Yes, it is about people hearing your music. But for many, it is also a way of making a living, especially if "breaking even" isn't their goal. I lived on the road for while performing and we didn't make that much money off of our CDs. We used them to promote our band and used our live shows to make our money. Of course, some other musicians don't perform live. They spend their careers in the studio just making recordings, because that's what they love to do. So, they would take a different view on the importance of recorded material bringing in the bucks.
If you buy an mp3, you are still buying the packaging of the music, not the rights to the music itself. Like I stated in my previous post, the analog or digital encoding of the music itself is part of the packaging.
Well, depends on how you look at it. If you look at it from the recording industry's viewpoint, you only bought the "packaging of the song" and not the "song" itself. This packaging also includes the analog and digital representations of the song. You would have to go and buy the actual rights to the song itself to do what you're saying. They are two separate things. This is why we can't just go down to the record store and trade in our tapes for CD versions of the same songs. Not gonna happen. We own a tape or we own a CD. We don't own everything.
And so we have our current mess. The recording company owns the actual "idea" of the song and they've been able to package it up in a number of convenient ways for you to buy at your leisure. This is why they're so screwed by Napster and the like. They no longer have a monopoly over the distribution of the packaging.
Now, what the courts are going to do with this mess is anyone's guess. They'll probably continue to reword things again and again over the upcoming years to try and strike an even balance between the rights of the recording companies to distribute their "property" and the rights of the consumers to use this property for their personal enjoyment.
It sounded like a professional studio recording because all of the samples he used were probably recorded in a professional studio. Acid is just a loop machine. It doesn't do actual sound production itself, which is what the article was mainly focussing on.
BUT, that being said, it is definitely a cool program and allows people to create high quality stuff on their home PCs, even if the sounds themselves weren't created on a home PC.
Holy Shit, I'm reading people here saying that this is Okay! What the fuck? And what about the comments saying that people shouldn't do something they're not talented at or genetically capable of. Bull!
These tests are looking for a predisposition for a certain disease or ailment and using that to determine insurance policies. That means you could go through life without ever contracting a disease or health problem, but you still have to suffer discrimination against you as if you were definitely going to have a problem.
Are we fucking crazy here? What about the rights of the employees? What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
Thank you to the U.S. Government for taking a positive stand for personal freedom!
And the Bible is filled with very negative messages; anti-gay, anti-female, anti-other religion, etc.
Not really. It's more just filled with the current beliefs of the time plus a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages. All that anti-stuff stuff came about from the stupid religious groups that interpret the thing incorrectly.
Are you telling me that Half-Life was "deeply moving" to you and that is "spoke to the human condition?" Come on, get a life.
The human condition is only what me make of it. Are we tied to living a certain kind of lifestyle or can we change it as we please? And your statement that no movie, play or other work of art with a PG rating or less can be moving and have an impact is utterly ridiculous. You obviously have a skewed view of the world. If someone doesn't shoot, maim and kill lots of other people while having sex with his next door neighbor's granddaughter, then it's not moving? Come on!
You're statements contradict themselves. On one hand, you oppose exposing children to this kind of violence yet on the other hand, you say they can't function without being exposed to it.
The games won't be disappearing off the shelves. They'll still be there. All that's happening is forcing the marketing of them to take a different path. Parents will still be able to choose to let their kids play the games. In fact they'll be able to have more control over their children this way, without the fear of having the violence forced on their children before they're ready.
Yes, humans are a violent species. But that doesn't mean that we have remain so.
You should be proud to use the word "proactive." Even if management uses it a lot, it's actually a good word that means something very important and should be used and adhered to every day.
One million dollars though, seems like, well -- like nanofunding.
Well, like they said in the last paragraph, it seems like they'll do the basic research there and leave the actual implementation research up to private companies, which is probably where most of the expense goes. Actually developing an application for a new science take lots more bucks than the initial discovery itself.
Are you definitely sure it's your age that makes them not listen to you? I mean, have they made comments regarding it or implied that that was the case? Or is it an assumption based on your own viewpoint? Also, how long have you been with the company? Have you shown an understanding for the company's business practices? Are you easy going and fun to work with? Do people like you in general? Is it just one person that doesn't listen to your ideas or a whole bunch?
If you are positive it's your age, then here's a couple more questions. What's the average age of the company? Do you stand out like a sore thumb around all your other workers? Are there other people your age that also work at the company? How do they get treated?
What I'm trying to point out is that we can't jump to conclusions about the reasons why this person isn't being respected for his ideas. It may be his age. It may not be. There's probably a few factors involved.
As much as we may hate it, we all live within comfort zones that we don't usually like to step out of. This may be a case where people aren't used to letting the "kid" make the decisions, and it's not a conscious prejudice, just the way they've worked and lived. And, in a similar vein, this kid may not be used to letting others make decisions for him, and to live within that constraint is too much for him. This is, of course, assuming that age is definitely the factor here.
My advice is to continue to test the barriers in a healthy and constructive way. Try and break down the walls that are keeping these people from completely trusting each other. Maybe this kid should ask for a project that he can have complete control over in order to prove that trust in him is warranted. He should also talk openly and honestly with his superiors about this issue and really find out what's going on. No one gets anywhere by just assuming the other party is acting or thinking a certain way. It's all about communicating your needs and desires to others and at the same time understanding where they are coming from so that you can build a mutual trust for each other's skills, knowledge, abilities, you name it.
A) Create "backup" systems to be available if you were to contract a deadly disease.
1. Clone yourself
2. Put the clone in stasis
3. If you become deadly ill, remove the clone, kill off, remove necessary body parts for replacement
4. All better!
Now, if that doesn't have ethical problems, I don't know what does.
B) A baby/parent/sibling catalog
Donors could offer up their genes to product clones of themselves for purchase by families who are looking for that "perfect" family member (or replacement family member). You want a 20-year old Harvard student? No prob. You want a blonde-hair, blue-eye child of a nobel prize winner? No prob. You want a child after the terrible twos? You want a child who knows how to read? You want a top-honors high school athlete/science wiz/musical genius? Your brother/father/mother/grandparent just died? Want another one?
This would be the next logical step in the already existing egg/sperm donation banks.
C) Bring back to life famous leaders/musicians/poets/scientists
Let's think Jurassic Park but with a bunch of Teddy Roosevelt's, Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Neils Bohr's, Aaron Copland's, (insert your favorite famous person here) running around in it. Watch out for those electric fences, guys!
D) Just for the sheer bawls of it.
Some people just want to be God.
Not that big of a deal? Hmmm... I would beg to differ.
Locking a house-thief up in the slammer certainly hinders his livelihood. You gonna complain about that?
The fact of the matter is that these companies are doing something wrong. And the best way to fight the evils within the patent system is to showcase the companies and individuals who are exploiting those evils. Using the ballot box is not going to work. You have to go directly to the heart of the problem, which is the people who use the system incorrectly.
Why does my country have to be run by such dimwits? And now we've got "youngster" over there running the country. Anyone wanna place bets on whether the U.S. improves its negative environmental impacts? I'll take a barrel of oil and 20 acres of pristine natural forest for $1000, Alex.
Not sure why this has been scored as Funny. It really isn't.
There is no irony here. Open Source is a development model, not a business model. Not to mention all the pundits that would note that open source != free. Again, the distinction between the development and business sides of the industry.
I bet they mean that they catch the data before/after the encryption/decryption process within the web server itself. So at the end of the tunnel.
But I wonder... How many intruders connect to webservers over SSL when they're trying to hack into it? I guess it could help hide their tracks because external-to-the-web-server intruder detection tools wouldn't be able to see what they're doing. Maybe?
Why do computer people always use cars as an analogy when explaining computer hardware?
I think it's because the mentalities of car users and computer users are very similar. With cars, most people only care about driving them, but there is also a select group of people that really want to know what goes on under the hood. So they spend hours and hours taking apart things, cleaning this and that, adding modifications, and basically just trying to get every ounce of juice out of their property.
The same exact thing can be said about computer users. It's a natural connection.
Not to mention all the damn OO classes in college that use the different parts of cars (or motorcycles, or bicycles - I think it has something to do with the perfectly round wheels, oooh, how mathematically nice!) to illustrate the elements of good Object-Oriented design methodologies.
I think you missed the point. I'm not trying to get away from complexity. Computer are definitely complex and should remain so. That's what makes them so useful. But the idea is to make that complexity transparent. It shouldn't be part of the user's everyday experience, unless they choose it to be.
Actually, making OSes appealing to the masses is not necessarily about just "prettying up" things. It's about making the OS transparent to the user.
I don't need to know the startup sequence my car goes through when I turn the key in the ignition. I just turn the key, the engine starts and I drive away.
This is the type of thing we should be striving for with computers. You turn the key, the machine starts and you use it. This whole logo thing hiding the boot messages at startup is not what we should be aiming for, though. We shouldn't get excited about it. But, neither should we want all those startup messages everytime we boot. What we should be striving for is a boot process that just does what it's supposed to - boot the computer and get the user to a state of working usefulness. If there are problems, you can flip a switch that provides diagnostics to send to someone (like taking the car to the shop), or the OS could be smart enough to even handle the error checking itself and fix any problems on its own, similar to the disc error checking that occurs if you shut down your computer "improperly."
The idea behind the the logo mentality is what matters here. Creating computer systems that are "user friendly" is the goal, and note that "user friendly" is not synonymous with "pretty" - it's means creating a tool that the user can use without caring what's going on inside.
Slashdot Mirror
--
If you buy an mp3, you are still buying the packaging of the music, not the rights to the music itself. Like I stated in my previous post, the analog or digital encoding of the music itself is part of the packaging.
--
--
And so we have our current mess. The recording company owns the actual "idea" of the song and they've been able to package it up in a number of convenient ways for you to buy at your leisure. This is why they're so screwed by Napster and the like. They no longer have a monopoly over the distribution of the packaging.
Now, what the courts are going to do with this mess is anyone's guess. They'll probably continue to reword things again and again over the upcoming years to try and strike an even balance between the rights of the recording companies to distribute their "property" and the rights of the consumers to use this property for their personal enjoyment.
--
BUT, that being said, it is definitely a cool program and allows people to create high quality stuff on their home PCs, even if the sounds themselves weren't created on a home PC.
--
--
--
These tests are looking for a predisposition for a certain disease or ailment and using that to determine insurance policies. That means you could go through life without ever contracting a disease or health problem, but you still have to suffer discrimination against you as if you were definitely going to have a problem.
Are we fucking crazy here? What about the rights of the employees? What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
Thank you to the U.S. Government for taking a positive stand for personal freedom!
--
--
Not really. It's more just filled with the current beliefs of the time plus a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages. All that anti-stuff stuff came about from the stupid religious groups that interpret the thing incorrectly.
--
The human condition is only what me make of it. Are we tied to living a certain kind of lifestyle or can we change it as we please? And your statement that no movie, play or other work of art with a PG rating or less can be moving and have an impact is utterly ridiculous. You obviously have a skewed view of the world. If someone doesn't shoot, maim and kill lots of other people while having sex with his next door neighbor's granddaughter, then it's not moving? Come on!
You're statements contradict themselves. On one hand, you oppose exposing children to this kind of violence yet on the other hand, you say they can't function without being exposed to it.
The games won't be disappearing off the shelves. They'll still be there. All that's happening is forcing the marketing of them to take a different path. Parents will still be able to choose to let their kids play the games. In fact they'll be able to have more control over their children this way, without the fear of having the violence forced on their children before they're ready.
Yes, humans are a violent species. But that doesn't mean that we have remain so.
--
--
Well, like they said in the last paragraph, it seems like they'll do the basic research there and leave the actual implementation research up to private companies, which is probably where most of the expense goes. Actually developing an application for a new science take lots more bucks than the initial discovery itself.
--
If you are positive it's your age, then here's a couple more questions. What's the average age of the company? Do you stand out like a sore thumb around all your other workers? Are there other people your age that also work at the company? How do they get treated?
What I'm trying to point out is that we can't jump to conclusions about the reasons why this person isn't being respected for his ideas. It may be his age. It may not be. There's probably a few factors involved.
As much as we may hate it, we all live within comfort zones that we don't usually like to step out of. This may be a case where people aren't used to letting the "kid" make the decisions, and it's not a conscious prejudice, just the way they've worked and lived. And, in a similar vein, this kid may not be used to letting others make decisions for him, and to live within that constraint is too much for him. This is, of course, assuming that age is definitely the factor here.
My advice is to continue to test the barriers in a healthy and constructive way. Try and break down the walls that are keeping these people from completely trusting each other. Maybe this kid should ask for a project that he can have complete control over in order to prove that trust in him is warranted. He should also talk openly and honestly with his superiors about this issue and really find out what's going on. No one gets anywhere by just assuming the other party is acting or thinking a certain way. It's all about communicating your needs and desires to others and at the same time understanding where they are coming from so that you can build a mutual trust for each other's skills, knowledge, abilities, you name it.
Well, hope that helps.
--
--
A) Create "backup" systems to be available if you were to contract a deadly disease.
1. Clone yourself
2. Put the clone in stasis
3. If you become deadly ill, remove the clone, kill off, remove necessary body parts for replacement
4. All better!
Now, if that doesn't have ethical problems, I don't know what does.
B) A baby/parent/sibling catalog
Donors could offer up their genes to product clones of themselves for purchase by families who are looking for that "perfect" family member (or replacement family member). You want a 20-year old Harvard student? No prob. You want a blonde-hair, blue-eye child of a nobel prize winner? No prob. You want a child after the terrible twos? You want a child who knows how to read? You want a top-honors high school athlete/science wiz/musical genius? Your brother/father/mother/grandparent just died? Want another one?
This would be the next logical step in the already existing egg/sperm donation banks.
C) Bring back to life famous leaders/musicians/poets/scientists
Let's think Jurassic Park but with a bunch of Teddy Roosevelt's, Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Neils Bohr's, Aaron Copland's, (insert your favorite famous person here) running around in it. Watch out for those electric fences, guys!
D) Just for the sheer bawls of it.
Some people just want to be God.
Not that big of a deal? Hmmm... I would beg to differ.
--
The fact of the matter is that these companies are doing something wrong. And the best way to fight the evils within the patent system is to showcase the companies and individuals who are exploiting those evils. Using the ballot box is not going to work. You have to go directly to the heart of the problem, which is the people who use the system incorrectly.
--
The greater the risks, the greater the falls.
--
--
There is no irony here. Open Source is a development model, not a business model. Not to mention all the pundits that would note that open source != free. Again, the distinction between the development and business sides of the industry.
--
But I wonder... How many intruders connect to webservers over SSL when they're trying to hack into it? I guess it could help hide their tracks because external-to-the-web-server intruder detection tools wouldn't be able to see what they're doing. Maybe?
--
I think it's because the mentalities of car users and computer users are very similar. With cars, most people only care about driving them, but there is also a select group of people that really want to know what goes on under the hood. So they spend hours and hours taking apart things, cleaning this and that, adding modifications, and basically just trying to get every ounce of juice out of their property.
The same exact thing can be said about computer users. It's a natural connection.
Not to mention all the damn OO classes in college that use the different parts of cars (or motorcycles, or bicycles - I think it has something to do with the perfectly round wheels, oooh, how mathematically nice!) to illustrate the elements of good Object-Oriented design methodologies.
--
--
Tools are made to be used, not to be learned.
Exactly!
--
I don't need to know the startup sequence my car goes through when I turn the key in the ignition. I just turn the key, the engine starts and I drive away.
This is the type of thing we should be striving for with computers. You turn the key, the machine starts and you use it. This whole logo thing hiding the boot messages at startup is not what we should be aiming for, though. We shouldn't get excited about it. But, neither should we want all those startup messages everytime we boot. What we should be striving for is a boot process that just does what it's supposed to - boot the computer and get the user to a state of working usefulness. If there are problems, you can flip a switch that provides diagnostics to send to someone (like taking the car to the shop), or the OS could be smart enough to even handle the error checking itself and fix any problems on its own, similar to the disc error checking that occurs if you shut down your computer "improperly."
The idea behind the the logo mentality is what matters here. Creating computer systems that are "user friendly" is the goal, and note that "user friendly" is not synonymous with "pretty" - it's means creating a tool that the user can use without caring what's going on inside.
--