Nope. She, for example (disclaimer: a friend of mine) did it for less than 1000$, and now tours Europe and her record has been higlighted by Beck as the second best of 2006. She's not as famous as Missy Elliott, but she makes a good living of her music.
Well, at least Piero Scaruffi (a well known musical critic) seems to disagree with you:
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
(Note that I do not agree completely with this, but at least it shows that the status of the Beatles as artistic geniuses is at least debatable)
This doesn't make any sense. On p2p, AFAIK, it is often easier (or at least as easy) to find a single track (except probably BitTorrent). The SoulSeek network, for example, last time I checked offered practically only separate files (even if you can download whole directories, IIRC). The same holds for the eDonkey network.
Then only a few people got money for doing exactly the same thing as before, exactly the same thing as I'm doing... I'd be upset, then disgusted, then I'd probably quit.
So you care more of your little ego than the project? What is changing if you aren't paid and someone else is? You were working for free before, you are working for free afterwards. The net advantage is positive: someone else has an advantage, you have not. Before, none of you had advantages. Where's the problem?
You can also consider that while you may be able to have enough free time to contribute (maybe you are a student), someone else couldn't have (maybe he's working), unless he can have the project as a part time job. Given equal importance of both contributions and limited resources, who would you pay? You, that have already been able to contribute, or the other fellow that cannot?
Will you stop to contribute drivers to the Linux kernel, let's say, because there are developers paid for writing drivers to the Linux kernel?
With some people being paid and others not, it draws a very clear 'you're not as valuable' line.
Not at all. You are valuable if your contributions and your code are valuable. And even if not, yes, there will always be someone more valuable than you and me. Accept that, it's life. But the fact someone is more valuable doesn't mean you are not valuable at all.
This is exactly the reason that many businesses make it a fire-able offense to discuss wages with other employees. And I whole-heartedly agree with that policy.
Woohoo, the terrible world of USA corporate policies (it's USA,isn't it? here we talk about wages among coworkers every day) strikes again. I'm every day more and more disgusted of USA corporate policies -I hope never to have to work there.
Sorry for the naivete, but I don't plain understand the rationale behind the DuncTank failure.
I mean, even if I'm a non-paid developer, what's bad in having me collaborating with payed developers if it helps getting the work done? Isn't it a bit like the GSoC? People in GSoC-funded projects should whine and hold back releases because "hey, why is he paid and I am not?" I just don't understand it, but I don't know the exact story behind the Dunc Tank collapse, so I'd like some enlightenment.
As much as I hate copyright and agree with you, the potential benefit of it all could be a massive switch to free software. Let's wait and see (not that I have many hopes...)
What is "holy" in life at this point? What is the sense of being the crumbles of what I was before? Why obliging me and my relatives sustain the weight of my agony?
I personally don't like computer games that much (expect perhaps for Civilization-like things), and I always found programming games, when I tried, unbelievably boring. However, YMMV.
Thanks for all the comments. Now I understand more clearly. However, it would be possible to have a C/asm microkernel exposing an API and then a number of modules written in high level languages (if they don't need to deal with low-level things?)
I have no formal CS education, nor I know low-level languages, so I naively ask: can you explain thoroughly what makes impossible/impractical for a high level language like Python or C# to be used for a kernel OS? It's sincere curiosity, not trolling or what. Thanks.
Well, if MS owns these domains, could it just let on them a page that automatically redirects to msn.com? Much more sure than leaving it to the browser choice.
Yes, but you could have tried to prove it: you could have recorded her voice, for example. Religion is a completely different affair: no one as far as I know has still caught God on tape.
Yes, but:
- do programs meet their Programmer when He kills -9 them?
- do programs that exit 0 go in Heaven and others go in Hell?
- Will the Son of the Programmer patch all programs from the Original Bug?
- I see always daemons running but no angels! So is Unix really Hell?
Scientist: "My wife loves me and I love her."
You: "Really, prove it empirically. You're no scientist."
Right. I know I love my girlfriend, but I only strongly suspect she loves me. I have no proof. I can't read her mind. How many people have been cheated by their loved ones?
Prove you exist, that your reality is more than just a mental delusion on your part.
I know I exist for myself -cfr.the Cartesian cogito, but of course I can't prove it logically to you. And yes, my reality could be a mental delusion on my part. Nothing illogical with it, I don't blindly trust in the reality in front of my eyes, from a logical point of view. I behave as it really exists, however, because it's the simplest thing to do and that requires less unproven assumptions until I get proof of the contrary. Believing in external reality simply requires the existence of external reality itself. Believing, let's say, in the Matrix requires believing (a)in the never seen Matrix (b)in a fictional reality built by the Matrix. I choose Occam's Razor.
Many of my classmates don't like to speak with me, or even "look down" on me for my un-Christian views. In addition, I've had multiple girls refuse to date me simply because I'm not Christian.
Ouch. I live in Italy, that is a strongly Catholic country, yet I still have to look for a Christian girl that refuses to date an atheist fellow (They may not like him in principle, and that's fine, but not arrive almost at a date and let it down just because of religion).
However, I must admit that as a self-taught atheist, I'd have troubles in spending my life with a strongly religious girl. Generic theism I've met and it's OK, but a strongly Christian/Muslim/whatever, I wouldn't really like. I can be a friend and behave nicely, of course, but betting my feelings and life, no, thanks. I like to go out with clever girls with whom I can talk and with a free mind (yes, there are), and having someone believing in fairy tales in my bed wouldn't be funny, just silly and boring. Maybe I'm racist, who knows (and who cares, by the way). Maybe one day I'll change my mind.
"I exist" is necessarily true in grammar, because of the assumptions made by "I."
Really cool argument I wasn't aware of. However, anything you substitute for "I" would work. Imagine "I" am really, in fact, some kind of hive mind (Minsky would love that). The unitary feeling of consciousness is what "I" depict to "myself" as I. The concept of the cogito is, impersonally, "At least one self-consciusness exists". Would it fit better?
If it is defined by the characteristics of property, and has value, then it falls within economic systems.
Yes, but those classic economic system fail utterly at treating something whose initial production can have a cost but whose replication costs are just an epsilon far from 0, for example.
perhaps you hadn't noticed that typosquat websites are loaded with pr0n, viruses, bogus search engines, and occasionally even attempts to pass themselves off as the real thing.
Well, every site loaded with viruses, bogus search engines and misleading informations should be closed, not just typosquatters, and not because they are typosquatting.
Registering 'micorsoft.com' can only be an attempt to fraudulently subvert a customer's intention to pursue a relationship with microsoft. And that is real harm
Why? Imagine tomorrow I build a true,legit software house called "MicorSoft". Yes, I capitalize also on typosquatting maybe, but that's no more than a clever advertising technique. Does this harm Microsoft? Maybe, but also competition harms Microsoft, yet we don't feel the need to protect it from competition.
Oh please.
Be creative. Find another name relevant to you and containing your acronym inside and use it. If you company is ACME, use "acme-company", for example. If you do, let's say, players, register "acmeplayers" or something similar.
No. "microsofft" and "microsoft" are two different strings. The Microsoft corporation should own only the "microsoft" string, not the "microsofft" one. They should have no right on variations of their name -variations of a name are, in fact, ANOTHER name.
Slashdot Mirror
How did it happen?
Nope. She, for example (disclaimer: a friend of mine) did it for less than 1000$, and now tours Europe and her record has been higlighted by Beck as the second best of 2006. She's not as famous as Missy Elliott, but she makes a good living of her music.
And she doesn't endorse DRM ;)
Well, at least Piero Scaruffi (a well known musical critic) seems to disagree with you:
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
(Note that I do not agree completely with this, but at least it shows that the status of the Beatles as artistic geniuses is at least debatable)
Please, don't insult Tom Waits anymore by putting him along with Gorillaz. Please. :)
Just for curiosity: what do you listen, actually? My adolescence spans exactly those years, but I still find a lot of artists I like in 2007.
This doesn't make any sense. On p2p, AFAIK, it is often easier (or at least as easy) to find a single track (except probably BitTorrent). The SoulSeek network, for example, last time I checked offered practically only separate files (even if you can download whole directories, IIRC). The same holds for the eDonkey network.
Then only a few people got money for doing exactly the same thing as before, exactly the same thing as I'm doing... I'd be upset, then disgusted, then I'd probably quit.
So you care more of your little ego than the project? What is changing if you aren't paid and someone else is? You were working for free before, you are working for free afterwards. The net advantage is positive: someone else has an advantage, you have not. Before, none of you had advantages. Where's the problem?
You can also consider that while you may be able to have enough free time to contribute (maybe you are a student), someone else couldn't have (maybe he's working), unless he can have the project as a part time job. Given equal importance of both contributions and limited resources, who would you pay? You, that have already been able to contribute, or the other fellow that cannot?
Will you stop to contribute drivers to the Linux kernel, let's say, because there are developers paid for writing drivers to the Linux kernel?
With some people being paid and others not, it draws a very clear 'you're not as valuable' line.
Not at all. You are valuable if your contributions and your code are valuable. And even if not, yes, there will always be someone more valuable than you and me. Accept that, it's life. But the fact someone is more valuable doesn't mean you are not valuable at all.
This is exactly the reason that many businesses make it a fire-able offense to discuss wages with other employees. And I whole-heartedly agree with that policy.
Woohoo, the terrible world of USA corporate policies (it's USA,isn't it? here we talk about wages among coworkers every day) strikes again. I'm every day more and more disgusted of USA corporate policies -I hope never to have to work there.
Sorry for the naivete, but I don't plain understand the rationale behind the DuncTank failure.
I mean, even if I'm a non-paid developer, what's bad in having me collaborating with payed developers if it helps getting the work done? Isn't it a bit like the GSoC? People in GSoC-funded projects should whine and hold back releases because "hey, why is he paid and I am not?" I just don't understand it, but I don't know the exact story behind the Dunc Tank collapse, so I'd like some enlightenment.
As much as I hate copyright and agree with you, the potential benefit of it all could be a massive switch to free software. Let's wait and see (not that I have many hopes...)
That's when euthanasia just makes sense.
What is "holy" in life at this point? What is the sense of being the crumbles of what I was before? Why obliging me and my relatives sustain the weight of my agony?
That woman needs relief, needs to rest.
There are also Scilab and, if you already know python and you like it, Scipy.
I think you can run the pay version without a host OS, saving on resources.
Ehm, sir, what would be the advantage of it instead of installing on bare metal?
I personally don't like computer games that much (expect perhaps for Civilization-like things), and I always found programming games, when I tried, unbelievably boring. However, YMMV.
Thanks for all the comments. Now I understand more clearly. However, it would be possible to have a C/asm microkernel exposing an API and then a number of modules written in high level languages (if they don't need to deal with low-level things?)
I have no formal CS education, nor I know low-level languages, so I naively ask: can you explain thoroughly what makes impossible/impractical for a high level language like Python or C# to be used for a kernel OS? It's sincere curiosity, not trolling or what. Thanks.
Well, if MS owns these domains, could it just let on them a page that automatically redirects to msn.com? Much more sure than leaving it to the browser choice.
Yes, but you could have tried to prove it: you could have recorded her voice, for example. Religion is a completely different affair: no one as far as I know has still caught God on tape.
Yes, but:
- do programs meet their Programmer when He kills -9 them?
- do programs that exit 0 go in Heaven and others go in Hell?
- Will the Son of the Programmer patch all programs from the Original Bug?
- I see always daemons running but no angels! So is Unix really Hell?
Scientist: "My wife loves me and I love her." You: "Really, prove it empirically. You're no scientist."
Right. I know I love my girlfriend, but I only strongly suspect she loves me. I have no proof. I can't read her mind. How many people have been cheated by their loved ones?
Prove you exist, that your reality is more than just a mental delusion on your part.
I know I exist for myself -cfr.the Cartesian cogito, but of course I can't prove it logically to you. And yes, my reality could be a mental delusion on my part. Nothing illogical with it, I don't blindly trust in the reality in front of my eyes, from a logical point of view. I behave as it really exists, however, because it's the simplest thing to do and that requires less unproven assumptions until I get proof of the contrary. Believing in external reality simply requires the existence of external reality itself. Believing, let's say, in the Matrix requires believing (a)in the never seen Matrix (b)in a fictional reality built by the Matrix. I choose Occam's Razor.
Many of my classmates don't like to speak with me, or even "look down" on me for my un-Christian views. In addition, I've had multiple girls refuse to date me simply because I'm not Christian.
Ouch. I live in Italy, that is a strongly Catholic country, yet I still have to look for a Christian girl that refuses to date an atheist fellow (They may not like him in principle, and that's fine, but not arrive almost at a date and let it down just because of religion).
However, I must admit that as a self-taught atheist, I'd have troubles in spending my life with a strongly religious girl. Generic theism I've met and it's OK, but a strongly Christian/Muslim/whatever, I wouldn't really like. I can be a friend and behave nicely, of course, but betting my feelings and life, no, thanks. I like to go out with clever girls with whom I can talk and with a free mind (yes, there are), and having someone believing in fairy tales in my bed wouldn't be funny, just silly and boring. Maybe I'm racist, who knows (and who cares, by the way). Maybe one day I'll change my mind.
"I exist" is necessarily true in grammar, because of the assumptions made by "I."
Really cool argument I wasn't aware of. However, anything you substitute for "I" would work. Imagine "I" am really, in fact, some kind of hive mind (Minsky would love that). The unitary feeling of consciousness is what "I" depict to "myself" as I. The concept of the cogito is, impersonally, "At least one self-consciusness exists". Would it fit better?
If it is defined by the characteristics of property, and has value, then it falls within economic systems.
Yes, but those classic economic system fail utterly at treating something whose initial production can have a cost but whose replication costs are just an epsilon far from 0, for example.
perhaps you hadn't noticed that typosquat websites are loaded with pr0n, viruses, bogus search engines, and occasionally even attempts to pass themselves off as the real thing.
Well, every site loaded with viruses, bogus search engines and misleading informations should be closed, not just typosquatters, and not because they are typosquatting.
Registering 'micorsoft.com' can only be an attempt to fraudulently subvert a customer's intention to pursue a relationship with microsoft. And that is real harm
Why? Imagine tomorrow I build a true,legit software house called "MicorSoft". Yes, I capitalize also on typosquatting maybe, but that's no more than a clever advertising technique. Does this harm Microsoft? Maybe, but also competition harms Microsoft, yet we don't feel the need to protect it from competition.
Oh please.
Be creative. Find another name relevant to you and containing your acronym inside and use it. If you company is ACME, use "acme-company", for example. If you do, let's say, players, register "acmeplayers" or something similar.
No. "microsofft" and "microsoft" are two different strings. The Microsoft corporation should own only the "microsoft" string, not the "microsofft" one. They should have no right on variations of their name -variations of a name are, in fact, ANOTHER name.