While your comment was quite interesting to me, just admit that you were waiting for an excuse to use the word "numismatist" weren't you. Kudos on the awesome use of a $0.50 word.
I don't know why guitar players are so defensive about Rock Band.
I think this is usually due to a case of LGD, Lead Guitarist Disease. As some other posters have pointed out, these are usually guitar players who aren't nearly as good as they think they are, or they're people who don't really care about playing music, rather they take up an instrument in the hopes that people will think it's cool and like them.
And before anyone tells me how full of it I am, I have been playing guitar for 25 years, played in several bands over the years, and overcame my own case of LGD from my younger days. I personally have never played GH or RB, but I see nothing wrong with it at all. If it's fun, and it's not hurting anyone, I say go for it. Besides, it might be just the thing to expose someone to new music and might be just the fanning of the flame that person needs to decide whether or not to try playing an instrument.
*whew* You had me wondering where the 70% came from. Still, I didn't want to be one of those guys who just immediately goes to "you're a total moron, WTF?". Usually, I have to have someone start in with me before I fly off the handle (usually....not always...but usually).
humidity is a non-problem in a strongly heated space
That's not necessarily true. While your point makes sense in environment where there is adequate moisture in the air, the challenge is often keeping the humidity high enough. You'd be surprised how much humidifiers have to work in a Data Center to keep moisture in the air during colder times of the year. Air that is too dry is going to be just as harmful, if not more harmful to sensitive electronics than overly humid air.
Historically the datacenter industry has maintained baseline ideas like 70 percent humidity, 75 degrees temperature...ideas that haven't changed with server technology and durability improving.
Respectfully, I must disagree. Typical Data Centers usually shoot for closer to 45% or 50% RH, not 70% as you suggest.
Now listen, I realize that Google Translate is...well...imperfect. But you have to admit, this distorted paragraph from his blog post has got to be in the running for most awesomely bad translation ever. These words make my head sad:
Now I'm a complaint to the Ombudsman and the general. Consumers of the Ministry of Economy, and against systemgraph isquare. O and the PC is in the service of infoquest. Also send in extrajudicial systemgraph and isquare because it met the provisions of S 2251 and 540 of Public stores and to me that I did not start from the shops Public, but the authorized service (!?), them through oral and gentlemen Pardalis Kaloritou the customer service of iSquare AE.
Well, you say your friend went to law school. However, you don't mention whether or not he passed the Bar Exam and/or if he is currently practicing law. Both of these pieces of information would probably be helpful
I used to work in a place like that. When I started, I had my own office, but after several "reshuffles", I was in a large room in one of 6 cubes...each populated with these "speaker phone only" types and other "loud talkers". I gained some relief by trying to mask some of the sound, and found this site which I used to stream and play over my computer speakers. It definitely doesn't block out 100% of the noise, but once you get used to some of the sound(s), and let your ear/mind focus on them, you might find you can ignore some of the other sounds a bit better.
With that said, I left that job and now have one with an office, so I don't know if that "solution" will work in the long term for you, I just thought I'd off it in case it helps.
You definitely missed your calling....you should definitely try stand up comedy. You are an amusing little person, and have clearly been honing this oh-so-trying-to-be-eloquent freedom fighter character for quite some time. Nice character sketch. Somehow, I'm sure that in real life, you lack this pseudo courage and are probably one of those annoying little wisps who aren't worth my time. So you trot home to your computer, where you can type away, and be the big bad boogey man that you so wish you were.....but aren't....and never will be.
Good luck bankrupting me, hot shot. I make more money at my job than you probably ever will, and I choose to give away most of my music for free anyway. But before you get too excited, don't fool yourself into thinking that your home-brewed rebellion meant to stick-it-to-the-man would actually do anything. There are exponentially more people in the world who will pay reasonable amounts for content they're interested in, thus making poor souls like you completely irrelevant. I somehow think the HBO's of the world will survive your uprising.
Gee, thanks for your overt willingness to steal from those of us who make the music. What an insightful comment full of inspirational wisdom. Apparently, you don't read too well, as I very clearly pointed out that while said organizations are assuredly greedy/evil, you've got to keep in mind that there are people who are caught up "in the system" for whom it can be quite tricky to disentangle themselves. You need to understand that in your incitement that any work affiliated with these organizations "should be stolen and distributed as widely as possible" affects a lot of innocents (innocents in the sense that there are a lot of us who have no interest in trying to make millions off of one big song, nor are we interested in suing college kids and grandmothers for downloading our stuff).
As for your oh-so-typical "work with them and any consequences suffered are your own fault" comment, it illustrates that you didn't read my comment at all, and you're clearly not thinking about all aspects of it. But then, I'm sure you'd be just fine with someone taking your work without your permission and doing whatever they wanted to with it, right tough guy?
Music Copyright - Rich global companies making huge profits off other people work, some long dead
See? This is my problem. I think the real issue is that a lot of folks on SlashDot automatically equate copyright issues for music with the insane abuses and invasions that are committed by the RIAA and other major media companies. Unfortunately, it's pretty rare that the same group which throws up this same correlation thinks of the artists who are either independent, or for one reason or another are "represented" by one of said media companies.
Now look, before you go flaming me into oblivion, I'm not defending the RIAA/MAFIAA/whatever we're calling "them" this week. I think it's insane that they're trying to sue kids/grandparents for millions of dollars for grabbing some tracks off of Limewire or whatever. I get it. I agree that this is insane and is invalid any way you cut it. What I'm bothered by is that it appears that no one seems to come to the defense of the artist(s) whose livelihood is somewhat dependent on the exclusivity provided by copyright law. Now, a lot of folks like to take this view of "well, the artist(s) shouldn't be dumb enough to enter a contract with one of these evil companies", which is a very cogent point particularly considering advances in technology which make it very possible to do a lot of recording in relatively modest home studios. The problem is, this isn't going to apply to everyone, and sometimes, artist(s) are going to need some financial/business backing to get something off the ground.
If I compose a suite of music for a full orchestra and I really want it to be done well, it's not possible for me to have a full orchestra come hang out in my bonus room for week and let me record them take-by-take to capture my composition. If I were to partner with a large media company or some other vehicle of financial and logistical backing, I could probably swing this. I bring this up to point out that sometimes, there are some pretty good reasons that artists partner with "evil" companies. Thus, when said "evil" company is attempting to protect its own admittedly greedy interests in the work they've produced, they're also protecting the artist's interest. In other words, it's not always as simple as just striking out on your own.
I am someone who writes/composes everything I create, and I perform all the instruments on all of my work. I make music because I love it. I greatly enjoy hearing music in my head, and getting it fleshed out into a finished product. I do not depend on my making music to support me. I am fortunate to have a very good "straight job", and I have no illusions about "striking it rich" with a song. I choose to make most of my stuff completely free to download and offer most of it for use under the Creative Commons license in exchange for credit. I enjoy working with film makers and producers, and I feel good when I can let someone use some of my stuff in their work, and have it support the work in a way they find satisfying. I feel fine being able to make this choice myself, and am not trying to profit at others expense. However, as an artist, I reserve the right to try to make some money off of my work every now and again. I don't think I'm greedy or a jerk for thinking that if someone is willing to pay a little money to get a copy of my stuff on iTunes or pay me a little bit to use my stuff in their Youtube videos that I participate in the mechanisms that allow for me to receive money in exchange for my work.
By extension, I don't think it's totally unreasonable for artists to partner with either various unions like ASCAP or BMI to provide them this same mechanism. I had an
Finally, a clear path to wealth and power!! I'm off to GoDaddy to see if I can get www.lookatmysandwich.com registered quickly before it gets snapped up. Score!
Well, now that I know you are being serious, I can hardly give you too much of a hard time since you haven't been through it yet. This is a very basic explanation of how it works.
In a nutshell, you're charged a higher interest rate if your credit score is lower (and thus, you're perceived to be more of a risk....that is...you might not pay for your stuff). So, they charge more to recoup the money they've loaned to you faster (in case you default) and so they can get more profit by taking the "risk" on you. It's sort of like investing in the stock market, but in reverse. The lender is investing in you as their stock, and the interest is their dividend.
Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..?
Are you being serious? Have you never secured credit before in your life? ANY lending institution is going to require a credit check prior to lending you any money. You'll notice those advertisements usually have fine print somewhere which indicate "rates as low as" regarding the rate(s) quoted. Your credit score always comes into play, whether or not you realize it. If it didn't, banks would have to offer the same rate to a guy who defaults on all his loans that they offer to a guy who's paid everything on time for years.
Isn't this whole argument rather moot? I mean, OK, the guy goes to websites for various loan providers, and depending upon his browser, he claims that he is shown different interest rates. Big deal. It's not as if the actual loan is going to be based on the interest rate that was quoted in the little "payment calculator" tool, since any lending institution is going to have to do a credit check on anyone before they loan him $30,000.
I've not experienced any of these "credibility issues" you allude to. Given that each article on this "politically biased blog" as you call it has its sources linked neatly throughout the article and at the bottom. Would you mind providing some indication as to your reason(s) for thinking this is a politically biased site?
It reminds me of when I used to work for a very large, US based Financial Services Provider. They would waste so much money doing things in these roundabout, haphazard ways despite being shown very plainly how planning project progression carefully would save them money and heartburn. Of course, they'd never listen. So, we came up with what we felt best summed up their mission statement:
"There's never enough money to do it right, but there's always enough money to do it again."
While I wish more people in our society did so, lots of us still do. For anyone interested here's a great site with some free podcasts on the topic: This is a great series by this guy, and while not affiliated with audiodharma, here is a great book on cultivating "Mindfulness".
By the way, before anyone mods me into oblivion, neither of these 2 resources teaches mediation that's necessarily from 1 particular religious background (or any religious background). So, this isn't preaching, proselytizing or anything, just trying to share some good resources for learning meditation techniques from people who teach it well.
Slashdot Mirror
While your comment was quite interesting to me, just admit that you were waiting for an excuse to use the word "numismatist" weren't you. Kudos on the awesome use of a $0.50 word.
I don't know why guitar players are so defensive about Rock Band.
I think this is usually due to a case of LGD, Lead Guitarist Disease. As some other posters have pointed out, these are usually guitar players who aren't nearly as good as they think they are, or they're people who don't really care about playing music, rather they take up an instrument in the hopes that people will think it's cool and like them.
And before anyone tells me how full of it I am, I have been playing guitar for 25 years, played in several bands over the years, and overcame my own case of LGD from my younger days. I personally have never played GH or RB, but I see nothing wrong with it at all. If it's fun, and it's not hurting anyone, I say go for it. Besides, it might be just the thing to expose someone to new music and might be just the fanning of the flame that person needs to decide whether or not to try playing an instrument.
*whew* You had me wondering where the 70% came from. Still, I didn't want to be one of those guys who just immediately goes to "you're a total moron, WTF?". Usually, I have to have someone start in with me before I fly off the handle (usually....not always...but usually).
humidity is a non-problem in a strongly heated space
That's not necessarily true. While your point makes sense in environment where there is adequate moisture in the air, the challenge is often keeping the humidity high enough. You'd be surprised how much humidifiers have to work in a Data Center to keep moisture in the air during colder times of the year. Air that is too dry is going to be just as harmful, if not more harmful to sensitive electronics than overly humid air.
Historically the datacenter industry has maintained baseline ideas like 70 percent humidity, 75 degrees temperature...ideas that haven't changed with server technology and durability improving.
Respectfully, I must disagree. Typical Data Centers usually shoot for closer to 45% or 50% RH, not 70% as you suggest.
Well, you say your friend went to law school. However, you don't mention whether or not he passed the Bar Exam and/or if he is currently practicing law. Both of these pieces of information would probably be helpful
Replying to my own comment. Disregard.
"What if there is no hell, or they don't want us there?"
I used to work in a place like that. When I started, I had my own office, but after several "reshuffles", I was in a large room in one of 6 cubes...each populated with these "speaker phone only" types and other "loud talkers". I gained some relief by trying to mask some of the sound, and found this site which I used to stream and play over my computer speakers. It definitely doesn't block out 100% of the noise, but once you get used to some of the sound(s), and let your ear/mind focus on them, you might find you can ignore some of the other sounds a bit better.
With that said, I left that job and now have one with an office, so I don't know if that "solution" will work in the long term for you, I just thought I'd off it in case it helps.
The wise man remembers to give this guy treats.
You definitely missed your calling....you should definitely try stand up comedy. You are an amusing little person, and have clearly been honing this oh-so-trying-to-be-eloquent freedom fighter character for quite some time. Nice character sketch. Somehow, I'm sure that in real life, you lack this pseudo courage and are probably one of those annoying little wisps who aren't worth my time. So you trot home to your computer, where you can type away, and be the big bad boogey man that you so wish you were.....but aren't....and never will be.
Good luck bankrupting me, hot shot. I make more money at my job than you probably ever will, and I choose to give away most of my music for free anyway. But before you get too excited, don't fool yourself into thinking that your home-brewed rebellion meant to stick-it-to-the-man would actually do anything. There are exponentially more people in the world who will pay reasonable amounts for content they're interested in, thus making poor souls like you completely irrelevant. I somehow think the HBO's of the world will survive your uprising.
Gee, thanks for your overt willingness to steal from those of us who make the music. What an insightful comment full of inspirational wisdom. Apparently, you don't read too well, as I very clearly pointed out that while said organizations are assuredly greedy/evil, you've got to keep in mind that there are people who are caught up "in the system" for whom it can be quite tricky to disentangle themselves. You need to understand that in your incitement that any work affiliated with these organizations "should be stolen and distributed as widely as possible" affects a lot of innocents (innocents in the sense that there are a lot of us who have no interest in trying to make millions off of one big song, nor are we interested in suing college kids and grandmothers for downloading our stuff).
As for your oh-so-typical "work with them and any consequences suffered are your own fault" comment, it illustrates that you didn't read my comment at all, and you're clearly not thinking about all aspects of it. But then, I'm sure you'd be just fine with someone taking your work without your permission and doing whatever they wanted to with it, right tough guy?
You, sir, are a moron.
Music Copyright - Rich global companies making huge profits off other people work, some long dead
See? This is my problem. I think the real issue is that a lot of folks on SlashDot automatically equate copyright issues for music with the insane abuses and invasions that are committed by the RIAA and other major media companies. Unfortunately, it's pretty rare that the same group which throws up this same correlation thinks of the artists who are either independent, or for one reason or another are "represented" by one of said media companies.
Now look, before you go flaming me into oblivion, I'm not defending the RIAA/MAFIAA/whatever we're calling "them" this week. I think it's insane that they're trying to sue kids/grandparents for millions of dollars for grabbing some tracks off of Limewire or whatever. I get it. I agree that this is insane and is invalid any way you cut it. What I'm bothered by is that it appears that no one seems to come to the defense of the artist(s) whose livelihood is somewhat dependent on the exclusivity provided by copyright law. Now, a lot of folks like to take this view of "well, the artist(s) shouldn't be dumb enough to enter a contract with one of these evil companies", which is a very cogent point particularly considering advances in technology which make it very possible to do a lot of recording in relatively modest home studios. The problem is, this isn't going to apply to everyone, and sometimes, artist(s) are going to need some financial/business backing to get something off the ground.
If I compose a suite of music for a full orchestra and I really want it to be done well, it's not possible for me to have a full orchestra come hang out in my bonus room for week and let me record them take-by-take to capture my composition. If I were to partner with a large media company or some other vehicle of financial and logistical backing, I could probably swing this. I bring this up to point out that sometimes, there are some pretty good reasons that artists partner with "evil" companies. Thus, when said "evil" company is attempting to protect its own admittedly greedy interests in the work they've produced, they're also protecting the artist's interest. In other words, it's not always as simple as just striking out on your own.
I am someone who writes/composes everything I create, and I perform all the instruments on all of my work. I make music because I love it. I greatly enjoy hearing music in my head, and getting it fleshed out into a finished product. I do not depend on my making music to support me. I am fortunate to have a very good "straight job", and I have no illusions about "striking it rich" with a song. I choose to make most of my stuff completely free to download and offer most of it for use under the Creative Commons license in exchange for credit. I enjoy working with film makers and producers, and I feel good when I can let someone use some of my stuff in their work, and have it support the work in a way they find satisfying. I feel fine being able to make this choice myself, and am not trying to profit at others expense. However, as an artist, I reserve the right to try to make some money off of my work every now and again. I don't think I'm greedy or a jerk for thinking that if someone is willing to pay a little money to get a copy of my stuff on iTunes or pay me a little bit to use my stuff in their Youtube videos that I participate in the mechanisms that allow for me to receive money in exchange for my work.
By extension, I don't think it's totally unreasonable for artists to partner with either various unions like ASCAP or BMI to provide them this same mechanism. I had an
Finally, a clear path to wealth and power!! I'm off to GoDaddy to see if I can get www.lookatmysandwich.com registered quickly before it gets snapped up. Score!
Freeon. Delicious Freeon.
Actually, that's spelled Freon. But no, in this case it's helium and magnets.
Well, now that I know you are being serious, I can hardly give you too much of a hard time since you haven't been through it yet. This is a very basic explanation of how it works.
In a nutshell, you're charged a higher interest rate if your credit score is lower (and thus, you're perceived to be more of a risk....that is...you might not pay for your stuff). So, they charge more to recoup the money they've loaned to you faster (in case you default) and so they can get more profit by taking the "risk" on you. It's sort of like investing in the stock market, but in reverse. The lender is investing in you as their stock, and the interest is their dividend.
Why should the interest rate depend on a credit check..?
Are you being serious? Have you never secured credit before in your life? ANY lending institution is going to require a credit check prior to lending you any money. You'll notice those advertisements usually have fine print somewhere which indicate "rates as low as" regarding the rate(s) quoted. Your credit score always comes into play, whether or not you realize it. If it didn't, banks would have to offer the same rate to a guy who defaults on all his loans that they offer to a guy who's paid everything on time for years.
Isn't this whole argument rather moot? I mean, OK, the guy goes to websites for various loan providers, and depending upon his browser, he claims that he is shown different interest rates. Big deal. It's not as if the actual loan is going to be based on the interest rate that was quoted in the little "payment calculator" tool, since any lending institution is going to have to do a credit check on anyone before they loan him $30,000.
You gotta love Slashdot moderators. Link to an aggregation of facts regarding a piece of legislation, and get modded "troll". Nice.
I've not experienced any of these "credibility issues" you allude to. Given that each article on this "politically biased blog" as you call it has its sources linked neatly throughout the article and at the bottom. Would you mind providing some indication as to your reason(s) for thinking this is a politically biased site?
we've dedicated trillions to a healthcare system which will bankrupt employers and be unaffordable to citizens.
How do you figure that?
It reminds me of when I used to work for a very large, US based Financial Services Provider. They would waste so much money doing things in these roundabout, haphazard ways despite being shown very plainly how planning project progression carefully would save them money and heartburn. Of course, they'd never listen. So, we came up with what we felt best summed up their mission statement:
"There's never enough money to do it right, but there's always enough money to do it again."
Canada. They're our first target
As they should be! I don't trust those Canadians, with their beady eyes, and flapping heads...
nobody does listening meditations or anything
While I wish more people in our society did so, lots of us still do. For anyone interested here's a great site with some free podcasts on the topic: This is a great series by this guy, and while not affiliated with audiodharma, here is a great book on cultivating "Mindfulness".
By the way, before anyone mods me into oblivion, neither of these 2 resources teaches mediation that's necessarily from 1 particular religious background (or any religious background). So, this isn't preaching, proselytizing or anything, just trying to share some good resources for learning meditation techniques from people who teach it well.