Y'know, I may not think much of their software, but he has a real future in contemporary interpretive dance. Too bad John Cage is dead, they could do some collaborative work.
MindsEye, while not ready for prime time yet, looks like it could be very nice. They look like they need developers, however. So if anyone is talented in that area, you might want to go help them out.
Because word of mouth and web based methods *aren't* as powerful as you think they are, for one thing. I'm not saying they can't be useful, but they just don't have the reach that TV and radio have (for Joe Consumer, at any rate).
Second, some of us musicians don't like live performance. Sometimes, our music (especially carefully constructed electronic compositions) doesn't translate well (or at all) to live performance.
They have plenty of contempt for technology have nots while curiously tollerating computing environments from the stone age.
One can only presume that you are referring to UNIX. Well, it is old, yes. But the architecture and philosophies of UNIX are solid and useful. And it's well tested. As an aside, did you know that torpedo technology from WWII is far more reliable than our current nuclear arsenal? Why? Lot's of real world testing.
Send HTML mail and they will have appoplexy. (And if you think HTML is a bad idea I presume you read Slashdot in the no-graphics, plaintext mode).
Sometimes I do. It's called Lynx. But that's irrelevant. A web browser is used to view HTML. A mail client is used to view mail. There are far too many people out there who feel the need to format a simple message all to hell and back simply because they can. And then there are the folks who don't even realize that all their messages are going out in HTML. All these messages start to add up in terms of bandwidth and storage. It's simply overkill.
Interesting is also a relative term. That's why you can turn off categories and editors. I suggest you go turn off the humor category right now and never have to see these stories anymore. Or you might want to go somewhere more serious. Or not. But it's of little use complaining here.
Metallica has the weight to be able to do that. Most musicians don't. It's one of the reasons I'm not in any way interested in getting involved with the big labels. Maybe an independent or digital distribution, though.
Well, the idea of requiring stations to show airtime for all candidates "for free" in trade for airtime could simply be changed to a requirement for all stations to accept paid political advertisement from all registered political parties, regardless of views. So Ted Turner's stations can't refuse to show ads for political parties he doesn't support, for instance. And then just use public money (some perhaps from the sale of airwaves) to purchase the airtime. That removes most of the differential treatment.
I don't really see the corporatism. I assume you're talking about the idea of requiring stations that use the airwaves to provide free time?
No, not really. Corporatism (derived from a Latin word for "body") is the cooperation of the private sector (business) and public sector (government). This doesn't include government hiring of private business. But it does include the intertwining of their affairs (like the airline bailout, government sponsorship of private research, and businesses giving their services to the government on different terms than to the public). It's a blurring of the lines between private and public sector.
And no, rich politicians aren't inherently more trustworthy than the poor. But allowing them to buy publicity (which directly translate to votes - at least to a point) seems to violate the spirit of the system where people vote for the best representation.
It's a lot like advertising. It's necessary to advertise so people will know that you exist, as you note with the Green Party candidate. The problem is that it's just plain difficult to get exposure to all candidates and parties without the government getting involved. And since the government is dominated by the two major parties, I don't think they're going to be fair to third parties.
I think the most effective way of doing things might be to go evangelize for your favorite third party. For instance, I'm very enamoured of the Constitution Party. So, every time I get the chance, I tell people about this party. Almost no one I talked to knew about the party before I told them. But they all know about it now. Granted, it didn't make a huge dent, but I felt like I at least did something. I don't think trying to change the law is going to succeed or do as much as I did.
Why can't we order them to provide free services? We "auction" off the public airwaves at way below market value. I agree that cable companies are harder to control, but those using the airwaves can provide them.
It's not that I really disagree with you, per se. It's just that I don't really like the idea of corporatism (the union of public and private interests in one body).
Airtime on cable stations can be purchased with money from other sales of public resources.
That's a good idea, however.
I would agree that there isn't enough real debate between politicians, just sound-bites. That's why I don't like the idea of the rich (or well-backed) politicians buying a ton of airtime for these sound bites.
True enough. Of course, just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they are immoral or self-serving. Some are, some aren't.
If you provided free airtime for them it could be with the stipulation that they debate other candidates at the appropriate level, etc.
Sure.
As is, the debates are really worthless, they pick their opponent and it's a big PR thing.
And grandstanding. That's really in the tradition, of course, but they did have *some* content at one point.
I wish I could moderate this up to +99, put it on the Slashdot front page in 72 pt. type, and paste it in all caps at the beginning of every advocacy HOWTO.
One of the conditions of purchasing access to the airwaves is providing government access. Just write it into all the new contracts that they get more. Not a biggy.
A lot of it? We can't just go around ordering people to give free services.
And the argument that anything government does costs more is tired libertarian bullshit. Something done seperately by every candidate is much less efficient that something run by a central authority.
Now you're definitely losing me here. With government comes accountability. This is a good thing. Sort of. The problem is that you need someone watching everything. And someone watching the watchers. And someone watching the people watching the watchers. And someone....
And yes, not increasing the exposure of candidates you agree with is a feature.
I don't consider that there is anything even close to enough exposure right now. I want to see *real* debates by candidates.
By real, I mean detailed expositions of candidates' views on issues like the existence and nature of absolute truth, the inherent evil or goodness of human nature, the purpose of human laws, the origin of government, the existence and nature of God, the existence and nature of "Natural Law", and other general philosophical topics essential to understanding whether that person really represents me or not. I want to know that if that person makes decisions based on conscience, the likelyhood is that I would have made the same decision under the same circumstances if I had the same level of information they had.
This is where a connection can be made between a politician's personal convictions and the representation of the people.
10-15 years is too LONG. The original term was 14 years, and when you consider that they didn't have mass communications and media, that was an extremely short time. One cultural cycle was approximately 50 years long. Now they're 8-10 years.
Copyright was never intended to provide a "revenue stream for creators". Rather, it was intended to allow publishers to make back some of the cost of their investment. It was understood that artists, authors, and musicians produced their art because they loved it. Publishers, on the other hand, did what they did for the money. Artists would continue to produce art no matter what, but for it to reach an audience, the publishers had to have some guarantee that they could at least make back their investment (presses, paper, ink, labor) without being undercut by competitors.
Thus, copyright. It's a short term monopoly for the sake of keeping publishers in business. That's good. But the term has probably become far too long.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, thanks. Didn't know that was there.
I wish there was a comments "Hall of Fame".
Y'know, I may not think much of their software, but he has a real future in contemporary interpretive dance. Too bad John Cage is dead, they could do some collaborative work.
MindsEye, while not ready for prime time yet, looks like it could be very nice. They look like they need developers, however. So if anyone is talented in that area, you might want to go help them out.
Wow. I've used those exact same words numerous times. I never added the part about "If you don't like it..." though.
Second, some of us musicians don't like live performance. Sometimes, our music (especially carefully constructed electronic compositions) doesn't translate well (or at all) to live performance.
One can only presume that you are referring to UNIX. Well, it is old, yes. But the architecture and philosophies of UNIX are solid and useful. And it's well tested. As an aside, did you know that torpedo technology from WWII is far more reliable than our current nuclear arsenal? Why? Lot's of real world testing.
Send HTML mail and they will have appoplexy. (And if you think HTML is a bad idea I presume you read Slashdot in the no-graphics, plaintext mode).
Sometimes I do. It's called Lynx. But that's irrelevant. A web browser is used to view HTML. A mail client is used to view mail. There are far too many people out there who feel the need to format a simple message all to hell and back simply because they can. And then there are the folks who don't even realize that all their messages are going out in HTML. All these messages start to add up in terms of bandwidth and storage. It's simply overkill.
When they called one of the new elements "Upsidasium". What fools!
Don't forget Vangelis. Albedo 0.39 is a masterpiece. And then there's Klaus Schulze. It looks like people are focusing mainly on schmaltzy dance music instead of real synthesizer compositions. But then, this is Slashdot. :-)
Let us know if you get it put up on the web somewhere.
Interesting is also a relative term. That's why you can turn off categories and editors. I suggest you go turn off the humor category right now and never have to see these stories anymore. Or you might want to go somewhere more serious. Or not. But it's of little use complaining here.
Errr, so the pre-WWII workplace insisted on multicolored objects?
There aren't. ATi just sucks at writing drivers and nVidia doesn't.
Metallica has the weight to be able to do that. Most musicians don't. It's one of the reasons I'm not in any way interested in getting involved with the big labels. Maybe an independent or digital distribution, though.
Nah, he's talking about three backwards 'K's. Y'know, three strikes and you're out. Which is what it looks like to me.
I sometimes think Taco comes up with these headlines on purpose just to facilitate the humor.
That would be a better plan, I think.
"Spam" "ass" "ass" "in". I think it was a joke.
No, not really. Corporatism (derived from a Latin word for "body") is the cooperation of the private sector (business) and public sector (government). This doesn't include government hiring of private business. But it does include the intertwining of their affairs (like the airline bailout, government sponsorship of private research, and businesses giving their services to the government on different terms than to the public). It's a blurring of the lines between private and public sector.
And no, rich politicians aren't inherently more trustworthy than the poor. But allowing them to buy publicity (which directly translate to votes - at least to a point) seems to violate the spirit of the system where people vote for the best representation.
It's a lot like advertising. It's necessary to advertise so people will know that you exist, as you note with the Green Party candidate. The problem is that it's just plain difficult to get exposure to all candidates and parties without the government getting involved. And since the government is dominated by the two major parties, I don't think they're going to be fair to third parties.
I think the most effective way of doing things might be to go evangelize for your favorite third party. For instance, I'm very enamoured of the Constitution Party. So, every time I get the chance, I tell people about this party. Almost no one I talked to knew about the party before I told them. But they all know about it now. Granted, it didn't make a huge dent, but I felt like I at least did something. I don't think trying to change the law is going to succeed or do as much as I did.
It's not that I really disagree with you, per se. It's just that I don't really like the idea of corporatism (the union of public and private interests in one body).
Airtime on cable stations can be purchased with money from other sales of public resources.
That's a good idea, however.
I would agree that there isn't enough real debate between politicians, just sound-bites. That's why I don't like the idea of the rich (or well-backed) politicians buying a ton of airtime for these sound bites.
True enough. Of course, just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they are immoral or self-serving. Some are, some aren't.
If you provided free airtime for them it could be with the stipulation that they debate other candidates at the appropriate level, etc.
Sure.
As is, the debates are really worthless, they pick their opponent and it's a big PR thing.
And grandstanding. That's really in the tradition, of course, but they did have *some* content at one point.
Yep, welcome to human nature.
Hey now. Some of us have music degrees, y'know. ;-)
I wish I could moderate this up to +99, put it on the Slashdot front page in 72 pt. type, and paste it in all caps at the beginning of every advocacy HOWTO.
A lot of it? We can't just go around ordering people to give free services.
And the argument that anything government does costs more is tired libertarian bullshit. Something done seperately by every candidate is much less efficient that something run by a central authority.
Now you're definitely losing me here. With government comes accountability. This is a good thing. Sort of. The problem is that you need someone watching everything. And someone watching the watchers. And someone watching the people watching the watchers. And someone....
And yes, not increasing the exposure of candidates you agree with is a feature.
I don't consider that there is anything even close to enough exposure right now. I want to see *real* debates by candidates.
By real, I mean detailed expositions of candidates' views on issues like the existence and nature of absolute truth, the inherent evil or goodness of human nature, the purpose of human laws, the origin of government, the existence and nature of God, the existence and nature of "Natural Law", and other general philosophical topics essential to understanding whether that person really represents me or not. I want to know that if that person makes decisions based on conscience, the likelyhood is that I would have made the same decision under the same circumstances if I had the same level of information they had.
This is where a connection can be made between a politician's personal convictions and the representation of the people.
Copyright was never intended to provide a "revenue stream for creators". Rather, it was intended to allow publishers to make back some of the cost of their investment. It was understood that artists, authors, and musicians produced their art because they loved it. Publishers, on the other hand, did what they did for the money. Artists would continue to produce art no matter what, but for it to reach an audience, the publishers had to have some guarantee that they could at least make back their investment (presses, paper, ink, labor) without being undercut by competitors.
Thus, copyright. It's a short term monopoly for the sake of keeping publishers in business. That's good. But the term has probably become far too long.