World Serpent Distribution, an experimental record label based in the UK, unknowingly released a fairly large quantity of discs that would later degrade due to disc rot. This wasn't the fault of the label, but their manufacturer, PDO. This occured between 1988-1993.
The signs of disc rot are fairly easy to recognize: A sort of bronzing around the disc, leading to deterioration, beginning from the last track and moving inwards. From what I understand, this generally occurs because the actual disc underneath the plastic wasn't properly sealed to protect against oxididization. Acids from the liner notes also play a part.
You can find the full writeup about it on Current 93's website (they're a band on WSD): http://brainwashed.com/c93/music/discrot.html
Just to note, I hadn't meant any offense to you, Pete. I just felt that for the content being put forth, the aforementioned sites would serve as a much more educational way of looking into circuit bending, rather than just, "oh, weird instruments. those look neat"
Like you, however, I am also obsessed. By recontextualizing existing objects and instruments, we're able to harness some very interesting and unique sounds. Overall, I think it's a concept that's been largely ignored by the masses, and in many ways, that's very unfortunate.
I'm a little shocked this kind of thing is considered news. That aside, there are certainly better sites to bring up the topic.
I've never heard it referred to as "hacking" (though I suppose it's quite appropriate) or case modding, but circuit bending toy keyboards has been commonplace for years, particularly in experimental music. Noteworthy circuit-benders include Not Breathing, Skincage, Dead Voices On Air, Chris and Cosey, and manymanymany others. I'm even picking up the tools to start doing it, likely for tweaking the hell out of a speak and music.
Anyway. For people more interested in the nitty-gritty elements of this, rather than this lacking article, check out the following:
http://www.oddmusic.com - lots of bizarre and exotic instruments, plus a special gallery of circuit-bent toys. most instruments have sound samples available.
http://www.acmeengineering.net/obnoxicator.html - well, it's not a toy keyboard..but who could resist a modified megaphone outfitted with fx pedals? loooove the obnoxicator.
http://www.carrionsound.com - dave wright/not breathing's site o' circuit bending goodness. plenty of sounds, pictures, and other happy things.
In particular, if you like more "odd" material, or are looking to branch out to something a little more unusual, look for a guy working at the Hollywood Amoeba named Phil. He's a good friend of mine, has worked at Amoeba for years, and could probably guide you to a lot of new stuff.
As some have noted, though, it really depends on what you're looking for. I mean, just saying, "help me find new music!" is too broad..there are literally hundreds of genres and sub-genres, and many sites will be very centered around one or several particular styles. If your only interest lies in Top 40 and "Alternative" junk, then virtually any commercially-oriented site will work for you. However, if you're interested in bands like, say, The Klinik or Hypnoskull..those sites will frequently give *very* misguided recommendations. If you do fall into the latter category, my best suggestion would be to talk to people at indie record shops. If you know of or stumble across any mailorder sites online that specialize in your kind of music, you should maybe ask for a few recommendations. If they're the sort of shop that really cares about the music, and they listen to it themselves, they could probably give you some good leads.
For experimental stuff, I'd recommend none other than malignantrecords.com It's run by Jason Mantis, who used to write Audio Drudge magazine, and he consistently stocks an amazing selection of new and occasionally old/rare/out-of-print stuff. Shipping is free if you're on the east coast, and very cheap if you're on the west. His prices are generally very fair, too; usually about $12 or so for new cds. Prices for vinyl can vary depending on weight and whatnot, but they're usually good, too.
Please don't tell me i'm one of the only people on here still buying vinyl.
by "forcefed", i'm referring to the seemingly endless stream of crap that's produced year after year (both in movies *and* music). i don't mean it in a "we're going to strap you in this chair and you WILL watch "dude, where's my car?"" kind of way...it's just a sense of being inundated by the advertising/gimmicks/marketing associated with those products.
kind of how i view things like the backstreet boys.
in any case, it's great if you went to see "solaris" to get an opinion of it. that's totally up to you. what i'm saying is, for me, i loved the original, but i don't have any desire to see the new one. maybe i'll feel like renting it later on, who knows?
i don't feel i owe it any courtesy, though, just as i don't owe the backstreet boys the courtesy of buying one of their cds, just to find out how they sound. if not wanting to hear the backstreet boys is somehow a bad thing, feel free to give me a lengthy explanation of why i should drop $15 on one of their discs. on the same token , if not wanting to drop $9.00 to go see a remake of "solaris" is somehow bad, then please, fill me in how these two situations are really so different from one another.
how was "y tu mama tambien", anyway? i've been thinking of renting it, but passed it up last time in favor of "donnie darko" (really great movie, btw).
i hate fuckers who bleep out swear words for absolutely no purpose.
i also hate fuckers who rail on someone for spelling/grammar errors that are, for the most part, quite minor. god forbid you actually make a fucking point that pertains to the issue currently under discussion.
also, how do you draw the conclusion that you know so much more about movies than i do? what does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread? that relevance of that comment is roughly equivalent to "MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!" stains semen on a theater seat? what are you, four years old? oh god! that guy typed too quickly to notice spelling errors! it would never occur to me that he was typing in a hurry and happened to overlook his spelling errors! i am infallible! oh, god! i'm going to wet myself with glee as i write a completely pointless critique of his abilities!
btw, "movies ARE a popular medium" would be a much better way of writing that sentence. just sharing the wealth, as you've so tastefully deigned to step down and show me the error of my ways!
look, no one is debating that movies are a popular medium in this discussion. what i *am* against is being forcefed crap that's been watered down to appeal to a more widespread, mainstream audience. i'm sorry if you feel that this somehow makes me an elitist, but i just don't have an interest. i've seen enough movies to know what i like, and i what i don't like. one of the things that falls into that latter category is seeing films rehashed and repackaged. you're welcome to it if you want to watch that shit, but you can't count me out of it.
this isn't vulgar populism, either. if a "hit" movie comes along that i think looks interesting, i'll watch it. i'm not waving a flag anywhere that says, "no mainstream cinema!" christ, i own "starship troopers" i really doubt you'll see shit like that played at sundance, and in general, overzealous film snobs don't watch that kind of thing as a rule-of-thumb.
if you're too ignorant to get the point of "i don't like seeing films i love remade for no purpose", then sorry my taste in movies somehow pisses on your cornflakes. i'm sure you'll write another DAZZLING reply to this post, but i think i've already had enough of you. save your breath.
Re:The russian origial [SPOILER ABOUT INSOMNIA]
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 1
i'm a snob because i don't like seeing movies i love get rehashed? i'm a snob because i'm sick of having bullshit movies shoved my way? hardly.
look, i'm not denying that soderbergh or nolan have proven that they can do work. like i stated above, it's seeing movies that i love, which were incrediblly well-done in the first place, being rehashed. you mention that 95% of people in the theater hadn't heard of tarkovsky's version..
is it because it's a bad film? nope. it's because, once again, american's won't watch subtitles.
back to the point at hand, howeve: i've *rarely* ever seen a remake done that isn't artistically hollow. that isn't what annoys me, though. my problem with all of this is that movies are being reworked for NO PURPOSE. why remake insomnia? why not just watch the original?
look, maybe this IS a snobby attitude to take, but think how you would feel. let's say that "a clockwork orange" is one of your favorite movies, of all time. i don't know if it is, but let's just use that as an example.
so, you love this film. steven spielberg or whoever comes along, pops out a remake of it, only this time, it's less violent, less effectual, and stars george clooney in the lead role. the droogies are played by al pacino, robin williams, and doogie fucking howser. would you REALLY want to see this film? ignoring who's in it, would you really see a point or have a genuine interest in seeing a remake of a film which, in your eyes, can not and should not be remade? probably not.
again, maybe this is a snobbish attitude to take. however, methinks you'd get sick of coookie-cutter film, unnecessary remakes, and "blockbuster" hits eventually, too. when you work in a video store for 2 years, you eventually rent virtually everything the store has to offer. rather quickly, you start to draw a really fine line between what you consider good, and what you consider bad.
i don't need to see the remake of "insomnia". in the original, skaarsgaard was, for all intents and purposes, the real villian. the person who you're led to believe is the villian, accidentally committed murder. looking at the ad with robin williams, it's obvious to me that they didn't play this properly, because the few times i saw it, he was portrayed as playing mind games, etc with the cop. the only person doing that in the original was skaarsgaard's character.
technical details aside, i just don't see a point. if trying to be a disseminating moviegoer makes me a close-minded elitist, so be it...but i don't need to rent film like "double jeopardy" just to know they're crap, and i don't need to watch a remake of "insomnia" just to find out that the original was better.
and it's for this very reason that i won't touch the new one.
andrei tarkovsky was an amazing, one-of-a-kind director. it makes me absolutely sick to see yet ANOTHER great foreign film being remade like this. they did it to "insomnia", too, which features the remarkable stellan skaarsgaard. it's one of my favorite movies, alongside many of the films of andrei tarkovsky and krzystof kieslowski. the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point. christ, robin williams is cast as the "villian"! i won't spoil the movie by saying why this is completely untrue to the original, but if anyone else here sees it/has seen it, you will hopefully understand what i'm getting at.
is it so hard for the average american to watch subtitles? is the reading ability of the average citizen so low that they can't quickly read a line of text, and still pay attention to what's going on in a film?
y'know, i'm sure soderbergh's intent was probably just to put out his own take on the original novel..but i can't help but feel it's just "another one". another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american. it really sucks to see films that i love essentially being reduced to just a watered down copy.
after working for a video store for 2 years, though, i'm not surprised. true to "clerks", most customers pick out the most intellectually devoid movies out there: "ooh, double jeopardy! ooh, the santa clause!" pff.
you are right about linux apps, in some instances..like i mentioned, i really like spiralsynth modular, and some of the ladspa plugins i've used thus far are pretty nice.. sequencing, however, is one of the most important elements. don't get me wrong; it's not that i think linux flat-out sucks for audio..it's just lacking a lot of what i need.
i will say that jmax looks pretty cool, though.
unfortunately, for me, when i'm working on music, "pretty graphics" can make a big difference..not so much so with things like softsynths, but sequencing, etc? definitely.
still, you do make some good points, which is exactly why i'm trying out a lot of stuff on my freebsd system. writing a port usually doesn't take very long, so i'll check out jmax and a few of the others you've mentioned when i've had a bit more coffee.
in any case..the biggest other reasons i keep a windows machine around are graphics and gaming. while i play games on my ps2 more often than my computer, i *do* still use the computer for it..hell, i don't think i'll ever stop playing fallout 2 and system shock 2:p
graphics-wise, i've tried using gimp..i really have. unfortunately, for me, the user interface needs a *lot* of work. after using photoshop for 5+ years, maybe i'm just too set in my ways, but so far, i just don't think it's an adequate replacement yet. the potential is certainly there, and there is a good bit that you can do with it as it is, but until the interface is laid out a little better, i'm sticking with the tried and true.
in all honesty, i would love to snag a mac laptop for music, but i just can't afford it. in the meantime, though, i've got a windows machine specifically for music, while my freebsd box stands as my main system.
at the least, though, i have found one good use for audio apps on freebsd/linux: sample tweaking/creation. spiralsynth, in particular, is a really inspiring piece of software, especially since the release of spiral synth modular. since my main tool in windows is reaktor, it's fairly intuitive to use, and makes some really great sounds.
personally, i think the most lackluster aspects of open-source audio tools lie in sequencing and plugins. i know there are a lot of ladspa plugs out there, and you've got multitrack editors all over the place..but they just don't compare, so far. i'd especially like to see a good, professional-grade step sequencer like orion or fruityloops, too.
i'll check out spwave, though. it might make a nice editor for cutting up samples and whatnot.
while i know everyone will be hurriedly trying to run things like warcraft 3 and rtcw, i'm curious..has anyone had good luck running high-level audio apps on winex or regular old wine?
i had tried getting native instruments reaktor up on my freebsd box awhile back, and while it *did* install and startup, i couldn't get sound, and performance was pretty lagged.
if anything, the lack of software like reaktor and cubase, not to mention the many vst/dx plugins, is what keeps that little voice in my head that says, "y'know, you really should just switch back to windows, since those programs are what you use the most." it really sucks to be torn when the operating system you love doesn't run the apps you require. i think a lot of you can empathize, as often times, "clone" open-source versions just don't measure up. let's face it: gliv, audacity, etc. just don't hold a candle to stuff like spark xl and cubase sx.
we're at a strange turning point, i suppose. on one hand, more companies are slowly starting to support us (nvidia, etc.), but methinks it's going to be a long while before companies like steinberg and adobe jump on our train.
well, you can take that dare and shove it, because i personally have no intention of buying one.
you can toss around propaganda and specs all you want, and ramble on about halo, but *one* game is not enough to make me buy a whole system.
it doesn't matter whether or not i prefer open-source to microsoft, or if the x-box is a great piece of tech. we don't buy consoles for their underlying technology; we buy them for the games.
i waited in line overnight on opening day for my ps2, based on how much i enjoyed the original playstation (and continue to do so). the ps2 was a continuation of that. all my favorite games are available for it, loads of interesting new games, great controller, and good graphics.
personally, i think it's fine that x-box is in the market. more options for gamers means that the gaming market overall is able to actively compete, which means better games for everyone, no matter *what* system(s) you choose to buy. perhaps this will hold true for microsoft as time goes on, who knows? however, if the best games anyone can come up with for the system are first-person shooters, count me out. the best offerings i've seen so far are games the originate on the PC, or games that are already on ps2, and that just isn't acceptable to me. it's the same reason i'm not especially interested in gamecube..maybe games like metroid are amazing, but i've played different versions of the same game for the past 15 years. give me something original and new, nintendo.
maybe i'm in the minority here, but i'm personally more interested in red faction 2 than i am unreal tournament or mario vol. 12414144. i'd rather play a creepy-as-fuck game of silent hill than i would halo.
unlike some of the people here, i don't live with my parents, nor do i work a fantastic, relatively high-paying job where i can afford to toss money around and buy all the consoles currently out there. my reluctance to buy a system isn't based on politics, it's based on simple economics. i'm not 15 anymore, and my mom sure as hell isn't going to pay for anything. if it means paying off more on a bill, or playing a game of halo, the former is going to win out every time until they're able to offer a bit more of interest.
also: i'm not a "linuxite"; i run freebsd. but thanks for the sweeping generalization.
currently, my "tools of the trade" include soundforge, reaktor, orion platinum, and cubase sx. until bsd or linux has a few more apps available that can compete with the above 4, i'm stuck keeping a windows machine to the side.
yeah, that's just what the software industry needs. more point and click programmers.
this is the same problem with WYSIWYG html editors: nappy, ass-ridden source, because the person who created it was either too lazy, or too imcompetent, to do it properly.
obviously, this method works perfectly, though. i mean, just LOOK at all the well-done interfaces out there!
personally, i think it's a terrible idea..to an extent.
i think online distribution of music would be great, as a side-deal to the bigger picture. if anything, i think that the broad audience mp3 has actually helped people weed out the good from the bad, so they can make better decisions on what to buy. however, on it's own, with no labels, and no record stores? methinks you're not paying enough attention to the whole scene.
say you've got no record labels, no stores. just p2p service, with each artist signed up to distribute their content via the service. sounds great, right? as the service grows, it's various artists get more and more popular and well-known. they want to tour. they want to hold release parties. they want more of an artistic presentation..whatever the deal. the p2p service won't be able to compensate for the demand of the artists, or the consumers. if they try to by hiring more staff, they will inevitably start clogging the site with advertising, charging more and more for the service, or charging the artists.
if the artists were smart, they'd do what we in the underground have been doing for decades: self-releasing. put some stuff on p2p services, sell albums without a high pricetag on your own website or distribute it to various indie mailorder places, and voila. tours are largely funded by promoters, you've got the p2p site doing distribution of "preview" product online, and a closeknit group of like-minded mailorders selling it affordably.
why is this so hard for the mainstream to adopt? people are lazy. people want shit spoonfed to them through television channels and mass advertising. the reason the big labels like EMI have been able to get away with half of what they have is because people keep eating their shit. their advertising, their politics, and their sad, pre-bundled excuses for music. they don't care about music, not *really*, and neither do most consumers.
i've seen a lot of people say they buy maybe one or two cds a YEAR. maybe for you people, a p2p service like that would be great. thing is, a p2p service shouldn't be necessary. this is the fucking internet! we've got information smattered everywhere, and again, we're asking corporations and politicians to create something for us to get music from. only 2 or 3 cents a song! download now! register here!
fuck that. it wouldn't be "the ultimate record label". it'd be the death of truly independent music. look at mp3.com. it's a joke, with every shitless wonder who owns a sound card putting out track after track. even the good ones don't get the notice they need, since it's obvious that they're more interested in promoting the latest video from >--insert pop group-- the same thing would happen with a p2p service. eventually, artists or labels standing behind them would start making payoffs or paying for advertising, and the focus would go, yet again, to the music *they* want us to hear.
i know this sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense or whatever, but c'mon. do you really think any company is going to be so honest and good-willing, that they'll only charge a couple cents per song, offer up sizeable checks to artists, etc? keep dreaming.
it's not as great as you might think, either. record stores, particularly independent record stores, are the lifeblood of new, unknown, and obscure bands. a band can walk into one, sign a paper, and sell a few of their discs to a store to get them out there, toss up flyers, and promote a couple cheap live shows a lot more easily than they can do all that on a p2p site. without those avenues of promotion and distribution, they're left with nothing but scraps, and that's really, really not very ideal to me. it's better than just having a website, too, because it's a public area, where people are much more likely to find info purely by chance.
i'm sorry if this came across too "emotionally charged". i'm a freelance dj, and an indendent musician, and i've been promoting experimental electronic, industrial, and noise music for the past 7 years. it's just kind of disappointing to see people so easily ignore things that *aren't* affiliated with the big labels and MTV. it's also disappointing to see *all* labels pegged as assholes or evil corporations. many of the labels i've worked with over the years are run by people who genuinely care about the music they release, and not in the profiteer sense.
unfortunately, it's a side of the industry that i don't see touched upon a lot. considering that myself, and others involved in the scene, often put up over $1500+ of our own cash for a band to play, however, i think it's something that needs to be brought up more often.
It largely depends on if the title rents frequently or not. Since I used to work at Blockbuster as a manager, i'll fill you in:
When a title is new, each store gets a box of each title. The quantity of each film is dependent on how popular they think it will be. In general, they order 1-4 copies of a title if it's direct-to-video, foreign, or indie. For the larger, more "hit" stuff, it can range from 40-200..sometimes more.
After about a month, they do what's called a PVT pull (previously viewed tape). The larger titles usually receive the biggest pull, to make room for new stuff, and smaller, non-renting titles get cut to about 1 or 2. So, what does this translate to?
Larger titles, on average, will rent like CRAZY. Say you've got 120 copies for rent of Double Jeopardy. They rent fanatically well. A month passes. By this time, most people have probably already seen it, so they cut it in half...but each of the tapes pulled has probably been rented at least 10 times before being put out for sale.
It's hard to figure an exact number of times, though. They don't pull them to sell based on number of rentals, they just randomly pull to make space. So, in effect, a copy of Double Jeopardy could rent 80 times before getting pulled, while another copy of it could rent 2 times before getting pulled. Totally random.
You're right, however, in saying that rental stores don't have the storage capability for a system like this. It was hard enough making space for normal tapes/dvds, leading to us frequently being forced to rearrange portions of the store, or put them in boxes under promo tables. There's no way that places like Blockbuster could do it.
Then again..maybe that's the point. Maybe the studios want more control over the distribution of movies, both sold and rented?
For those of us who like film, not just hit movies, Greencine is a great alternative.
I've been using them for about 2 months now, and it's been fantastic. They still stock "hit" titles, but their primary focus is on foreign, anime, independent, etc. It's $21.95 a month, rather than Netflix $20, but the selection is huge by comparison.
They're also very personable, and take suggestions very close to heart. They frequently try to find out of print DVDs to stock, if the demand is there, and based on what people *do* rent, they'll stock more copies to meet the demand more adequately.
Perhaps best of all, my comments of "hey, good job" and whatnot to their customer service people earned a response from one of their VP's. They're still fairly small (based in SF), and a portion of their revenue goes to local SF charities, so i suppose that's not too surprising..but it's still a really nice touch.
We had originally planned to go with Netflix, but when we found them, we nearly shit ourselves over the wide selection of stuff that Netflix and Blockbuster *don't* carry.
For those curious, a few of our recent rentals have included:
Babylon 5: Season 1
Shanghai Triad
The Element of Crime
Irma Vep
Dead Ringers
..and so on and so forth.
Anyway..a few of you might dig it as an alternative to Netflix/Blockbuster, particularly if you like non-mainstream and/or anime stuff.
we've already seen stan's amazing business sense over the past twenty years. need i name off all the horrendous cartoons? the punisher movie? feh. the guy hasn't done anything of real interest in over 10 years, anyway.
last i heard, he *was* creating online comics, though.
don't get me wrong..he's created/co-created some of the most enduring characters in the history of comics..but i don't think i'd ever say that he has good business sense.
however, sitting here and debating "what's considered piracy?" is like pondering whether or not water is wet. it's an obvious fact that shouldn't even be brought up.
what's interesting here, and what the whole piracy v.s. industry debate is about to me, is consumer manipulation and gouging. while it is, obviously, illegal for someone like me to trade/download a copy of a film, i don't feel it's wrong. the federal government and movie studios do. however, i also feel it's wrong to charge people $10 to see a movie in the theater, just as i believe it's wrong to be charged $18 for a goddamn cd.**
the music element of piracy aside, i would hardly call the distribution of a movie on the net, prior to it's release, losing money. i've yet to meet ANYONE who keeps a substantial collection of such movies, and doesn't actually buy the finished product. they're a preview (and a sad one, at that), nothing more.
yeah, it's stealing..but i doubt it's costing some guy his job, or the studios however many billions they're claiming to lose month after month.
add to all of this the limited distribution these pirated films get. that definitely puts a damper on the level of penetration these have in the larger consumer market. AT WORST, the studios lose a couple customers, because the people who saw the film as a bootleg thought it sucked in terms of story/acting. i don't even know that i'd call them customers, since half of them would probably never have gone to see it anyway.
if anything, word-of-mouth about a film being bad is far, far more damaging than a nerd in his basement, watching a low-quality copy of "harry potter". the studios should be worrying less about this kind of petty crap, and more about the lackluster quality of movies the past few years.
** note: i haven't paid $18 for a regular ol' cd since 1994. hell, i rarely pay more than $12.
well, i'm not saying the gnome project themselves *can* do anything. it's developers that have the option of utilizing gtk, without gnome, to create an app and make it "look pretty".
anyway, i'm not saying gnome and it's associated users necessarily *should* do anything, either. it's obvious that their goals and ideas are different than mine, so they're likely do whatever works best for them, and creates the most integrated system possible.
i'm all for integration and consistency, to an extent, but it seems to be that interoperability is a more worthwhile way to go. personally, i'd rather see someone create a graphics toolkit that's free of any one particular environment, but still focuses on an attractive, consistent look and feel. it could then be used, across multiple desktop types, free of dependency.
as for "they have to tie it to something", says who? you do have to tie gnome to a particular toolkit, but you don't have to tie that toolkit to gnome. blackbox, for instance, doesn't depend on anything, and nothing depends on it. if there were a toolkit, tied to no desktop in particular, you could run applications on blackbox, windowmaker, afterstep, etc. all with the same general look and feel, but without all the extra cruft associated with something like gnome. the only real exception is the way things like the toolbar and menu work, both of which could at least follow the color scheme of the current theme imposed on apps.
in effect, this "fake toolkit", for lack of a better term, isn't tied to anything, but can be used anywhere and everywhere. this shouldn't be such a foreign idea, imo.
i could, i suppose, do this with something like tk or xforms..but they're ugly as hell, imo. xforms, last i checked, wasn't specifically tied to anything, either.
like i said, though. i don't like/use gnome or kde on my desktop. i just don't like being required to download bit after bit of crap that i don't use, just to run a few pieces of software. i'm well aware that i could just use something less attractive/comfortable, but that kind of negates my view on desktop usage.
the gnome project, as i said, can do what they like, based on their goals, as can developers writing software for gnome. whether they would see any benefit in making things more of a shared effort, i'm not sure. i suppose i've always felt that sharing information amongst the greater unix community was part of how open-source worked, though, so the benefits of doing it seem fairly obvious to me.
as linux grows, so will it's userbase, and with the userfriendly options currently in place, gnome and kde are the most appealing choices to users coming from a windows/mac background. the distributions push them heavily, and their apparent ease-of-use puts them in a very favorable position to grab that share of users.
another issue that i'm seeing more and more is that to run many of the applications we like, some of us are essentially being forced to run programs that rely on a fully-built gnome or kde environment.
take someone like me, for instance. i like a relatively minimal, but customizable and attractive desktop. my way of thinking is that it should be fast and functional, but if i'm going to be staring at it for hours on end, i want nice looking apps with a relatively well-done interface. for some people, this means mutt and xrmftp. for me, it means sylpheed and jigdo.
as a result of my way of thinking, i'm more naturally inclined to use applications which are both fast and attractive, rather than fast-as-hell and ugly-as-sin. using the latter type just doesn't feel right for me, and as a result, i'm finding myself liking what many of the gnome-intended programs offer in terms of features, useability, and appearance.
my point? for users like myself, we're being "forced" to use gnome-dependent or kde-dependent applications. due to the specific desktop nature of most gnome applications, it's getting harder and harder to not install the whole damned mess, just to run several apps that i like.
much of this, i'm sure, stems from a seeming lack of interest in developing this kind of software within the non-gnome and non-kde circles. even so, it's just...disappointing, i suppose.
perhaps i don't have much of a point here, or i'm just rambling..but it's still kind of saddening to me that to run the apps that i want, i may have to install something that i really, really don't want to. users of gnome and/or kde are probably wondering why this would bother me, but those of you using things like fluxbox/blackbox/waimea (among others) may understand where i'm coming from.
Very,very true..in addition, the *why* plays a big part, too. Far too often, we see games based on weak licenses, or in some instances, games with incredible potential dumped on lackluster development teams.
A friend of mine dealt with this first-hand, unfortunately. He got his dream job; designing game levels. He was good at it, too, and the programmers at the company were very, very talented. The problem was 3-fold. The games their executives chose to work on were lame, niche-market licences. Among them was a game-adaptation of Hellboy..strong potential *if* marketed properly (which it wasn't). Hence, it was essentially left to Hellboy fans to hunt it down. Add a rush job near it's final completion, and..well, you get the picture.
The company i'm referring to, for those unaware, was Cryo Interactive. At one time, they had the license to the Aeon Flux game, which was inexplicably cancelled at some stage in development. Shortly after Hellboy was released, and Aeon Flux cancelled, they aquired licenses for a few "classic monsters" type games (i.e. Dracula, etc.) It never even started development before Cryo's parent company in France decided they weren't worth continuing, and closed 'em down.
What led to Cryo's downfall? Here's what I think:
1. Bad licensing deals. Whether this is attributed to Cryo's bargaining power as a developer, i couldn't say. Nonetheless, i've rarely seen companies do well that don't create wholly original games somewhere along the line. Virtually *any* game has potential if it's well-written/produced..however, even the best games can be doomed if they lack..
2. MARKETING! As Herkum01 meticulously pointed out, a lack of marketing has been the downfall of multiple games, both good and bad. Of course, we've also seen *bad* games get amazing marketing, only for everyone who bought/rented it to find out it sucked holy ass. Oni, imo, is a really good example of this. It's also a good example of:
3. Good Idea, Bad Execution. Even companies who get a good project once in awhile, as with Cryo/Aeon Flux, can muck things up beyond belief. The aforementioned Oni is a good example of this, however, in that an action-based anime-style game *could* make for a really cool game. As far as i'm concerned, it's play control was so awful, it was unplayable, no matter how good it's graphics/sound/errata. In the instance of Aeon Flux, I can only speculate that it failed because nobody quite knew how to properly market it, or perhaps they just didn't know where to start? Is it an action game? Should it be a first-person shooter or what? It seems that there are a lot of games that have no sense of where they should take the player, or what type of game they should be.
Just my.02, though. Also, to add another nod of agreement with Herkum's post, it's far, far too true that open-source developers frequently write poor documentation, and not just with gaming. I use the waimea window manager extensively, but i've found it's documentation to be absolutely terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this has happened before to CDs.
World Serpent Distribution, an experimental record label based in the UK, unknowingly released a fairly large quantity of discs that would later degrade due to disc rot. This wasn't the fault of the label, but their manufacturer, PDO. This occured between 1988-1993.
The signs of disc rot are fairly easy to recognize:
A sort of bronzing around the disc, leading to deterioration, beginning from the last track and moving inwards. From what I understand, this generally occurs because the actual disc underneath the plastic wasn't properly sealed to protect against oxididization. Acids from the liner notes also play a part.
You can find the full writeup about it on Current 93's website (they're a band on WSD): http://brainwashed.com/c93/music/discrot.html
Just to note, I hadn't meant any offense to you, Pete. I just felt that for the content being put forth, the aforementioned sites would serve as a much more educational way of looking into circuit bending, rather than just, "oh, weird instruments. those look neat"
Like you, however, I am also obsessed. By recontextualizing existing objects and instruments, we're able to harness some very interesting and unique sounds. Overall, I think it's a concept that's been largely ignored by the masses, and in many ways, that's very unfortunate.
I'm a little shocked this kind of thing is considered news. That aside, there are certainly better sites to bring up the topic.
I've never heard it referred to as "hacking" (though I suppose it's quite appropriate) or case modding, but circuit bending toy keyboards has been commonplace for years, particularly in experimental music. Noteworthy circuit-benders include Not Breathing, Skincage, Dead Voices On Air, Chris and Cosey, and manymanymany others. I'm even picking up the tools to start doing it, likely for tweaking the hell out of a speak and music.
Anyway. For people more interested in the nitty-gritty elements of this, rather than this lacking article, check out the following:
http://www.anti-theory.com/soundart/circuitbend - reed ghazala's excellent circuit-bending tutorials.
http://www.anti-theory.com/mainpage - anti-theory workshops.
http://www.oddmusic.com - lots of bizarre and exotic instruments, plus a special gallery of circuit-bent toys. most instruments have sound samples available.
http://www.acmeengineering.net/obnoxicator.html - well, it's not a toy keyboard..but who could resist a modified megaphone outfitted with fx pedals? loooove the obnoxicator.
http://www.carrionsound.com - dave wright/not breathing's site o' circuit bending goodness. plenty of sounds, pictures, and other happy things.
A little more meat next time, eh guys?
In particular, if you like more "odd" material, or are looking to branch out to something a little more unusual, look for a guy working at the Hollywood Amoeba named Phil. He's a good friend of mine, has worked at Amoeba for years, and could probably guide you to a lot of new stuff.
As some have noted, though, it really depends on what you're looking for. I mean, just saying, "help me find new music!" is too broad..there are literally hundreds of genres and sub-genres, and many sites will be very centered around one or several particular styles. If your only interest lies in Top 40 and "Alternative" junk, then virtually any commercially-oriented site will work for you. However, if you're interested in bands like, say, The Klinik or Hypnoskull..those sites will frequently give *very* misguided recommendations. If you do fall into the latter category, my best suggestion would be to talk to people at indie record shops. If you know of or stumble across any mailorder sites online that specialize in your kind of music, you should maybe ask for a few recommendations. If they're the sort of shop that really cares about the music, and they listen to it themselves, they could probably give you some good leads.
For experimental stuff, I'd recommend none other than malignantrecords.com It's run by Jason Mantis, who used to write Audio Drudge magazine, and he consistently stocks an amazing selection of new and occasionally old/rare/out-of-print stuff. Shipping is free if you're on the east coast, and very cheap if you're on the west. His prices are generally very fair, too; usually about $12 or so for new cds. Prices for vinyl can vary depending on weight and whatnot, but they're usually good, too.
Please don't tell me i'm one of the only people on here still buying vinyl.
by "forcefed", i'm referring to the seemingly endless stream of crap that's produced year after year (both in movies *and* music). i don't mean it in a "we're going to strap you in this chair and you WILL watch "dude, where's my car?"" kind of way...it's just a sense of being inundated by the advertising/gimmicks/marketing associated with those products.
kind of how i view things like the backstreet boys.
in any case, it's great if you went to see "solaris" to get an opinion of it. that's totally up to you. what i'm saying is, for me, i loved the original, but i don't have any desire to see the new one. maybe i'll feel like renting it later on, who knows?
i don't feel i owe it any courtesy, though, just as i don't owe the backstreet boys the courtesy of buying one of their cds, just to find out how they sound. if not wanting to hear the backstreet boys is somehow a bad thing, feel free to give me a lengthy explanation of why i should drop $15 on one of their discs. on the same token , if not wanting to drop $9.00 to go see a remake of "solaris" is somehow bad, then please, fill me in how these two situations are really so different from one another.
how was "y tu mama tambien", anyway? i've been thinking of renting it, but passed it up last time in favor of "donnie darko" (really great movie, btw).
i hate fuckers who bleep out swear words for absolutely no purpose.
i also hate fuckers who rail on someone for spelling/grammar errors that are, for the most part, quite minor. god forbid you actually make a fucking point that pertains to the issue currently under discussion.
also, how do you draw the conclusion that you know so much more about movies than i do? what does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread?
that relevance of that comment is roughly equivalent to "MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!" stains semen on a theater seat? what are you, four years old? oh god! that guy typed too quickly to notice spelling errors! it would never occur to me that he was typing in a hurry and happened to overlook his spelling errors! i am infallible! oh, god! i'm going to wet myself with glee as i write a completely pointless critique of his abilities!
btw, "movies ARE a popular medium" would be a much better way of writing that sentence. just sharing the wealth, as you've so tastefully deigned to step down and show me the error of my ways!
look, no one is debating that movies are a popular medium in this discussion. what i *am* against is being forcefed crap that's been watered down to appeal to a more widespread, mainstream audience. i'm sorry if you feel that this somehow makes me an elitist, but i just don't have an interest. i've seen enough movies to know what i like, and i what i don't like. one of the things that falls into that latter category is seeing films rehashed and repackaged. you're welcome to it if you want to watch that shit, but you can't count me out of it.
this isn't vulgar populism, either. if a "hit" movie comes along that i think looks interesting, i'll watch it. i'm not waving a flag anywhere that says, "no mainstream cinema!" christ, i own "starship troopers" i really doubt you'll see shit like that played at sundance, and in general, overzealous film snobs don't watch that kind of thing as a rule-of-thumb.
if you're too ignorant to get the point of "i don't like seeing films i love remade for no purpose", then sorry my taste in movies somehow pisses on your cornflakes. i'm sure you'll write another DAZZLING reply to this post, but i think i've already had enough of you. save your breath.
i'm a snob because i don't like seeing movies i love get rehashed? i'm a snob because i'm sick of having bullshit movies shoved my way? hardly.
look, i'm not denying that soderbergh or nolan have proven that they can do work. like i stated above, it's seeing movies that i love, which were incrediblly well-done in the first place, being rehashed. you mention that 95% of people in the theater hadn't heard of tarkovsky's version..
is it because it's a bad film? nope. it's because, once again, american's won't watch subtitles.
back to the point at hand, howeve: i've *rarely* ever seen a remake done that isn't artistically hollow. that isn't what annoys me, though. my problem with all of this is that movies are being reworked for NO PURPOSE. why remake insomnia? why not just watch the original?
look, maybe this IS a snobby attitude to take, but think how you would feel. let's say that "a clockwork orange" is one of your favorite movies, of all time. i don't know if it is, but let's just use that as an example.
so, you love this film. steven spielberg or whoever comes along, pops out a remake of it, only this time, it's less violent, less effectual, and stars george clooney in the lead role. the droogies are played by al pacino, robin williams, and doogie fucking howser. would you REALLY want to see this film? ignoring who's in it, would you really see a point or have a genuine interest in seeing a remake of a film which, in your eyes, can not and should not be remade? probably not.
again, maybe this is a snobbish attitude to take. however, methinks you'd get sick of coookie-cutter film, unnecessary remakes, and "blockbuster" hits eventually, too. when you work in a video store for 2 years, you eventually rent virtually everything the store has to offer. rather quickly, you start to draw a really fine line between what you consider good, and what you consider bad.
i don't need to see the remake of "insomnia". in the original, skaarsgaard was, for all intents and purposes, the real villian. the person who you're led to believe is the villian, accidentally committed murder. looking at the ad with robin williams, it's obvious to me that they didn't play this properly, because the few times i saw it, he was portrayed as playing mind games, etc with the cop. the only person doing that in the original was skaarsgaard's character.
technical details aside, i just don't see a point.
if trying to be a disseminating moviegoer makes me a close-minded elitist, so be it...but i don't need to rent film like "double jeopardy" just to know they're crap, and i don't need to watch a remake of "insomnia" just to find out that the original was better.
and it's for this very reason that i won't touch the new one.
andrei tarkovsky was an amazing, one-of-a-kind director. it makes me absolutely sick to see yet ANOTHER great foreign film being remade like this. they did it to "insomnia", too, which features the remarkable stellan skaarsgaard. it's one of my favorite movies, alongside many of the films of andrei tarkovsky and krzystof kieslowski. the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point. christ, robin williams is cast as the "villian"! i won't spoil the movie by saying why this is completely untrue to the original, but if anyone else here sees it/has seen it, you will hopefully understand what i'm getting at.
is it so hard for the average american to watch subtitles? is the reading ability of the average citizen so low that they can't quickly read a line of text, and still pay attention to what's going on in a film?
y'know, i'm sure soderbergh's intent was probably just to put out his own take on the original novel..but i can't help but feel it's just "another one". another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american. it really sucks to see films that i love essentially being reduced to just a watered down copy.
after working for a video store for 2 years, though, i'm not surprised. true to "clerks", most customers pick out the most intellectually devoid movies out there: "ooh, double jeopardy! ooh, the santa clause!" pff.
you are right about linux apps, in some instances..like i mentioned, i really like spiralsynth modular, and some of the ladspa plugins i've used thus far are pretty nice.. sequencing, however, is one of the most important elements. don't get me wrong; it's not that i think linux flat-out sucks for audio..it's just lacking a lot of what i need.
:p
i will say that jmax looks pretty cool, though.
unfortunately, for me, when i'm working on music, "pretty graphics" can make a big difference..not so much so with things like softsynths, but sequencing, etc? definitely.
still, you do make some good points, which is exactly why i'm trying out a lot of stuff on my freebsd system. writing a port usually doesn't take very long, so i'll check out jmax and a few of the others you've mentioned when i've had a bit more coffee.
in any case..the biggest other reasons i keep a windows machine around are graphics and gaming. while i play games on my ps2 more often than my computer, i *do* still use the computer for it..hell, i don't think i'll ever stop playing fallout 2 and system shock 2
graphics-wise, i've tried using gimp..i really have. unfortunately, for me, the user interface needs a *lot* of work. after using photoshop for 5+ years, maybe i'm just too set in my ways, but so far, i just don't think it's an adequate replacement yet. the potential is certainly there, and there is a good bit that you can do with it as it is, but until the interface is laid out a little better, i'm sticking with the tried and true.
in all honesty, i would love to snag a mac laptop for music, but i just can't afford it. in the meantime, though, i've got a windows machine specifically for music, while my freebsd box stands as my main system.
at the least, though, i have found one good use for audio apps on freebsd/linux: sample tweaking/creation. spiralsynth, in particular, is a really inspiring piece of software, especially since the release of spiral synth modular. since my main tool in windows is reaktor, it's fairly intuitive to use, and makes some really great sounds.
personally, i think the most lackluster aspects of open-source audio tools lie in sequencing and plugins. i know there are a lot of ladspa plugs out there, and you've got multitrack editors all over the place..but they just don't compare, so far. i'd especially like to see a good, professional-grade step sequencer like orion or fruityloops, too.
i'll check out spwave, though. it might make a nice editor for cutting up samples and whatnot.
while i know everyone will be hurriedly trying to run things like warcraft 3 and rtcw, i'm curious..has anyone had good luck running high-level audio apps on winex or regular old wine?
i had tried getting native instruments reaktor up on my freebsd box awhile back, and while it *did* install and startup, i couldn't get sound, and performance was pretty lagged.
if anything, the lack of software like reaktor and cubase, not to mention the many vst/dx plugins, is what keeps that little voice in my head that says, "y'know, you really should just switch back to windows, since those programs are what you use the most." it really sucks to be torn when the operating system you love doesn't run the apps you require. i think a lot of you can empathize, as often times, "clone" open-source versions just don't measure up. let's face it: gliv, audacity, etc. just don't hold a candle to stuff like spark xl and cubase sx.
we're at a strange turning point, i suppose. on one hand, more companies are slowly starting to support us (nvidia, etc.), but methinks it's going to be a long while before companies like steinberg and adobe jump on our train.
if it took you that long to figure out a non-graphical installer, you probably shouldn't be running linux *or* bsd.
christ, do you require books with pictures, too, because looking at the pictures is faster than actually reading?
well, you can take that dare and shove it, because i personally have no intention of buying one.
you can toss around propaganda and specs all you want, and ramble on about halo, but *one* game is not enough to make me buy a whole system.
it doesn't matter whether or not i prefer open-source to microsoft, or if the x-box is a great piece of tech. we don't buy consoles for their underlying technology; we buy them for the games.
i waited in line overnight on opening day for my ps2, based on how much i enjoyed the original playstation (and continue to do so). the ps2 was a continuation of that. all my favorite games are available for it, loads of interesting new games, great controller, and good graphics.
personally, i think it's fine that x-box is in the market. more options for gamers means that the gaming market overall is able to actively compete, which means better games for everyone, no matter *what* system(s) you choose to buy. perhaps this will hold true for microsoft as time goes on, who knows? however, if the best games anyone can come up with for the system are first-person shooters, count me out. the best offerings i've seen so far are games the originate on the PC, or games that are already on ps2, and that just isn't acceptable to me. it's the same reason i'm not especially interested in gamecube..maybe games like metroid are amazing, but i've played different versions of the same game for the past 15 years. give me something original and new, nintendo.
maybe i'm in the minority here, but i'm personally more interested in red faction 2 than i am unreal tournament or mario vol. 12414144. i'd rather play a creepy-as-fuck game of silent hill than i would halo.
unlike some of the people here, i don't live with my parents, nor do i work a fantastic, relatively high-paying job where i can afford to toss money around and buy all the consoles currently out there. my reluctance to buy a system isn't based on politics, it's based on simple economics. i'm not 15 anymore, and my mom sure as hell isn't going to pay for anything. if it means paying off more on a bill, or playing a game of halo, the former is going to win out every time until they're able to offer a bit more of interest.
also: i'm not a "linuxite"; i run freebsd. but thanks for the sweeping generalization.
well, i'm another of them, then.
currently, my "tools of the trade" include soundforge, reaktor, orion platinum, and cubase sx. until bsd or linux has a few more apps available that can compete with the above 4, i'm stuck keeping a windows machine to the side.
even better:
native instruments reaktor.
quite possibly THE best program for electronic music ever written.
yeah, that's just what the software industry needs. more point and click programmers.
this is the same problem with WYSIWYG html editors: nappy, ass-ridden source, because the person who created it was either too lazy, or too imcompetent, to do it properly.
obviously, this method works perfectly, though. i mean, just LOOK at all the well-done interfaces out there!
personally, i think it's a terrible idea..to an extent.
i think online distribution of music would be great, as a side-deal to the bigger picture. if anything, i think that the broad audience mp3 has actually helped people weed out the good from the bad, so they can make better decisions on what to buy. however, on it's own, with no labels, and no record stores?
methinks you're not paying enough attention to the whole scene.
say you've got no record labels, no stores. just p2p service, with each artist signed up to distribute their content via the service. sounds great, right? as the service grows, it's various artists get more and more popular and well-known. they want to tour. they want to hold release parties. they want more of an artistic presentation..whatever the deal. the p2p service won't be able to compensate for the demand of the artists, or the consumers. if they try to by hiring more staff, they will inevitably start clogging the site with advertising, charging more and more for the service, or charging the artists.
if the artists were smart, they'd do what we in the underground have been doing for decades: self-releasing. put some stuff on p2p services, sell albums without a high pricetag on your own website or distribute it to various indie mailorder places, and voila. tours are largely funded by promoters, you've got the p2p site doing distribution of "preview" product online, and a closeknit group of like-minded mailorders selling it affordably.
why is this so hard for the mainstream to adopt? people are lazy. people want shit spoonfed to them through television channels and mass advertising. the reason the big labels like EMI have been able to get away with half of what they have is because people keep eating their shit. their advertising, their politics, and their sad, pre-bundled excuses for music. they don't care about music, not *really*, and neither do most consumers.
i've seen a lot of people say they buy maybe one or two cds a YEAR. maybe for you people, a p2p service like that would be great. thing is, a p2p service shouldn't be necessary. this is the fucking internet! we've got information smattered everywhere, and again, we're asking corporations and politicians to create something for us to get music from. only 2 or 3 cents a song! download now! register here!
fuck that. it wouldn't be "the ultimate record label". it'd be the death of truly independent music. look at mp3.com. it's a joke, with every shitless wonder who owns a sound card putting out track after track. even the good ones don't get the notice they need, since it's obvious that they're more interested in promoting the latest video from >--insert pop group--
the same thing would happen with a p2p service. eventually, artists or labels standing behind them would start making payoffs or paying for advertising, and the focus would go, yet again, to the music *they* want us to hear.
i know this sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense or whatever, but c'mon. do you really think any company is going to be so honest and good-willing, that they'll only charge a couple cents per song, offer up sizeable checks to artists, etc? keep dreaming.
it's not as great as you might think, either. record stores, particularly independent record stores, are the lifeblood of new, unknown, and obscure bands. a band can walk into one, sign a paper, and sell a few of their discs to a store to get them out there, toss up flyers, and promote a couple cheap live shows a lot more easily than they can do all that on a p2p site. without those avenues of promotion and distribution, they're left with nothing but scraps, and that's really, really not very ideal to me. it's better than just having a website, too, because it's a public area, where people are much more likely to find info purely by chance.
i'm sorry if this came across too "emotionally charged". i'm a freelance dj, and an indendent musician, and i've been promoting experimental electronic, industrial, and noise music for the past 7 years. it's just kind of disappointing to see people so easily ignore things that *aren't* affiliated with the big labels and MTV. it's also disappointing to see *all* labels pegged as assholes or evil corporations. many of the labels i've worked with over the years are run by people who genuinely care about the music they release, and not in the profiteer sense.
unfortunately, it's a side of the industry that i don't see touched upon a lot. considering that myself, and others involved in the scene, often put up over $1500+ of our own cash for a band to play, however, i think it's something that needs to be brought up more often.
It largely depends on if the title rents frequently or not. Since I used to work at Blockbuster as a manager, i'll fill you in:
When a title is new, each store gets a box of each title. The quantity of each film is dependent on how popular they think it will be. In general, they order 1-4 copies of a title if it's direct-to-video, foreign, or indie. For the larger, more "hit" stuff, it can range from 40-200..sometimes more.
After about a month, they do what's called a PVT pull (previously viewed tape). The larger titles usually receive the biggest pull, to make room for new stuff, and smaller, non-renting titles get cut to about 1 or 2. So, what does this translate to?
Larger titles, on average, will rent like CRAZY. Say you've got 120 copies for rent of Double Jeopardy. They rent fanatically well. A month passes. By this time, most people have probably already seen it, so they cut it in half...but each of the tapes pulled has probably been rented at least 10 times before being put out for sale.
It's hard to figure an exact number of times, though. They don't pull them to sell based on number of rentals, they just randomly pull to make space. So, in effect, a copy of Double Jeopardy could rent 80 times before getting pulled, while another copy of it could rent 2 times before getting pulled. Totally random.
You're right, however, in saying that rental stores don't have the storage capability for a system like this. It was hard enough making space for normal tapes/dvds, leading to us frequently being forced to rearrange portions of the store, or put them in boxes under promo tables. There's no way that places like Blockbuster could do it.
Then again..maybe that's the point. Maybe the studios want more control over the distribution of movies, both sold and rented?
For those of us who like film, not just hit movies, Greencine is a great alternative.
..and so on and so forth.
.. and no, i don't work for them :p
I've been using them for about 2 months now, and it's been fantastic. They still stock "hit" titles, but their primary focus is on foreign, anime, independent, etc. It's $21.95 a month, rather than Netflix $20, but the selection is huge by comparison.
They're also very personable, and take suggestions very close to heart. They frequently try to find out of print DVDs to stock, if the demand is there, and based on what people *do* rent, they'll stock more copies to meet the demand more adequately.
Perhaps best of all, my comments of "hey, good job" and whatnot to their customer service people earned a response from one of their VP's. They're still fairly small (based in SF), and a portion of their revenue goes to local SF charities, so i suppose that's not too surprising..but it's still a really nice touch.
We had originally planned to go with Netflix, but when we found them, we nearly shit ourselves over the wide selection of stuff that Netflix and Blockbuster *don't* carry.
For those curious, a few of our recent rentals have included:
Babylon 5: Season 1
Shanghai Triad
The Element of Crime
Irma Vep
Dead Ringers
Anyway..a few of you might dig it as an alternative to Netflix/Blockbuster, particularly if you like non-mainstream and/or anime stuff.
yeah, right.
we've already seen stan's amazing business sense over the past twenty years. need i name off all the horrendous cartoons? the punisher movie? feh.
the guy hasn't done anything of real interest in over 10 years, anyway.
last i heard, he *was* creating online comics, though.
don't get me wrong..he's created/co-created some of the most enduring characters in the history of comics..but i don't think i'd ever say that he has good business sense.
of course it's piracy.
however, sitting here and debating "what's considered piracy?" is like pondering whether or not water is wet. it's an obvious fact that shouldn't even be brought up.
what's interesting here, and what the whole piracy v.s. industry debate is about to me, is consumer manipulation and gouging. while it is, obviously, illegal for someone like me to trade/download a copy of a film, i don't feel it's wrong. the federal government and movie studios do. however, i also feel it's wrong to charge people $10 to see a movie in the theater, just as i believe it's wrong to be charged $18 for a goddamn cd.**
the music element of piracy aside, i would hardly call the distribution of a movie on the net, prior to it's release, losing money. i've yet to meet ANYONE who keeps a substantial collection of such movies, and doesn't actually buy the finished product. they're a preview (and a sad one, at that), nothing more.
yeah, it's stealing..but i doubt it's costing some guy his job, or the studios however many billions they're claiming to lose month after month.
add to all of this the limited distribution these pirated films get. that definitely puts a damper on the level of penetration these have in the larger consumer market. AT WORST, the studios lose a couple customers, because the people who saw the film as a bootleg thought it sucked in terms of story/acting. i don't even know that i'd call them customers, since half of them would probably never have gone to see it anyway.
if anything, word-of-mouth about a film being bad is far, far more damaging than a nerd in his basement, watching a low-quality copy of "harry potter". the studios should be worrying less about this kind of petty crap, and more about the lackluster quality of movies the past few years.
** note: i haven't paid $18 for a regular ol' cd since 1994. hell, i rarely pay more than $12.
well, i'm not saying the gnome project themselves *can* do anything. it's developers that have the option of utilizing gtk, without gnome, to create an app and make it "look pretty".
anyway, i'm not saying gnome and it's associated users necessarily *should* do anything, either. it's obvious that their goals and ideas are different than mine, so they're likely do whatever works best for them, and creates the most integrated system possible.
i'm all for integration and consistency, to an extent, but it seems to be that interoperability is a more worthwhile way to go. personally, i'd rather see someone create a graphics toolkit that's free of any one particular environment, but still focuses on an attractive, consistent look and feel. it could then be used, across multiple desktop types, free of dependency.
as for "they have to tie it to something", says who? you do have to tie gnome to a particular toolkit, but you don't have to tie that toolkit to gnome. blackbox, for instance, doesn't depend on anything, and nothing depends on it. if there were a toolkit, tied to no desktop in particular, you could run applications on blackbox, windowmaker, afterstep, etc. all with the same general look and feel, but without all the extra cruft associated with something like gnome. the only real exception is the way things like the toolbar and menu work, both of which could at least follow the color scheme of the current theme imposed on apps.
in effect, this "fake toolkit", for lack of a better term, isn't tied to anything, but can be used anywhere and everywhere. this shouldn't be such a foreign idea, imo.
i could, i suppose, do this with something like tk or xforms..but they're ugly as hell, imo. xforms, last i checked, wasn't specifically tied to anything, either.
like i said, though. i don't like/use gnome or kde on my desktop. i just don't like being required to download bit after bit of crap that i don't use, just to run a few pieces of software. i'm well aware that i could just use something less attractive/comfortable, but that kind of negates my view on desktop usage.
the gnome project, as i said, can do what they like, based on their goals, as can developers writing software for gnome. whether they would see any benefit in making things more of a shared effort, i'm not sure. i suppose i've always felt that sharing information amongst the greater unix community was part of how open-source worked, though, so the benefits of doing it seem fairly obvious to me.
well, what did you expect?
as linux grows, so will it's userbase, and with the userfriendly options currently in place, gnome and kde are the most appealing choices to users coming from a windows/mac background. the distributions push them heavily, and their apparent ease-of-use puts them in a very favorable position to grab that share of users.
another issue that i'm seeing more and more is that to run many of the applications we like, some of us are essentially being forced to run programs that rely on a fully-built gnome or kde environment.
take someone like me, for instance. i like a relatively minimal, but customizable and attractive desktop. my way of thinking is that it should be fast and functional, but if i'm going to be staring at it for hours on end, i want nice looking apps with a relatively well-done interface. for some people, this means mutt and xrmftp. for me, it means sylpheed and jigdo.
as a result of my way of thinking, i'm more naturally inclined to use applications which are both fast and attractive, rather than fast-as-hell and ugly-as-sin. using the latter type just doesn't feel right for me, and as a result, i'm finding myself liking what many of the gnome-intended programs offer in terms of features, useability, and appearance.
my point? for users like myself, we're being "forced" to use gnome-dependent or kde-dependent applications. due to the specific desktop nature of most gnome applications, it's getting harder and harder to not install the whole damned mess, just to run several apps that i like.
much of this, i'm sure, stems from a seeming lack of interest in developing this kind of software within the non-gnome and non-kde circles. even so, it's just...disappointing, i suppose.
perhaps i don't have much of a point here, or i'm just rambling..but it's still kind of saddening to me that to run the apps that i want, i may have to install something that i really, really don't want to. users of gnome and/or kde are probably wondering why this would bother me, but those of you using things like fluxbox/blackbox/waimea (among others) may understand where i'm coming from.
Very,very true..in addition, the *why* plays a big part, too. Far too often, we see games based on weak licenses, or in some instances, games with incredible potential dumped on lackluster development teams.
.02, though. Also, to add another nod of agreement with Herkum's post, it's far, far too true that open-source developers frequently write poor documentation, and not just with gaming. I use the waimea window manager extensively, but i've found it's documentation to be absolutely terrible.
A friend of mine dealt with this first-hand, unfortunately. He got his dream job; designing game levels. He was good at it, too, and the programmers at the company were very, very talented. The problem was 3-fold. The games their executives chose to work on were lame, niche-market licences. Among them was a game-adaptation of Hellboy..strong potential *if* marketed properly (which it wasn't). Hence, it was essentially left to Hellboy fans to hunt it down. Add a rush job near it's final completion, and..well, you get the picture.
The company i'm referring to, for those unaware, was Cryo Interactive. At one time, they had the license to the Aeon Flux game, which was inexplicably cancelled at some stage in development. Shortly after Hellboy was released, and Aeon Flux cancelled, they aquired licenses for a few "classic monsters" type games (i.e. Dracula, etc.) It never even started development before Cryo's parent company in France decided they weren't worth continuing, and closed 'em down.
What led to Cryo's downfall? Here's what I think:
1. Bad licensing deals. Whether this is attributed to Cryo's bargaining power as a developer, i couldn't say. Nonetheless, i've rarely seen companies do well that don't create wholly original games somewhere along the line. Virtually *any* game has potential if it's well-written/produced..however, even the best games can be doomed if they lack..
2. MARKETING! As Herkum01 meticulously pointed out, a lack of marketing has been the downfall of multiple games, both good and bad. Of course, we've also seen *bad* games get amazing marketing, only for everyone who bought/rented it to find out it sucked holy ass. Oni, imo, is a really good example of this. It's also a good example of:
3. Good Idea, Bad Execution. Even companies who get a good project once in awhile, as with Cryo/Aeon Flux, can muck things up beyond belief. The aforementioned Oni is a good example of this, however, in that an action-based anime-style game *could* make for a really cool game. As far as i'm concerned, it's play control was so awful, it was unplayable, no matter how good it's graphics/sound/errata. In the instance of Aeon Flux, I can only speculate that it failed because nobody quite knew how to properly market it, or perhaps they just didn't know where to start? Is it an action game? Should it be a first-person shooter or what? It seems that there are a lot of games that have no sense of where they should take the player, or what type of game they should be.
Just my