I've also noticed that getting actual help from an Apple Store employee has become more and more difficult, unless you're plunking down for the big new shiny. So, the last time I was there, I used their Apple Store app, which allows me to use my iPhone camera to scan the code on the item i wanted and pay for it with the credit card on file. I got what I came for, I didn't bother with any of the employees, and I got to pretend that I was shoplifting the item as I walked out the door with it. Couldn't have asked for a better experience.
All they had to do was use the admin privileges in subversion that are open to all and wipe the code off the face of the Earth.
Ignoring the "admin privileges open to all" error for a second, let's assume that Microsoft was actually able to obliterate the source code from Subversion of all competing GPL'ed products. Don't you think those projects could be resurrected from the hard drives of others? Even if it did happen, key projects would have their source gathered again almost immediately.
However, if they were able to commit "useful" code that skewed GPL programs from their goals ever so slightly, they might be able to further their own competitive ends. Here's an example: Microsoft commits a patch to Samba that improves the interoperability with Active Directory, but that patch makes Samba slower. If it is in Microsoft's best interest to "appear helpful" to the GPL community while undermining its performance, this could be a good way to use "interoperability" to actually undermine GPL software. After all, "it's slower".
Seriously, what this means is that MS will become more compatible with Linux, not making Linux more compatible with MS products from an interoperability standpoint.
Why change MS software to increase compatibility with Linux when they can just change Linux? Watch for a corresponding increase in commits from "new" sources.
This will be just like Microsoft's extinguishing of Novell in the 1990's, except this time Microsoft can change their competitor's code directly.
Parent is right. A PM should be able to use their tool of choice to do this easily. For example, MS Project can import your spreadsheet data. Once imported, the PM should be able to assign priorities to groups of servers/patches, then manipulate the schedule and assign resources. Then, when the PM tells you that meeting your schedule with the available resources is completely impossible, you can both transfer somewhere warm and sunny.
If your car is sufficiently old, the rubber parts that come into contact with the diesel fuel will degrade when they come in contact with vegetable oil (or a methyl ester like biodiesel). Newer diesels with synthetic rubber parts don't generally have this problem.
You also need to worry about starting in cold weather, as biodiesel becomes a solid at a higher temperature than traditional diesel fuel. There are a number of ways to deal with this (insulated/heated fuel lines, "glow plug" spark plugs, etc.).
Rank and yank is not a viable long-term strategy for personnel management. It's great for the first few rounds when you can presumably cut large chunks of deadwood. However, once you've removed all the deadwood, there's only live wood left, and it's at that point that you begin hurting your organization. Here's a link to a statistical study that illustrates this effect: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1744-6570.2005.00361.x
Note: This may be why Jack did this for a few years at GE, then "made adjustments". Based on the study I've cited above, using rank-and-yank for more than 3-4 years is a complete waste of time.
But POP MUSIC has never been about great artists dazzling the world. Guys like Hendrix and... and... actually, I'm struggling to think of an artist in the same class as him who got that big mainly on talent. Anyway, as I was about to say, Jimi Hendrix was a notable exception.
All I'm saying is that guys like Jimi should be the rule, not the exception. The reason Jimi IS an exception is because of the labels.
the cultural landscape is defined by big-label pop music
Your reasoning looks a little circular here. The labels "create" pop music, and pop music is "defined" by the labels. The fact that you can't seem to separate pop culture from the labels supports my argument, not yours.
But 15 year old girls in Japan know who Kelly Clarkston is.
I'm glad you brought up Kelly Clarkson, because her ascendance as a "pop star" followed a middle ground between the old label-driven approach to stardom and the future of popular culture. Kelly Clarkson wasn't discovered by a promoter, polished, promoted, and sold. She won a TV contest by taking advantage of a forum where she could showcase her talent, and millions of people decided her talent was worthy of stardom. Granted, the contest was a thinly veiled promotional tool created by the labels, but it was a great deal more democratic than the typical turd-polishing process.
Imagine if groups of music lovers held their own contests and rewarded the winners by buying their music? There would certainly be more variety in "pop" music if it was actually driven by what real people like.
Shockingly, music (in particular) and art (in general) was successfully created for thousands of years before the advent of the labels -- the process was referred to as patronage, and it worked well enough for its time. The main weakness of patronage is that a few rich people determined what art would be created -- just like with the labels today.
Personally, I can do without the musical choices foisted on me by a few untouchable rich people. I would argue that it's time to return to patronage, but with a more democratic approach. That's where the technology-enabled "Slashdot groupthink" comes in. There's no compelling ARTISTIC reason for large labels to exist when small indie labels can leverage currently available technology and give me the chance to patronize the specific artists whose product I like.
Who the fuck are you?
Who am I? I'm the guy with the checkbook, waiting to buy an album from the next Jimi Hendrix, not the next Britney Spears.
By the way, thanks for mentioning Leo Kottke. I'd never heard of him before your earlier post, but I just listened to some of his music on iTunes -- and decided to buy his Anthology album. My only regret is that I learned about him from a real person like you instead of giving a record label the opportunity to shove his music down my throat and pick my pocket for the privilege. Any other talented artists you'd care to tell me about?
Just because "it's always been that way" doesn't mean it has to be that way anymore. The British Invasion was FIFTY years ago, and the same old suits are telling the same old story about how they do the same old thing -- spot the talent, front the money, "make" the stars.
But the world is very different today. You could take your next bonus and buy enough equipment to produce an album. Instead of having to tour for years and hope you get lucky, you could use the Internet to reach the entire world. This "collaborative effort" is simply a euphemism for an outdated machine that simply isn't necessary anymore.
You & I both know that the general public can be manipulated into buying any old crap. Since the labels have figured out how to turn the public upside down and shake them till all the change falls out of their pockets, they assume that all artists will starve without their "services". But that's simply not true anymore. True artists can survive on less than the multi-millions that "super-stardom" would provide, and today's interconnected world makes that possible -- without the labels.
As far as your Artist --> Producer --> Promoter --> Investor model goes, there's one very important group that doesn't seem to merit your attention -- Listeners. I simply don't care what music label "investors" want in return for their investment, and your statement uses the profit motive to assume away any need for the labels to justify their existence. I want good music; investors simply want money. I can get good music without the labels, therefore I no longer need the labels to exist.
BTW, as far as the Kingsmen are concerned, would you say Jimi Hendrix was "just another guitar player"? Every artist you use as an example has an equally compelling counter-example.
You've just given a better indictment of the music industry than any **AA-hater I've seen.
When the studio can pluck any of a dozen bands from the pool of unsigned acts in any city and make an album that's every bit as good as what they've chosen to release, they're wasting my time -- and their efforts.
Record labels should be identifying talent, not just polishing turds. Since they're not doing their jobs, they don't deserve to be paid. Get out of the way and let me pay for artistic TALENT, not business acumen and "packaging".
Prince's sales model includes something most unknown artists don't have -- a (mostly) sold out tour. Prince hands out a copy of his latest CD at the door and counts each concert ticket sold as a sale for his CD. If you don't count people who've been to a concert, his sales haven't been that good. How's an unknown supposed to make that work when (by definition) they're not able to sell out large venues? Prince couldn't have built his reputation this way, he's only able to capitalize on his existing reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Government already does this too https://www.ccwdata.org/
I've also noticed that getting actual help from an Apple Store employee has become more and more difficult, unless you're plunking down for the big new shiny. So, the last time I was there, I used their Apple Store app, which allows me to use my iPhone camera to scan the code on the item i wanted and pay for it with the credit card on file. I got what I came for, I didn't bother with any of the employees, and I got to pretend that I was shoplifting the item as I walked out the door with it. Couldn't have asked for a better experience.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I received a Win7 Launch Party invitation last week. You're still correct, though. I'm not going. ;)
At least this is visualizing something useful (and maybe encouraging more commits), as opposed to http://twittervision.com/ .
All they had to do was use the admin privileges in subversion that are open to all and wipe the code off the face of the Earth.
Ignoring the "admin privileges open to all" error for a second, let's assume that Microsoft was actually able to obliterate the source code from Subversion of all competing GPL'ed products. Don't you think those projects could be resurrected from the hard drives of others? Even if it did happen, key projects would have their source gathered again almost immediately.
However, if they were able to commit "useful" code that skewed GPL programs from their goals ever so slightly, they might be able to further their own competitive ends. Here's an example: Microsoft commits a patch to Samba that improves the interoperability with Active Directory, but that patch makes Samba slower. If it is in Microsoft's best interest to "appear helpful" to the GPL community while undermining its performance, this could be a good way to use "interoperability" to actually undermine GPL software. After all, "it's slower".
Seriously, what this means is that MS will become more compatible with Linux, not making Linux more compatible with MS products from an interoperability standpoint.
Why change MS software to increase compatibility with Linux when they can just change Linux? Watch for a corresponding increase in commits from "new" sources.
This will be just like Microsoft's extinguishing of Novell in the 1990's, except this time Microsoft can change their competitor's code directly.
That said even if there were wide availability of the console the Wii would probably outsell it just because it's a better value.
There, fixed that for ya.
Parent is right. A PM should be able to use their tool of choice to do this easily. For example, MS Project can import your spreadsheet data. Once imported, the PM should be able to assign priorities to groups of servers/patches, then manipulate the schedule and assign resources. Then, when the PM tells you that meeting your schedule with the available resources is completely impossible, you can both transfer somewhere warm and sunny.
It's surprising that this works, but it does. More here -> http://www.biodiesel.org/ .
If your car is sufficiently old, the rubber parts that come into contact with the diesel fuel will degrade when they come in contact with vegetable oil (or a methyl ester like biodiesel). Newer diesels with synthetic rubber parts don't generally have this problem.
You also need to worry about starting in cold weather, as biodiesel becomes a solid at a higher temperature than traditional diesel fuel. There are a number of ways to deal with this (insulated/heated fuel lines, "glow plug" spark plugs, etc.).
Two words: Atlas Shrugged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged
KDE is great, but what about Gnome, since that's the default for Ubuntu?
This is how I discovered the White Strips.
The band, or the teeth whitening product?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Invoking Godwin's Law in 3 . 2 . 1 . . .
Moving into management to reduce the number of inept managers DOES work. I did it a few years ago, and I haven't looked back.
Tis a far, far better thing I do . . . .
Disclaimer: I'm a Jack Welch fan.
Rank and yank is not a viable long-term strategy for personnel management. It's great for the first few rounds when you can presumably cut large chunks of deadwood. However, once you've removed all the deadwood, there's only live wood left, and it's at that point that you begin hurting your organization. Here's a link to a statistical study that illustrates this effect: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1744-6570.2005.00361.x
Note: This may be why Jack did this for a few years at GE, then "made adjustments". Based on the study I've cited above, using rank-and-yank for more than 3-4 years is a complete waste of time.
Did he take out a few short-term personal loans to increase the irony?
How fast was the syrup moving?
But POP MUSIC has never been about great artists dazzling the world. Guys like Hendrix and... and... actually, I'm struggling to think of an artist in the same class as him who got that big mainly on talent. Anyway, as I was about to say, Jimi Hendrix was a notable exception.
All I'm saying is that guys like Jimi should be the rule, not the exception. The reason Jimi IS an exception is because of the labels.
the cultural landscape is defined by big-label pop music
Your reasoning looks a little circular here. The labels "create" pop music, and pop music is "defined" by the labels. The fact that you can't seem to separate pop culture from the labels supports my argument, not yours.
But 15 year old girls in Japan know who Kelly Clarkston is.
I'm glad you brought up Kelly Clarkson, because her ascendance as a "pop star" followed a middle ground between the old label-driven approach to stardom and the future of popular culture. Kelly Clarkson wasn't discovered by a promoter, polished, promoted, and sold. She won a TV contest by taking advantage of a forum where she could showcase her talent, and millions of people decided her talent was worthy of stardom. Granted, the contest was a thinly veiled promotional tool created by the labels, but it was a great deal more democratic than the typical turd-polishing process.
Imagine if groups of music lovers held their own contests and rewarded the winners by buying their music? There would certainly be more variety in "pop" music if it was actually driven by what real people like.
Shockingly, music (in particular) and art (in general) was successfully created for thousands of years before the advent of the labels -- the process was referred to as patronage, and it worked well enough for its time. The main weakness of patronage is that a few rich people determined what art would be created -- just like with the labels today.
Blah blah blah Labels are obscolete blah blah blah Slashdot groupthink blah blah blah.
Personally, I can do without the musical choices foisted on me by a few untouchable rich people. I would argue that it's time to return to patronage, but with a more democratic approach. That's where the technology-enabled "Slashdot groupthink" comes in. There's no compelling ARTISTIC reason for large labels to exist when small indie labels can leverage currently available technology and give me the chance to patronize the specific artists whose product I like.
Who the fuck are you?
Who am I? I'm the guy with the checkbook, waiting to buy an album from the next Jimi Hendrix, not the next Britney Spears.
By the way, thanks for mentioning Leo Kottke. I'd never heard of him before your earlier post, but I just listened to some of his music on iTunes -- and decided to buy his Anthology album. My only regret is that I learned about him from a real person like you instead of giving a record label the opportunity to shove his music down my throat and pick my pocket for the privilege. Any other talented artists you'd care to tell me about?
Man, this Internet thing is COOL!
Just because "it's always been that way" doesn't mean it has to be that way anymore. The British Invasion was FIFTY years ago, and the same old suits are telling the same old story about how they do the same old thing -- spot the talent, front the money, "make" the stars.
But the world is very different today. You could take your next bonus and buy enough equipment to produce an album. Instead of having to tour for years and hope you get lucky, you could use the Internet to reach the entire world. This "collaborative effort" is simply a euphemism for an outdated machine that simply isn't necessary anymore.
You & I both know that the general public can be manipulated into buying any old crap. Since the labels have figured out how to turn the public upside down and shake them till all the change falls out of their pockets, they assume that all artists will starve without their "services". But that's simply not true anymore. True artists can survive on less than the multi-millions that "super-stardom" would provide, and today's interconnected world makes that possible -- without the labels.
As far as your Artist --> Producer --> Promoter --> Investor model goes, there's one very important group that doesn't seem to merit your attention -- Listeners. I simply don't care what music label "investors" want in return for their investment, and your statement uses the profit motive to assume away any need for the labels to justify their existence. I want good music; investors simply want money. I can get good music without the labels, therefore I no longer need the labels to exist.
BTW, as far as the Kingsmen are concerned, would you say Jimi Hendrix was "just another guitar player"? Every artist you use as an example has an equally compelling counter-example.
You've just given a better indictment of the music industry than any **AA-hater I've seen.
When the studio can pluck any of a dozen bands from the pool of unsigned acts in any city and make an album that's every bit as good as what they've chosen to release, they're wasting my time -- and their efforts.
Record labels should be identifying talent, not just polishing turds. Since they're not doing their jobs, they don't deserve to be paid. Get out of the way and let me pay for artistic TALENT, not business acumen and "packaging".
Prince's sales model includes something most unknown artists don't have -- a (mostly) sold out tour. Prince hands out a copy of his latest CD at the door and counts each concert ticket sold as a sale for his CD. If you don't count people who've been to a concert, his sales haven't been that good. How's an unknown supposed to make that work when (by definition) they're not able to sell out large venues? Prince couldn't have built his reputation this way, he's only able to capitalize on his existing reputation.