Then you have a very unusual idea of what IT is. It is work relating to technology used for information. Even a librarian in a library that doesn't have any computers counts.
Those are mostly management and data entry.
The management of an IT company has nothing to do with IT? Data entry has nothing to do with IT? How do you use IT if you don't get the data in?
The only exception is the hardware assembly/repair and that is just a factory job, not IT.
People who make house calls to repair someone's PC is somehow a "factory job"? You're not making a lot of sense.
Hardware assembly/repair, database entry, web content (via CMS), training, project management, CEO, CTO. The list is nearly infinite. I'd go out on a limb to say that the majority of IT jobs probably don't involve any programming.
Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...
Get your facts straight. Amazon wasn't selling MP3s until September 2007. The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. Apple started selling DRM-free tracks in April 2007.
As for the "much smaller download sites," how many of them were selling tracks from the major labels DRM-free? Oh, that's right, none of them were.
But Amazon started out selling non-DRM music when they started with zero market share. Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash.
Except they only did it after Apple's appeal to the music industry to remove DRM.
I didn't say "destroyed", I said "destroying"...
Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it.
But I've heard individual Pink Floyd, Beatles and Bowie songs played on the radio also.
Which makes your argument bunk, because that has been going on for a long time before iTunes.
The explanation given by AC/DC is that they prefer to be thought of as an "album" band and believe that's what their fans want also.
That might be what they prefer to think, but it's total bullshit.
But some of that is true to a degree! The legibility of handwriting has decreased as people do everything on keyboards now... people who couldn't paint a picture are able to pick up a camera and take great photos... Traditional TV has been changed by the advent of being able to record and watch programs when you want to... Cinema attendances have stayed roughly constant but haven't grown as much as they would have done without DVD...
And all of those changes are mostly for the better.
The only one I disagree with is "CD is killing music" because I don't think anyone ever said that - they said "Home taping is killing music".
Nope, plenty of people said that - because CDs sound to "clinical" and not "warm" enough, and they don't have great album cover artwork.
I have checked quite a few indie albums actually because I use Amazon's preview service to listen to bits of a CD before I buy it - but that's only there some of the time
I think you'll find that there are a lot more of them on iTunes than Amazon.
And while some institutions are emphasizing the value of teamwork in their curricula, an approach that fosters specialization in lieu of uniform standards
Wouldn't "teamwork" have the opposite effect - emphasizing uniform standards over specialization? A more individualistic approach would encourage specialization more, one would think. Also, the whole premise seems a bit off. "IT" encompasses many things, programming is not involved in all of them.
So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.
No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.
Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.
Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.
Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Apple has destroyed albums and good music.
It's contributing to the demise of proper music by allowing music to be treated like "pick & mix sweeties". Yes, I'm a complete and utter music snob, it's my prime hobby and if you don't have the patience to sit down, relax and enjoy a really good piece of music then stay away from it and go find something else to do with your time.
So, the only valid form of musical expression is the album?
I've got a news-flash for you: there was once this thing called "the single" - it was a small record with one track on each side. The music industry thrived on it for a long time. Apple didn't invent it.
And one of my favourite bands and probably the biggest rock band in the world currently, AC/DC, does not allow their music to be sold on iTunes.
But AC/DC is one of the few bands big and successful enough to be able to do that and survive financially. In any case, it doesn't bolster your argument about albums, because AC/DC songs stand alone very well, and their albums aren't generally "concept" albums in the vein of Pink Floyd, The Beatles or David Bowie. Plenty of radio stations play single AC/DC tracks without playing the whole album.
it's not like AC/DC are starving for money, but if they released on iTunes, they would probably make even more money.
However, that era is not over because there are now more channels pumping out trashy music videos.
But they are increasingly irrelevant because of things like Youtube and iTunes.
Contributing to the destruction, yes.
This is the same bogus argument we've seen for hundreds of years. The printing press is destroying the manuscript. The typewriter is destroying handwriting. Photography is destroying painting. The VCR is destroying TV. The CD is killing music. DVD is killing the cinema.
People keep making these stupid arguments, yet art keeps evolving and adapting.
I have glanced in the iTunes store on occasions, even though I will never pay for a music download, but I didn't get the impression that it was selling much in the way of indie music - it seems to be full of exactly the same plastic trash that I see on the supermarket shelves to be honest.
You haven't looked very far, obviously.
Jamendo, Spotify and Last FM all seem to be doing a much better job of bringing indie music to the masses than the iTunes store does
That doesn't make much sense, because those services aren't widely used by the masses, but iTunes is. And iTunes gives decent profits to indie bands who use it.
There, fixed that for you. The day of the PHB making decisions based on the novelty of the promo mugs and pens they just received is coming to an end. Thank god.
That's pretty funny, and it seems like you actually believe it, too.
Seems pretty accurate to me. Companies that operate that way might hang on for a bit longer, but their days are definitely numbered.
I hope you can understand that by calling yourself a "human," you are allying yourself with the worst dictators and fascists the world has ever seen? After all, Hitler was a human.
I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.
You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."
And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).
Fuck the hell off. You can easily buy full albums from iTunes. And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?
How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?
This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.
Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in their music distribution, and were spoon-fed music by the TV and Clear Channel radio stations. Good thing that era is over.
Consequently the music I love so dearly will be destroyed and that's why it affects me.
Apple is destroying good music? This is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard, particularly because we have never before had such a wide choice in great music and albums. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Perhaps you just haven't gotten over your nostalgia for the 60s and 70s, and haven't opened your eyes to all the good music that is around?
If anything distribution models like iTunes make it much easier for smaller/indie more creative artists to find an audience and sell their songs.
apple app store lock in and it's censorship is there now!
Firstly, try to learn some English so you can write coherent sentences. Secondly, yes, the Apple "app store" censors and filters applications that Apple sells to users of Apple products. What's illegal about that? Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell any particular brand of products. Any retail store can choose what they sell and what they don't. Why should the app store be any different?
Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.
How would Jobs being a Disney board member persuade music publishers? That doesn't make any sense, especially as Jobs was not a Disney board member at the time.
Also, you forget that the music labels were (and still are) deathly afraid of online digital distribution. To them moving beyond physical discs was seen as a huge risk. To even be attempted, it had to be guaranteed to be extremely locked-down and restricted.
WTF does this have to do with atheism? I'm an atheist, and I've had lucid dreams. It's a phenomenon, not a religion. Charlatans encroach on any phenomenon, doesn't make it any less real. Just like spammers selling fake viagra doesn't mean that real viagra doesn't work.
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well.
As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.
That's a very strange logic, because if Apple licensed the Mac OS to generic hardware manufacturers, that would put them at greater risk of becoming an actual monopoly, because it would increase other companies' dependence on Apple.
If you could easily (and more importantly, officially) run Mac OS on cheap generic hardware, Windows might actually face a significant decline in marketshare, putting Apple in the same position that got Microsoft slapped with anti-trust suits.
Seems like a strange way to fight a supposed monopolist, by making it more monopoly-like.
Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place.
This is one of the most fascinating things in recent tech/media history to me. I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out. Because this new-fangled iPod and iTunes was a Mac-only thing at the time, and Macs had a tiny share of the computer market. So, they'd see if it worked. If it failed, no big deal, it's only a few Mac users. But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).
Basically, what the labels thought was a minor experiment turned into the future of their industry.
But the only thing Apple has a monopoly over is Apple products. Microsoft had a monopoly that controlled an entire industry - other people's companies, not just Microsoft stuff. It would be different if Microsoft only made Windows for Microsoft computers.
Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.
I don't know about games, but last night I did an in-dream Wikipedia search on a piece of botany I encountered in a dream. It was pretty freaking weird. Very realistic too, as the wikipedia entry was quite inaccurate.
Slashdot Mirror
None of those I would call IT.
Then you have a very unusual idea of what IT is. It is work relating to technology used for information. Even a librarian in a library that doesn't have any computers counts.
Those are mostly management and data entry.
The management of an IT company has nothing to do with IT? Data entry has nothing to do with IT? How do you use IT if you don't get the data in?
The only exception is the hardware assembly/repair and that is just a factory job, not IT.
People who make house calls to repair someone's PC is somehow a "factory job"? You're not making a lot of sense.
What IT job involves no programming?
Hardware assembly/repair, database entry, web content (via CMS), training, project management, CEO, CTO. The list is nearly infinite. I'd go out on a limb to say that the majority of IT jobs probably don't involve any programming.
Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...
Get your facts straight. Amazon wasn't selling MP3s until September 2007. The iTunes Music Store opened in April 2003. Apple started selling DRM-free tracks in April 2007.
As for the "much smaller download sites," how many of them were selling tracks from the major labels DRM-free? Oh, that's right, none of them were.
But Amazon started out selling non-DRM music when they started with zero market share. Sorry, your explanation doesn't wash.
Except they only did it after Apple's appeal to the music industry to remove DRM.
I didn't say "destroyed", I said "destroying"...
Yet you have no evidence for this. Not only do you have no evidence, but no rational argument for it.
But I've heard individual Pink Floyd, Beatles and Bowie songs played on the radio also.
Which makes your argument bunk, because that has been going on for a long time before iTunes.
The explanation given by AC/DC is that they prefer to be thought of as an "album" band and believe that's what their fans want also.
That might be what they prefer to think, but it's total bullshit.
But some of that is true to a degree! The legibility of handwriting has decreased as people do everything on keyboards now... people who couldn't paint a picture are able to pick up a camera and take great photos... Traditional TV has been changed by the advent of being able to record and watch programs when you want to... Cinema attendances have stayed roughly constant but haven't grown as much as they would have done without DVD...
And all of those changes are mostly for the better.
The only one I disagree with is "CD is killing music" because I don't think anyone ever said that - they said "Home taping is killing music".
Nope, plenty of people said that - because CDs sound to "clinical" and not "warm" enough, and they don't have great album cover artwork.
I have checked quite a few indie albums actually because I use Amazon's preview service to listen to bits of a CD before I buy it - but that's only there some of the time
I think you'll find that there are a lot more of them on iTunes than Amazon.
And while some institutions are emphasizing the value of teamwork in their curricula, an approach that fosters specialization in lieu of uniform standards
Wouldn't "teamwork" have the opposite effect - emphasizing uniform standards over specialization? A more individualistic approach would encourage specialization more, one would think. Also, the whole premise seems a bit off. "IT" encompasses many things, programming is not involved in all of them.
They do not make great software. Those responsible for the mediocre software are H1-Bs or outsourced.
Isn't that the point? If they continue being so mediocre, then what future is there? Microsoft has competition now, it's not the 1990s anymore.
But how much longer will that last?
So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.
No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.
Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.
Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.
Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Apple has destroyed albums and good music.
It's contributing to the demise of proper music by allowing music to be treated like "pick & mix sweeties". Yes, I'm a complete and utter music snob, it's my prime hobby and if you don't have the patience to sit down, relax and enjoy a really good piece of music then stay away from it and go find something else to do with your time.
So, the only valid form of musical expression is the album?
I've got a news-flash for you: there was once this thing called "the single" - it was a small record with one track on each side. The music industry thrived on it for a long time. Apple didn't invent it.
And one of my favourite bands and probably the biggest rock band in the world currently, AC/DC, does not allow their music to be sold on iTunes.
But AC/DC is one of the few bands big and successful enough to be able to do that and survive financially. In any case, it doesn't bolster your argument about albums, because AC/DC songs stand alone very well, and their albums aren't generally "concept" albums in the vein of Pink Floyd, The Beatles or David Bowie. Plenty of radio stations play single AC/DC tracks without playing the whole album.
it's not like AC/DC are starving for money, but if they released on iTunes, they would probably make even more money.
However, that era is not over because there are now more channels pumping out trashy music videos.
But they are increasingly irrelevant because of things like Youtube and iTunes.
Contributing to the destruction, yes.
This is the same bogus argument we've seen for hundreds of years. The printing press is destroying the manuscript. The typewriter is destroying handwriting. Photography is destroying painting. The VCR is destroying TV. The CD is killing music. DVD is killing the cinema.
People keep making these stupid arguments, yet art keeps evolving and adapting.
I have glanced in the iTunes store on occasions, even though I will never pay for a music download, but I didn't get the impression that it was selling much in the way of indie music - it seems to be full of exactly the same plastic trash that I see on the supermarket shelves to be honest.
You haven't looked very far, obviously.
Jamendo, Spotify and Last FM all seem to be doing a much better job of bringing indie music to the masses than the iTunes store does
That doesn't make much sense, because those services aren't widely used by the masses, but iTunes is. And iTunes gives decent profits to indie bands who use it.
MS employees are still having the private jet weddings to the caribbean with ice fountains flowing with rum.
That might be the problem. Shouldn't they be making great software?
Looks like an excellent bubble to take advantage of. Sell (or short) Apple, buy Microsoft.
Selling Apple probably makes sense if you've been holding for a while. But buying Microsoft? Where is the evidence that Microsoft is going anywhere?
There, fixed that for you. The day of the PHB making decisions based on the novelty of the promo mugs and pens they just received is coming to an end. Thank god.
That's pretty funny, and it seems like you actually believe it, too.
Seems pretty accurate to me. Companies that operate that way might hang on for a bit longer, but their days are definitely numbered.
I hope you can understand that by calling yourself a "human," you are allying yourself with the worst dictators and fascists the world has ever seen? After all, Hitler was a human.
I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.
You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."
And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).
Fuck the hell off. You can easily buy full albums from iTunes. And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?
How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?
This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.
Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in their music distribution, and were spoon-fed music by the TV and Clear Channel radio stations. Good thing that era is over.
Consequently the music I love so dearly will be destroyed and that's why it affects me.
Apple is destroying good music? This is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard, particularly because we have never before had such a wide choice in great music and albums. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Perhaps you just haven't gotten over your nostalgia for the 60s and 70s, and haven't opened your eyes to all the good music that is around?
If anything distribution models like iTunes make it much easier for smaller/indie more creative artists to find an audience and sell their songs.
apple app store lock in and it's censorship is there now!
Firstly, try to learn some English so you can write coherent sentences. Secondly, yes, the Apple "app store" censors and filters applications that Apple sells to users of Apple products. What's illegal about that? Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell any particular brand of products. Any retail store can choose what they sell and what they don't. Why should the app store be any different?
Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.
How would Jobs being a Disney board member persuade music publishers? That doesn't make any sense, especially as Jobs was not a Disney board member at the time.
Also, you forget that the music labels were (and still are) deathly afraid of online digital distribution. To them moving beyond physical discs was seen as a huge risk. To even be attempted, it had to be guaranteed to be extremely locked-down and restricted.
WTF does this have to do with atheism? I'm an atheist, and I've had lucid dreams. It's a phenomenon, not a religion. Charlatans encroach on any phenomenon, doesn't make it any less real. Just like spammers selling fake viagra doesn't mean that real viagra doesn't work.
Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.
That's a very strange logic, because if Apple licensed the Mac OS to generic hardware manufacturers, that would put them at greater risk of becoming an actual monopoly, because it would increase other companies' dependence on Apple.
If you could easily (and more importantly, officially) run Mac OS on cheap generic hardware, Windows might actually face a significant decline in marketshare, putting Apple in the same position that got Microsoft slapped with anti-trust suits.
Seems like a strange way to fight a supposed monopolist, by making it more monopoly-like.
Wait, I thought you didn't use Apple products. So how does it affect you?
Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place.
This is one of the most fascinating things in recent tech/media history to me. I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out. Because this new-fangled iPod and iTunes was a Mac-only thing at the time, and Macs had a tiny share of the computer market. So, they'd see if it worked. If it failed, no big deal, it's only a few Mac users. But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).
Basically, what the labels thought was a minor experiment turned into the future of their industry.
But the only thing Apple has a monopoly over is Apple products. Microsoft had a monopoly that controlled an entire industry - other people's companies, not just Microsoft stuff. It would be different if Microsoft only made Windows for Microsoft computers.
Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.
Well, you could always go work for Microsoft...
so this raises the question, what do electric sheep play?
Whatever they play, they play it baaadly.
I don't know about games, but last night I did an in-dream Wikipedia search on a piece of botany I encountered in a dream. It was pretty freaking weird. Very realistic too, as the wikipedia entry was quite inaccurate.
My first thought was "I guess all the good names for phone companies were already taken."
What? There are phone companies with good names? I've yet to encounter this phenomenon.
Yeah, what a dick.
Do you seriously think that every time someone makes a movie with zero-g scenes they have to blast everyone into space?
Well, Kubrick did it for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and that was before we had even landed on the moon!