Someone on another forum I frequent was trying to figure out an open source way to do this... best we came up with was using VLC to do the transcoding/downsampling and streaming, but it's a lot more of a hassle to set up as I understand it. I haven't personally tried either, but I've seen the results of Slingbox, and it's pretty slick.
I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash.
Who said "dumb" had anything to do with it? We don't always wait until our technology is 100% perfect to do something (see: Apollo 13, Mars rovers, ISS). Technical malfunctions are just a fact of working with technology. Something can always go wrong, and sometimes it's not fixable, especially if you have limited resources on hand.
There were still underground bands before the internet, it was just more difficult. Swapping records, or tapes once those were around, etc. More word of mouth, and more piracy from necessity rather than convenience. You make a good point though, the mainstream music industry has become much less interested in making good music, and more interested in manufacturing the next pop star who will make them millions with the same old shitty music.
As to your last sentence, though... I think that's very nearly over with. I already know people who have unlimited data plans on their cell phones, and use a Slingbox to stream video directly to their phone from a home server. Granted these are pretty tech-nerd people, but it's already possible, and audio is much lower bandwidth than video. Right now you can walk around with a phone streaming music from your home server directly to an earpiece, and it's within the budget of the middle class.
Compact discs I could see going away, by a narrow definition. But I think people are always going to like the tactile nature of owning a physical product. Granted it's not as much of a draw as with books, but there's something nice about having album art and a physical item that's linked with the music. Not to mention it looks like it's going to be a while before music companies clue in and start selling lossless copies online.
You might be surprised by the number of people who just listen to "whatever's on the radio", or at least nothing but what's on the radio (they don't seek out music, but listen or don't to what's handed to them). In that sense, the music industry absolutely has a measure of control over what we "like". It's my firm belief that there are enough of those people out there to make at least a minor star of a new artist who simply happens to be "the best thing on right now".
The market for recorded music is never going to go away. Personally, I will continue to buy CDs of bands I really want to support. I'd rather buy them from the band directly, because I know a greater percentage goes to them as opposed to some faceless music exec, but either way I have no problem shelling out a little to get a physical object AND support music I enjoy.
Now, iTunes on the other hand can go take a jump off a cliff, because there's no way I'm paying for a limited, lossy, digital version, no matter how much I enjoy it.
Sure, people WOULD create music just for the heck of it. But just like any profession, people need to eat as well. So if you're a musician but you have to work days at another job, you're not going to have as much time to devote to practicing your playing and writing, and your music is going to suffer for it. The money isn't the motivation, but it is necessary to allow those people to devote themselves to their art.
you are absolutely correct. Music is a temporal art. It's a shame those poor "Artists" are going to have to start being "artists" again, performing. That's where the money is, anyway. not the Albums.
While I love live shows, I have to disagree with you here. There are some artists who just don't work as a live act. In addition, there's a lot of great music that is either 30-40 years old now, or is played by people with relatively low general appeal who live far away from me. The chances of seeing them live more than once or twice in my life is nill. And even more, even small bands have a tendency to play "hits" in their live shows, when some of their best songs may not win crowd favor. There are many good things about live shows, but the amazing variety of music available today couldn't exist without a recording medium that allows a permanent record of a performance, and the painstaking construction of that performance through the studio process.
There are even specific examples that contradict you. Steely Dan stopped touring after their third album and existed entirely as a studio band, and their output only improved for it. In an even more well known case, the Beatles stopped touring after Revolver or Rubber Soul (I forget which), and became a studio only band, then went on to release records that would remain some of the most influential music ever made. They recorded their best 6 albums in that 3 year span, something they never could have done along with the pressures of touring and playing live shows.
I'm all for artists touring more if that works for them. And I'm all for the RIAA collapsing on itself. Their current business model of buying up radio stations and pumping the same corporate manufactured top 40 shit throughout the country needs to stop as soon as possible. But there's no way you're going to convince me that recorded albums are a bad thing in general.
Go listen to Art Brut and Oh My God and then tell me that Punk is really dead.
Seriously, just because the mainstream latched onto it and produced some watered down versions for mass consumption doesn't mean the people making the real art suddenly gave up.
It's not what he was talking about primarily either. He used it an example before launching into the main problem, which is taking spam blocking past the point of just blocking spam, and turning it into domain blacklisting, for even user-initiated actions.
This is absolutely false. Blocking spam from compromised domains, absolutely. I agree with you 100% that blocking those emails is a service to the consumer, and so does the author. But blocking the user from navigating to a website in that IP block, an action which they have explicitly initiated, is another thing entirely. The ISP is selling the user a service (we will connect your browser to the internet), and then breaking it without even telling the user. The motive behind double billing is slightly different, but the execution is the same: sell the user a service, and then break the service you've promised. Only in the new case, they're trying to extort money from 3rd parties in exchange for un-breaking the service again.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if history books and text books didn't lie so badly about it to make us "feel good" about it. Lies like the natives were "uncivilized", in various forms mostly, when in fact the early settlers here learned an amazing amounts from the natives, including some fundamental concepts of democracy. When you have textbooks teaching that the Boston Tea Party perpetrators dressed up as natives to "disguise" themselves, and the actual reason was that the native american was a symbol of freedom and independence in the culture at that time, something is wrong.
I'm not saying we should have reparations or anything like that. I think what's done is done, by people who are long dead, and those of us that had nothing to do with it shouldn't feel guilty about what happened. But we also shouldn't lie about it.
A few small components in an otherwise open and free system isn't the end of the world. If they went the other way and refused to use those things, you'd be calling them fanatics.
So, I can deposit all those checks that are mailed to me that have fine print that reads "By depositing this check, you hereby agree to use our service"?
That's a grey area. Since you have to endorse the check to deposit it, depending how it's stated and where it's placed, you may actually be signing a contract to use their service when you sign the check. On the other hand, at least one company that tried such a marketing scheme on a large scale was recently forced to pay $2 million in damages to companies that it tricked into signing up, and prompted the attorney general of Connecticut to say this:
Enticing customers with gratuitous gifts and then raiding their bank accounts is an illegal and unethical business practice.
Anyway, it's certainly a different level than the equivalent of "by reading this pamphlet which I handed to you when you asked for it, you agree to be bound by this arbitrary contract I've laid out".
In making that statement, I was assuming that there was a large grey area in between the two more well-defined extremes. Sorry if I left that ambiguous:-P
The point was that to be a good scientist, you have to be okay with saying, "I don't know the answer to this. I've been doing experiments on it for 30 years, and I still can't tell you for sure." And the reason is, if you're not comfortable with that, you're probably going to start biasing your studies, or massaging your results to fit the outcome you want or expect. While science is at its core the enterprise of reducing ambiguity, a willingness to embrace ambiguity when it's realistically called for is something no scientist (or engineer) can do without.
That's complete hogwash. I know plenty of engineers who are fine with ambiguity, and tons of engineers who are extremely liberal (I'm one of them). Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they're rare. In fact, I would venture that conservative-leaning scientists seem more out of place, given what you said above. Scientists have to be able to accept that they don't know things, and understand and be comfortable with realistically defining the boundary between what they do and don't know. If you're uncomfortable with having large swaths of your subject in a very undefined state, you're not going to be a very good scientist, because you'll be pushed towards defining things sooner than you should.
Now, I'll agree with you that conservatives tend to like to declare that they know the answer to things, whether they do or not. I think it's at the root of their attitude towards welfare (that person's homeless, he must be lazy), the economy (rich people deserve tax cuts because they work harder than everyone else), and religion (it's okay to make laws based on the bible, because the bible is true, and God says we should) and a bunch of other issues. But to apply it to science-minded people in the way you have seems quite backwards to me.
No, but I'm pretty sure the contract isn't valid if you decline. Her statement that "by doing x you are entering a contract" shouldn't hold up in any reasonable court. Even with shrinkwrap licenses on software you have to click a button or hit a checkbox that says "I agree to the contract shown here", and those are on shaky ground as it is. While all the normal copyright laws still apply to her content, the only way to enter into a contract is still to explicitly agree to the contract.
I was told the same thing, but when I went back to renew after the expiration period, there was no mention of that fee, and I wasn't charged it. I'm guessing the OP having trouble getting a domain away from them has the domain "locked" or something. Such a large and seemingly reputable company can't make a habit of ignoring transfer requests.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone on another forum I frequent was trying to figure out an open source way to do this... best we came up with was using VLC to do the transcoding/downsampling and streaming, but it's a lot more of a hassle to set up as I understand it. I haven't personally tried either, but I've seen the results of Slingbox, and it's pretty slick.
There were still underground bands before the internet, it was just more difficult. Swapping records, or tapes once those were around, etc. More word of mouth, and more piracy from necessity rather than convenience. You make a good point though, the mainstream music industry has become much less interested in making good music, and more interested in manufacturing the next pop star who will make them millions with the same old shitty music.
As to your last sentence, though... I think that's very nearly over with. I already know people who have unlimited data plans on their cell phones, and use a Slingbox to stream video directly to their phone from a home server. Granted these are pretty tech-nerd people, but it's already possible, and audio is much lower bandwidth than video. Right now you can walk around with a phone streaming music from your home server directly to an earpiece, and it's within the budget of the middle class.
Compact discs I could see going away, by a narrow definition. But I think people are always going to like the tactile nature of owning a physical product. Granted it's not as much of a draw as with books, but there's something nice about having album art and a physical item that's linked with the music. Not to mention it looks like it's going to be a while before music companies clue in and start selling lossless copies online.
You might be surprised by the number of people who just listen to "whatever's on the radio", or at least nothing but what's on the radio (they don't seek out music, but listen or don't to what's handed to them). In that sense, the music industry absolutely has a measure of control over what we "like". It's my firm belief that there are enough of those people out there to make at least a minor star of a new artist who simply happens to be "the best thing on right now".
The market for recorded music is never going to go away. Personally, I will continue to buy CDs of bands I really want to support. I'd rather buy them from the band directly, because I know a greater percentage goes to them as opposed to some faceless music exec, but either way I have no problem shelling out a little to get a physical object AND support music I enjoy.
Now, iTunes on the other hand can go take a jump off a cliff, because there's no way I'm paying for a limited, lossy, digital version, no matter how much I enjoy it.
Sure, people WOULD create music just for the heck of it. But just like any profession, people need to eat as well. So if you're a musician but you have to work days at another job, you're not going to have as much time to devote to practicing your playing and writing, and your music is going to suffer for it. The money isn't the motivation, but it is necessary to allow those people to devote themselves to their art.
There are even specific examples that contradict you. Steely Dan stopped touring after their third album and existed entirely as a studio band, and their output only improved for it. In an even more well known case, the Beatles stopped touring after Revolver or Rubber Soul (I forget which), and became a studio only band, then went on to release records that would remain some of the most influential music ever made. They recorded their best 6 albums in that 3 year span, something they never could have done along with the pressures of touring and playing live shows.
I'm all for artists touring more if that works for them. And I'm all for the RIAA collapsing on itself. Their current business model of buying up radio stations and pumping the same corporate manufactured top 40 shit throughout the country needs to stop as soon as possible. But there's no way you're going to convince me that recorded albums are a bad thing in general.
Maybe it's all a trick, and he's secretly still on the payroll :-)
Go listen to Art Brut and Oh My God and then tell me that Punk is really dead.
Seriously, just because the mainstream latched onto it and produced some watered down versions for mass consumption doesn't mean the people making the real art suddenly gave up.
It's not what he was talking about primarily either. He used it an example before launching into the main problem, which is taking spam blocking past the point of just blocking spam, and turning it into domain blacklisting, for even user-initiated actions.
This is absolutely false. Blocking spam from compromised domains, absolutely. I agree with you 100% that blocking those emails is a service to the consumer, and so does the author. But blocking the user from navigating to a website in that IP block, an action which they have explicitly initiated, is another thing entirely. The ISP is selling the user a service (we will connect your browser to the internet), and then breaking it without even telling the user. The motive behind double billing is slightly different, but the execution is the same: sell the user a service, and then break the service you've promised. Only in the new case, they're trying to extort money from 3rd parties in exchange for un-breaking the service again.
They tried, but they lost...
That hasn't been the "typical" Linux user for like 10 years.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if history books and text books didn't lie so badly about it to make us "feel good" about it. Lies like the natives were "uncivilized", in various forms mostly, when in fact the early settlers here learned an amazing amounts from the natives, including some fundamental concepts of democracy. When you have textbooks teaching that the Boston Tea Party perpetrators dressed up as natives to "disguise" themselves, and the actual reason was that the native american was a symbol of freedom and independence in the culture at that time, something is wrong.
I'm not saying we should have reparations or anything like that. I think what's done is done, by people who are long dead, and those of us that had nothing to do with it shouldn't feel guilty about what happened. But we also shouldn't lie about it.
Fantastic. Would you like an e-Cookie?
A few small components in an otherwise open and free system isn't the end of the world. If they went the other way and refused to use those things, you'd be calling them fanatics.
would that make it a "Touring Machine"?
In making that statement, I was assuming that there was a large grey area in between the two more well-defined extremes. Sorry if I left that ambiguous :-P
The point was that to be a good scientist, you have to be okay with saying, "I don't know the answer to this. I've been doing experiments on it for 30 years, and I still can't tell you for sure." And the reason is, if you're not comfortable with that, you're probably going to start biasing your studies, or massaging your results to fit the outcome you want or expect. While science is at its core the enterprise of reducing ambiguity, a willingness to embrace ambiguity when it's realistically called for is something no scientist (or engineer) can do without.
That's complete hogwash. I know plenty of engineers who are fine with ambiguity, and tons of engineers who are extremely liberal (I'm one of them). Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they're rare. In fact, I would venture that conservative-leaning scientists seem more out of place, given what you said above. Scientists have to be able to accept that they don't know things, and understand and be comfortable with realistically defining the boundary between what they do and don't know. If you're uncomfortable with having large swaths of your subject in a very undefined state, you're not going to be a very good scientist, because you'll be pushed towards defining things sooner than you should.
Now, I'll agree with you that conservatives tend to like to declare that they know the answer to things, whether they do or not. I think it's at the root of their attitude towards welfare (that person's homeless, he must be lazy), the economy (rich people deserve tax cuts because they work harder than everyone else), and religion (it's okay to make laws based on the bible, because the bible is true, and God says we should) and a bunch of other issues. But to apply it to science-minded people in the way you have seems quite backwards to me.
No, but I'm pretty sure the contract isn't valid if you decline. Her statement that "by doing x you are entering a contract" shouldn't hold up in any reasonable court. Even with shrinkwrap licenses on software you have to click a button or hit a checkbox that says "I agree to the contract shown here", and those are on shaky ground as it is. While all the normal copyright laws still apply to her content, the only way to enter into a contract is still to explicitly agree to the contract.
I was told the same thing, but when I went back to renew after the expiration period, there was no mention of that fee, and I wasn't charged it. I'm guessing the OP having trouble getting a domain away from them has the domain "locked" or something. Such a large and seemingly reputable company can't make a habit of ignoring transfer requests.
That's disgusting. Because now Wikipedia links to that article as the source that confirms the number in their article.
They already can and do serve different content to GoogleBot than to normal web users. All it takes is checking the client string.