not totally gung-ho about it (like, say, maybe Johnathan Coulton would be), but she's also not really putting it out there in a complaining, "wah wah Spotify should be giving me more money" sense.
As others have said, if you want people to be sure that they can use their code (in your words, be sure that it is a gift and not a trap), you really should have a license. I've asked at least one person who had something on Github to put up a license so that I could use it. (They went with the WTFPL.)
Because it turns a gift into a right. I hate the people who get argumentative about their rights to get free stuff.
And don't think that it's because I view it as a right to use your code. Quite the contrary in fact -- it's precisely because I don't feel like I have a right to your code that I would ask.
It's possible I'm in a minority (or that you disagree with my interpretation of my actions), but I would rather guess that it's more of a silent majority.
Back in the P3 days I recommended a discrete GPU to everyone because the integrated ones were that bad. Now with Sandy/Ivy Bridge they are quite good. You can game on them, even new games. No they don't do as well as a discrete GPU, but they really are more powerful than you might think.
Hmmm, my research from a few months ago suggested otherwise, at least to some extent. My home desktop is from 2008; it had a GeForce 8800 GTS in it which unfortunately decided to go kaput. The timing was kind of bad because I will probably be getting a new computer in the second half of this year but I didn't want to pay for one now, so I had to decide what to do: (1) get some cheapass GPU that would be on-par or better with my 8800, (2) get a midrange card now and have an overpowered GPU for a while until I get a new system (when I'd migrate the GPU), (3) pull my anticipated system upgrade earlier and just get a new system then, or (4) do the opposite of #2 -- get a new mobo and CPU then, and live off integrated graphics for a while. (My final decision was #2.)
(1) was my favorite choice but got cut out because I couldn't find a cheapass-enough cheapass card. (4) was my next choice -- I do enough stuff that would benefit from extra CPU power. My reasoning was that in the 4 years since I got my system, not only would the normal rate of technology change have worked its magic but that Intel seemed to be paying attention to integrated graphics and so I expected that to have improved more than, say, the improvement in CPUs and discrete GPUs during that time. I figured that my 8800 was running most things I was interested in reasonably enough, so if I could match the 8800's power in integrated graphics, that would be sufficient. But that didn't seem to be the case. Unsurprisingly it was hard to find comparisons of modern integrated graphics with a card as old as the 8800, but the couple that I could find didn't paint a particularly good picture. From everything I could tell, and from the discussion on the forum where I was talking about my options, even the Intel HD4000 would be inferior to my 8800. (And actually, what someone said was that the 8800 slightly beats even the AMD A8-3870k, which beats the HD4000.) About the only good news would have been DX11 support.
So... it depends on what you mean. Integrated is definitely way better than it was, but at the same time... it's still got a loooong way to go before it matches discrete.
The only advantage pc gaming has is that online experinces are better, the graphics are better and you can do mods.
And you have mouse and keyboard. Even I will admit that for some games controllers are better, but for others it's a matter of preference (e.g. FPS, where I much prefer keyboard/mouse) and for others controllers are a complete non-starter (the N64 Starcraft notwithstanding, things like hardcore RTS just won't work).
Also you have at least an opportunity for DRM-free games even if it only tends to be the occasional indie game that meets that criteria. (The fact that, with semi-rare exceptions, a game for $CONSOLE will run only on $CONSOLE and nothing else even later revisions of that line, acts somewhat as a form of DRM.)
I have better speakers on my tv because I also watch movies on it and tv.
I hooked my computer up to an actual receiver with multi-hundred-dollar speakers. Why didn't you?
(I also used to keep my gaming computer plugged into a 50-ish inch TV when I lived with my friend who owns it. Why didn't you?)
I mean sure pc has some interesting games you cant find anywhere else
In terms of recent and upcoming games: - Civilization series - Starcraft - SimCity series - Baldur's Gate enhanced edition [iOS & Android too] - Frozen Synapse - SpaceChem [iOS & Android too] - Lots of other games I haven't played
And on top of this there are oodles of excellent old games which don't have console ports and are still worth playing. (Actually these comprise a fairly large percentage of what I play.)
Simcity - No. they fucked up the last one. It's going to be the sims online again. Bet. Maxis is dead. EAized. Shit.
Actually looks like this isn't true... I didn't play Societies (assuming that's what you mean by "the last one"), but the new one looks a lot more like an improved SC4 (which I consider a "true" SimCity).
It's got crap attached -- in particular always-online DRM -- which means I won't buy it until it comes way down in price, but as a big fan of the earlier games (2K, 3K, and 4; got into it too late for much experience with the original) I think it looks fantastic.
I've been a SimCity fan for ages (well, since SC2K), and occasionally go back and play old versions, mostly SC2K and SC4. And I sort of agree, but... sort of disagree.
I'm not going to be buying the new one until it comes down rather a lot in price (because of the DRM), but that is a painful decision: I admit to drooling a bit at the things like nice curved roads that can help give you cities that... well, actually look more like real cities. Not to mention a lot of the other things that you see in the videos that EA has released. From what I've seen, I think it the new one looks like it has an enormous potential to be fantastic.
I agree that the originals are also great and that we shouldn't forget them... but I also think that you shouldn't dismiss the new iterations, because they look great too.
QScintilla is available for Qt4, though it's probably a separate package.
I can't speak to everything, but I will pretty highly recommend the library. I've used it in both C++ and Python (via PyQt) and both times have been a remarkably pleasant experience. The C++ side's biggest drawback is they have a preprocessing step (the MOC compiler) that means that you won't be writing code which isn't standard C++: they've got a bunch of language extensions. I wouldn't imagine that anything significant would be missing.
I pointed out the differences between these universities and Edinburgh. The response? Edinburgh can do that because they're one of the best universities in the world. No; Edinburgh is one of the best universities in the world because they do this.
I think you're largely right, but I also suspect it's a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle. Edinburgh is good, so it attracts (1) good students, (2) good teachers, (3) money to pay the tutors; these three things help it remain good. A mediocre school attracts (1) more mediocre teachers, (2) more mediocre students, (3) less money; all of which help it stay mediocre.
Obviously this is a simplification too in several respects, but I do believe there is at least a moderate degree of both positive and negative feedback in cases like this.
Slashdot Mirror
I like classical music, but I'm not interested in that. Solo strings is all kinds of not my thing.
Since you like classical, I encourage you to check it out... it's just solo in the sense of one performer, but not in the sense of the Bach suites or Paganini caprices. She layers several recordings on top of each other using looping software*, so it's music that, without technology, would require an ensemble to play.
(* I think most of her stuff is done through looping, but there are some tracks, including my favorite, where I don't see how that's possible; there are too many layers too soon. So I'm not quite sure what the rules she uses are exactly; maybe sometimes she's fine using tracks that can't be played live, or the "extra" layers are from earlier on that album, or something like that.)
I'm not saying you'll necessarily like it of course, but I think it's great. (In fact, I played cello back in elementary through high school but sort of fell out of it. There are a handful of artists who have inspired me to get it back out and play a little bit a couple times a week, and Zoe is one of them. That's why I've gone a bit overboard defending her -- her attitude toward the Spotify income is way less negative than the article implies it is.)
No crush in that sense; she's not my type anyway. And the fact that people are still making the posts I'm replying to is direct evidence that you (as a group) don't get it.
The alternative is to switch to a job that actually pays money. Frankly, she should quit her whining. A cellist?
Sigh. For the nth time in this thread, the article was misrepresenting her opinion and she is not negative on streaming. Her data dump was much more in the style of "here's information so you can have a more intelligent conversation" than "wah wah Spotify should be giving me more money". At this point I think I'm too lazy to even go get the link again.
Nobody is going to pay money to listen to a cellist at a concert, or buy her CD.
The last laugh is on you apparently because she's doing pretty well for herself. Statistically speaking, she appears to almost certainly make more than you.
However, I'll also note that you just attributed a quote to me that I never made. So it goes, I guess.
Sorry about that; I apologize. (I think I responded to someone else who said that, and so probably when I thought I did a copy of whatever in your original post I was going to reply to, it didn't take.)
Me, I'm constantly improving what was done, producing more and supporting those consumers.
And the artists aren't?
IMHO, Zoe Keating and musicians with the same attitude are the patent trolls of the music industry.
"As the artist featured in this NYTimes article, I feel horribly misrepresented and I have to straighten out a few things. ... But I'm truthfully, extremely happy and thankful, exactly where I am right now. ... I'm not against streaming by any means. I've put my music wherever someone might hear it; including onto filesharing sites (gasp)."
Mmmmm! Yay unicode!
(That was me (check my other posts on this topic), and I checked the wrong box.)
As I've posted a couple times [I'm a fan so feel somewhat compelled to clarify that she's not really complaining (I have no further affiliation with her her)], Keating's views aren't well-reflected in the article and she's a lot less negative on the streaming model than the article seems to suggest. The vibe I've gotten is much more of a "here are numbers so you can have more intelligent conversations about things like changes in federal licensing regulations", and pick up basically no "wah wah wah Spotify should give me more money".
Her experience means very little in the real world...
As I posted above (not saying I really expect anyone to see it), Keating's views aren't very well reflected in the article; they're actually pretty neutral. I think a story hit /. a while back about her saying she would rather have more listener data from places like Spotify than more money.
Show me the details on a more mainstream person, show me details on her pre-pandora pre-digital royalties..
Pandora beat Keating's musical life to the market by several years (2000 vs 2005).
Why would you purchase something that you can select to stream to a mobile device any time you want? Seems silly to me.
Um, maybe because of...
There isn't any money in it.
If I like someone's music, and want them to make more of it instead of giving up because they want to be able to eat, why wouldn't I give them money? They have provided me with enjoyment.
That's totally fair, and I'm sure there are artists who would be more agreeable to the article. I just feel compelled a bit to set the record more clear about Keating's attitude as I am a fan. :-)
To be honest? Probably not for anyone who isn't already big. Spotify would probably rather drop small artists than set a precedent for paying much more.
...but would she be otherwise selling her music in concert, on CDs, etc.?
Yes. And Bandcamp. :-)
[Disclaimer: I am unaffiliated with Keating, but a large fan.]
To be fair, Keating feels that the NY Times article was not very representative of her opinions; the article is a lot more down on the streaming income than she is.
Her statements on the income from online streaming are pretty neutral; she's not totally gung-ho about it (like, say, maybe Johnathan Coulton would be), but she's also not really putting it out there in a complaining, "wah wah Spotify should be giving me more money" sense.
As others have said, if you want people to be sure that they can use their code (in your words, be sure that it is a gift and not a trap), you really should have a license. I've asked at least one person who had something on Github to put up a license so that I could use it. (They went with the WTFPL.)
Because it turns a gift into a right. I hate the people who get argumentative about their rights to get free stuff.
And don't think that it's because I view it as a right to use your code. Quite the contrary in fact -- it's precisely because I don't feel like I have a right to your code that I would ask.
It's possible I'm in a minority (or that you disagree with my interpretation of my actions), but I would rather guess that it's more of a silent majority.
Mod up!
It's a good thing that "average" has only one meaning which is shared with "arithmetic mean."
DON'T YOU LIKE SHOUTING? I LIKE SHOUTING!
The latest VS has the same problem with its menus. I don't get it... I'm skeptical that it makes a usability difference, and it looks like ass.
(And this is coming from someone who, by /. standards at least, is a MS fanboy.)
Back in the P3 days I recommended a discrete GPU to everyone because the integrated ones were that bad. Now with Sandy/Ivy Bridge they are quite good. You can game on them, even new games. No they don't do as well as a discrete GPU, but they really are more powerful than you might think.
Hmmm, my research from a few months ago suggested otherwise, at least to some extent. My home desktop is from 2008; it had a GeForce 8800 GTS in it which unfortunately decided to go kaput. The timing was kind of bad because I will probably be getting a new computer in the second half of this year but I didn't want to pay for one now, so I had to decide what to do: (1) get some cheapass GPU that would be on-par or better with my 8800, (2) get a midrange card now and have an overpowered GPU for a while until I get a new system (when I'd migrate the GPU), (3) pull my anticipated system upgrade earlier and just get a new system then, or (4) do the opposite of #2 -- get a new mobo and CPU then, and live off integrated graphics for a while. (My final decision was #2.)
(1) was my favorite choice but got cut out because I couldn't find a cheapass-enough cheapass card. (4) was my next choice -- I do enough stuff that would benefit from extra CPU power. My reasoning was that in the 4 years since I got my system, not only would the normal rate of technology change have worked its magic but that Intel seemed to be paying attention to integrated graphics and so I expected that to have improved more than, say, the improvement in CPUs and discrete GPUs during that time. I figured that my 8800 was running most things I was interested in reasonably enough, so if I could match the 8800's power in integrated graphics, that would be sufficient. But that didn't seem to be the case. Unsurprisingly it was hard to find comparisons of modern integrated graphics with a card as old as the 8800, but the couple that I could find didn't paint a particularly good picture. From everything I could tell, and from the discussion on the forum where I was talking about my options, even the Intel HD4000 would be inferior to my 8800. (And actually, what someone said was that the 8800 slightly beats even the AMD A8-3870k, which beats the HD4000.) About the only good news would have been DX11 support.
So... it depends on what you mean. Integrated is definitely way better than it was, but at the same time... it's still got a loooong way to go before it matches discrete.
Reminds me of this standup sketch...
The only advantage pc gaming has is that online experinces are better, the graphics are better and you can do mods.
And you have mouse and keyboard. Even I will admit that for some games controllers are better, but for others it's a matter of preference (e.g. FPS, where I much prefer keyboard/mouse) and for others controllers are a complete non-starter (the N64 Starcraft notwithstanding, things like hardcore RTS just won't work).
Also you have at least an opportunity for DRM-free games even if it only tends to be the occasional indie game that meets that criteria. (The fact that, with semi-rare exceptions, a game for $CONSOLE will run only on $CONSOLE and nothing else even later revisions of that line, acts somewhat as a form of DRM.)
I have better speakers on my tv because I also watch movies on it and tv.
I hooked my computer up to an actual receiver with multi-hundred-dollar speakers. Why didn't you?
(I also used to keep my gaming computer plugged into a 50-ish inch TV when I lived with my friend who owns it. Why didn't you?)
I mean sure pc has some interesting games you cant find anywhere else
In terms of recent and upcoming games:
- Civilization series
- Starcraft
- SimCity series
- Baldur's Gate enhanced edition [iOS & Android too]
- Frozen Synapse
- SpaceChem [iOS & Android too]
- Lots of other games I haven't played
And on top of this there are oodles of excellent old games which don't have console ports and are still worth playing. (Actually these comprise a fairly large percentage of what I play.)
Simcity - No. they fucked up the last one. It's going to be the sims online again. Bet. Maxis is dead. EAized. Shit.
Actually looks like this isn't true... I didn't play Societies (assuming that's what you mean by "the last one"), but the new one looks a lot more like an improved SC4 (which I consider a "true" SimCity).
It's got crap attached -- in particular always-online DRM -- which means I won't buy it until it comes way down in price, but as a big fan of the earlier games (2K, 3K, and 4; got into it too late for much experience with the original) I think it looks fantastic.
It's worth a look at least.
I've been a SimCity fan for ages (well, since SC2K), and occasionally go back and play old versions, mostly SC2K and SC4. And I sort of agree, but... sort of disagree.
I'm not going to be buying the new one until it comes down rather a lot in price (because of the DRM), but that is a painful decision: I admit to drooling a bit at the things like nice curved roads that can help give you cities that... well, actually look more like real cities. Not to mention a lot of the other things that you see in the videos that EA has released. From what I've seen, I think it the new one looks like it has an enormous potential to be fantastic.
I agree that the originals are also great and that we shouldn't forget them... but I also think that you shouldn't dismiss the new iterations, because they look great too.
I simply replied to the question "how do you call a C++ method by its name from a C++ plugin".
You replied with an answer that works in some, but not all, cases -- even on the platforms on which it works at all.
QScintilla is available for Qt4, though it's probably a separate package.
I can't speak to everything, but I will pretty highly recommend the library. I've used it in both C++ and Python (via PyQt) and both times have been a remarkably pleasant experience. The C++ side's biggest drawback is they have a preprocessing step (the MOC compiler) that means that you won't be writing code which isn't standard C++: they've got a bunch of language extensions. I wouldn't imagine that anything significant would be missing.
I pointed out the differences between these universities and Edinburgh. The response? Edinburgh can do that because they're one of the best universities in the world. No; Edinburgh is one of the best universities in the world because they do this.
I think you're largely right, but I also suspect it's a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle. Edinburgh is good, so it attracts (1) good students, (2) good teachers, (3) money to pay the tutors; these three things help it remain good. A mediocre school attracts (1) more mediocre teachers, (2) more mediocre students, (3) less money; all of which help it stay mediocre.
Obviously this is a simplification too in several respects, but I do believe there is at least a moderate degree of both positive and negative feedback in cases like this.