But something like a WWII sim has potentially special characteristics- years ago I was into some of the early air combat sims and handled right it's a whole other thing, capable of totally avoiding some of the MMORPG issues.
You're 'role playing', but in any decent air combat sim of that era there's a staggering amount of unwritten 'rules' that are an epiphenomenon of the situation itself, made all the more interesting by a cheerful disregard for historical accuracy at times.
For instance- the historical situation, accurately represented, is one thing, but if you go to just an open arena the 'rules' get even more elaborate. Chasing a Spit in a Focke-Wulf 190 is one thing, but consider the situation of a climbing spiral chasing a ME109 in a FW190. That didn't happen in the war, but if it happens in the arena, two points become important: first, the 109 can outclimb pretty much anything, and second, the 190 has absolutely vicious departure characteristics: it will snap into an inverted flat spin and become helpless. Hunted becomes the hunter simply through the situation of the game- no dice rolls or 'character levels' required.
This is a huge deal. It's a representation of a combat system in which the situation itself demands performance beyond what most players can manage- and it's player against player. There's no 'levelling' at all, it's entirely down to players learning and mastering the rules of the system- and it is impossible to entirely do so. No matter how skilled a pilot, get 10 planes in the air all around him and the situational awareness is totally overwhelmed- the patterns unfolding in the air are just too much to grasp. And as a result, a complete novice could get lucky- though it's very unlikely. But it unfolds through the logic of the situation.
By the same token, character development unfolds purely through the logic of the situation. You can count kills and award 'aces' and all, but whether someone is a stolid methodical bomber ace or a fighter jock, whether they are known for flying totally crazy in a Spit and fight like cat wrestling, or whether they hunt you down with unnerving doggedness in a FW190, or whether they lurk in a P51 'Runstang' and play the vulture on wounded or disoriented fighters and flee tougher opponents, all that develops out of the player's REAL personality.
Granted that's not the same proposition as offering the chance to, through being a no-life obsessive weasel, wear a different and far grander persona- but don't people get sick of being around that sort of thing?
If the guy is writing editorials, it is his job to be biased, and his obligation to come up with an interesting and persuasive bias that can persuade other people to adopt it in turn.
What do you expect an editorial to say, 'gee, I dunno, make up your own mind?'
I feel your assessment is fair and honestly meant, but is much less persuasive than the original article, and I believe you less. It's almost as if you require all forms of 'spin' to be honored equally with fact. Maybe that's good enough for golf-club CEOs;) however, for those of us who have to rely on our wits, it is critically important to be able to be 'biased' against spin, nonsense, and PR fluff, and to understand what's really going on. Screw that up and you blow a lot of money one way or another. Dunno about you but I so can't afford that...
Which is a big reason why I use old macintoshes- like, OS8.6 old. In doing so I evade a lot of network problems and privacy/security concerns, but even so, this guy managed to nail me on one of my vulnerabilities. My website could be a LOT more effective than it is. And, you know, I don't pay attention to that as it's 'good enough', but reading the article reminded me that I keep getting business THROUGH my web site. People I don't even know emailing me and wanting to buy something (such as a costume tail- nobody said it couldn't be WEIRD business) solely on the strength that they wanted something like that, and found my website somehow in spite of its not having elaborate meta tags etc etc, or a proper sales pitch and good detailed information on it.
That checks out, for me. It was something I've been overlooking. It makes me more disposed to buy into the guy's general conclusions. I am impressed with the guy's editorial (NOT review. Review of what? State of the nation, maybe.)
Wow- they are desperately chasing after MacOSX Aqua while at the same time trying not to look TOO translucent, TOO rounded or TOO lickable. Check out all the rounded but not TOO 3D edges, and how they're pushing for a 3D effect but not too contrasty and aggressive in the manner of OSX.
Which unfortunately makes them look just washed-out and lacking in attitude. It's like the safe corporate version of Aqua, only instead of being Playskool like the previous attempt, this time it's "OK, we'll make it all blurry and stuff!".
God help them, this is pretty sad.
It reminds me of a Roger Ebert review of 'Heaven's Gate': "When you don't enjoy even the physical act of looking at a movie, the director is in deep, deep trouble." Well- Longhorn appears both annoyingly blue, and annoyingly washed-out and contrastless. This is the best they could do? Windows 95 was more appealing, in a crude-but-cheerful way. Do you suppose they know they are downward spiraling?
I analysed the output on a spectrum analyzer compared to recordings of guitars on records (such as the famous Zep 'Heartbreaker' guitar solo) and the Line 6 sounds all had the same characteristic- nothing happening above 6K at all, massive bass boost, and several peculiar suck-outs and irregularities that were common to all amp models.
My suspicion is that you have to do some of the amplification in the analog domain for serious high-gain guitar sounds, and then do a better job of picking what to model. I'm not impressed with Line 6's choices in that regard, and very unimpressed with the common factors to all models- that's not reasonable.
It's tough, though. I did an all-analog guitar DI designed specifically to mimic the spectral content of that 'Heartbreaker' guitar solo, and nonmusicians love it, but every musician and sound engineer who's heard it has hated it passionately! Back to the drawing board...
Eventually it'll get there, but Line 6 POD is a very early step, and it sounds pretty nasty. One thing about them is, I'm told you end up soloing endlessly because it suits single note lines best- try to push harmonically complex chords through it and it gets UGLY.
People keep saying this, but she's a damned good reporter. Even in a conversational email, she got across lots of information, accurately and in an organised fashion. I call that a good reporter, and a good writer. If she has some grammar failings, that's between her and her editor, normally. She WRITES very well.
How do you mean? It says war on Iraq is very unpopular, Al Quaeda is totally disrupted, the world economic powers are very unhappy with US expansionist foreign policy, and the world-economy-collapsing part you probably are already living through. They're talking about it getting bad enough to affect THEM.
I think it's legit, and it's been authoritatively confirmed, but I find it hugely encouraging. The people 'running the world' are (1) not really running the world completely, (2) not idiots, and (3) prepared to acknowledge if certain dangerous policies like some types of globalization are going to cause problems.
If that's 'fucked', fuck me more;) I thought it was very encouraging.
In this case, the frustration of the WEF is counter to certain government policies. It is the Bush Administration that came out the loser in this one, because their economy happytalk is clearly just for the commoners and their war is SERIOUSLY unpopular.
So, the WEF in general is probably appalled at their private calculations for the world economy getting out (could make it worse!) but delighted that the news of their opposition to war leaked. I might even suggest an intentional leak by someone, since they stand to lose fortunes in the event of war, and that means a leak that causes problems for the war plans benefits THEM. Directly. If this information getting out actually helps to stop the war, these people will PROFIT.
But this is just what Scott McNealy is on about, with his 'you have no privacy, get over it'.
Now I believe him- I'll buy that- happily.
Because it's not just a matter of the rich and powerful invading the privacy of the poor and humble, for their own benefit. That makes for a good rant, but the reality is- the rich and powerful don't have privacy either!
People behave like you'd have to have formalized systems by which you can pry into the private lives of the rich and powerful, in order to have parity. The assumption is you'd HAVE to have some kind of special access to be able to be privy to what they are up to.
Yet due to the very nature of increasingly fluid communication, their privacy erodes in just the same way yours does- and as a result, this time around we get to be privy to the general opinion of a gathering of the seriously rich and powerful- to learn that there's limits to how much they can control things (they are NOT behind war on Iraq, they're livid!), to learn some of the things they are told that the ordinary person doesn't get to know about (public: Iraq, scary Saddam eek! private: Iraq, not a threat, but we will invade more countries to control the region, which we think will work).
Privacy truly is dead. But, it's better off dead. You can fuss all you want about wanting to know Scott McNealy's credit card number, but when you get down to what's REALLY important in the world, that's where privacy breaks down first. Privacy crumbles most easily when it's where it shouldn't belong (according to democratic, informed-populace ideals). It crumbles even when some people don't WANT an informed populace. The truth will out.
On the contrary, it sounds like a quote from Powell's speech to the forum at large, and it checks out against some of the foreign policy thinking that's been part of both Bush administrations for years.
Don't blame me, or her, if you cannot afford to be told the straight truth. You're not part of the World Economic Forum, and you're not as important. When you're important, the information you get is more direct, and you sometimes get filled in on some of the backstory.
I've seen quite a bit of confirmation in other respects that this (presumably from Powell's speech?) is correctly reported and no exaggeration. It may be a direct quote, or a condensation, since she was using quotation but in a context that would allow for condensing lengthier remarks.
I took it all as perfectly correct reporting, without even being run through a 'should I actually publish this' filter. In some ways I'd call that MORE accurate and correct than a more carefully worded story.
Being alarmed about war planning myself, and also very skeptical of the prospects of economic wellness from uncontrolled laissez-faire globalization, I found it incredibly encouraging to learn that yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as Reality.
It's not just that these rich movers and shakers are 'just people'- it's that they're not in control, and that they are capable of recognizing when the policies of those like them lead to olgiarchy and the collapse of the worldwide economy. These aren't a bunch of Socialists but they're not having any of the economic social darwinist garbage- if holding to parody-Libertarian dogma means the poor get poorer and it affects THEIR PROFITS, they'll recognise that relatively quickly and they will do something else! I like that these are pragmatic people. They'll go with what works...
...and again, it's very telling that despite dedicated media spin, what's going on now Doesn't Work. And these people are powerful and rich enough to be given the real information, and smart enough to insist on it instead of fooling themselves- and they're upset.
I think that was worth dismaying a journalist, I really do. I think the truth is much more important than her feelings of chagrin at being mocked for spelling mistakes or whatever- some people don't seem to 'get' that her ability to REPORT was terrific and plainly on display, and the news was desperately important.
Of course digital distorts the signal. The types of distortion are very well understood. Assuming we're talking about linear PCM encoding, the quantization noise is a measurable amount below digital full scale.
Given that this can be pretty far below full scale, this might not seem to be a problem... until you crank up the amp.
How many db of gain do you figure you're adding to that noise floor by a good high-gain saturated guitar tone?
This is why modelling systems like the Line 6 Pod don't really work. Ideally you'd add the gain before A/D conversion to avoid the problem.
Quantization noise at -12 db (that would be a REALLY high gain distortion) does not sound impressive. Or 'interference free'.
Hey, I've been hacking guitars for many years (over a decade and then some) in attempts to get at the real essence of the physical motion of the string. At one point I was using a blade alnico magnet singlecoil low-impedance pickup RIGHT UP AGAINST the bridge. More recently I've been designing guitar DI boxes that can do full-on distortion and still have the transparency to do more complicated chords. I've discovered some things.
First- it's been done before. Jimmy Page was doing this years ago. In fact if you go to my URL there, some of the guitar sounds are specifically modelled after Page's more wiry, bright sounds, especially 'Dance With The River'.
Second- any form of getting more raw transparency and accuracy out of the guitar tone (instead of a wall of 'really cool' mud) has some VERY NASTY side-effects. What happens, and I'm not fooling here, is that your performance gets stripped naked. It's VERY difficult to perform with perfect accuracy. In fact it's undesirable and boring to do so- but here's the catch: while people who like your music invariably like it all the more when the tone is more transparent and uncolored, anyone who is approaching it from ANY sort of critical direction and finding fault will simultaneously like it less!
I'm not saying the new Gibson stuff is in fact more transparent- it might actually be worse than simple electrical wiring.
I am saying that if it IS really more transparent and a better 'image' of the guitar performance than the regular kind, that's a real double-edged sword there and you might not be ready to deal with the results.
You end up gaining the ability to have regular folks be really into it for the first time- they don't have the training to interpret mistakes and they go only by how well you can connect your musical intent to them- but you will get crucified by other artists and by anyone with the training to understand a mistake. With enough clarity into your performance, it is IMPOSSIBLE to evade criticism: even your correctly played stuff has a degree of presence that makes it seem 'wrong' compared to more colored stuff.
This has turned and bit me in a big way at times- the more I developed the tech of it, and especially when I started to mimic Jimmy Page tonal balances, the more extreme the responses were. Interestingly, I have a friend who was around when Led Zeppelin was coming out, and he tells me the same thing happened then- the critics just could not hate Zep more, anyone wanting to dislike them just went ballistic.
So- I don't know if this Gibson stuff really is better fidelity, but if it is, watch out! You'd better be pretty tough to expose yourself like that. The rewards are great but the penalties are harsh...
Hope you're posting from Somalia, otherwise you're a fscking hypocrite astroturfer of no special distinction;)
We have these things called 'laws' to prevent things like racketeering, extortion, various forms of threatening. Without some standards for behavior, you basically get the collapse of society and feudal warlordism run by whoever can threaten the most.
Which, funnily enough, also describes the computer industry pretty well. So rather than being a sign of health, Microsoft's domination could be taken as a sign that the industry has collapsed, all the jobs are going to India as fast as they can be outsourced, there's no way to get capitalisation for any new ideas, and will the last geek leaving turn out the lights?:)
They, Bush/Ashcroft/etc. are trying to instigate another 9/11 to heighten fear enough that they can get through all their proposed changes.
It's too antithetical to the guiding principles of the USA for them to get that stuff through under any normal circumstances. The conservatives would desert them on Constitution issues and executive powers issues (maybe Bill Of Rights issues, but the executive powers issues are what true Conservatives would balk at)
So, they are doing everything they can to BAIT further terrorist attacks. Flatten Iraq, because it isn't useful for producing an immediate attack, but bait North Korea and anger them without intimidating them directly, in hopes THEY will launch some sort of attack that can be used for political purposes. Insult and scorn the UN and associated bodies in hopes that this will produce people who are so convinced the US is out of control that they'll launch some sort of attack- which can be used for political purposes.
It's not about regime change in Iraq at all. It's about regime change here. The regime being replaced is Congress, the judiciary, etc... the only way to do that is to get somebody to attack the US enough that the citizenry are reduced to a state of cowering fear and will do anything they are told.
Like I said, fear is a lot more effective than patriotic euphoria. That's just power politics...
Please? It's you guys' turn to be 'Freedom', and we're in bad trouble. I especially like the suggestion about election observers as we are not capable of running clean elections at this time and both major parties are horribly corrupt and dishonest...
Yeah, really... way to defeat his nefarious plot of getting in your living room by, um, putting him in your living room. WTF?
It amazes me that any of you guys can still pretend that software profits are Gates' first priority. Do you think he created the Office phenomenon by insisting on cashing in on every copy in use? Just as a personal favor try not to be complete fools, OK? He'll pay you to help him have Microsoft-produced hardware everywhere you look. ESPECIALLY the living room. If I was him I'd be laughing my ass off at you 'use lots of Xboxen, it costs Gates money!' people. You gotta give it away to get people used to it, your revenue stream comes from the additional currents swept along by you IDIOTS rushing to make 'damaging' use of these things. You're his best helpers and don't even know it. Furrfu!
Likewise with corporations, he argues that direct extension of the rights of a human to a group of humans is bound to create distortions
of freedom, and laments that it has created a situation whereby the size of a corporation becomes an advatantage far beyond what is
dictated by economics of scale.
Reading that chapter was one of those "Bingo!" moments for me. It doesn't really provide a practical course of action to correct the
situation (if we simply repealed the offending laws, economic chaos would ensue), yet it explains everything. I had noticed that most
leftish people don't really dislike free commerce as much as you'd think based on the positions they take. Many of the more reasonable
lefties at their heart enjoy commerce, they love the idea of "cottage industries" for example. Many, regardless of their politics, are
personally just as independent-minded as many conservatives are.
If nothing else, Hayek's observations present a clear distinction between Free Markets and Capitalism; Hayek compellingly argues that
what is often sold as "free" enterprise is really just supply-side Socialism.
This is the coolest thing I've ever seen a self-described libertarian say:D
And yeah- I'm a left anarchist but I _love_ the idea of cottage industry. In fact I put a lot of work into that sort of thing. I guess the difference is, I don't see enterprise as being the same thing as authority- it's the difference between a cottage industry reliant only on their own hard work, and Rambus.
Which actually further underscores YOUR point, as when I seriously think about it, most of the abuses of corporate 'authority' I can think of leverage government regulation. NOT all of them- for instance you don't need government permission to sell infant formula to Third World mothers and then jack the prices when the mothers stop lactating- but quite a lot of them, possibly more abuses than you'd get without regulation.
And that one I'm gonna have to think about for a while, my friend- but major kudos for making a step towards a more useful synthesis.
On my part as the leftie commie socialist anarchist scum I'd suggest that you in turn think about what forms of authority or indirect authority can be wielded by enterprise in the absence of government. For instance, if you spiked beverages with physically addictive drugs like heroin, you could reasonably suppose that your victim was no longer a 'free agent' able to reject your beverage if they didn't like what you were doing. They would be under a form of compulsion, the severity depending on how physically addictive the drug was- you could choose one for which withdrawal meant death, and in that case you'd practically have great authority without any government backing you, and if permitted to pursue this strategy you'd be at a serious advantage over beverage makers who didn't do it. (*g* see 'Mokie-Coke' from the Pohl-Kornbluth novel 'The Merchants' War')
But there's a problem there: if they're that gutless they don't deserve that support, and if the Republicans are that vicious then they're not being civil servants. If they're as far gone as that they're no longer American Government, they're some kind of banana republic junta.
Now, it's certainly debatable whether they're really as bad as that, or whether they're out of control too and being dragged in the 'junta sieg heil' direction by their own radicals. It's up to them to set the limit of how far they're willing to go. But if they are really vicious- for instance, let's imagine they are conducting political assasinations (Wellstone), that would be vicious- what possible benefit would there be for Democrats to become equally vicious? I see a certain amount of 'unclear on the concept' here. Stop thinking pure tactics and re-examine the point of the whole exercise in the first place. These people are meant to be public servants. They're part of a complicated system of checks and balances meant to encourage them to represent their constituencies.
This WHOLE situation is completely un-American and we were warned about it back in the days the Constitution was written.
"we, as listeners, constitute the "buyers" in the radio industry"
My friend, not only are you not an insider in radio but you don't KNOW any insiders. You need to listen now because you could learn something and reduce your ignorance. That matters because you're putting out wrong information.
I'm not an radio guy either but I'm a sound engineer, hang out with sound engineers and mastering guys, and keep track of what radio air-chains are doing. As a result of this I've been privy to the results of some meetings and seminars and conferences held within the broadcast industry, and I'm thinking of one in particular where some mastering guys, as a diversion from tech talk, asked radio panelists at a conference when they could get some better music on their local radio stations. The answer they got was unanimous and direct from the people running radio- not just Clear Channel, commercial radio in general. It is this:
You the listener are not the buyer.
You are the product.
The advertiser is the buyer.
Period, end of story.
Your personal opinion as a complete outsider with some notions of how things ought to be... is not relevant. This is how things are. I don't like it either, but then I don't listen to radio so it doesn't matter to me.
I guess you'd like to believe you have some kind of power or influence over the public airwaves, but really, you don't- and in the absence of FCC control, entities like Clear Channel will broadcast at 50,000 watts straight over the top of any channel they wish to see gone, a strategy that if permitted would be 100% effective, and widely used if there were no regulation over broadcasting. That constitutes pretty much an infinite barrier to entry- you can always jam a signal if you're allowed to. Government regulation prohibits this, otherwise it'd be an unanswerable competitive tactic.
That depends very much on whether you're the sort of jerk the regulations were made to control, or not. If you're pumping out 100 watts near another station with heavy splattering into adjacent bands you can expect to be hunted down. If you're in a community broadcasting at a tenth of a watt several bands away from anyone who might be inconvenienced then shutting you down is gonna be way low on the priority list. What are your real motivations, jamming the nearest CC station or doing real local community radio? If you're not out to support listeners within a half-mile then you're not even doing the right thing in microbroadcasting anyway. And if you are only happy putting out 50,000 watts, forget it- that's not community service, that's ego.
No, our media is pretty much controlled by the government so we see only what the government wants us to see and hear. Once there was a time when America was pretty scathing about behavior like that (for instance in the USSR) but now our government does it as much as ever the USSR did.
The only thing we lack is a single state news organization called 'Truth' but we are getting a translation of the KGB.
It's not really effective to protest about this sort of thing because even if you don't get quietly taken away in the dead of night (AFAIK this isn't happening so much yet) you just give yourself a heart attack and still lack the power to do anything about it. Awareness is deadly- it will eat you up from the inside until you want to die.
It sounds like you're posting from somewhere not the United States. Maybe some day someone like you will come over and liberate us. It looks like the chances of the US straightening itself out are on par with the Cold War Soviet Union doing the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
A: War Is Peace was taken ;)
You're 'role playing', but in any decent air combat sim of that era there's a staggering amount of unwritten 'rules' that are an epiphenomenon of the situation itself, made all the more interesting by a cheerful disregard for historical accuracy at times.
For instance- the historical situation, accurately represented, is one thing, but if you go to just an open arena the 'rules' get even more elaborate. Chasing a Spit in a Focke-Wulf 190 is one thing, but consider the situation of a climbing spiral chasing a ME109 in a FW190. That didn't happen in the war, but if it happens in the arena, two points become important: first, the 109 can outclimb pretty much anything, and second, the 190 has absolutely vicious departure characteristics: it will snap into an inverted flat spin and become helpless. Hunted becomes the hunter simply through the situation of the game- no dice rolls or 'character levels' required.
This is a huge deal. It's a representation of a combat system in which the situation itself demands performance beyond what most players can manage- and it's player against player. There's no 'levelling' at all, it's entirely down to players learning and mastering the rules of the system- and it is impossible to entirely do so. No matter how skilled a pilot, get 10 planes in the air all around him and the situational awareness is totally overwhelmed- the patterns unfolding in the air are just too much to grasp. And as a result, a complete novice could get lucky- though it's very unlikely. But it unfolds through the logic of the situation.
By the same token, character development unfolds purely through the logic of the situation. You can count kills and award 'aces' and all, but whether someone is a stolid methodical bomber ace or a fighter jock, whether they are known for flying totally crazy in a Spit and fight like cat wrestling, or whether they hunt you down with unnerving doggedness in a FW190, or whether they lurk in a P51 'Runstang' and play the vulture on wounded or disoriented fighters and flee tougher opponents, all that develops out of the player's REAL personality.
Granted that's not the same proposition as offering the chance to, through being a no-life obsessive weasel, wear a different and far grander persona- but don't people get sick of being around that sort of thing?
What do you expect an editorial to say, 'gee, I dunno, make up your own mind?'
I feel your assessment is fair and honestly meant, but is much less persuasive than the original article, and I believe you less. It's almost as if you require all forms of 'spin' to be honored equally with fact. Maybe that's good enough for golf-club CEOs ;) however, for those of us who have to rely on our wits, it is critically important to be able to be 'biased' against spin, nonsense, and PR fluff, and to understand what's really going on. Screw that up and you blow a lot of money one way or another. Dunno about you but I so can't afford that...
Which is a big reason why I use old macintoshes- like, OS8.6 old. In doing so I evade a lot of network problems and privacy/security concerns, but even so, this guy managed to nail me on one of my vulnerabilities. My website could be a LOT more effective than it is. And, you know, I don't pay attention to that as it's 'good enough', but reading the article reminded me that I keep getting business THROUGH my web site. People I don't even know emailing me and wanting to buy something (such as a costume tail- nobody said it couldn't be WEIRD business) solely on the strength that they wanted something like that, and found my website somehow in spite of its not having elaborate meta tags etc etc, or a proper sales pitch and good detailed information on it.
That checks out, for me. It was something I've been overlooking. It makes me more disposed to buy into the guy's general conclusions. I am impressed with the guy's editorial (NOT review. Review of what? State of the nation, maybe.)
Which unfortunately makes them look just washed-out and lacking in attitude. It's like the safe corporate version of Aqua, only instead of being Playskool like the previous attempt, this time it's "OK, we'll make it all blurry and stuff!".
God help them, this is pretty sad.
It reminds me of a Roger Ebert review of 'Heaven's Gate': "When you don't enjoy even the physical act of looking at a movie, the director is in deep, deep trouble." Well- Longhorn appears both annoyingly blue, and annoyingly washed-out and contrastless. This is the best they could do? Windows 95 was more appealing, in a crude-but-cheerful way. Do you suppose they know they are downward spiraling?
My suspicion is that you have to do some of the amplification in the analog domain for serious high-gain guitar sounds, and then do a better job of picking what to model. I'm not impressed with Line 6's choices in that regard, and very unimpressed with the common factors to all models- that's not reasonable.
It's tough, though. I did an all-analog guitar DI designed specifically to mimic the spectral content of that 'Heartbreaker' guitar solo, and nonmusicians love it, but every musician and sound engineer who's heard it has hated it passionately! Back to the drawing board...
Eventually it'll get there, but Line 6 POD is a very early step, and it sounds pretty nasty. One thing about them is, I'm told you end up soloing endlessly because it suits single note lines best- try to push harmonically complex chords through it and it gets UGLY.
People keep saying this, but she's a damned good reporter. Even in a conversational email, she got across lots of information, accurately and in an organised fashion. I call that a good reporter, and a good writer. If she has some grammar failings, that's between her and her editor, normally. She WRITES very well.
I think it's legit, and it's been authoritatively confirmed, but I find it hugely encouraging. The people 'running the world' are (1) not really running the world completely, (2) not idiots, and (3) prepared to acknowledge if certain dangerous policies like some types of globalization are going to cause problems.
If that's 'fucked', fuck me more ;) I thought it was very encouraging.
In this case, the frustration of the WEF is counter to certain government policies. It is the Bush Administration that came out the loser in this one, because their economy happytalk is clearly just for the commoners and their war is SERIOUSLY unpopular.
So, the WEF in general is probably appalled at their private calculations for the world economy getting out (could make it worse!) but delighted that the news of their opposition to war leaked. I might even suggest an intentional leak by someone, since they stand to lose fortunes in the event of war, and that means a leak that causes problems for the war plans benefits THEM. Directly. If this information getting out actually helps to stop the war, these people will PROFIT.
Now I believe him- I'll buy that- happily.
Because it's not just a matter of the rich and powerful invading the privacy of the poor and humble, for their own benefit. That makes for a good rant, but the reality is- the rich and powerful don't have privacy either!
People behave like you'd have to have formalized systems by which you can pry into the private lives of the rich and powerful, in order to have parity. The assumption is you'd HAVE to have some kind of special access to be able to be privy to what they are up to.
Yet due to the very nature of increasingly fluid communication, their privacy erodes in just the same way yours does- and as a result, this time around we get to be privy to the general opinion of a gathering of the seriously rich and powerful- to learn that there's limits to how much they can control things (they are NOT behind war on Iraq, they're livid!), to learn some of the things they are told that the ordinary person doesn't get to know about (public: Iraq, scary Saddam eek! private: Iraq, not a threat, but we will invade more countries to control the region, which we think will work).
Privacy truly is dead. But, it's better off dead. You can fuss all you want about wanting to know Scott McNealy's credit card number, but when you get down to what's REALLY important in the world, that's where privacy breaks down first. Privacy crumbles most easily when it's where it shouldn't belong (according to democratic, informed-populace ideals). It crumbles even when some people don't WANT an informed populace. The truth will out.
Don't blame me, or her, if you cannot afford to be told the straight truth. You're not part of the World Economic Forum, and you're not as important. When you're important, the information you get is more direct, and you sometimes get filled in on some of the backstory.
I took it all as perfectly correct reporting, without even being run through a 'should I actually publish this' filter. In some ways I'd call that MORE accurate and correct than a more carefully worded story.
Being alarmed about war planning myself, and also very skeptical of the prospects of economic wellness from uncontrolled laissez-faire globalization, I found it incredibly encouraging to learn that yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as Reality.
It's not just that these rich movers and shakers are 'just people'- it's that they're not in control, and that they are capable of recognizing when the policies of those like them lead to olgiarchy and the collapse of the worldwide economy. These aren't a bunch of Socialists but they're not having any of the economic social darwinist garbage- if holding to parody-Libertarian dogma means the poor get poorer and it affects THEIR PROFITS, they'll recognise that relatively quickly and they will do something else! I like that these are pragmatic people. They'll go with what works...
I think that was worth dismaying a journalist, I really do. I think the truth is much more important than her feelings of chagrin at being mocked for spelling mistakes or whatever- some people don't seem to 'get' that her ability to REPORT was terrific and plainly on display, and the news was desperately important.
Given that this can be pretty far below full scale, this might not seem to be a problem... until you crank up the amp.
How many db of gain do you figure you're adding to that noise floor by a good high-gain saturated guitar tone?
This is why modelling systems like the Line 6 Pod don't really work. Ideally you'd add the gain before A/D conversion to avoid the problem.
Quantization noise at -12 db (that would be a REALLY high gain distortion) does not sound impressive. Or 'interference free'.
First- it's been done before. Jimmy Page was doing this years ago. In fact if you go to my URL there, some of the guitar sounds are specifically modelled after Page's more wiry, bright sounds, especially 'Dance With The River'.
Second- any form of getting more raw transparency and accuracy out of the guitar tone (instead of a wall of 'really cool' mud) has some VERY NASTY side-effects. What happens, and I'm not fooling here, is that your performance gets stripped naked. It's VERY difficult to perform with perfect accuracy. In fact it's undesirable and boring to do so- but here's the catch: while people who like your music invariably like it all the more when the tone is more transparent and uncolored, anyone who is approaching it from ANY sort of critical direction and finding fault will simultaneously like it less!
I'm not saying the new Gibson stuff is in fact more transparent- it might actually be worse than simple electrical wiring.
I am saying that if it IS really more transparent and a better 'image' of the guitar performance than the regular kind, that's a real double-edged sword there and you might not be ready to deal with the results.
You end up gaining the ability to have regular folks be really into it for the first time- they don't have the training to interpret mistakes and they go only by how well you can connect your musical intent to them- but you will get crucified by other artists and by anyone with the training to understand a mistake. With enough clarity into your performance, it is IMPOSSIBLE to evade criticism: even your correctly played stuff has a degree of presence that makes it seem 'wrong' compared to more colored stuff.
This has turned and bit me in a big way at times- the more I developed the tech of it, and especially when I started to mimic Jimmy Page tonal balances, the more extreme the responses were. Interestingly, I have a friend who was around when Led Zeppelin was coming out, and he tells me the same thing happened then- the critics just could not hate Zep more, anyone wanting to dislike them just went ballistic.
So- I don't know if this Gibson stuff really is better fidelity, but if it is, watch out! You'd better be pretty tough to expose yourself like that. The rewards are great but the penalties are harsh...
We have these things called 'laws' to prevent things like racketeering, extortion, various forms of threatening. Without some standards for behavior, you basically get the collapse of society and feudal warlordism run by whoever can threaten the most.
Which, funnily enough, also describes the computer industry pretty well. So rather than being a sign of health, Microsoft's domination could be taken as a sign that the industry has collapsed, all the jobs are going to India as fast as they can be outsourced, there's no way to get capitalisation for any new ideas, and will the last geek leaving turn out the lights? :)
Oops- I've been trolled. Oh well :)
They, Bush/Ashcroft/etc. are trying to instigate another 9/11 to heighten fear enough that they can get through all their proposed changes.
It's too antithetical to the guiding principles of the USA for them to get that stuff through under any normal circumstances. The conservatives would desert them on Constitution issues and executive powers issues (maybe Bill Of Rights issues, but the executive powers issues are what true Conservatives would balk at)
So, they are doing everything they can to BAIT further terrorist attacks. Flatten Iraq, because it isn't useful for producing an immediate attack, but bait North Korea and anger them without intimidating them directly, in hopes THEY will launch some sort of attack that can be used for political purposes. Insult and scorn the UN and associated bodies in hopes that this will produce people who are so convinced the US is out of control that they'll launch some sort of attack- which can be used for political purposes.
It's not about regime change in Iraq at all. It's about regime change here. The regime being replaced is Congress, the judiciary, etc... the only way to do that is to get somebody to attack the US enough that the citizenry are reduced to a state of cowering fear and will do anything they are told.
Like I said, fear is a lot more effective than patriotic euphoria. That's just power politics...
Please? It's you guys' turn to be 'Freedom', and we're in bad trouble. I especially like the suggestion about election observers as we are not capable of running clean elections at this time and both major parties are horribly corrupt and dishonest...
Oh yeah, let's get those numbers up. Office didn't destroy its whole competitive market until a lot of pirated copies were seen to be out there...
It amazes me that any of you guys can still pretend that software profits are Gates' first priority. Do you think he created the Office phenomenon by insisting on cashing in on every copy in use? Just as a personal favor try not to be complete fools, OK? He'll pay you to help him have Microsoft-produced hardware everywhere you look. ESPECIALLY the living room. If I was him I'd be laughing my ass off at you 'use lots of Xboxen, it costs Gates money!' people. You gotta give it away to get people used to it, your revenue stream comes from the additional currents swept along by you IDIOTS rushing to make 'damaging' use of these things. You're his best helpers and don't even know it. Furrfu!
Tricky concept, but it is important in its way...
This is the coolest thing I've ever seen a self-described libertarian say
And yeah- I'm a left anarchist but I _love_ the idea of cottage industry. In fact I put a lot of work into that sort of thing. I guess the difference is, I don't see enterprise as being the same thing as authority- it's the difference between a cottage industry reliant only on their own hard work, and Rambus.
Which actually further underscores YOUR point, as when I seriously think about it, most of the abuses of corporate 'authority' I can think of leverage government regulation. NOT all of them- for instance you don't need government permission to sell infant formula to Third World mothers and then jack the prices when the mothers stop lactating- but quite a lot of them, possibly more abuses than you'd get without regulation.
And that one I'm gonna have to think about for a while, my friend- but major kudos for making a step towards a more useful synthesis.
On my part as the leftie commie socialist anarchist scum I'd suggest that you in turn think about what forms of authority or indirect authority can be wielded by enterprise in the absence of government. For instance, if you spiked beverages with physically addictive drugs like heroin, you could reasonably suppose that your victim was no longer a 'free agent' able to reject your beverage if they didn't like what you were doing. They would be under a form of compulsion, the severity depending on how physically addictive the drug was- you could choose one for which withdrawal meant death, and in that case you'd practically have great authority without any government backing you, and if permitted to pursue this strategy you'd be at a serious advantage over beverage makers who didn't do it. (*g* see 'Mokie-Coke' from the Pohl-Kornbluth novel 'The Merchants' War')
Now, it's certainly debatable whether they're really as bad as that, or whether they're out of control too and being dragged in the 'junta sieg heil' direction by their own radicals. It's up to them to set the limit of how far they're willing to go. But if they are really vicious- for instance, let's imagine they are conducting political assasinations (Wellstone), that would be vicious- what possible benefit would there be for Democrats to become equally vicious? I see a certain amount of 'unclear on the concept' here. Stop thinking pure tactics and re-examine the point of the whole exercise in the first place. These people are meant to be public servants. They're part of a complicated system of checks and balances meant to encourage them to represent their constituencies.
This WHOLE situation is completely un-American and we were warned about it back in the days the Constitution was written.
Are we off-topic yet? ;)
My friend, not only are you not an insider in radio but you don't KNOW any insiders. You need to listen now because you could learn something and reduce your ignorance. That matters because you're putting out wrong information.
I'm not an radio guy either but I'm a sound engineer, hang out with sound engineers and mastering guys, and keep track of what radio air-chains are doing. As a result of this I've been privy to the results of some meetings and seminars and conferences held within the broadcast industry, and I'm thinking of one in particular where some mastering guys, as a diversion from tech talk, asked radio panelists at a conference when they could get some better music on their local radio stations. The answer they got was unanimous and direct from the people running radio- not just Clear Channel, commercial radio in general. It is this:
You the listener are not the buyer.
You are the product.
The advertiser is the buyer.
Period, end of story.
Your personal opinion as a complete outsider with some notions of how things ought to be... is not relevant. This is how things are. I don't like it either, but then I don't listen to radio so it doesn't matter to me.
I guess you'd like to believe you have some kind of power or influence over the public airwaves, but really, you don't- and in the absence of FCC control, entities like Clear Channel will broadcast at 50,000 watts straight over the top of any channel they wish to see gone, a strategy that if permitted would be 100% effective, and widely used if there were no regulation over broadcasting. That constitutes pretty much an infinite barrier to entry- you can always jam a signal if you're allowed to. Government regulation prohibits this, otherwise it'd be an unanswerable competitive tactic.
That depends very much on whether you're the sort of jerk the regulations were made to control, or not. If you're pumping out 100 watts near another station with heavy splattering into adjacent bands you can expect to be hunted down. If you're in a community broadcasting at a tenth of a watt several bands away from anyone who might be inconvenienced then shutting you down is gonna be way low on the priority list. What are your real motivations, jamming the nearest CC station or doing real local community radio? If you're not out to support listeners within a half-mile then you're not even doing the right thing in microbroadcasting anyway. And if you are only happy putting out 50,000 watts, forget it- that's not community service, that's ego.
The only thing we lack is a single state news organization called 'Truth' but we are getting a translation of the KGB.
It's not really effective to protest about this sort of thing because even if you don't get quietly taken away in the dead of night (AFAIK this isn't happening so much yet) you just give yourself a heart attack and still lack the power to do anything about it. Awareness is deadly- it will eat you up from the inside until you want to die.
It sounds like you're posting from somewhere not the United States. Maybe some day someone like you will come over and liberate us. It looks like the chances of the US straightening itself out are on par with the Cold War Soviet Union doing the same thing.