Actually, in order to own a computer, pay for an internet connection, etc, its very likely that you've had to have a job.
Now, if you're a 'revolutionary', you've probably had your ideals and theologies watered down by having to bend or comprimize your theologies. To gain a forum and following in which to complain and attempt to change the game, you still have to play the game. And play it alot. And still, the more people that grokk your tune, the more by-the-numbers youve probably had to play. The larger your audience, the more cautious people who are supporting or helping you reach your audience (ISP, webmaster, employer) will be.
Until computers and access are so cheap that you could panhandle for them within the span of a few days, most of the voices and political ideas expressed on the medium will stay well within acceptable non-boat-rocking parameters. And even when you do have shit-kickers with good visibilty on the 'net, the number of like like-minded people would still be fairly low.
Basically, its still unfeasable for the demographic that has the most right to complain and likely the most motives to affect changes to our poli/economic system to gain the tools, access, and time neccessary to distribute these ideas via the internet.
Throw into this the still existing barriers of language, completely different geo-centric value systems, etc, etc... we're still a shit load of time away from that utopian Star Trek Federation-eque perfect world that the idealistic techies so deeply believe their passion will lead to. If at all.
Slot machine addiction: put money, time in, get reward (money, but you can proove that you'll never win was much as you spend.. casinos wouldn't exist if you could)
Video game addiction: put time, (maybe money) in, get reward (cool graphics, bragging, whatever)
You can be addicted to ANYTHING... social addictions ARE physical addictions.. you simply develop a dependance on the way those chemicals in question fire off in your brain while you are indulging in your addiction. Plain and simple.
Subject: Network security policies
To prevent: Network attacks, abuse of data and IP
Classification of offense it is desined to limit: Computer Hacking, now classified as terrorism, and/or writing insecure code and/or building insecure networks
Punishment: Life in prison, also in aiding and abetting (even if you were unaware that you helped the offender), no statute of limitations
Possible loss of offense: Everything from money (your entire business, for instance) to lif (think about hacking air traffic control data), to national security details
Subject: Drunk driving policies
To prevent: Drunk driving
Classification of offence it is designed to stop: Minor
Punishment: A few years in jail
Possibler loss due to offence: From nothing to a few killed (or up to a dozen if you want to include pileups as a result)
Your own government seems to classify the offences that network security is designed to prevent above those of drunk driving. Sure, drunk driving is far more visible, in that you can link the loss of life directly to the offence.. but thats what I'm talking about. The market is dumb. Just think about what has happened when the market has spoken on:
- cigarettes (death, staggering burden on health care orgs.. and I'm a smoker.. ie, market speaks on consumables)
- the environment (ie, market speaks on cars)
- child labour (ie, market speaks on clothes)
.. and all of these problems would be far MORE rampant were it not for government regulation.
The market dictates NEEDS, but it never dictates RESPONSIBILITIES. Never did the market ask for breathalizer ignitions, even if you seem so aghast to the idea that drunk driving is accepted by 'the market'.
Network security is about enforcing the responsibility we all must share to make networks and the data they carry more secure. If you really think a market is going to mandate a responsibility upon itself that is probably not economically benificial to the individual in the long run, but carries great social weight and overall economic 'insurance', you're out of your mind. Actually, no wait, you're just a good example of why the market has no place in the arena of technological and social responsibility.
The market also dictates that women on television be 90lbs, and recent numbers show that 1 in 4 women below 30 have eating related issues. The market dictates that rap videos show gangers and hos and bitches, ensuring that negros retain this descructive image years after we thought we had licked this whole 'racism' thing. The market dictates poison, buddy. Whatever you or your friends or me or my friends want, you can bet its bad for my loved ones, which is why I have no quams about handing over such responsibilities to a government that would be free of private sector influences (ie, a government you could trust).
I guess in light of the fact that it is difficult for a government to be impartial to corperate forces and to be, in general, trustworth and smart, letting the market dictate the needs of the people is about our only option these days. Just remember that the reason the government is so fucked up right now is that the 'best and brightest' are driven to the private sector, where their talents can only be applied against a profit margin, not a betterment of a population.
Factor in the miseducation of 'the market' (how many people actually know about the recent passport.com exploits).. geez, I mean really, how can you honestly think the market chooses whats right? The market chooses what their neighbour has. The market wants to be coddled, loved, and cuddled, with no mention of responsibility, possible consequences of decisions and policies.. ah geez, I could go on and on. The market follows the illusion of wealth and happiness (in that order), not the reality of progress and safety.
>Don't you think that if Bill Gates could become what he is today, that any of you are capable of the very same thing?
Ever heard of morals? Capitalism discounts (or ignores, in the very least) the reality that people disagree with the very action of exploiting free markets and advertising dollar, not that they are just 'too lazy to do what Bill did.' Participants of this society think that he shouldn't have even been ALLOWed to do what he did. Reductionists like you will forever call 'JEALOUSY!' or 'ENVY!', but you're only doing yourself a disservice by not attempting to understand different mindsets and perspectives.
Also...
Consumers may dictate the needs of the market, but those needs are often wrong, shortsighted, etc. Shit, look at the.com thing. People even/knew/, at the time, that consumers were asking for useless things, and companies kept fueling money into it. Consumers are, by definition, looking for gratification and/or solutions, for the individual (or small group). Solutions that benifit a broader population, including market 'comprimises', rarely occur in a free-market scenario.
And then...
Do you truely advocate that consumers SHOULD dictate the needs of the market? If that were true, drunk driving might actually be legal, and we'd be losing twice the amount of people to accidents. Nike and Gap et al would depend on FAR more child labour if the government did not impose certain levels of audits, etc, cause the consumers sure aint gunna stop buying so long as they dont have to look into the eyes of the kids making the clothing. There are additional examples abound. At some point, the government's job is to protect its citizens from their own short-sightedness and lack of ability to have a broad view of their environment. The government should monitor and analyse its popultion, in order to provide common-demoninator regulations to strike the best balance between technology adoption and standardization to promote equality in market participation. We don't trust the government these days, but thats because we send so many of the smart people into the private sector!
You have to understand that doing what you want to do is not neccessarily the best thing for you. This is what taxes are.. you may not like them now, but one day, they may just save the life or provide affordable housing to someone you love (although its unfortunate we dont value this help when it goes to people we do not know/love/understand.)
Unfortuntely, as long as people like you exist, 'lazy' people will always have a justifiable ground from which to bitch, moan, etc. And hey, no one forced you to bitch about their bitching, know what I mean? If it aint your scene, keep to yourself; after all, you can be confident in your mindset that the market will always dictate the correct needs (including governing needs as the intigration with the private sector continues, I assume), so you've very little to worry about, don't you?
Fair enough, although to be honest, I hadn't heard of mLan before today, and I am quite attentive to the music tech scene (tho, as I said before, not the studio scene/culture.. I'm a bedroom producer). I will defaintely check it out now. Note: I'm a PC guy. I realize that a substantial portion of the digital music world is Mac. I grew up with Mac, but alas cannot afford my once childhood buddy anymore.
Also, to get firewire on my computer would require I buy a firewire card (no idea on prices), where as MAGIC seems to work on existing ethernet (maybe this is where I'm confused), with an overlying software layer that processes traffic in a way that makes it digital-music production friendly. To that end, lots of spaces/studios/etc are already wired with ethernet networks, so you get serious reuse here. Of course, if you truely do need 'modified' ethernet cable/hubs/etc, then this point becomes moot, and I place myself in the corner with a pointy hat on my head. Even beyond that, MAGIC seems to be more geared towards live performance setups and mixing boards (ie, hardware), than PCs themselves. Just my perspective on it. Thanks for the heads up about mLan!
I think the idea here (it being an open protocal) is that it could go on ANY device. Gibson is primarily a guitar maker, so it's only natural they would demo it on guitars and pitch the technology on guitars to get the ball rolling.
For instance, I don't think amps would be useful at all.. it would be much more useful on my turntables... see what I'm getting at?:)
BTW, on top of this, sequencers/multitraks/etc could remember effect/send/insert, levels, eqs, etc for each instrument. So a musician could come into the studio, work for awhile, save his setup, and then have that setup automatically come up again the next time he plugged into the studio a few weeks later. The more devices were MAGIC aware, the more time would be saved in setting up between projects. I can just set it.. foot pedals remembering which instruments were set to what levels... oooooooo, so cool.
MIDI is not what they are talking about here. They are talking about audio. MIDI is not audio, but rather 'piano roll'. The only data being sent to the sequencer/keyboard is which notes to play, and when. Conversely, audio is the actual audio signal generated by the instrument, whether it be a keyboard or a guitar.
The true value of audio over ethernet is the existing infrastructure (hubs, switchers, etc), coupled with being able to identify 'devices' hooked up to your setup. Mixers, be them software or hardware mixers, that are 'ethernet aware' would be able to auto-assign the devices name that an instrument reports itself as to the network to faders and knobs in your setup. Currently, you have to know which wires are going from which instruments into what audio-ins on your hardware/software mixer/multitrak; in order to fade a guitar line, for instance, you need to be physically aware of which audio-in the guitar is connected to. This amounts to a huge amount of organizational work for producers/techs, as they must use project software or notebooks to keep track of how various projects are wired up. Some technologies are alleviating these troubles, but from what I understand, its still a pain in many setups to keep track of which songs and projects are wired up which way.
Hopefully, this Gibson technology would allow producers and sound guys to forget those details, and just assign 'network instruments' to which ever faders they please, without ever having to verify that the guitar was plugged into the correct audio-in, corresponding to the controls (faders, knobs) you wish you use to do your production and mixdowns.
At least, thats what I get out of it.
BTW, I am a d'n'b producer with a fairly functional grasp of lo-pro to mid-pro MIDI and audio gear, so while I'm not privvy to the nitty gritty of doing sound for live shows or full rack mixers in-studio, I think I can glean what the true pay off is here, for the sound guys and musicians alike.
'we wouldn't be there we are today' neither specifies who 'we' is, not specifies where 'where' is, so I'm not neccessarily saying we/you/us/them/him/her/it is any better/worse/happier/sadder/richer/cleaner as a result of him. I don't know where 'here' is, but we're there (all of us)!
Or, in other words, the world would be different, which was the point I was making with QT. The net would be different had it not hit the scene. QT ushered in video to the net like Columbus brought in the Europeans. Good enough?
I do conceed that my phrasing was probably not as carefully selected as it could have been, and any apologies if I came off as being discriminatory.:)
Gamespot gave it a 9.1, even tho it was developed 2 years ago (or just finished in May or something). 60 hours of gameplay, and its already being talked about as RPG of the year by many sites. Go to ebworld.com.. they have exclusive distribution rights for the first 30 days of sale?
.. but criticising QuickTime is like dissing Christopher Columbus. Sure, he may have called everyone 'indians', and been a complete asshole, but we wouldn't be where we are today without him.
Same goes for QuickTime. Whine all you like about it not being on Unix, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the embassador of streaming video for the internet. To this day, without going into the nitty gritty and platform issues, I still prefer the quality of QuickTime over any other format, and will select a QuickTime stream given a choice from any other number of alternatives.
I know its been available:) like I said, I demo'd it 5 years ago.. I'm speaking more about its adoption.. clearly, I was wrong about not seeing it marketed towards the consumer market. Thanks for the correction!
ahhhh, cmon, so someone offers it.. then again, 80% of the world's fiber optic cabling is dark. So I'm more interested in how many subscribers this company has? Whats the total consumer/business CDPD subscriber base in NA?
You are very unlikely to see much CDPD deployed on NA soil (I demo'd CDPD 5 years ago at a conference in Vancover.. if I'm wrong, someone let me know:). It's a technology which is perfect for the purposes you mention (telemetry, remote monitoring), but its cost and the fact that its most suited for geography that is both remote and difficult to access makes it somewhat difficult to justify why anyone would use it here (nevermind the limited bandwidth). Throw in that it'll likely never be a consumer level technology, and it seems that it is a technology which likely won't have a critical mass of deployment and visibility to make hacking a concern. Now that's not to say that it/couldn't/ be done..:)
Just like any technology, it can be used and abused. If I were the type who didn't like the word asshole, I might be justified in lamenting:
Is it at all possible to have any sort of message board without people coming along and using the word asshole?
Any other way, and you wouldn't be on planet earth, bub. Stop whining about it, and start questionting which you value more: crashable cell phones, or no cell phones?
Society must accept the inevitability of technology as an unbiased tool. Technology CANNOT be created for good. Like it or not, as a society, we must accept that when we adopted cell phones, we accepted the possibility that they may not always work, in the same way that as a society we value the use of cars more so than the lives of the thousands upon thousands of people who die as a result of them every year.
Anyone who thinks technology puts powers only in the hands of the righteous (whatever the hell that is) is a fool. In the case of Black Hats, I'd rather the concaine junkies in my neighbourhood congregate and do their thing in the middle of daylight in the park rather than at night, in allys, if you catch my drift. The fact that this was demonstrated at a conference is a good thing.. would you prefer to crack down on these people, and drive their activities into the underground where you are upable to keep an eye on them?
You need an amentdment there:
One was for commercial gain by a non American, non wealthy non large corperate interest, and the other was for an American reseacher in good standing.
History is rife with examples of companies that either bent the law, only to have it changed (because capitalism depends on those companies for the health of its economy), where as individuals who seek or toy with similar changes are far more likely to be nailed to the wall. Financial interest is a misnomer. Financial contribution to the economy (~= size of company, revenues) is the true measure the government and judicial process goes by when balancing the rights of the individual, and laws of the country. It's no surprise, for instance, that Disney was one of the main backers, each time the copyright laws have been extended. MS looks like they'll get a slap on the wrist (and a whole new generation of users), in light of the US's current economy.
Meanwhile, the Dimitri's, because their work will not feed back into the economy at nearly the same level as those two behemoths, is jailed. Obviously, it's not cut and dried, but you'd have to be quite naive to not factor in the importance of the participatory groups to the economy the judicial system in question operates in.
When you look at how disconnected celebrities are from the reality that their fans' live... CG characters may be the ultimate in understanding. It's quite possible that CG characters may more down to earth than their hollywood counterparts, as the people creating them and animating them will live lives substantially closer to our own than Julia Roberts ever has.
A social question.. do you feel that the pervasion of technology as a means of security contributes to the number of people who feel comfortable with trying to do something illegal (ie, Napsterize, for example)? Do think disproving the effectiveness of current watermarking schemes is an incentive for the RIAA to combat piracy as a social problem, or simply as an incentive to develop more secure, uncrackable copyright protection schemes?
Well, a true democracy would fly in the face of a ruling class (ie, corperate interests, in the case of the western world), wouldn't it?
I'm sure many Americans and Canadians would feel comfortable with aknowledging what we are pursuing is, more or less, plutocracy, whereby policies and actions are set to benifit trade; under the guise that increased trade between nations will 'pull everyone up' in wealth. I guess what we're seeing is that the input to those types of policies are coming from the players who have already made it (the Microsofts, the Starbucks), and end up primarily benifiting the entrenched corperations that typically are centralized in the US.
BTW, I think the most frightening thing about globalism is the idea of foreign-investor settlements, where governments can be told by the likes of the WTO that social policies that inhibit the profitability of foreign investors (companies that are entering a country's market) must be changed. The governments of Chile, Canada, and the UK have all been spanked at one time or another for policies and laws that inhibit certain foreign investors. In fact, I'm under the impression that Canada is still pursuing a lawsuit against the UK for the UK's policy to ban imports of asbestos, a carcinogen that Canada has banned itself! Of course, it's no surprise that asbestos is one of Canada's larger exports..:) Money talks, but now it seems to be heard in every corner of the world, instead of within the limited borders of a country, thus (at the time) at least ensuring that economic pursuits fell in line with the social values of the market. This is globalisms archillies heel - the idea that different cultures will accept their government softening social policies in order to gain access to foreign markets. This is where the riots come in.. who cares if they don't understand the situation; what they do understand is the control companies can have over governments, and that most of these companies' decisions will be made in different social contexts than where the company intents to implement its money-making strategy. I'm pretty sure a democracy should allow its people to set the economic policies of their government.. anyway else (ie, the world body, mandating governments' policies way) can't be a democracy, can it?
Okay, sounds like you have some insight into this. How is Cuba different.. is Fidel against his people exporting goods to other countries (cause I wasn't under that impression).. surely, Cuba does some trade with other nations (I know they used to have an additional 6 billion a year from Russian trade that was driven out during the cold war?).. so why the embargo against them? (Well, other than the reasons I suggested in my original post.)
I think the most annoying thing that makes the issue so complicated is the hypocracy. On one hand, we denounce China for being communist; but then, we let them into the WTO. Why? Money. Actually, fastest growing GDP annual, at 7%. But Cuba? Still no access to the largest economic market in North America. It's the hypocracy that bothers 'the people'. I think it's quite clear that if a consumer has money (say, China), all values are thrown out the window. (Communist state? Yeah, we called them 'reds' for 60 years, but now that they can start buying our shit, we're all buddy buddy.) Then Cuba... communist dictatorship, but.. no money to be a consumer of American exports. So they end up being the poster child for 'bad communist'. Basically, the frusterating thing is that these words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' and 'communism' get thrown around like so much water, but when it comes down to it, a 'socially/morally bankrupt consumer' with deep pockets (China) is A-OK, while a 'socially/morally bankrupt consumer' with no money to buy (Cuba) is made an example out of. And that's the hypocracy that I find so hard to swallow.
> Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality
A word (ie, globalism) doesn't mean shit until the people who wield power in the economy actually/want/ to give up some of that power and wealth for the benifit of all. On what planet do you think a power/wealth weiling CEO is going to admit to shareholders that they are allowing competition in weak foreign markets for the overall health of the global economy.
Globalism is as buzzy a word as 'democracy' is; China is communist, and you don't see the US (or anyone else?) embargo'ing them. Hell, now they're in the WTO! (With the worlds fasted growing GPD at 7% annual growth.) The US can throw around the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' all they want, but those who are in need are not fooled one bit. Globalism is the same.. it really means corperatized america turning every other country into a strip mall and a community of blue collars operating the latest opening of Starbucks or BestBuy.
Of course not. I meant 'detemining whether or not to be gay' as in whether or not to make it public that one is gay. I didn't mean to trivialize the road to self discovery.:) Heck, I'm bi, and I don't feel like that's something I can decide to be. I just am. But to suggest that many homosexuals arn't, more of less, born into situations and families where they must 'decide' on whether or not to stay in the closet is to deny the social stigma still attached to said sexualities. And thus, the 'mom test' is invalid, in these situations, since I implicitly believe that the best and most healthy thing to do is to be public about it, even if it horribly fails the 'mom test', as the above poster put it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in order to own a computer, pay for an internet connection, etc, its very likely that you've had to have a job.
... we're still a shit load of time away from that utopian Star Trek Federation-eque perfect world that the idealistic techies so deeply believe their passion will lead to. If at all.
Now, if you're a 'revolutionary', you've probably had your ideals and theologies watered down by having to bend or comprimize your theologies. To gain a forum and following in which to complain and attempt to change the game, you still have to play the game. And play it alot. And still, the more people that grokk your tune, the more by-the-numbers youve probably had to play. The larger your audience, the more cautious people who are supporting or helping you reach your audience (ISP, webmaster, employer) will be.
Until computers and access are so cheap that you could panhandle for them within the span of a few days, most of the voices and political ideas expressed on the medium will stay well within acceptable non-boat-rocking parameters. And even when you do have shit-kickers with good visibilty on the 'net, the number of like like-minded people would still be fairly low.
Basically, its still unfeasable for the demographic that has the most right to complain and likely the most motives to affect changes to our poli/economic system to gain the tools, access, and time neccessary to distribute these ideas via the internet.
Throw into this the still existing barriers of language, completely different geo-centric value systems, etc, etc
Slot machine addiction: put money, time in, get reward (money, but you can proove that you'll never win was much as you spend .. casinos wouldn't exist if you could)
... social addictions ARE physical addictions .. you simply develop a dependance on the way those chemicals in question fire off in your brain while you are indulging in your addiction. Plain and simple.
Video game addiction: put time, (maybe money) in, get reward (cool graphics, bragging, whatever)
You can be addicted to ANYTHING
Lets see:
.. but thats what I'm talking about. The market is dumb. Just think about what has happened when the market has spoken on:
.. and I'm a smoker .. ie, market speaks on consumables)
.. geez, I mean really, how can you honestly think the market chooses whats right? The market chooses what their neighbour has. The market wants to be coddled, loved, and cuddled, with no mention of responsibility, possible consequences of decisions and policies .. ah geez, I could go on and on. The market follows the illusion of wealth and happiness (in that order), not the reality of progress and safety.
Subject: Network security policies
To prevent: Network attacks, abuse of data and IP
Classification of offense it is desined to limit: Computer Hacking, now classified as terrorism, and/or writing insecure code and/or building insecure networks
Punishment: Life in prison, also in aiding and abetting (even if you were unaware that you helped the offender), no statute of limitations
Possible loss of offense: Everything from money (your entire business, for instance) to lif (think about hacking air traffic control data), to national security details
Subject: Drunk driving policies
To prevent: Drunk driving
Classification of offence it is designed to stop: Minor
Punishment: A few years in jail
Possibler loss due to offence: From nothing to a few killed (or up to a dozen if you want to include pileups as a result)
Your own government seems to classify the offences that network security is designed to prevent above those of drunk driving. Sure, drunk driving is far more visible, in that you can link the loss of life directly to the offence
- cigarettes (death, staggering burden on health care orgs
- the environment (ie, market speaks on cars)
- child labour (ie, market speaks on clothes)
.. and all of these problems would be far MORE rampant were it not for government regulation.
The market dictates NEEDS, but it never dictates RESPONSIBILITIES. Never did the market ask for breathalizer ignitions, even if you seem so aghast to the idea that drunk driving is accepted by 'the market'.
Network security is about enforcing the responsibility we all must share to make networks and the data they carry more secure. If you really think a market is going to mandate a responsibility upon itself that is probably not economically benificial to the individual in the long run, but carries great social weight and overall economic 'insurance', you're out of your mind. Actually, no wait, you're just a good example of why the market has no place in the arena of technological and social responsibility.
The market also dictates that women on television be 90lbs, and recent numbers show that 1 in 4 women below 30 have eating related issues. The market dictates that rap videos show gangers and hos and bitches, ensuring that negros retain this descructive image years after we thought we had licked this whole 'racism' thing. The market dictates poison, buddy. Whatever you or your friends or me or my friends want, you can bet its bad for my loved ones, which is why I have no quams about handing over such responsibilities to a government that would be free of private sector influences (ie, a government you could trust).
I guess in light of the fact that it is difficult for a government to be impartial to corperate forces and to be, in general, trustworth and smart, letting the market dictate the needs of the people is about our only option these days. Just remember that the reason the government is so fucked up right now is that the 'best and brightest' are driven to the private sector, where their talents can only be applied against a profit margin, not a betterment of a population.
Factor in the miseducation of 'the market' (how many people actually know about the recent passport.com exploits)
>Don't you think that if Bill Gates could become what he is today, that any of you are capable of the very same thing?
...
.com thing. People even /knew/, at the time, that consumers were asking for useless things, and companies kept fueling money into it. Consumers are, by definition, looking for gratification and/or solutions, for the individual (or small group). Solutions that benifit a broader population, including market 'comprimises', rarely occur in a free-market scenario.
...
.. you may not like them now, but one day, they may just save the life or provide affordable housing to someone you love (although its unfortunate we dont value this help when it goes to people we do not know/love/understand.)
Ever heard of morals? Capitalism discounts (or ignores, in the very least) the reality that people disagree with the very action of exploiting free markets and advertising dollar, not that they are just 'too lazy to do what Bill did.' Participants of this society think that he shouldn't have even been ALLOWed to do what he did. Reductionists like you will forever call 'JEALOUSY!' or 'ENVY!', but you're only doing yourself a disservice by not attempting to understand different mindsets and perspectives.
Also
Consumers may dictate the needs of the market, but those needs are often wrong, shortsighted, etc. Shit, look at the
And then
Do you truely advocate that consumers SHOULD dictate the needs of the market? If that were true, drunk driving might actually be legal, and we'd be losing twice the amount of people to accidents. Nike and Gap et al would depend on FAR more child labour if the government did not impose certain levels of audits, etc, cause the consumers sure aint gunna stop buying so long as they dont have to look into the eyes of the kids making the clothing. There are additional examples abound. At some point, the government's job is to protect its citizens from their own short-sightedness and lack of ability to have a broad view of their environment. The government should monitor and analyse its popultion, in order to provide common-demoninator regulations to strike the best balance between technology adoption and standardization to promote equality in market participation. We don't trust the government these days, but thats because we send so many of the smart people into the private sector!
You have to understand that doing what you want to do is not neccessarily the best thing for you. This is what taxes are
Unfortuntely, as long as people like you exist, 'lazy' people will always have a justifiable ground from which to bitch, moan, etc. And hey, no one forced you to bitch about their bitching, know what I mean? If it aint your scene, keep to yourself; after all, you can be confident in your mindset that the market will always dictate the correct needs (including governing needs as the intigration with the private sector continues, I assume), so you've very little to worry about, don't you?
Fair enough, although to be honest, I hadn't heard of mLan before today, and I am quite attentive to the music tech scene (tho, as I said before, not the studio scene/culture .. I'm a bedroom producer). I will defaintely check it out now. Note: I'm a PC guy. I realize that a substantial portion of the digital music world is Mac. I grew up with Mac, but alas cannot afford my once childhood buddy anymore.
Also, to get firewire on my computer would require I buy a firewire card (no idea on prices), where as MAGIC seems to work on existing ethernet (maybe this is where I'm confused), with an overlying software layer that processes traffic in a way that makes it digital-music production friendly. To that end, lots of spaces/studios/etc are already wired with ethernet networks, so you get serious reuse here. Of course, if you truely do need 'modified' ethernet cable/hubs/etc, then this point becomes moot, and I place myself in the corner with a pointy hat on my head. Even beyond that, MAGIC seems to be more geared towards live performance setups and mixing boards (ie, hardware), than PCs themselves. Just my perspective on it. Thanks for the heads up about mLan!
I think the idea here (it being an open protocal) is that it could go on ANY device. Gibson is primarily a guitar maker, so it's only natural they would demo it on guitars and pitch the technology on guitars to get the ball rolling.
.. it would be much more useful on my turntables ... see what I'm getting at? :)
For instance, I don't think amps would be useful at all
BTW, on top of this, sequencers/multitraks/etc could remember effect/send/insert, levels, eqs, etc for each instrument. So a musician could come into the studio, work for awhile, save his setup, and then have that setup automatically come up again the next time he plugged into the studio a few weeks later. The more devices were MAGIC aware, the more time would be saved in setting up between projects. I can just set it .. foot pedals remembering which instruments were set to what levels ... oooooooo, so cool.
MIDI is not what they are talking about here. They are talking about audio. MIDI is not audio, but rather 'piano roll'. The only data being sent to the sequencer/keyboard is which notes to play, and when. Conversely, audio is the actual audio signal generated by the instrument, whether it be a keyboard or a guitar.
The true value of audio over ethernet is the existing infrastructure (hubs, switchers, etc), coupled with being able to identify 'devices' hooked up to your setup. Mixers, be them software or hardware mixers, that are 'ethernet aware' would be able to auto-assign the devices name that an instrument reports itself as to the network to faders and knobs in your setup. Currently, you have to know which wires are going from which instruments into what audio-ins on your hardware/software mixer/multitrak; in order to fade a guitar line, for instance, you need to be physically aware of which audio-in the guitar is connected to. This amounts to a huge amount of organizational work for producers/techs, as they must use project software or notebooks to keep track of how various projects are wired up. Some technologies are alleviating these troubles, but from what I understand, its still a pain in many setups to keep track of which songs and projects are wired up which way.
Hopefully, this Gibson technology would allow producers and sound guys to forget those details, and just assign 'network instruments' to which ever faders they please, without ever having to verify that the guitar was plugged into the correct audio-in, corresponding to the controls (faders, knobs) you wish you use to do your production and mixdowns.
At least, thats what I get out of it.
BTW, I am a d'n'b producer with a fairly functional grasp of lo-pro to mid-pro MIDI and audio gear, so while I'm not privvy to the nitty gritty of doing sound for live shows or full rack mixers in-studio, I think I can glean what the true pay off is here, for the sound guys and musicians alike.
Hey look, Yet More Proof (tm):
...
Bickering, fighting, and arguing (er, I mean, competition) between intelligent grownups DOES lead to people making millions!
Well, there it is. I guess I havn't anything left to complain about
'we wouldn't be there we are today' neither specifies who 'we' is, not specifies where 'where' is, so I'm not neccessarily saying we/you/us/them/him/her/it is any better/worse/happier/sadder/richer/cleaner as a result of him. I don't know where 'here' is, but we're there (all of us)!
:)
Or, in other words, the world would be different, which was the point I was making with QT. The net would be different had it not hit the scene. QT ushered in video to the net like Columbus brought in the Europeans. Good enough?
I do conceed that my phrasing was probably not as carefully selected as it could have been, and any apologies if I came off as being discriminatory.
Gamespot gave it a 9.1, even tho it was developed 2 years ago (or just finished in May or something). 60 hours of gameplay, and its already being talked about as RPG of the year by many sites. Go to ebworld.com .. they have exclusive distribution rights for the first 30 days of sale?
.. but criticising QuickTime is like dissing Christopher Columbus. Sure, he may have called everyone 'indians', and been a complete asshole, but we wouldn't be where we are today without him.
Same goes for QuickTime. Whine all you like about it not being on Unix, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the embassador of streaming video for the internet. To this day, without going into the nitty gritty and platform issues, I still prefer the quality of QuickTime over any other format, and will select a QuickTime stream given a choice from any other number of alternatives.
I know its been available :) like I said, I demo'd it 5 years ago .. I'm speaking more about its adoption .. clearly, I was wrong about not seeing it marketed towards the consumer market. Thanks for the correction!
ahhhh, cmon, so someone offers it .. then again, 80% of the world's fiber optic cabling is dark. So I'm more interested in how many subscribers this company has? Whats the total consumer/business CDPD subscriber base in NA?
You are very unlikely to see much CDPD deployed on NA soil (I demo'd CDPD 5 years ago at a conference in Vancover .. if I'm wrong, someone let me know :). It's a technology which is perfect for the purposes you mention (telemetry, remote monitoring), but its cost and the fact that its most suited for geography that is both remote and difficult to access makes it somewhat difficult to justify why anyone would use it here (nevermind the limited bandwidth). Throw in that it'll likely never be a consumer level technology, and it seems that it is a technology which likely won't have a critical mass of deployment and visibility to make hacking a concern. Now that's not to say that it /couldn't/ be done .. :)
Just like any technology, it can be used and abused. If I were the type who didn't like the word asshole, I might be justified in lamenting:
.. would you prefer to crack down on these people, and drive their activities into the underground where you are upable to keep an eye on them?
Is it at all possible to have any sort of message board without people coming along and using the word asshole?
Any other way, and you wouldn't be on planet earth, bub. Stop whining about it, and start questionting which you value more: crashable cell phones, or no cell phones?
Society must accept the inevitability of technology as an unbiased tool. Technology CANNOT be created for good. Like it or not, as a society, we must accept that when we adopted cell phones, we accepted the possibility that they may not always work, in the same way that as a society we value the use of cars more so than the lives of the thousands upon thousands of people who die as a result of them every year.
Anyone who thinks technology puts powers only in the hands of the righteous (whatever the hell that is) is a fool. In the case of Black Hats, I'd rather the concaine junkies in my neighbourhood congregate and do their thing in the middle of daylight in the park rather than at night, in allys, if you catch my drift. The fact that this was demonstrated at a conference is a good thing
You need an amentdment there: One was for commercial gain by a non American, non wealthy non large corperate interest, and the other was for an American reseacher in good standing. History is rife with examples of companies that either bent the law, only to have it changed (because capitalism depends on those companies for the health of its economy), where as individuals who seek or toy with similar changes are far more likely to be nailed to the wall. Financial interest is a misnomer. Financial contribution to the economy (~= size of company, revenues) is the true measure the government and judicial process goes by when balancing the rights of the individual, and laws of the country. It's no surprise, for instance, that Disney was one of the main backers, each time the copyright laws have been extended. MS looks like they'll get a slap on the wrist (and a whole new generation of users), in light of the US's current economy. Meanwhile, the Dimitri's, because their work will not feed back into the economy at nearly the same level as those two behemoths, is jailed. Obviously, it's not cut and dried, but you'd have to be quite naive to not factor in the importance of the participatory groups to the economy the judicial system in question operates in.
> Can't be as bad as Insurrection.
Famous last words!
When you look at how disconnected celebrities are from the reality that their fans' live ... CG characters may be the ultimate in understanding. It's quite possible that CG characters may more down to earth than their hollywood counterparts, as the people creating them and animating them will live lives substantially closer to our own than Julia Roberts ever has.
A social question .. do you feel that the pervasion of technology as a means of security contributes to the number of people who feel comfortable with trying to do something illegal (ie, Napsterize, for example)? Do think disproving the effectiveness of current watermarking schemes is an incentive for the RIAA to combat piracy as a social problem, or simply as an incentive to develop more secure, uncrackable copyright protection schemes?
Well, a true democracy would fly in the face of a ruling class (ie, corperate interests, in the case of the western world), wouldn't it?
.. :) Money talks, but now it seems to be heard in every corner of the world, instead of within the limited borders of a country, thus (at the time) at least ensuring that economic pursuits fell in line with the social values of the market. This is globalisms archillies heel - the idea that different cultures will accept their government softening social policies in order to gain access to foreign markets. This is where the riots come in .. who cares if they don't understand the situation; what they do understand is the control companies can have over governments, and that most of these companies' decisions will be made in different social contexts than where the company intents to implement its money-making strategy. I'm pretty sure a democracy should allow its people to set the economic policies of their government .. anyway else (ie, the world body, mandating governments' policies way) can't be a democracy, can it?
I'm sure many Americans and Canadians would feel comfortable with aknowledging what we are pursuing is, more or less, plutocracy, whereby policies and actions are set to benifit trade; under the guise that increased trade between nations will 'pull everyone up' in wealth. I guess what we're seeing is that the input to those types of policies are coming from the players who have already made it (the Microsofts, the Starbucks), and end up primarily benifiting the entrenched corperations that typically are centralized in the US.
BTW, I think the most frightening thing about globalism is the idea of foreign-investor settlements, where governments can be told by the likes of the WTO that social policies that inhibit the profitability of foreign investors (companies that are entering a country's market) must be changed. The governments of Chile, Canada, and the UK have all been spanked at one time or another for policies and laws that inhibit certain foreign investors. In fact, I'm under the impression that Canada is still pursuing a lawsuit against the UK for the UK's policy to ban imports of asbestos, a carcinogen that Canada has banned itself! Of course, it's no surprise that asbestos is one of Canada's larger exports
(Full disclosure: I am Canadian.)
Okay, sounds like you have some insight into this. How is Cuba different .. is Fidel against his people exporting goods to other countries (cause I wasn't under that impression) .. surely, Cuba does some trade with other nations (I know they used to have an additional 6 billion a year from Russian trade that was driven out during the cold war?) .. so why the embargo against them? (Well, other than the reasons I suggested in my original post.)
I think the most annoying thing that makes the issue so complicated is the hypocracy. On one hand, we denounce China for being communist; but then, we let them into the WTO. Why? Money. Actually, fastest growing GDP annual, at 7%. But Cuba? Still no access to the largest economic market in North America. It's the hypocracy that bothers 'the people'. I think it's quite clear that if a consumer has money (say, China), all values are thrown out the window. (Communist state? Yeah, we called them 'reds' for 60 years, but now that they can start buying our shit, we're all buddy buddy.) Then Cuba ... communist dictatorship, but .. no money to be a consumer of American exports. So they end up being the poster child for 'bad communist'. Basically, the frusterating thing is that these words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' and 'communism' get thrown around like so much water, but when it comes down to it, a 'socially/morally bankrupt consumer' with deep pockets (China) is A-OK, while a 'socially/morally bankrupt consumer' with no money to buy (Cuba) is made an example out of. And that's the hypocracy that I find so hard to swallow.
> Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality
/want/ to give up some of that power and wealth for the benifit of all. On what planet do you think a power/wealth weiling CEO is going to admit to shareholders that they are allowing competition in weak foreign markets for the overall health of the global economy.
.. it really means corperatized america turning every other country into a strip mall and a community of blue collars operating the latest opening of Starbucks or BestBuy.
A word (ie, globalism) doesn't mean shit until the people who wield power in the economy actually
Globalism is as buzzy a word as 'democracy' is; China is communist, and you don't see the US (or anyone else?) embargo'ing them. Hell, now they're in the WTO! (With the worlds fasted growing GPD at 7% annual growth.) The US can throw around the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' all they want, but those who are in need are not fooled one bit. Globalism is the same
Of course not. I meant 'detemining whether or not to be gay' as in whether or not to make it public that one is gay. I didn't mean to trivialize the road to self discovery. :) Heck, I'm bi, and I don't feel like that's something I can decide to be. I just am. But to suggest that many homosexuals arn't, more of less, born into situations and families where they must 'decide' on whether or not to stay in the closet is to deny the social stigma still attached to said sexualities. And thus, the 'mom test' is invalid, in these situations, since I implicitly believe that the best and most healthy thing to do is to be public about it, even if it horribly fails the 'mom test', as the above poster put it.