But it's the job of the journalist to explain the details of the story. Why should I do research because a journalist is too lazy to provide basic facts? Isn't one of the basic things about journalism conveying "Who, What, When, Where, and to a lesser extent, Why?"
I hate to make three replies on this topic... but I really would like an answer. So I'll repeat myself - if the problem was all about public funding of the arts, then why did they wait until Piss Christ to protest? It's not like Piss Christ was the first publicly-funded exhibition. And if it was all about public funding, then why the focus on "obscenity" rather than tax dollars?
The question with Piss Christ, other than the potentially quite offensive art, is government funding.
Got any evidence for that? If the problem was public funding of art in general, then why did they wait until "Piss Christ" to make a big shitstorm about it? Would any other exhibition that was publicly funded, be just as offensive? Somehow I doubt they would be protesting a publicly funded Monet exhibition.
So, why the double standard?
some of the works produced with that government funding are very good, have a wide appeal, and would never come into existence without government support
But should "wide appeal" really be a criteria for the arts? I would have thought artistic expression would be more important. If you want wide appeal, we already have The Simpsons and Lost.
But anyways, to be fair, the Christians were objecting to the crosses in pee art being funded by government grants, and therefore circuitously by them.
Oh bullshit. They object to that kind of art, whether it's publicly funded or not. They would outright ban its existence if they could.
If it were about the public funding aspect, then why don't they protest when art that isn't offensive to them is publicly funded?
See, that changes my whole impression of the story. At first I thought "bad Indian nationalists!" based on the context. But know that I know that they are trying to shut down something like MySpace, I'm all turned around on the issue. MySpace and all of its clones are an evil that must be stopped by any means necessary.
I don't get what's up with journalism these days. I even RTFA, and there was no mention of what "Orkut" is. Even if it is well-known to Indians, then couldn't the slashdot summary give a description, or at least a link to the site?
Are we just supposed to intuitively know what every obscure website on the interweb is about?
Support for blatant ex post facto laws; commerce clause inversion; allowing states to take people's property; allowing wiretapping before a warrant is issued (FISA); Allowing congress to blackmail the states by withholding highway (and other) funds;
Are you kidding? That's what makes Supreme Court justices so great!
I also don't understand your obsession with artists. Do you think all of those people in the publishing industry I spoke of were "artists"? Many of them were just doing grunt work in pre-press. They were technicians, or salt-of-the-earth inky-handed printers. Then there's the whole other sphere of users - such as those in scientific and medical imaging. Not what I would call artists in the traditional sense.
I'm not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder. Did an "artist" beat you up at school or something? Part of the reason for Adobe's success was the technical solididy of the products, and the support they provided for a vast range of hardware and imaging standards. It appeals to the technicians just as much as the artists. In many ways, it gives both groups a common tool and language/interface.
Then again, I imagine adobe being the monster it is MIGHT also have something to do with the MILLIONS of licenses owned by web designers.
I can't imagine it does - because Photoshop was hugely successful well before the graphical web as we know it even existed. Of course, it was successful before there was much ability to share a large application online.
Then there's the fact that plenty of web designers used tools like Fireworks, rather than pirated copies of Photoshop.
Of course you are probably right. A snobby publishing designer probably gave one of those warez kiddies a copy of paintshop pro while explaining how 'real' designers use this photoshop thing.
It has very little to do with being snobby. From my experience in the publishing industry, very few of the people doing the work are snobby. They just use the right tools to get the job done. That's what professionalism is about, not an elitist attitude you seem to be imagining or projecting onto people. I'm just talking about reality here. Photoshop's adoption and status as industry standard was driven by industry who could easily afford the licenses. Nothing to do with snobbery. The product worked well is why it was adopted.
In both cases the former group believes itself to be the real and important professionals and the latter to be second class citizens despite the fact there is no legitimate basis in reality for that view.
I think you're the one that has little basis in reality here. Outside of wankfests like slashdot, these kinds of attitudes aren't widespread. In general, the professional world ignores all this shit and uses good tools. It tends to be the non-professional people (such as the warez dudes) that care about status and snobbery.
You also seem to be implying that web artists don't pay for their tools. There are plenty of web artists who pay for their software. I don't have anything against web artists. I thought you were talking about warez distributors, not web artists. In any case, web artists don't have much to do with the success of Photoshop. An increasing number of them do use Photoshop these days, because of the lack of decent alternatives. But Photoshop was already the industry standard well before "web artists" came to exist.
Which is why you import graphics drawn in Illustrator into Photoshop. Illustrator is where you want to be making your circles and squares, then using that design within Photoshop. Which is one of the things people are overlooking in this discussion. Photoshop also succeeds because it works well with other applications.
Photoshop being a generally kick-ass,revolutionary application
The shift in the publishing industry from cut-n-paste and darkrooms to imagesetters and electronic publishing
The rise of "desktop publishing"
The massive amounts of money spent in the advertising and publishing industries
No, none of that had anything to do with Photoshop being successful. It was all a bunch of warez kiddies.
Seriously, get off the crack. The professionals using Photoshop were spending huge bucks on their equipment. Doing things digitally meant saving a ton of money, while producing better quality work more quickly. This in turn meant they made huge bucks by investing in Photoshop. A print shop or pre-press house routinely spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-end hardware. Even though a Mac system with Photoshop and Quark was considered "expensive" in the consumer PC world, they were screaming bargains in the land of serious publishing. Even a self-employed photographer spends a lot more money on cameras, lenses, studio space and lights than on Photoshop.
Kids using pirated copies of Photoshop to use tacky filters or make photo composites barely register on the map. If it were all about warez, then why has Photoshop consistently had support for professional-level imaging workflows? If it was all about warez, how did Adobe grow to such an enormous size on the back of Photoshop, if nobody was paying for it?
Photoshop is popular because it became an industry standard, and also because it was one of the most revolutionary pieces of software ever written. It changed entire industries. Warez kiddies were just jumping on the bandwagon. It's more accurate to say that Photoshop was popular on warez sites, because it was THE application to own in the professional world, not the other way around.
They are tying to hide the fact that you are paying an extra 30 cents to not have your fair use rights trampled on!
So, how do you explain the fact that if you buy a full album, the DRM-free, higher bitrate version costs exactly the same as the DRM-encumered lower bitrate version?
Huh? A cover-up is not a real 'problem' in your eyes? Delaying talking to the police? That's not an issue? The spin and obfuscation is not an issue?
It's also curious that you refer to "anti-Cheney" forces. It's more about being pro-decency and honesty. Do you think that politicians should not be held accountable for their actions or something? I'd expect the same accountability from someone of any political party or belief.
You forget that Cheney was drinking before the shooting happened. Regardless of the legality of that, it shows major disrespect for ethics and safety. It's not being a responsible shooter to get all liquored up before going hunting. And it's probably illegal, too.
Tivo give you the source code, and a licence which allows you to modify it, but if you try to actually do so, your tivo box won't run it, because the binary code isn't signed by Tivo. In other words, you have received free software where in reality you aren't allowed to change it.
Of course you are allowed to change it - you just did. Just because it won't run now, doesn't mean you aren't allowed to change it. I could re-write GPL software so it won't work anymore on my computer. Would that be a violation? Should my computer be forced to run any software, not matter how broken it is?
Well, no, not by definition. I could certainly record PCM at low bitrate if I wished, for example to simplify processing and transcoding.
But it would sound worse than a lossy codec recorded at the same bitrate. Or would take more space than the lossy codec recorded at the same sample rate and bit-depth. Which is the whole point. Bitrate is more important for a lossless codec than a lossy one.
This is total nonsense. Every intelligent person knows that the universe was created in a TimeCube, not a bang or a rumble, however big deluded people may think they are. You were educated stupid.
He states that the more expensive and professional your gear is, the easier it is to spot low quality music.
That's a faulty assumption on several levels. Firstly, more expensive or "professional" gear is not necessarily better in quality than cheaper gear. The quality of the gear determines the quality of the gear - not the price or the marketing of it as professional. There is lots of gear out there that is vastly overpriced, but still junk (think Bose, for example). There's also plenty of inexpensive gear that sounds great.
The second assumption you are making is that the lower bitrate music is "low quality." It might be perfectly fine quality - but crap gear might accentuate minor deficiencies, while better gear allows you to hear the actual quality of the track.
So the article contradicts with his statement, and I have to agree with him on this one. Logically speaking, professional speakers should produce results far closer to the source than the ones that aren't.
No, this does not contradict the article. "Closer to the source" does not mean "sounds worse." Perhaps the good headphones are reproducing sound closer to the original source, while the cheap gear is introducing distortions that make it sound worse and less like the source. Perhaps there's not much wrong with the audio file in itself.
Crap audio gear is well known to produce resonances and interference sounds. Good gear generally has a more even response, without peaks and troughs. Think of the way that a cheap boombox portable stereo causes a perfectly good recording to sound awful if it contains any bass.
I bought an old-fashioned over-the-ears pair; doesn't look cool
WHAT!?! Doesn't look cool? Huge, over-the-ear headphones are the height of fashion these days. Haven't you noticed?
The iPod revolution has caused a massive resurgence in big heaphones. In fact, in many ways it's a whole new trend. The big headphones, in the past, were usually worn at home, plugged into a nice amplifier. Or used in the recording studio, or for DJing. In the Walkman era, the headphones used were the cheap, compact outer-ear headphones. During the portable CD player era, it was black earbuds. During the first wave of iPods, it was white Apple earbuds.
But today, big outer-ear headphones have come out of the home and studio, and into the streets. I don't think this has happened in such mainstream numbers before. It's retro-cool, and it shows you that you care about the music and audio quality. It's also much more socially responsible, as there is far less leakage of sound. You don't look like an idiot who has their iPod turned up, with 50% of the sound leaking out and annoying others, rather than going into their ears. I wonder how many people realize how annoying their earbuds are when turned up on public transport. It's totally uncool. And they are spending amplifier & battery power creating that leaked sound.
We're all for DRM-free music, but 256Kb/s still seems like a pretty low bit rate--especially when you're using a lossy codec.
Are they on crack? 256 Kbps is quite a high bitrate for a lossy CODEC. Their wording is also really bizarre. A low bitrate would be worse for a lossless track, because an uncompressed or lossless track, by definition, should have a much higher bitrate than a track compressed with a lossy CODEC.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that not P2P? Your computer at home is one peer, and the computer in the hotel room is the other peer.
But it's the job of the journalist to explain the details of the story. Why should I do research because a journalist is too lazy to provide basic facts? Isn't one of the basic things about journalism conveying "Who, What, When, Where, and to a lesser extent, Why?"
I hate to make three replies on this topic ... but I really would like an answer. So I'll repeat myself - if the problem was all about public funding of the arts, then why did they wait until Piss Christ to protest? It's not like Piss Christ was the first publicly-funded exhibition. And if it was all about public funding, then why the focus on "obscenity" rather than tax dollars?
Got any evidence for that? If the problem was public funding of art in general, then why did they wait until "Piss Christ" to make a big shitstorm about it? Would any other exhibition that was publicly funded, be just as offensive? Somehow I doubt they would be protesting a publicly funded Monet exhibition.
So, why the double standard?
some of the works produced with that government funding are very good, have a wide appeal, and would never come into existence without government supportBut should "wide appeal" really be a criteria for the arts? I would have thought artistic expression would be more important. If you want wide appeal, we already have The Simpsons and Lost.
Oh bullshit. They object to that kind of art, whether it's publicly funded or not. They would outright ban its existence if they could.
If it were about the public funding aspect, then why don't they protest when art that isn't offensive to them is publicly funded?
Why would nerds know about a social networking site? They seem to be the most opposite thing to nerdery possible.
See, that changes my whole impression of the story. At first I thought "bad Indian nationalists!" based on the context. But know that I know that they are trying to shut down something like MySpace, I'm all turned around on the issue. MySpace and all of its clones are an evil that must be stopped by any means necessary.
I don't get what's up with journalism these days. I even RTFA, and there was no mention of what "Orkut" is. Even if it is well-known to Indians, then couldn't the slashdot summary give a description, or at least a link to the site?
Are we just supposed to intuitively know what every obscure website on the interweb is about?
What? Of course they are flexible. They can be programmed to calculate whatever you want them to, and they can be changed on a whim.
they cannot be bent so that everyone comes out looking good.Huh? Of course they can, you just program them to make everybody look good.
Are you kidding? That's what makes Supreme Court justices so great!
P.S:
I also don't understand your obsession with artists. Do you think all of those people in the publishing industry I spoke of were "artists"? Many of them were just doing grunt work in pre-press. They were technicians, or salt-of-the-earth inky-handed printers. Then there's the whole other sphere of users - such as those in scientific and medical imaging. Not what I would call artists in the traditional sense.
I'm not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder. Did an "artist" beat you up at school or something? Part of the reason for Adobe's success was the technical solididy of the products, and the support they provided for a vast range of hardware and imaging standards. It appeals to the technicians just as much as the artists. In many ways, it gives both groups a common tool and language/interface.
I can't imagine it does - because Photoshop was hugely successful well before the graphical web as we know it even existed. Of course, it was successful before there was much ability to share a large application online.
Then there's the fact that plenty of web designers used tools like Fireworks, rather than pirated copies of Photoshop.
Of course you are probably right. A snobby publishing designer probably gave one of those warez kiddies a copy of paintshop pro while explaining how 'real' designers use this photoshop thing.It has very little to do with being snobby. From my experience in the publishing industry, very few of the people doing the work are snobby. They just use the right tools to get the job done. That's what professionalism is about, not an elitist attitude you seem to be imagining or projecting onto people. I'm just talking about reality here. Photoshop's adoption and status as industry standard was driven by industry who could easily afford the licenses. Nothing to do with snobbery. The product worked well is why it was adopted.
In both cases the former group believes itself to be the real and important professionals and the latter to be second class citizens despite the fact there is no legitimate basis in reality for that view.I think you're the one that has little basis in reality here. Outside of wankfests like slashdot, these kinds of attitudes aren't widespread. In general, the professional world ignores all this shit and uses good tools. It tends to be the non-professional people (such as the warez dudes) that care about status and snobbery.
You also seem to be implying that web artists don't pay for their tools. There are plenty of web artists who pay for their software. I don't have anything against web artists. I thought you were talking about warez distributors, not web artists. In any case, web artists don't have much to do with the success of Photoshop. An increasing number of them do use Photoshop these days, because of the lack of decent alternatives. But Photoshop was already the industry standard well before "web artists" came to exist.
Which is why you import graphics drawn in Illustrator into Photoshop. Illustrator is where you want to be making your circles and squares, then using that design within Photoshop. Which is one of the things people are overlooking in this discussion. Photoshop also succeeds because it works well with other applications.
Yeah, right. It had nothing to do with:
No, none of that had anything to do with Photoshop being successful. It was all a bunch of warez kiddies.
Seriously, get off the crack. The professionals using Photoshop were spending huge bucks on their equipment. Doing things digitally meant saving a ton of money, while producing better quality work more quickly. This in turn meant they made huge bucks by investing in Photoshop. A print shop or pre-press house routinely spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-end hardware. Even though a Mac system with Photoshop and Quark was considered "expensive" in the consumer PC world, they were screaming bargains in the land of serious publishing. Even a self-employed photographer spends a lot more money on cameras, lenses, studio space and lights than on Photoshop.
Kids using pirated copies of Photoshop to use tacky filters or make photo composites barely register on the map. If it were all about warez, then why has Photoshop consistently had support for professional-level imaging workflows? If it was all about warez, how did Adobe grow to such an enormous size on the back of Photoshop, if nobody was paying for it?
Photoshop is popular because it became an industry standard, and also because it was one of the most revolutionary pieces of software ever written. It changed entire industries. Warez kiddies were just jumping on the bandwagon. It's more accurate to say that Photoshop was popular on warez sites, because it was THE application to own in the professional world, not the other way around.
So, how do you explain the fact that if you buy a full album, the DRM-free, higher bitrate version costs exactly the same as the DRM-encumered lower bitrate version?
Huh? A cover-up is not a real 'problem' in your eyes? Delaying talking to the police? That's not an issue? The spin and obfuscation is not an issue?
It's also curious that you refer to "anti-Cheney" forces. It's more about being pro-decency and honesty. Do you think that politicians should not be held accountable for their actions or something? I'd expect the same accountability from someone of any political party or belief.
You forget that Cheney was drinking before the shooting happened. Regardless of the legality of that, it shows major disrespect for ethics and safety. It's not being a responsible shooter to get all liquored up before going hunting. And it's probably illegal, too.
Of course you are allowed to change it - you just did. Just because it won't run now, doesn't mean you aren't allowed to change it. I could re-write GPL software so it won't work anymore on my computer. Would that be a violation? Should my computer be forced to run any software, not matter how broken it is?
Love and tend to your TimeCube, and all will become clear.
But it would sound worse than a lossy codec recorded at the same bitrate. Or would take more space than the lossy codec recorded at the same sample rate and bit-depth. Which is the whole point. Bitrate is more important for a lossless codec than a lossy one.
This is total nonsense. Every intelligent person knows that the universe was created in a TimeCube, not a bang or a rumble, however big deluded people may think they are. You were educated stupid.
That's a faulty assumption on several levels. Firstly, more expensive or "professional" gear is not necessarily better in quality than cheaper gear. The quality of the gear determines the quality of the gear - not the price or the marketing of it as professional. There is lots of gear out there that is vastly overpriced, but still junk (think Bose, for example). There's also plenty of inexpensive gear that sounds great.
The second assumption you are making is that the lower bitrate music is "low quality." It might be perfectly fine quality - but crap gear might accentuate minor deficiencies, while better gear allows you to hear the actual quality of the track.
So the article contradicts with his statement, and I have to agree with him on this one. Logically speaking, professional speakers should produce results far closer to the source than the ones that aren't.No, this does not contradict the article. "Closer to the source" does not mean "sounds worse." Perhaps the good headphones are reproducing sound closer to the original source, while the cheap gear is introducing distortions that make it sound worse and less like the source. Perhaps there's not much wrong with the audio file in itself.
Crap audio gear is well known to produce resonances and interference sounds. Good gear generally has a more even response, without peaks and troughs. Think of the way that a cheap boombox portable stereo causes a perfectly good recording to sound awful if it contains any bass.
WHAT!?! Doesn't look cool? Huge, over-the-ear headphones are the height of fashion these days. Haven't you noticed?
The iPod revolution has caused a massive resurgence in big heaphones. In fact, in many ways it's a whole new trend. The big headphones, in the past, were usually worn at home, plugged into a nice amplifier. Or used in the recording studio, or for DJing. In the Walkman era, the headphones used were the cheap, compact outer-ear headphones. During the portable CD player era, it was black earbuds. During the first wave of iPods, it was white Apple earbuds.
But today, big outer-ear headphones have come out of the home and studio, and into the streets. I don't think this has happened in such mainstream numbers before. It's retro-cool, and it shows you that you care about the music and audio quality. It's also much more socially responsible, as there is far less leakage of sound. You don't look like an idiot who has their iPod turned up, with 50% of the sound leaking out and annoying others, rather than going into their ears. I wonder how many people realize how annoying their earbuds are when turned up on public transport. It's totally uncool. And they are spending amplifier & battery power creating that leaked sound.
Are they on crack? 256 Kbps is quite a high bitrate for a lossy CODEC. Their wording is also really bizarre. A low bitrate would be worse for a lossless track, because an uncompressed or lossless track, by definition, should have a much higher bitrate than a track compressed with a lossy CODEC.
Do they even know what they are talking about?
Try Wiktionary instead.