How about redirecting money into the hiring of Hit Men to get at the root of the problem? After two or three spam queens get knocked off, I think it may dawn upon the rest that spamming isn't such a good idea anymore...
I actually thought of another Stephenson novel, The Big U. There's a subplot that features a gargantuan pipe organ and the effects of resonance at 16 Hz...very good book, if a little rough.
I'm not sure how to feel about that. On one hand, I think A Scanner Darkly is one of the most incredible stories ever written, but on the other hand is the fact that movies often destroy or pervert the original meaning. If done right, I think the movie could be very powerful...not something to watch just for kicks, though.
I had hoped that was the case. I see the context better with your explanation. I also appreciate the integrity of giving credit where it's due even if style is hated.
Seriously, how can you act so high and mighty and fair and just and pure while condemning anyone whose taste does not match your own as well as making completely inaccurate statements?
Your list of crappy bands is one that I generally agree with, excepting Soundgarden and STP. However, instead of merely saying you don't like their music, you go on to call them all talentless which simply isn't true.
Dave Matthews Band is full of talented musicians. Yes, they may not be your style, but in denying they have talent you show your lack of musical knowledge. Going on to call trance "high quality electronic music" as well as listing 10 bands most people have never heard of only confirms it. Do you mean to tell me that you believe there are _no_ popular bands that got that way through talent? Now, I don't like DMB any more than you, but to deny the complexity and depth of their music is foolish. Even soundgarden experimented with alternate timings (as opposed to trance's 4/4 4-on-the-floor monotony).
What I see surfacing from your comments is a deliberate nonconformist music selection for NO OTHER REASON than its nonconformance. Example, "I'd be happy if I even heard a little Alice DeeJay or David Gahan (considering how "poppy" those two artists are compared to most of what I listen to)." You couldn't resist throwing that in there, could you? Popular == bad, doesn't it? Oh, the poor masses wallow in their stupidity, but aren't we all so lucky to have you to show us True Aural Enlightenment.
Maybe this rant was a radical departure from your usual assertions about music, and maybe you got carried away. If so, then I apologize. If not, learn to appreciate and recognize (no need to enjoy) talent when you see it.
For example, recipes are traditionally not protected by copyright, so cookbooks would seem to receive less protection. On the other hand, the effect of the search function would possibly have a greater impact on the sale of cookbooks than other types of books.
So let me get this straight. If recipes aren't protected by copyright...and the problem lies with recipes...there is no problem. Yes?
Dropdown bookmark toolbar as well as sidebar, built-in Google (or other) search bar, automatic popup blocking with whitelist, tabbed browsing (plus advanced tabs extension should you desire it) Perhaps you've given Firebird a shot already, but if not I'd recommend it. I'm running 0.6 (Phoenity Neo theme - cleanest look out there), and the only downside is Flash/SHockwave & possibly Java can be a pain to plug in, which you might not even consider to be a drawback.
Then, when grabbed hold of the mouse, found it absurd the sensitivity they had it set at. Three inches to the left or right would cause a 360 degree turn and you couldn't click the mouse without the crosshair jumping. The effect was dizzying and frustrating.
3 inches to do a 360 is horrible! I have an inch and a half of travel at MOST. And I hope they inverted the Y-axis...
Anyway, nobody is pushing for abolishment of software licensing. GPL is a license. It depends on the exact same conceptual infrastruction as does Microsoft.
You're right. I stated my question incorrectly. I get the feeling that many open source advocates hail the GPL as the way to go, and that vastly decreases the availability of profit. BSD sounds more my style, as it provides code available for use that don't require one to release the source of a project implementing said code. This sounds more logical to me, if I've understood it correctly, as one can make open or closed source and still have the benefit of available code. As long as contributors still expand the open codebase, things keep rolling. Arguments that people would stop contributing don't hold water, as people continually contribute to the GPL codebase knowing ahead of time that their source can and will be copied with no compensation.
BTW, Sorry to hear you bought into the University Marketing propaganda. You paid your money, and you got a "checkmark" in the same box as millions of other fools. Don't worry, people poured LOTS of money into Enron too. Just be sure, if you ever do "make it", that you mindlessly DEMAND that every soul you come into contact with made the same mistake. It won't get you better employee's, but it sure will sooth your ego.
I'm going to have to argue on this point. I enjoy education, and going to a liberal arts school means I had to get a well-rounded one. If I were in a hiring position, I would remember that university is not necessary. I chose to attend to learn - not just about CS, but various interests as well as the whole experience, and I think it has been worthwhile for me. I recognize that that may not be true for others and is not an indicator of skill.
My original question was: if I choose to follow software engineering (as another poster correctly surmised I should have said) as a career path, how could I make money if software is free?
I think I strayed a bit in my reply, but I hope the whole is coherent.
I'm a 4th year computer science major, focused on coding. I enjoy it, and I see no problem with open source and GPL'ed software. What I have trouble understanding (and hopefully someone can help me out here) is the push for abolishing software licenses. I've just poured a LOT of money into getting my degree. Where would my livelihood come from if software licenses were abolished, if everything were open source? I have no interest in IT, so don't direct me there. Where do I, as a coder, make my money if my desire is to create original software?
When you purchase a synth, you also purchase the right to use sounds from that synth in your music and pay no royalties. Generally, the manual or user's guide will contain a paragraph stating as much. Unfortunately, all my manuals are somewhere else, so I can't provide an example.
An interesting question is this: what is the difference between using a synth's sounds on a record and using them in a softsynth of your own creation? Is there a legal difference between using a synth in a musical album to sell and using a synth to create a sample library to sell? In essence, making a softsynth using the original file format _is_ creating a sample library with a nonstandard navigation interface, unless I am mistaken.
I have yet to hear any purely computer-generated music that is innovative. You've got your band-in-a-box cheese factories and your bionic-algorithm-whatever strange noise makers. There's no expressiveness to computer-generated music. Sure, somebody may have made a point at one time by letting a machine has its way, but that's a bit tired out.
CGM is interesting, but there's no soul, no feeling. I'd love to be proven wrong. If anyone can show me CGM that's pleasant to listen to, or phenominal in some way, I'd love to hear it.
On the other hand, computers could handle dance music just fine...
The court also doubled the labels' fine - and the fines for senior label executives - to more than $A2 million.
It's obvious that to save a bit of space, the article poster wrote the fine in hexidecimal. So the actual fine works out to be 10 x 16 + 2 = $162 MILLION. That's pretty friggin' high.
No, I don't think it would be crack-proof. However, I don't think it would be much more crackable than the proposed system, which relies on a flight plan and an integrated GPS system. If an encryption system were used to update the flight plan, as I assume it would be, hijackers would have to have access to an ATC center, which I'm hoping is harder to gain control of than a plane. With such a scheme, the key could be personalized to a pilot (passphrase), and in the event of coercion, an alternate could be given. I think I'm going off on a tangent now, but I hope I've made my point.
Slashdot Mirror
How about redirecting money into the hiring of Hit Men to get at the root of the problem? After two or three spam queens get knocked off, I think it may dawn upon the rest that spamming isn't such a good idea anymore...
I'll be convinced when Lego builds a Lego factory out of Legos.
So why not just make a copy of the license to make a license?
I actually thought of another Stephenson novel, The Big U. There's a subplot that features a gargantuan pipe organ and the effects of resonance at 16 Hz...very good book, if a little rough.
I'm not sure how to feel about that. On one hand, I think A Scanner Darkly is one of the most incredible stories ever written, but on the other hand is the fact that movies often destroy or pervert the original meaning. If done right, I think the movie could be very powerful...not something to watch just for kicks, though.
I had hoped that was the case. I see the context better with your explanation. I also appreciate the integrity of giving credit where it's due even if style is hated.
Propers.
Seriously, how can you act so high and mighty and fair and just and pure while condemning anyone whose taste does not match your own as well as making completely inaccurate statements?
Your list of crappy bands is one that I generally agree with, excepting Soundgarden and STP. However, instead of merely saying you don't like their music, you go on to call them all talentless which simply isn't true.
Dave Matthews Band is full of talented musicians. Yes, they may not be your style, but in denying they have talent you show your lack of musical knowledge. Going on to call trance "high quality electronic music" as well as listing 10 bands most people have never heard of only confirms it. Do you mean to tell me that you believe there are _no_ popular bands that got that way through talent? Now, I don't like DMB any more than you, but to deny the complexity and depth of their music is foolish. Even soundgarden experimented with alternate timings (as opposed to trance's 4/4 4-on-the-floor monotony).
What I see surfacing from your comments is a deliberate nonconformist music selection for NO OTHER REASON than its nonconformance. Example, "I'd be happy if I even heard a little Alice DeeJay or David Gahan (considering how "poppy" those two artists are compared to most of what I listen to)." You couldn't resist throwing that in there, could you? Popular == bad, doesn't it? Oh, the poor masses wallow in their stupidity, but aren't we all so lucky to have you to show us True Aural Enlightenment.
Maybe this rant was a radical departure from your usual assertions about music, and maybe you got carried away. If so, then I apologize. If not, learn to appreciate and recognize (no need to enjoy) talent when you see it.
Aah, so now we want EULA's to be held up in court, hm?
Tsk tsk, inconsistent.
Something similar was said when the mouse was first invented...
Funny you should mention redundant information, as THIS IS A DUPE. Woo! 2.8% of the 800 megs per person average comes from Slashdot dupes alone.
Anyone else think of the THX sound before anything else?
For example, recipes are traditionally not protected by copyright, so cookbooks would seem to receive less protection. On the other hand, the effect of the search function would possibly have a greater impact on the sale of cookbooks than other types of books.
So let me get this straight. If recipes aren't protected by copyright...and the problem lies with recipes...there is no problem. Yes?
Dropdown bookmark toolbar as well as sidebar,
built-in Google (or other) search bar,
automatic popup blocking with whitelist,
tabbed browsing (plus advanced tabs extension should you desire it)
Perhaps you've given Firebird a shot already, but if not I'd recommend it. I'm running 0.6 (Phoenity Neo theme - cleanest look out there), and the only downside is Flash/SHockwave & possibly Java can be a pain to plug in, which you might not even consider to be a drawback.
Then, when grabbed hold of the mouse, found it absurd the sensitivity they had it set at. Three inches to the left or right would cause a 360 degree turn and you couldn't click the mouse without the crosshair jumping. The effect was dizzying and frustrating.
3 inches to do a 360 is horrible! I have an inch and a half of travel at MOST. And I hope they inverted the Y-axis...
Anyway, nobody is pushing for abolishment of software licensing. GPL is a license. It depends on the exact same conceptual infrastruction as does Microsoft.
You're right. I stated my question incorrectly. I get the feeling that many open source advocates hail the GPL as the way to go, and that vastly decreases the availability of profit. BSD sounds more my style, as it provides code available for use that don't require one to release the source of a project implementing said code. This sounds more logical to me, if I've understood it correctly, as one can make open or closed source and still have the benefit of available code. As long as contributors still expand the open codebase, things keep rolling. Arguments that people would stop contributing don't hold water, as people continually contribute to the GPL codebase knowing ahead of time that their source can and will be copied with no compensation.
BTW, Sorry to hear you bought into the University Marketing propaganda. You paid your money, and you got a "checkmark" in the same box as millions of other fools. Don't worry, people poured LOTS of money into Enron too. Just be sure, if you ever do "make it", that you mindlessly DEMAND that every soul you come into contact with made the same mistake. It won't get you better employee's, but it sure will sooth your ego.
I'm going to have to argue on this point. I enjoy education, and going to a liberal arts school means I had to get a well-rounded one. If I were in a hiring position, I would remember that university is not necessary. I chose to attend to learn - not just about CS, but various interests as well as the whole experience, and I think it has been worthwhile for me. I recognize that that may not be true for others and is not an indicator of skill.
My original question was: if I choose to follow software engineering (as another poster correctly surmised I should have said) as a career path, how could I make money if software is free?
I think I strayed a bit in my reply, but I hope the whole is coherent.
I'm a 4th year computer science major, focused on coding. I enjoy it, and I see no problem with open source and GPL'ed software. What I have trouble understanding (and hopefully someone can help me out here) is the push for abolishing software licenses. I've just poured a LOT of money into getting my degree. Where would my livelihood come from if software licenses were abolished, if everything were open source? I have no interest in IT, so don't direct me there. Where do I, as a coder, make my money if my desire is to create original software?
When you purchase a synth, you also purchase the right to use sounds from that synth in your music and pay no royalties. Generally, the manual or user's guide will contain a paragraph stating as much. Unfortunately, all my manuals are somewhere else, so I can't provide an example.
An interesting question is this: what is the difference between using a synth's sounds on a record and using them in a softsynth of your own creation? Is there a legal difference between using a synth in a musical album to sell and using a synth to create a sample library to sell? In essence, making a softsynth using the original file format _is_ creating a sample library with a nonstandard navigation interface, unless I am mistaken.
trojanned his machine and stole the source code.
Ah, methinks you mean pirated.
=)
So what the parent poster meant to say is,
"Hurrah Beatles! They gave us Britney Spears & N'Sync!"
I, for one, find that reason enough to loathe them.
I have yet to hear any purely computer-generated music that is innovative. You've got your band-in-a-box cheese factories and your bionic-algorithm-whatever strange noise makers. There's no expressiveness to computer-generated music. Sure, somebody may have made a point at one time by letting a machine has its way, but that's a bit tired out.
CGM is interesting, but there's no soul, no feeling. I'd love to be proven wrong. If anyone can show me CGM that's pleasant to listen to, or phenominal in some way, I'd love to hear it.
On the other hand, computers could handle dance music just fine...
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9x
9.999... - 0.999... = 9
9x = 9
x = 1
From the article:
The court also doubled the labels' fine - and the fines for senior label executives - to more than $A2 million.
It's obvious that to save a bit of space, the article poster wrote the fine in hexidecimal. So the actual fine works out to be
10 x 16 + 2 = $162 MILLION. That's pretty friggin' high.
kinda hard to mail something to someone without a mailbox...
This is the system being proposed - I'm simly offering a possible solution to emergency flight changes. Read the article.
No, I don't think it would be crack-proof. However, I don't think it would be much more crackable than the proposed system, which relies on a flight plan and an integrated GPS system. If an encryption system were used to update the flight plan, as I assume it would be, hijackers would have to have access to an ATC center, which I'm hoping is harder to gain control of than a plane. With such a scheme, the key could be personalized to a pilot (passphrase), and in the event of coercion, an alternate could be given. I think I'm going off on a tangent now, but I hope I've made my point.