Well, the only problem with this argument is that I'm pretty sure the book was written after the film, although Clarke and Kubrick cowrote the screenplay. As I understood things, Arthur C. Clarke's novel contains his interpretation (granted, a particularly important one) of some of the ideas Kubrick chose to convey completely visually in the film. It presents one way to view the film, but not the only way and not necessarily the "correct" way. If Kubrick intended to only convey Clarke's version of the story, he could have made the ideas much more explicit. IMO, one of the greatest things about Kubrick's film is the many interpretations it supports and the amount of thinking it leaves to the viewer.
Bach and Beethoven were definitely paid for their compositions. (I imagine Brahms was too, but I don't know for sure.) The people who paid them had the power to dictate what was to be composed, and when it should be ready. Bach lived in a time when the notion of appeasing royalty was still quite contemporary, and this was the purpose of his Musical Offering, which he hoped would result in a job. (IIRC, it didn't.)
Musical compositions were definitely recognized as the products (if not the belongings) of their creators, and I'd be surprised to learn that they weren't "owned" by somebody, either the composer or the person hiring the composer. I believe information sans owner is probably the historically new idea, not the reverse.
Certainly payment is an incentive for creating music. But, Rosen claims that without payment for selling recordings of music, "there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it," which I find offensive as a musician and I'm sure offends other musicians as well. On top of a busy class and research schedule, I spend 10-15 hours a week making music because I love playing/singing and others seem to enjoy listening, and I'm certainly not paid in any way. Furthermore, Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms obviously made no money selling recordings of their music but still managed to make a living as musicians, another indication that Rosen's reasoning is faulty. Personally, I think that Rosen's assertion that the RIAA is "defending the creative community" is disturbing and hardly accurate.
This is from 1995, but I think many of the issues and criticisms it raises are still quite relevant (at least judging from the male/female ratio in my CS classes)...
When I read this article, I wasn't all that impressed. It's a good way of formalizing studying security flaws, but is there anything fundamentally novel here? Isn't this just a straightforward application of goal trees, an AI concept that has been around for quite a while?
I agree. I'm reminded of an interesting idea that Donald Knuth put forth in one of his Gods and Computer Science lectures that I attended. It's his belief that computer scientists existed long before computers did, and I agree. I think that people who have a lot of talent with computers think in a certain special way, and that sort of thinking doesn't apply nearly as well to other fields. Perhaps computer science grew so quickly and continues to grow because all these "computer scientists" who were stuck doing something that didn't fit their talents correctly suddenly found the perfect tool to showcase their talents, the computer. I know I'd make a pretty crappy politician or mechanic, that's for sure:). Just my two cents...
When I was in high school, it was apparent to me that one of the big reasons that people didn't do well enough in math or science was standards. The level of math and science understanding that was accepted as good by both the school and the community (ie., knowing enough to get a B in a class) was obviously insufficient. I knew so many people that could get A's in math, but when they were confronted by a real problem that tested understanding, they could hardly make any progress. It was only my own intellectual curiosity that led me to learn math and science decently well. I think that if the bar is raised on what is considered an acceptable level of math and science understanding and the community emphasizes to students that getting to that level is necessary to avoid going through life looking like a moron, things would probably improve.
I actually thought about this a few days ago, also being a musician and wondering how MP3's are affecting musicians. As far as I know, I think most bands make most of their money doing tours and that sort of thing, while most of the money from CD sales doesn't go to the band. It seems logical to me that in the near future a band could do quite well by just releasing recorded music for free as MP3's and then making their money entirely from tours and performances. I think record labels are more concerned about becoming obsolete in a few years than losing money from the piracy that is going on today. Just my two cents...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the only problem with this argument is that I'm pretty sure the book was written after the film, although Clarke and Kubrick cowrote the screenplay. As I understood things, Arthur C. Clarke's novel contains his interpretation (granted, a particularly important one) of some of the ideas Kubrick chose to convey completely visually in the film. It presents one way to view the film, but not the only way and not necessarily the "correct" way. If Kubrick intended to only convey Clarke's version of the story, he could have made the ideas much more explicit. IMO, one of the greatest things about Kubrick's film is the many interpretations it supports and the amount of thinking it leaves to the viewer.
Certainly payment is an incentive for creating music. But, Rosen claims that without payment for selling recordings of music, "there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it," which I find offensive as a musician and I'm sure offends other musicians as well. On top of a busy class and research schedule, I spend 10-15 hours a week making music because I love playing/singing and others seem to enjoy listening, and I'm certainly not paid in any way. Furthermore, Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms obviously made no money selling recordings of their music but still managed to make a living as musicians, another indication that Rosen's reasoning is faulty. Personally, I think that Rosen's assertion that the RIAA is "defending the creative community" is disturbing and hardly accurate.
Women Undergraduate Enrollment in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT
This is from 1995, but I think many of the issues and criticisms it raises are still quite relevant (at least judging from the male/female ratio in my CS classes)...
When I read this article, I wasn't all that impressed. It's a good way of formalizing studying security flaws, but is there anything fundamentally novel here? Isn't this just a straightforward application of goal trees, an AI concept that has been around for quite a while?
I agree. I'm reminded of an interesting idea that Donald Knuth put forth in one of his Gods and Computer Science lectures that I attended. It's his belief that computer scientists existed long before computers did, and I agree. I think that people who have a lot of talent with computers think in a certain special way, and that sort of thinking doesn't apply nearly as well to other fields. Perhaps computer science grew so quickly and continues to grow because all these "computer scientists" who were stuck doing something that didn't fit their talents correctly suddenly found the perfect tool to showcase their talents, the computer. I know I'd make a pretty crappy politician or mechanic, that's for sure :). Just my two cents...
When I was in high school, it was apparent to me that one of the big reasons that people didn't do well enough in math or science was standards. The level of math and science understanding that was accepted as good by both the school and the community (ie., knowing enough to get a B in a class) was obviously insufficient. I knew so many people that could get A's in math, but when they were confronted by a real problem that tested understanding, they could hardly make any progress. It was only my own intellectual curiosity that led me to learn math and science decently well. I think that if the bar is raised on what is considered an acceptable level of math and science understanding and the community emphasizes to students that getting to that level is necessary to avoid going through life looking like a moron, things would probably improve.
I actually thought about this a few days ago, also
being a musician and wondering how MP3's are
affecting musicians. As far as I know, I think
most bands make most of their money doing tours
and that sort of thing, while most of the money
from CD sales doesn't go to the band. It seems
logical to me that in the near future a band could
do quite well by just releasing recorded music for
free as MP3's and then making their money entirely
from tours and performances. I think record
labels are more concerned about becoming obsolete in a few years than losing money from the piracy that is going on today. Just my two cents...