When FooBar, Inc, pushes out a software update or patch, should they be sure to read your mind about what modifications you've made and test your hacked-up system so that the update doesn't break things for you? ...
What would you rather do, spend tons of money fielding calls, dealing with complaints in forums and such from people installing your OS on a myriad of systems so diverse you'd go bankrupt testing all those combinations, and for what business advantage?
This is why standards are important, genius. Write your operating system against commonly-known hardware standards, and it works. If the standards-based OS breaks, it's the hardware's fault, and would be easily provable so. That's why Windows works on all the "hacked-up systems" of the world.
According to Islamic teaching, Muslims are forbidden from maintaining images of Muhammad to help discourage idol worship. In this case, how would any Muslims recognize that the cartoon was, in fact, depticting Muhammad? Did the cartoon have an arrow pointing at the guy with a label saying, "This is Muhammad the founder of Islam and not some archetypical Muslim named after him" or something?
I am from Germany. I don't want to compare Bush to Hitler. They are both completely different and have nothing in common. Except that they were both elected in a popular vote.
Consider a workflow-type approach, like what exists in Plone. Changes go through an approval process by one or more people. You could sophisticate it, make the waiting-for-approval changes visible so that people can comment, help with citing sources, refute false claims, etc.
I think it might work for wikipedia. It does mean, however, that each article would have one or more people that "own" it and are responsible for keeping up with submitted changes.
"Boom vs. Bust" is not that complicated
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It seems that the difference that TFA sees betweeen "Boom" and "Bubble" is that the latter is marked with unwise spending, from the VCs to the board room. TFA could be simply put in a readers' digest form as:
There is economic growth in Silicon Valley that we predict will be more stable and longer-lasting than the "Dot Com Bubble" era, because VCs aren't handing out money as freely, and companies aren't being [as] stupid with their money as they used to be. *GASP!* Real, honest, tried-and-true business practices apply to the internet as well!
Call it a "boom" if you want. It's a new, lucrative market that's gaining financial stability because there are plenty of examples from the "bubble" of what not to do.
...the only people that I ever get whines from like the parent are typically engineers or IT people who either believe that a) they are God's gift to computers and/or b) the rules don't apply to them. I may seem a bit pissy here, but it just burns me to read posts like this from people who clearly have never tried to think about security from the perspective of the business protecting its assets.
How about you, as an administrator, consider providing responsive service to those engineers or IT people who need an escalation of priviliges above the average luser to do their jobs effectively? What is an engineer supposed to think when his job description contradicts the sysadmin's policies and his boss is asking for results? Of course you'll get "whines" from these people - their jobs dictate that some of these rules shouldn't apply to them. Get off your high horse. If you are supposed to be serving the business, and assisting it in "protecting its assets", your responsibility would be to provide those services that facilitate other employees getting their work done. When a software engineer's duties require that he have administrative control over his own workstation, you and your system administration policies have become a liability to the company; you're keeping the engineer from getting his job done.
If I may add to the important things to keep in mind:
If promoted, be prepared to shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up your former boss's fsck-ups.
If another boss is hired, be prepared to shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up your former boss's fsck-ups while the new boss receives the credit.
Be prepared to attend meetings with your boss's superiors to discuss what to do after (s)he is fired.
Be prepared for the realization that your boss's superiors have even less intelligence.
In case this plan fails, always keep your resume updated (and omit "subversive tactics" if your particular industry frowns upon such skills).
The thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is his references to programming being a "black art" until the internet. I'm sorry, but not everyone with an interest in building software has the capacity to become a programmer. Writing software is a learned skill, which requires training beyond the syntax of a language. The open source community would be a cesspool of badly engineered garbage if this author was right. Doing the job right is still a "black art" because so few web tutorials teach it. Architects and physicians are "black artists" by this man's criteria, since they learned how to do what they do from studying it at a university.
Furthermore, his concepts of collaboration are just plain wrong. Writing software is not like painting walls. Speed of development does not unconditionally increase with added manpower. The process of software development is often represented as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) with only one source (the beginning of development) and only one sink (release). The number of persons meaningfully contributing to development can rarely be greater than the maximum width of such a graph; that is, the number of programming tasks that can be performed in parallel is the common limit for the number of developers on a given project. I invoke the software development bible: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. - The Mythical Man-Month
There is an upper bound to the amount of fruitful collaboration that can occur on any software project, and it is, often, surprisingly low.
There is an open-source community. It is the loose association of those people who contribute to the management and development of open-source projects in the interests of producing high-quality free (beer and/or speech) software. This is why the open-source movement is growing so rapidly in our current corporate culture - proprietary software vendors are more interested in making money than producing quality software. This man's argument of the open-source community's non-existence seems like an attempt to avoid indicting the proprietary software vendors.
Maybe Tice was fired because he wasn't paranoid. I don't know about you, but if I was in charge of hiring and firing at an organization whose purpose is largely spying, I wouldn't want any employees that aren't paranoid.
"Mr. Tice, you don't suspect the American people of enough wrongdoing. Therefore, you are not sufficienly paranoid for this position. There is a cardboard box waiting in your office for you to carry out your personal effects. Have a nice day."
As I stated in my OP, this security policy addresses instant messaging. File tranfers that are not initiated by user action should not be allowed via instant messaging software.
I had a large hand in developing a security policy for my workplace regarding instant messaging. One of the key points in the policy is that all IM software is to be configured to automatically reject unsolicited IMs (i.e. "Only accept messages from people in my buddy list"). Not a great solution if malware infects a user's computer, hijacks the IM client (or just the username/password), and propagates to all of that person's IM buddies. However, most of the IM-based malware also has some portion of its payload distributed via the file-sharing mechanisms, which is also addressed in our security policy: "All file transfers must be initiated by user action. A remote user may not read or write any file to or from a [my company] computer; i.e. a computer may not behave as a peer-to-peer file-sharing server." If you close those two doors, you stop a big portion of the problems.
How interesting it is that SCO is attacking almost all the things about SuSE Linux that are implemented by the Linux kernel, not SuSE itself.
For a little perspective:
SCO: Novell is using Linux buses in their SuSE transportation network. Linux buses infringe on our copyrights on the UnixWare bus, because they have four wheels and an engine; therefore, Novell is infringing on our copyrights!
What I'd really like is a fully vertical programming environment that's more humane, lets me get to the bare metal if I want to, or be very lazy and high level, if I want to, it would do assembler, C, C++, and higher than C++ level, a set of languages where I know what each statement expands to in the lower level, where the compiler sort of holds my hand, and shows me what's going on, and I'd rather have a more plain english compiler output even if it's not optimized, or if it's optimized and difficult to follow the jumps, then a plain english description of why it's doing it.
What I'd like is more line breaks and periods. =P
I do like your ideas. However, I would be quite uncomfortable with translating C++ into C; the C code is going to be rather scary with stuff like class inheritance, and, in many cases, wasted effort. In general, I think that the belief that C++ as a language is translatable to C without either reaching down into the assembly code or creating hideous obfuscation is flawed. As an alternative, I would like a platform-independent mangling scheme for C++ functions that cannot be easily translated to C, so we can see the mangled names in the debugging symbols. I have experienced endless frustration from the compiler-specific mangling schemes for C++ functions within libraries.
Heavens, NO! That would mean that we would actually have to assign responsibility for wrongdoing to the actual people in the wrong. This would create an unneccesary schism in society between the "good people" and "bad people". Therefore, we should consider the identity theives' parental skills to be the ultimate perpetrator here, and create a government program to help spread good parenting skills to parents of potential identitiy thieves.
Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves?
From your limited "riddle", we can't know. What we do know is that the schoolyard bully is not being disciplined effectively. Often, children don't respond the same way to punishment that the parent does. Where spanking might have been the best disciplining tool for the parent, sometimes the child is disciplined best (and learns to behave best) by something like time-out. For me personally, if my father expressed disappointment in me, that was the worst punishment I could get. Corporal punishment does not make bad kids. Ineffective discipline makes bad kids.
For the schoolyard bully, it's very possible that he is beaten senseless at home for no perceptible reason (from his perspective) on a regular basis, and so is therefore conditioned to believe that pain and violence are natural, normal parts of social interaction. It's also possible that this schoolyard bully is raised by a parent who is inconsistent with discipline. The schoolyard bully could very possibly be manipulating his single mother with elaborate "i'm sorry" speeches, tears, and sniffling, and avoiding punishment at home altogether. If a child is not raised under clear, strict rules (and I'm not talking "strict" in the sense of "arbitrarily restrictive," I mean it as "firm and unyielding"), the child will learn that they can behave however they want, and use their social interaction skills to manipulate their way out of a punishment. As an example, consider a three-year-old boy that thrives on social interaction. Spankings just don't work on him (and I know a boy like this). If his parents tell him to stop misbehaving once, twice, three times, and he keeps on misbehaving, he should receive a punishment, right? Right. Now, if the parents are not strict about the punishment (e.g. he cries and says that he'll be good when they try to put him in time-out, and his parents yield to his bargain), he will continue to misbehave. If the parents use an ineffective discipline method (for this particular boy, spankings, which just make him act up even more), he will, again, continue misbehaving. If the child receives punishment without a clear explanation of why he received that punishment, he will, yet again, continue misbehaving.
Corporal punishment is not evil. The Biblical principle of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not wrong. If you don't punish your child for inappropriate behavior, they WILL grow up rotten. What is wrong is dealing with children without significant emotional restraint on the part of the parent or caregiver. Regardless of how upset you are as a parent, you are never, NEVER to use punishment on a child (corporal or not) for any purpose other than to discipline the child and bring him or her to appropriate behavior. If you punish a child in anger, you teach him to react in anger. If you punish a child calmly, with a clear intent, you will teach the child self-control. There is nothing wrong, in teaching, to swat a child's hand as punishment for pulling the cat's tail. It's okay to give a child a spanking for hitting his sibling and making her cry. However, it's NOT okay to swat the living daylights out of his bottom because he's pushing your buttons and frustrating you (which, by the way, will happen. That's why two-parent households are so important). It's NOT okay to punish a child over and over again without making it clear why the punishment is being administered. The right way goes like this:
"Why are you in time-out?"
"Because I told mommy 'no' w
On the contrary, it's human parents (as of late) that are conditioned to do exactly what they're told -- by their children, and by the advertisements. Most children raised in these types of homes are very proficient at a skill called manipulation. They get whatever they want (within the realm of possibility) because they've learned from infancy how to whine, cry, or misbehave just so, so they can coerce their parents into submission. They are the children who can act up and never get in trouble from their parents. They are the ones who take pleasure in pestering the school teachers just enough to keep them from getting sent to the pricipal's office, and they are the ones who play one person against the other in the office while they climb the ladder of success amidst all the bickering.
How interesting it is that children develop a skill that gets them what they want.
Just keep in mind that EVERY TIME someone goes to a place like Lyrics World to find the words to a song, that's revenue deprived of some poor, starving songwriter. That's because EVERY TIME someone wanted those words to a song, if places like Lyrics World hadn't existed, they would have hopped right into the car and driven to their local music (not Record/Tape/CD) store to buy a copy of the sheet music. There's NO SUCH THING as casually wondering what the words to a song are - there's only thieving and conniving to deprive starving songwriters of the ability to feed their poor children.
-- Says the RIAA executive, from his leather chair with heat and massage, while lounging in a $5,000 dollar suit, smoking a cigar lit from a one-hundred-dollar bill.
I'm the kind of person that glances at the sheet music for lots of popular rock music whenever I go into a music store (music store = store that sells musical equipment, not store that sells CDs), and I've found, more often than not, the sheet music has at least two of the following true of it:
Watered down - harmonic, melodic, and/or rhythmic complexities edited out
Over-complicated - usually the result of a sheet music transcriber pounding the sharp, angular irregularities of the music as the performer(s) wrote it into the smooth, round hole of what-they-teach-you-in-school
Little to no attention to elements of the music that cannot be put into grand staff (dots-and-sticks) notation, such as picking style, relative mix loudness for each instrument, effect chaining, et. al.
Little to no attention to drums
Changed key from the original
I could really care less about the sheet music, and so would anyone with a reasonable amount of musical skill.
However, prosecuting sites that host lyrics is absolute senselessness. Next, I assume, they're going to start going after every band, amateur or not, who does cover songs. "Damn those song-stealing bastards!" says the RIAA. "They're robbing us blind! Put down your hundred-dollar-bill-wrapped-cigar, Phil, and get the litigators on the phone! Tell them not to believe the rhetoric about how cover songs make the music more popular, it's stealing! We're being victimized!"
I suppose it's going to be illegal very soon for us to sing along to the lyrics in our cars, and the RIAA is going to lobby for the addition of a microphone and a credit card reader to every car stereo system so that they can detect those horrible sing-alongers that *gasp* actually enjoy listening to music and charge them money for each word of a song that they sing. So, the usual/. formula would go:
quit your day job
write better speech-recognition software
market it to the RIAA (what? you wrote it open-source? You criminal!)
Slashdot Mirror
When FooBar, Inc, pushes out a software update or patch, should they be sure to read your mind about what modifications you've made and test your hacked-up system so that the update doesn't break things for you?
...
What would you rather do, spend tons of money fielding calls, dealing with complaints in forums and such from people installing your OS on a myriad of systems so diverse you'd go bankrupt testing all those combinations, and for what business advantage?
This is why standards are important, genius. Write your operating system against commonly-known hardware standards, and it works. If the standards-based OS breaks, it's the hardware's fault, and would be easily provable so. That's why Windows works on all the "hacked-up systems" of the world.
According to Islamic teaching, Muslims are forbidden from maintaining images of Muhammad to help discourage idol worship. In this case, how would any Muslims recognize that the cartoon was, in fact, depticting Muhammad? Did the cartoon have an arrow pointing at the guy with a label saying, "This is Muhammad the founder of Islam and not some archetypical Muslim named after him" or something?
I am from Germany. I don't want to compare Bush to Hitler. They are both completely different and have nothing in common. Except that they were both elected in a popular vote.
Godwin!
Thread closed; have a nice day.
Consider a workflow-type approach, like what exists in Plone. Changes go through an approval process by one or more people. You could sophisticate it, make the waiting-for-approval changes visible so that people can comment, help with citing sources, refute false claims, etc.
I think it might work for wikipedia. It does mean, however, that each article would have one or more people that "own" it and are responsible for keeping up with submitted changes.
It seems that the difference that TFA sees betweeen "Boom" and "Bubble" is that the latter is marked with unwise spending, from the VCs to the board room. TFA could be simply put in a readers' digest form as:
There is economic growth in Silicon Valley that we predict will be more stable and longer-lasting than the "Dot Com Bubble" era, because VCs aren't handing out money as freely, and companies aren't being [as] stupid with their money as they used to be. *GASP!* Real, honest, tried-and-true business practices apply to the internet as well!
Call it a "boom" if you want. It's a new, lucrative market that's gaining financial stability because there are plenty of examples from the "bubble" of what not to do.
...the only people that I ever get whines from like the parent are typically engineers or IT people who either believe that a) they are God's gift to computers and/or b) the rules don't apply to them. I may seem a bit pissy here, but it just burns me to read posts like this from people who clearly have never tried to think about security from the perspective of the business protecting its assets.
How about you, as an administrator, consider providing responsive service to those engineers or IT people who need an escalation of priviliges above the average luser to do their jobs effectively? What is an engineer supposed to think when his job description contradicts the sysadmin's policies and his boss is asking for results? Of course you'll get "whines" from these people - their jobs dictate that some of these rules shouldn't apply to them. Get off your high horse. If you are supposed to be serving the business, and assisting it in "protecting its assets", your responsibility would be to provide those services that facilitate other employees getting their work done. When a software engineer's duties require that he have administrative control over his own workstation, you and your system administration policies have become a liability to the company; you're keeping the engineer from getting his job done.
The thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is his references to programming being a "black art" until the internet. I'm sorry, but not everyone with an interest in building software has the capacity to become a programmer. Writing software is a learned skill, which requires training beyond the syntax of a language. The open source community would be a cesspool of badly engineered garbage if this author was right. Doing the job right is still a "black art" because so few web tutorials teach it. Architects and physicians are "black artists" by this man's criteria, since they learned how to do what they do from studying it at a university.
Furthermore, his concepts of collaboration are just plain wrong. Writing software is not like painting walls. Speed of development does not unconditionally increase with added manpower. The process of software development is often represented as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) with only one source (the beginning of development) and only one sink (release). The number of persons meaningfully contributing to development can rarely be greater than the maximum width of such a graph; that is, the number of programming tasks that can be performed in parallel is the common limit for the number of developers on a given project. I invoke the software development bible:
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. - The Mythical Man-Month
There is an upper bound to the amount of fruitful collaboration that can occur on any software project, and it is, often, surprisingly low.
There is an open-source community. It is the loose association of those people who contribute to the management and development of open-source projects in the interests of producing high-quality free (beer and/or speech) software. This is why the open-source movement is growing so rapidly in our current corporate culture - proprietary software vendors are more interested in making money than producing quality software. This man's argument of the open-source community's non-existence seems like an attempt to avoid indicting the proprietary software vendors.
Maybe Tice was fired because he wasn't paranoid. I don't know about you, but if I was in charge of hiring and firing at an organization whose purpose is largely spying, I wouldn't want any employees that aren't paranoid.
"Mr. Tice, you don't suspect the American people of enough wrongdoing. Therefore, you are not sufficienly paranoid for this position. There is a cardboard box waiting in your office for you to carry out your personal effects. Have a nice day."
As I stated in my OP, this security policy addresses instant messaging. File tranfers that are not initiated by user action should not be allowed via instant messaging software.
I had a large hand in developing a security policy for my workplace regarding instant messaging. One of the key points in the policy is that all IM software is to be configured to automatically reject unsolicited IMs (i.e. "Only accept messages from people in my buddy list"). Not a great solution if malware infects a user's computer, hijacks the IM client (or just the username/password), and propagates to all of that person's IM buddies. However, most of the IM-based malware also has some portion of its payload distributed via the file-sharing mechanisms, which is also addressed in our security policy: "All file transfers must be initiated by user action. A remote user may not read or write any file to or from a [my company] computer; i.e. a computer may not behave as a peer-to-peer file-sharing server ." If you close those two doors, you stop a big portion of the problems.
Let's hope that those 55 pounds are what's inhibiting the correct operation of your higher brain fuctions. $100 / ($0.25 / lb) = 400lbs.
If you think that a laser pointer is going to mess up the magnetic encoding of your data on the disk, you must be "shrooming"!
How interesting it is that SCO is attacking almost all the things about SuSE Linux that are implemented by the Linux kernel, not SuSE itself.
For a little perspective:
SCO: Novell is using Linux buses in their SuSE transportation network. Linux buses infringe on our copyrights on the UnixWare bus, because they have four wheels and an engine; therefore, Novell is infringing on our copyrights!
What I'd really like is a fully vertical programming environment that's more humane, lets me get to the bare metal if I want to, or be very lazy and high level, if I want to, it would do assembler, C, C++, and higher than C++ level, a set of languages where I know what each statement expands to in the lower level, where the compiler sort of holds my hand, and shows me what's going on, and I'd rather have a more plain english compiler output even if it's not optimized, or if it's optimized and difficult to follow the jumps, then a plain english description of why it's doing it.
What I'd like is more line breaks and periods. =P
I do like your ideas. However, I would be quite uncomfortable with translating C++ into C; the C code is going to be rather scary with stuff like class inheritance, and, in many cases, wasted effort. In general, I think that the belief that C++ as a language is translatable to C without either reaching down into the assembly code or creating hideous obfuscation is flawed. As an alternative, I would like a platform-independent mangling scheme for C++ functions that cannot be easily translated to C, so we can see the mangled names in the debugging symbols. I have experienced endless frustration from the compiler-specific mangling schemes for C++ functions within libraries.
The last image a monitor ever displays:
(clippy at the bottom corner)
It seems that you're severely pissed off. Would you like me to help you begin some deep breathing, meditation, or yoga?
This could be a good thing if it gets parents more used to saying "Mo!" to their kids.
Is that anything like saying "Ni!" to old women?
Heavens, NO! That would mean that we would actually have to assign responsibility for wrongdoing to the actual people in the wrong. This would create an unneccesary schism in society between the "good people" and "bad people". Therefore, we should consider the identity theives' parental skills to be the ultimate perpetrator here, and create a government program to help spread good parenting skills to parents of potential identitiy thieves.
Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves?
From your limited "riddle", we can't know. What we do know is that the schoolyard bully is not being disciplined effectively. Often, children don't respond the same way to punishment that the parent does. Where spanking might have been the best disciplining tool for the parent, sometimes the child is disciplined best (and learns to behave best) by something like time-out. For me personally, if my father expressed disappointment in me, that was the worst punishment I could get. Corporal punishment does not make bad kids. Ineffective discipline makes bad kids.
For the schoolyard bully, it's very possible that he is beaten senseless at home for no perceptible reason (from his perspective) on a regular basis, and so is therefore conditioned to believe that pain and violence are natural, normal parts of social interaction. It's also possible that this schoolyard bully is raised by a parent who is inconsistent with discipline. The schoolyard bully could very possibly be manipulating his single mother with elaborate "i'm sorry" speeches, tears, and sniffling, and avoiding punishment at home altogether. If a child is not raised under clear, strict rules (and I'm not talking "strict" in the sense of "arbitrarily restrictive," I mean it as "firm and unyielding"), the child will learn that they can behave however they want, and use their social interaction skills to manipulate their way out of a punishment. As an example, consider a three-year-old boy that thrives on social interaction. Spankings just don't work on him (and I know a boy like this). If his parents tell him to stop misbehaving once, twice, three times, and he keeps on misbehaving, he should receive a punishment, right? Right. Now, if the parents are not strict about the punishment (e.g. he cries and says that he'll be good when they try to put him in time-out, and his parents yield to his bargain), he will continue to misbehave. If the parents use an ineffective discipline method (for this particular boy, spankings, which just make him act up even more), he will, again, continue misbehaving. If the child receives punishment without a clear explanation of why he received that punishment, he will, yet again, continue misbehaving.
Corporal punishment is not evil. The Biblical principle of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not wrong. If you don't punish your child for inappropriate behavior, they WILL grow up rotten. What is wrong is dealing with children without significant emotional restraint on the part of the parent or caregiver. Regardless of how upset you are as a parent, you are never, NEVER to use punishment on a child (corporal or not) for any purpose other than to discipline the child and bring him or her to appropriate behavior. If you punish a child in anger, you teach him to react in anger. If you punish a child calmly, with a clear intent, you will teach the child self-control. There is nothing wrong, in teaching, to swat a child's hand as punishment for pulling the cat's tail. It's okay to give a child a spanking for hitting his sibling and making her cry. However, it's NOT okay to swat the living daylights out of his bottom because he's pushing your buttons and frustrating you (which, by the way, will happen. That's why two-parent households are so important). It's NOT okay to punish a child over and over again without making it clear why the punishment is being administered. The right way goes like this:
"Why are you in time-out?"
"Because I told mommy 'no' w
On the contrary, it's human parents (as of late) that are conditioned to do exactly what they're told -- by their children, and by the advertisements. Most children raised in these types of homes are very proficient at a skill called manipulation. They get whatever they want (within the realm of possibility) because they've learned from infancy how to whine, cry, or misbehave just so, so they can coerce their parents into submission. They are the children who can act up and never get in trouble from their parents. They are the ones who take pleasure in pestering the school teachers just enough to keep them from getting sent to the pricipal's office, and they are the ones who play one person against the other in the office while they climb the ladder of success amidst all the bickering.
How interesting it is that children develop a skill that gets them what they want.
Grammer tip: 'Effect' is used as a noun. 'Affect' is used as a verb.
Spelling tip: 'Grammar', not 'Grammer'
Do you have some links for the above?
Since it's a Japanese bank, wouldn't it be "Ray off da Makudonarudo"?
Just keep in mind that EVERY TIME someone goes to a place like Lyrics World to find the words to a song, that's revenue deprived of some poor, starving songwriter. That's because EVERY TIME someone wanted those words to a song, if places like Lyrics World hadn't existed, they would have hopped right into the car and driven to their local music (not Record/Tape/CD) store to buy a copy of the sheet music. There's NO SUCH THING as casually wondering what the words to a song are - there's only thieving and conniving to deprive starving songwriters of the ability to feed their poor children.
-- Says the RIAA executive, from his leather chair with heat and massage, while lounging in a $5,000 dollar suit, smoking a cigar lit from a one-hundred-dollar bill.
- Watered down - harmonic, melodic, and/or rhythmic complexities edited out
- Over-complicated - usually the result of a sheet music transcriber pounding the sharp, angular irregularities of the music as the performer(s) wrote it into the smooth, round hole of what-they-teach-you-in-school
- Little to no attention to elements of the music that cannot be put into grand staff (dots-and-sticks) notation, such as picking style, relative mix loudness for each instrument, effect chaining, et. al.
- Little to no attention to drums
- Changed key from the original
I could really care less about the sheet music, and so would anyone with a reasonable amount of musical skill.However, prosecuting sites that host lyrics is absolute senselessness. Next, I assume, they're going to start going after every band, amateur or not, who does cover songs. "Damn those song-stealing bastards!" says the RIAA. "They're robbing us blind! Put down your hundred-dollar-bill-wrapped-cigar, Phil, and get the litigators on the phone! Tell them not to believe the rhetoric about how cover songs make the music more popular, it's stealing! We're being victimized!"
I suppose it's going to be illegal very soon for us to sing along to the lyrics in our cars, and the RIAA is going to lobby for the addition of a microphone and a credit card reader to every car stereo system so that they can detect those horrible sing-alongers that *gasp* actually enjoy listening to music and charge them money for each word of a song that they sing. So, the usual