Thank you for sharing this. Without your insight, we would have not had the interesting view of "behind the scenes" on a really great evolution of technology.
OK, so I'll probably lose some Karma over this... but it is just too irresistible... I'm a guitar geek and have to chime in...
Indeed Malmsteen would do Robert's number o' notes times three, and Iommi would drop the low E 10 times lower than Robert, but REALLY:
Somewhere Slash laments... He could do what Robert, Malmsteen, and Iommi would do, but with at least 10 cigarettes in his mouth while doing it!
I couldn't resist. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
Indeed, in-ear headphones are not good for your hearing. In-ear headphones apply too much pressure to your ear drums, even at lower volume levels. They are very similar to the pressures (on your ear components) that boom-box cars and rock concerts cause.
It is very important to realize that a good portion of people in the US (I don't have any knowledge about the following with respect to other places) do two things profusely: listen to extreme volume in closed cars; wear in-ear headphones.
Get your hearing checked at your doctor's office. If you can't afford the doc, go to a clinic. Listen to the advice of an audiologist once you've been tested.
Seriously, remember, you can't re-grow or heal damaged hearing organs, nerves, and components. I love my iPod - I can listen to music during work - but I use open-back muff headphones at low volume, and only 45 minutes or so at a time.
It would be a serous bummer not to be able to hear my kids talking about their lives, and it would be a serious bummer not to be able to hear my wife tell me that she loves me. These things are more important than earbuds or massive quad subwoofers.
I think it was a very good year for Open Source software.
In 2005, my work projects benefited highly from open source libraries. My testing software would have been very time-consuming to write without open source software. In general, it has saved me quite a bit of time and aggravation.
In addition, each time I proposed open source as a means of supplying something I needed to use, I didn't need to justify it to the project management types - they understand the power and the value now...
Perhaps a sea change is occurring that makes it a little more understandable (to corporate types) that the volunteer work of a few benefits the many.
A big thanks to those who have burned the midnight oil just to provide software for the rest of the world!
Some things to clarify, after reading the comments...
P2P is a technology. It is an excellent technology. The 'net grandaddys wanted to make it so we could do this very thing.
I'm really tired of the thinking of RIAA == musicians. This isn't true. Most artists care about their music and their fans.
Only a small portion of artists are bling-bling, Ferrari-drivin', $100,000-watch-wearing, $20M-mansion-living people. The vast majority of us musicians are average, have normal lives, and make normal livings. (It's surprising that rich musicians can be just as terrible as us poor musicians, isn't it?)
The music business is evolving (albeit more slowly than music itself). It will all work out fine in the end. Things will go in such a way that people will make money somehow, and fans will get their product.
It is OK to want to protect one's works. If anarchy was the rule of the day, many of the nay-sayers wouldn't have jobs. Somehow, some way, there's got to be a healthy balance between sharing/access and sales/income. Standing in your living room saying that music and movies should be free because you're entitled to them is narrow-minded. If you'd like stuff for free, work with artists - lend them a hand (technical, promotional, etc.). They'll give you free music and more.
This is an extremely important issue to debate, discuss, and put to the test.
I have the feeling that most of us would not like to have the Big Brother effect chilling the beauty of the Internet.
However, an Internet ruled by pure anarchy is not practical, and is only reasonable from a purely academic point of view.
Instead of just posting and arguing simplistic, pre-judged, unrealistically black-and-white things like "get rid of the FCC" or "only complete regulation will make the 'net a safe place to be", why not do this:
Try to come up with a good solution. Espouse that solution to your elected representatives. Debate your good solution in open forums to find out what is good (and what is not good) about your solution.
Try getting involved with root efforts to make the 'net safer and better. Expend energy into making things better (instead of making useless, casual remarks that do nothing about the root issue.)
this is A Good Thing. If Microsoft isn't interested in (or doesn't have financial interest in) maintaining and improving IE Mac, then it is much better if they publicly announce IE EOL.
Mac users do have alternatives. People will eventually switch (or, in many cases, their computer will die and they'll have to transition because IE won't be the default any more - oh wait... I can't remember the last time I heard someone say that their Mac died...).
I've been there before - almost exactly the same situation at a small-town weekly newspaper.
I must say that there is no one size works for everything solution to your issue. However, even in the most draconian and Luddite-ian (:D) business structure, money talks.
Modernizing IT will save the company money in the long run. Try to find a way to distill some proposed figures that can be expressed in a short, less-than-one-page summary. I don't recommend the gloom-and-doom approach. I do recommend the "you employ me to make sure this company is profitable, so I need you to take advantage of my knowlege and experience" approach.
What worked for me at the newspaper? I brought in a fully configured pair of networked computers containing up-to-date software and put on a demo, then handed them a cost-of-business summary.
Contemporary music is in the middle of tumultuous upheaval. Not only have distribution techniques changed (radically), the model of how music is produced has been changing over the past decade.
If you throw the technical changes and the generational turnover of the listeners into a mix with cyclical music quality, you get fairly distasteful soup. Throughout my life, music has had cycles of "good music" and "bad music." We're in a down cycle right now... originality and freshness is not the norm in today's music. One must be very selective if one wants to find "good music" at this point in time.
I believe that the music industry will eventually adapt and evolve to match the needs of current and future listeners. I also believe that the quality and freshness of contemporary music will take a large upswing in the very near future.
I think it is very important to remain focused on the difference between the music industry and musicians and their music. They are not synonymous in any way. The first one is a distribution and promotion model, the latter is the creative and the creative product.
"HTML isn't a very good language for making Web page"
We must remember that there are at least two different discussions going on here:
1) HTML, as a markup language, is fine and fairly simple. It is more important to look at how we are using HTML and for what we are using HTML. We have evolved to want so many things from WWW pages. In other words, when used for the task for which it was meant, HTML works great.
2) Implementors and programmers: We have a variety of rendering engines, proprietary extensions, and a mixture of skill levels of HTML "programmers" out there. What's new about something like this? As long as software has existed, so has The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (tm).
The better question is, can you imagine the web without HTML?
I think it is critical to understand the impact ITMS is having on the music world.
Even less-than-mediocre artists such as myself have a shot at distribution on ITMS. Apple only appears to discriminate for things that are going on main pages - based on business logic (that which sells goes up front).
Most of the folks I know buy physical CDs for gifts, or for really important CDs for a collection (such as I Robot or Dark Side Of The Moon). However, the folks I know seem to be buying electronically for new sounds, things they haven't thought of buying before, or more importantly, when they like only one tune of a given artist from an album (and dislike the rest of the tunes).
And, it isn't so bad that for the hundred or so song sales I've had, Apple has only taken out a few cents per song download and CD Baby has only taken out a few cents per song download.
It is a big deal when people can't find work. It is a big deal when you pay lots of money for something that you don't get. It is a big deal when you're driving a car and it malfunctions.
Saying that something has occurred before does not justify anything.
I've spent the past 13 years working on and off in a side business helping others with their computer and network needs. There are literally thousands of small (50 employees) businesses out there with no in-house IT help of any kind. They're usually great with whom to deal - it does require you to work at night and on weekends. I didn't mind it too much for most of those years because it always had lots of income for my family.
I never really had to worry about getting customers. Most small business owners would love an inexpensive local Geek to come in and set up their computers and nets...
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for sharing this. Without your insight, we would have not had the interesting view of "behind the scenes" on a really great evolution of technology.
Thanks sincerely.
OK, so I'll probably lose some Karma over this... but it is just too irresistible... I'm a guitar geek and have to chime in...
Indeed Malmsteen would do Robert's number o' notes times three, and Iommi would drop the low E 10 times lower than Robert, but REALLY:
Somewhere Slash laments... He could do what Robert, Malmsteen, and Iommi would do, but with at least 10 cigarettes in his mouth while doing it!
I couldn't resist. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
Indeed, in-ear headphones are not good for your hearing. In-ear headphones apply too much pressure to your ear drums, even at lower volume levels. They are very similar to the pressures (on your ear components) that boom-box cars and rock concerts cause.
It is very important to realize that a good portion of people in the US (I don't have any knowledge about the following with respect to other places) do two things profusely: listen to extreme volume in closed cars; wear in-ear headphones.
Get your hearing checked at your doctor's office. If you can't afford the doc, go to a clinic. Listen to the advice of an audiologist once you've been tested.
Seriously, remember, you can't re-grow or heal damaged hearing organs, nerves, and components. I love my iPod - I can listen to music during work - but I use open-back muff headphones at low volume, and only 45 minutes or so at a time.
It would be a serous bummer not to be able to hear my kids talking about their lives, and it would be a serious bummer not to be able to hear my wife tell me that she loves me. These things are more important than earbuds or massive quad subwoofers.
I think it was a very good year for Open Source software.
In 2005, my work projects benefited highly from open source libraries. My testing software would have been very time-consuming to write without open source software. In general, it has saved me quite a bit of time and aggravation.
In addition, each time I proposed open source as a means of supplying something I needed to use, I didn't need to justify it to the project management types - they understand the power and the value now...
Perhaps a sea change is occurring that makes it a little more understandable (to corporate types) that the volunteer work of a few benefits the many.
A big thanks to those who have burned the midnight oil just to provide software for the rest of the world!
Some things to clarify, after reading the comments... P2P is a technology. It is an excellent technology. The 'net grandaddys wanted to make it so we could do this very thing.
I'm really tired of the thinking of RIAA == musicians. This isn't true. Most artists care about their music and their fans.
Only a small portion of artists are bling-bling, Ferrari-drivin', $100,000-watch-wearing, $20M-mansion-living people. The vast majority of us musicians are average, have normal lives, and make normal livings. (It's surprising that rich musicians can be just as terrible as us poor musicians, isn't it?)
The music business is evolving (albeit more slowly than music itself). It will all work out fine in the end. Things will go in such a way that people will make money somehow, and fans will get their product.
It is OK to want to protect one's works. If anarchy was the rule of the day, many of the nay-sayers wouldn't have jobs. Somehow, some way, there's got to be a healthy balance between sharing/access and sales/income. Standing in your living room saying that music and movies should be free because you're entitled to them is narrow-minded. If you'd like stuff for free, work with artists - lend them a hand (technical, promotional, etc.). They'll give you free music and more.
(: soapbox on :)
:)
This is an extremely important issue to debate, discuss, and put to the test.
I have the feeling that most of us would not like to have the Big Brother effect chilling the beauty of the Internet.
However, an Internet ruled by pure anarchy is not practical, and is only reasonable from a purely academic point of view.
Instead of just posting and arguing simplistic, pre-judged, unrealistically black-and-white things like "get rid of the FCC" or "only complete regulation will make the 'net a safe place to be", why not do this:
Try to come up with a good solution. Espouse that solution to your elected representatives. Debate your good solution in open forums to find out what is good (and what is not good) about your solution.
Try getting involved with root efforts to make the 'net safer and better. Expend energy into making things better (instead of making useless, casual remarks that do nothing about the root issue.)
(: soapbox off
this is A Good Thing. If Microsoft isn't interested in (or doesn't have financial interest in) maintaining and improving IE Mac, then it is much better if they publicly announce IE EOL.
Mac users do have alternatives. People will eventually switch (or, in many cases, their computer will die and they'll have to transition because IE won't be the default any more - oh wait... I can't remember the last time I heard someone say that their Mac died...).
I've been there before - almost exactly the same situation at a small-town weekly newspaper.
I must say that there is no one size works for everything solution to your issue. However, even in the most draconian and Luddite-ian (:D) business structure, money talks.
Modernizing IT will save the company money in the long run. Try to find a way to distill some proposed figures that can be expressed in a short, less-than-one-page summary. I don't recommend the gloom-and-doom approach. I do recommend the "you employ me to make sure this company is profitable, so I need you to take advantage of my knowlege and experience" approach.
What worked for me at the newspaper? I brought in a fully configured pair of networked computers containing up-to-date software and put on a demo, then handed them a cost-of-business summary.
Contemporary music is in the middle of tumultuous upheaval. Not only have distribution techniques changed (radically), the model of how music is produced has been changing over the past decade.
If you throw the technical changes and the generational turnover of the listeners into a mix with cyclical music quality, you get fairly distasteful soup. Throughout my life, music has had cycles of "good music" and "bad music." We're in a down cycle right now... originality and freshness is not the norm in today's music. One must be very selective if one wants to find "good music" at this point in time.
I believe that the music industry will eventually adapt and evolve to match the needs of current and future listeners. I also believe that the quality and freshness of contemporary music will take a large upswing in the very near future.
I think it is very important to remain focused on the difference between the music industry and musicians and their music . They are not synonymous in any way. The first one is a distribution and promotion model, the latter is the creative and the creative product.
"HTML isn't a very good language for making Web page"
We must remember that there are at least two different discussions going on here:
1) HTML, as a markup language, is fine and fairly simple. It is more important to look at how we are using HTML and for what we are using HTML. We have evolved to want so many things from WWW pages. In other words, when used for the task for which it was meant, HTML works great.
2) Implementors and programmers: We have a variety of rendering engines, proprietary extensions, and a mixture of skill levels of HTML "programmers" out there. What's new about something like this? As long as software has existed, so has The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (tm).
The better question is, can you imagine the web without HTML?
Have one of my kids change the admin password - then ask them for the password: "I don't remember."
:)
Admin rights for no-one, installation rights for no-one.
Or, better yet:
Turn off Windows machine, turn on OSX and Linux machines, repeat as necessary until problem goes away.
I think it is critical to understand the impact ITMS is having on the music world.
Even less-than-mediocre artists such as myself have a shot at distribution on ITMS. Apple only appears to discriminate for things that are going on main pages - based on business logic (that which sells goes up front).
Most of the folks I know buy physical CDs for gifts, or for really important CDs for a collection (such as I Robot or Dark Side Of The Moon). However, the folks I know seem to be buying electronically for new sounds, things they haven't thought of buying before, or more importantly, when they like only one tune of a given artist from an album (and dislike the rest of the tunes).
And, it isn't so bad that for the hundred or so song sales I've had, Apple has only taken out a few cents per song download and CD Baby has only taken out a few cents per song download.
The patch caused no issues for me on any of our four Macs. I'm pleased that (most of the time) Apple patches fairly fast and in high quality.
Now, if they can just make an iPod Nano that doesn't scratch because you breathe on it...
It is a big deal when people can't find work. It is a big deal when you pay lots of money for something that you don't get. It is a big deal when you're driving a car and it malfunctions.
Saying that something has occurred before does not justify anything.
I've spent the past 13 years working on and off in a side business helping others with their computer and network needs. There are literally thousands of small (50 employees) businesses out there with no in-house IT help of any kind. They're usually great with whom to deal - it does require you to work at night and on weekends. I didn't mind it too much for most of those years because it always had lots of income for my family.
I never really had to worry about getting customers. Most small business owners would love an inexpensive local Geek to come in and set up their computers and nets...