No CS course should require you to know any syntax. Coding? Leave that to programmers. A computer scientist needs only know what a linked list is, not how to get it to compile, be it in LISP, C++. SmallTalk, Java, or Logo.
I did a three-week boot camp at aD. They didn't
hire me, that might color my reaction.
I found that the culure of aD was dominated by
people who were self-righteous and arrogant.
This might possibly be b/c they're all from MIT.
They were generous in their help, but afterwards,
I felt dumb. Granted, I did meet some nice people.
Andersson et al. are such a bunch of cry babies.
They signed up for the $40M. They weren't forced
to go to the VCs. By all accounts, aD was doing fine
without the outside help. It was the founder's greed
that got aD into the mess.
To complain that people don't want to work more
than 40 hours a week is ludicruous. To brag about
one's performance review is shameless. While
Andersson's article started out well, it spiraled
into mudslinging at the end.
As an engineer, I like things that are named after specs., or at least numbered. Kinda like automobiles; If I were to drive a BMW 535i, or a Datsun 260Z, I know what I'm getting.
Lumping all wireless technology under wi-fi is fine, but there is a distinction (and compatibility issues) between eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-bee and eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-eh. The naming convention should reflection that.
I meant that while sites are hosted on big fat machines with big fat connections, the speed to the user is generally slowed by network traffic, switching, routing, so forth.
I think someone once said, "You _are_ the weakest link." Which kinda sums up how the internet works.
Superfast wireless is really cool, but the point is moot if you want to surf the web through these things. Most web content is accessible at 56K, right?
Of course, if everyone had one, then we wouldn't need the physical net. Peace, Love, and Anarchy
stereolithography. A lot of job shops offer this technology (we got unit at work, too). The technology is not new...your basic CNC application. The freezing is novel, though. Rapid prototyping in useful materials, like elastomers or high-strength polymers is where the actions at.
flame-bait: you software engineers sure are easy to impress.
TGL
I'll agree that businesses can and do censor information made available through their private networks. However, I see a distinction between (CAPITAL) Censorship and (lower case) censorship. The U.S. Constitution protects free speech from Censorship, it does not prevent business from controlling content.
AOL has the right to block sites from it's subscribers, but that might not be what it's subscribers want.
As information becomes more and more important it is wise to consider that some information might be quelched. Aside from pulling the plug on the server, or blocking it's IP address at the top-level DNS...I'm not sure how you Censor that information. (Who owns those servers?) I think a greater concern is that people won't have access to the information, rather than the information might be banned. The current cable model of requiring public access to a company's distribution system might work.
I feel that the US Constitution (I noticed you're in the UK, and I realize that global Censorship is a whole different can of worms) only gaurantees that you'll be able to say what you want. There are no gaurantees that you'll have a distribution network.
I agree with the posts that you'll have a tough job filtering content based on text...you'll probably need to use filter software which could be bucks. I don't know. Here's a quick link: www.safekids.com
Concerning the moral dilemma...there isn't one. You are not the U.S. government. You are not shutting down these servers with objectionable content, you are not prohibiting anybodies free speech. True, surf n' wash is limiting the content available to it's customers. That's not censorship. It's a business policy. Newspapers don't print expletives found in letters to the editor (at least mine doesn't). Government censors, businesses do not.
Now, businesses and corporations are gaining power in the ability to dictate government policy (maybe they have already gained?). At some point it may be necessary to worry about businesses controlling online content...I don't think we are there yet.
What does AOL do?
Maybe allow for the filter to be switched off with proper identifcation....but would you want to do your laundry at a place where teenage boys are surfing porn?
I'd disagree to the point that only one-band labels are the way to go. For eaxmple, Dischord is content for selling most albums for $7 ppd (or has it gone up recently?). Dischord (read Ian MacKaye) is interested in getting music out, not in ripping the public off. Like most things, the intentions of the owners can vary from label to label. Your more likely to find less "corporatism" at a smaller label. True, Dischords production costs are probably much lower than Sony's. I think that online distribution is a great way for smaller bands to get heard. However, I like having a label say to me: we like this band, the fit our niche, you might like them too. This only works for the smaller to mid-sized labels (e.g., Dischord, Touch 'n' Go, AmRep, Shimmy Disc, Trance, etc.)
Someone mentioned Mordam as a good indie-rock distributer. Southern Records is another. Better yet, get away from your computer and go to a live show!
I couldn't agree with you more. The new distribution methods are the best ways for new and emerging bands to get their music out.
Power IS Money. What the RIAA fears is the public will start being weaned from the dreck on the current distribution networks and start listening to the music that the public wants, not what the RIAA wants. When they lose that power, they lose the money.
Napster is not shutdown. I should still be able to download your MP3s after midnight PDT today. Your not signed with a RIAA supporting label, are you?
Vote with your wallet. Don't buy records. Listen to MP3s. However, DON'T download copyrighted material that the copyright holder does not want downloaded. I think it's important to respect an artist's (and a label's and the RIAA's) rights on this matter, if this is what they want.
The only way to break the RIAA is to circumvent them. mp3.com has already started doing this. By supporting their own bands, mp3.com is bucking the RIAA. If mp3 swapping downloaders supported un-signed bands, or bands on labels that are amicable to mp3 swapping, or bands on labels that aren't part of the RIAA...it keeps the RIAA from trying to get file-sharing regulated.
True, this means that most current commercial music would be off-limits....I for one think that's a plus for pop culture as a whole.
How about a port of the MacOS X GUI for GNU/Linux? How many times have I read people complain about GUI options? How much of MacOS X will be open sourced? If Apple is putting the award-winning/revolutionary/well-designed MacOS GUI onto BSD, why isn't someone trying the same thing open sourced?
Please tell me where to go if I'm being a complete idiot.
OK, so we are back to Napster being a distribution network. The differences between Napster and radio are:
Napster has a smaller market
Napster's offerings are of higher audio quality
By default, users get a copy of the music they listen too
Napster has no built in revenue generation (no ads)
You search for music you like, rather than what is thrown at you by a radio station (where you might change frequencies)
I still see advantages from providing music in this manner. Publisher's have pricing schemes depending on how large & the type of format that a radio station is. I would think that Napster could fit within that scheme, or a slightly modified scheme. It would then fall to Napster to pay royalties for the music it provides over it's distribution chain. I don't think Napster has any way of generating revenue at the moment...that's too bad. Maybe the could get donations from users, kinda like NPR! They in some ways compete against other Open Source Napster-like networks. However, their useage is the greatest...they've attained brand recognition maybe. Like I said before, it's too bad the RIAA can't find a way to work with this new way of distributing music...instead of fighting it.
Anecdote: Speaking with a friend of mine last night, who is in a band, I learned that Hip Tanaka has sold 2 cds b/c of someone hearing an MP3. Likewise, he has bought cds after listening to a group's MP3s. I don't listen to music on my PC, so I can't say anything about my purchasing habits...well, I buy a lot of vinyl records.:)
Finally, in this article about the decline in cd sales near college students. Overall sales are continuing to climb! It's also questionable as to whether college students may be purchasing more music online. What the hell is the RIAA complaining about...they are making money hand over fist!
Radio is inherently better at promotion since it gives exposure You are right, radio has better market penetration. What about those bands that aren't on major labels or are not on heavy rotation on all those Top 40 stations? Isn't that part of the initial success of www.mp3/com? However, making an analog copy of something transmitted over the airwaves is a world apart from making an exact duplicate of a didgital master. In terms of signal quality, yes. Not in terms of having in your hands a musical recording that you did not pay for. MP3s are by no means digital masters, "ripping" means compressing means loss of information. Maybe publisher's fees is the solution TGL - an analogue loyalist
It's a shame that the RIAA can't embrace this technology rather than denounce it. Napster probably provides more exposure to recording artists than radio play. In fact, is there a difference between recording songs off the radio and downloading an mp3 from the napster network? An interesting take on this whole Napster dilemna on NPR's Marketplace yesterday (July 25th). The.ram is here, it's towards the end of the broadcast. Commentary by John Flansburg (sp?) of TMBG. TGL
Slashdot Mirror
NPR sucks ass no matter what time of day, it's way too biased toward the right.
No CS course should require you to know any syntax. Coding? Leave that to programmers. A computer scientist needs only know what a linked list is, not how to get it to compile, be it in LISP, C++. SmallTalk, Java, or Logo.
My name is Terry Lorber.
So there.
I did a three-week boot camp at aD. They didn't
hire me, that might color my reaction.
I found that the culure of aD was dominated by
people who were self-righteous and arrogant.
This might possibly be b/c they're all from MIT.
They were generous in their help, but afterwards,
I felt dumb. Granted, I did meet some nice people.
Andersson et al. are such a bunch of cry babies.
They signed up for the $40M. They weren't forced
to go to the VCs. By all accounts, aD was doing fine
without the outside help. It was the founder's greed
that got aD into the mess.
To complain that people don't want to work more
than 40 hours a week is ludicruous. To brag about
one's performance review is shameless. While
Andersson's article started out well, it spiraled
into mudslinging at the end.
All rihgt, GPL'ed software on proprietary hardware! Way to stick it to the man.
I have an iMac Rev. A dualing booting LinuxPPC 1999, oh well.
There are a lot of pieces that need putting together. I think Demudi is working on it.
One of... no... The most powerful, flexible, and extensible sound synthesis programs is Csound.
NoCat
Authentication here: NoCat
As an engineer, I like things that are named after specs., or at least numbered. Kinda like automobiles; If I were to drive a BMW 535i, or a Datsun 260Z, I know what I'm getting.
Lumping all wireless technology under wi-fi is fine, but there is a distinction (and compatibility issues) between eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-bee and eight-oh-two-dot-eleven-eh. The naming convention should reflection that.
I meant that while sites are hosted on big fat machines with big fat connections, the speed to the user is generally slowed by network traffic, switching, routing, so forth.
I think someone once said, "You _are_ the weakest link." Which kinda sums up how the internet works.
They're CardBus, so you can't use a dusy ole 486 for a wireless gateway.
Superfast wireless is really cool, but the point is moot if you want to surf the web through these things. Most web content is accessible at 56K, right?
Of course, if everyone had one, then we wouldn't need the physical net. Peace, Love, and Anarchy
A good model might be just as hard to find as Nessie.
philg waxes poetic on databases.
stereolithography. A lot of job shops offer this technology (we got unit at work, too). The technology is not new...your basic CNC application. The freezing is novel, though. Rapid prototyping in useful materials, like elastomers or high-strength polymers is where the actions at. flame-bait: you software engineers sure are easy to impress. TGL
I only code stuff that I'm going to use. So my userbase is one. As a programmer, I respond to what my userbase needs. I don't program just to program.
TGL
I'll agree that businesses can and do censor information made available through their private networks. However, I see a distinction between (CAPITAL) Censorship and (lower case) censorship. The U.S. Constitution protects free speech from Censorship, it does not prevent business from controlling content.
AOL has the right to block sites from it's subscribers, but that might not be what it's subscribers want.
As information becomes more and more important it is wise to consider that some information might be quelched. Aside from pulling the plug on the server, or blocking it's IP address at the top-level DNS...I'm not sure how you Censor that information. (Who owns those servers?) I think a greater concern is that people won't have access to the information, rather than the information might be banned. The current cable model of requiring public access to a company's distribution system might work.
I feel that the US Constitution (I noticed you're in the UK, and I realize that global Censorship is a whole different can of worms) only gaurantees that you'll be able to say what you want. There are no gaurantees that you'll have a distribution network.
TGL
I agree with the posts that you'll have a tough job filtering content based on text...you'll probably need to use filter software which could be bucks. I don't know. Here's a quick link: www.safekids.com
Concerning the moral dilemma...there isn't one. You are not the U.S. government. You are not shutting down these servers with objectionable content, you are not prohibiting anybodies free speech. True, surf n' wash is limiting the content available to it's customers. That's not censorship. It's a business policy. Newspapers don't print expletives found in letters to the editor (at least mine doesn't). Government censors, businesses do not.
Now, businesses and corporations are gaining power in the ability to dictate government policy (maybe they have already gained?). At some point it may be necessary to worry about businesses controlling online content...I don't think we are there yet.
What does AOL do?
Maybe allow for the filter to be switched off with proper identifcation....but would you want to do your laundry at a place where teenage boys are surfing porn?
TGL
Someone mentioned Mordam as a good indie-rock distributer. Southern Records is another. Better yet, get away from your computer and go to a live show!
TGL
TGL
Power IS Money. What the RIAA fears is the public will start being weaned from the dreck on the current distribution networks and start listening to the music that the public wants, not what the RIAA wants. When they lose that power, they lose the money.
Napster is not shutdown. I should still be able to download your MP3s after midnight PDT today. Your not signed with a RIAA supporting label, are you?
TGL
The only way to break the RIAA is to circumvent them. mp3.com has already started doing this. By supporting their own bands, mp3.com is bucking the RIAA. If mp3 swapping downloaders supported un-signed bands, or bands on labels that are amicable to mp3 swapping, or bands on labels that aren't part of the RIAA...it keeps the RIAA from trying to get file-sharing regulated.
True, this means that most current commercial music would be off-limits....I for one think that's a plus for pop culture as a whole.
TGL
Please tell me where to go if I'm being a complete idiot.
TGL
- Napster has a smaller market
- Napster's offerings are of higher audio quality
- By default, users get a copy of the music they listen too
- Napster has no built in revenue generation (no ads)
- You search for music you like, rather than what is thrown at you by a radio station (where you might change frequencies)
I still see advantages from providing music in this manner. Publisher's have pricing schemes depending on how large & the type of format that a radio station is. I would think that Napster could fit within that scheme, or a slightly modified scheme. It would then fall to Napster to pay royalties for the music it provides over it's distribution chain. I don't think Napster has any way of generating revenue at the moment...that's too bad. Maybe the could get donations from users, kinda like NPR! They in some ways compete against other Open Source Napster-like networks. However, their useage is the greatest...they've attained brand recognition maybe. Like I said before, it's too bad the RIAA can't find a way to work with this new way of distributing music...instead of fighting it.Anecdote: Speaking with a friend of mine last night, who is in a band, I learned that Hip Tanaka has sold 2 cds b/c of someone hearing an MP3. Likewise, he has bought cds after listening to a group's MP3s. I don't listen to music on my PC, so I can't say anything about my purchasing habits...well, I buy a lot of vinyl records. :)
Finally, in this article about the decline in cd sales near college students. Overall sales are continuing to climb! It's also questionable as to whether college students may be purchasing more music online. What the hell is the RIAA complaining about...they are making money hand over fist!
TGL
PS - bring on more punk rock. woo!
Radio is inherently better at promotion since it gives exposure
You are right, radio has better market penetration. What about those bands that aren't on major labels or are not on heavy rotation on all those Top 40 stations? Isn't that part of the initial success of www.mp3/com?
However, making an analog copy of something transmitted over the airwaves is a world apart from making an exact duplicate of a didgital master.
In terms of signal quality, yes. Not in terms of having in your hands a musical recording that you did not pay for. MP3s are by no means digital masters, "ripping" means compressing means loss of information.
Maybe publisher's fees is the solution
TGL - an analogue loyalist
It's a shame that the RIAA can't embrace this technology rather than denounce it. Napster probably provides more exposure to recording artists than radio play. In fact, is there a difference between recording songs off the radio and downloading an mp3 from the napster network? .ram is here, it's towards the end of the broadcast. Commentary by John Flansburg (sp?) of TMBG.
An interesting take on this whole Napster dilemna on NPR's Marketplace yesterday (July 25th). The
TGL