What does this polluting plant have to do with anything? I can't see how they would have decided to build a 59 million dollar supercomputer to placate protesters that were protesting against something completely irrelevant to supercomputers. (to answer your question, after 4 years the computer loses public funding, but doesn't cease operation.)
Wow. That took me a minute... at first I just had an image of soldiers trying to reach HQ on foot, perhaps with Sergeant's pull cart in tow. Much stranger, but definitely makes less sense that way.
If you like pitchfork, you ought to read this onion article, which pretty effectively summarizes all of the main issues with pitchfork. Plus it's hilarious.
High frequencies sound crisper, and they don't attenuate quite so much (I find that most other cheap plugs make everything too quiet for my tastes - I like to keep things safe but loud). They're flat enough that I don't even mind singing with them in, and usually I find it hard to sing with any earplugs in. I try not to sing as much as i can, though.:) I'm not sure if I used the top-end hearos, but I definitely used one of their nicer non-custom plugs. It was a while ago though - haven't used anything but the etymotics for about two years now. Anyway, certainly recommend trying the etymotics if you need a new pair. They're not perfect but they sound quite good for $12, and it's not a huge deal if you lose them (vs. a $200 custom pair). p.
It's also possible that engineers are distorting sounds because they like the way it sounds, and not as part of some "loud music conspiracy." I am an audio engineer, and I love compression (i.e. audio signal compression, not referring to mp3 compression and the like). I use it on everything, and so does most any other engineer. It's a wonderful tool. These days, with digital audio, it is far easier to use compression in a more accurate and transparent fashion. It makes it far easier to achieve a desired result without having to be as vigilant during the tracking (recording) process. And technically, it does distort the sound and makes it louder. Which is not to say that sound quality suffers when I use compression, because I am in charge of the process and I am making a conscious decision to use it, correct? Frankly I laugh whenever I see articles like this. It's not like CDs now can be any louder than they were when they were introduced in the 80s. It's easier to raise the RMS level to make the average volume louder with modern technology, but that should be the engineer's prerogative, right? Engineering is more of an art form than most people give it credit for.
My suggestion for a cheap pair, over the hearos, are from etymotic research. They make terrific molded earplugs, but these are the best cheap plugs i've found for $12.
I play in several touring bands and am often in loud concert situations most days in a month, and I keep a pair of these on my keychain wherever I go. These attenuate an average of 15 db, and I think they also make a pair that attenuates 8 db or something like that.
Definitely recommended.
p.
My last phone was a samsung, and it was just terrible. Made me swear off samsung phones forever due to the inane number of bugs and random shutdowns. Worst design feature, though - there were two identical buttons right next to each other on the same side of the phone, and if a call came in, one of the buttons silenced the ring and the other answered the call on speakerphone.
There were all too many times when my phone went off in a class and suddenly a voice emerged from my pocket crying "hello? are you there?"
You're nintendo, and your top analysts tell you that demand for your new system is going to be in the 200k/mo range. You set up manufacturing plants accordingly.
Your console becomes a runaway hit, and demand is closer to 300k+.
Your options now - invest a fair bit of cash in new manufacturing facilities, or let it be until supply again outstrips demand.
Pro/cons for new facilities - obviously, gets systems in the hands of everyone who wants one. Costs a pile of money to set up, however, takes a few months anyway, and they may not be needed after the initial surge of purchases.
Pro/cons for waiting it out - makes system desirable, generates press. Can't sell as many right off the bat, and might lose some of those sales eventually.
Just a thought. If I were an exec that had come up with a best case scenario of selling 250k units/month in order to make a pile of cash, I might be content with riding that out in lieu of upping my investment. Nintendo seeming like a prudent company, I wouldn't be surprised if they just keep on selling 250k systems a month until they're blue in the face. I'm sure it's not killing them financially.
Anyway, if they had 100k systems lying around in a warehouse I don't think they'd see a problem with selling them, but as far as investing a lot of money to make new systems... that's a stickier issue.
You're absolutely correct. I run a record label in Miami that just put out our first major release this month. (Won't promote, but it's in my sig if you're curious.) We're charting fairly high on college radio, but CD sales have been VERY slow. Our album has been pirated many more times than we've sold CDs, and I know this because I've seen it go up on several trackers that I frequent.:)
At the same time, I'm not upset by this. For one, we weren't planning on bringing in any profit on this album - the long term goal is getting our foot in the door and building a name. So the more people listening the better. That aside, however, even if we sell out of our initial pressing we just break even. Live shows and licensing have been the money makers thus far. Having CDs to sell at live shows (which is where probably 80% of the sales have been so far) is gravy, but one well-paying show or placing one song on a commercial or tv show is like selling hundreds of CDs.
Anyway, we're doing the work ourselves, which is the future of the music business. We made the record ourselves. We didn't go out hunting for a label, we formed one ourselves. We figured out the numbers and put our own money into it. And everything we couldn't do (manufacturing, radio/press promotion, etc), we just outsourced. We're music school graduates, not business graduates. (Well, one guy is a business grad.:) Anybody can do this on their own now.
The days of letting someone else do the work for you are coming to an end. Anyone who puts in the work has a shot.
I am a professional musician. I exclusively create music for a living. If things worked the way you laid them out, I would not be a professional musician, and I would instead be something that I could make a living doing.
Quick pro-copyright argument in support of the gp. (You can extend it to lifetime copyright.) I am not opposed to giving away music. If you go to my record label, which I won't spam but you could figure it out if you tried, you can download literally hundreds of songs for free. We just released five albums as no strings attached, free downloads to celebrate the new year. About 15 songs from those albums are my compositions.
Without copyright none of that would exist. Without copyright I would not have the bread and butter work to support myself with. I wouldn't be able to put free music out there just because I want people to hear it. I wouldn't be able to dedicate my life to music and still pay the bills. You can argue that this may be a positive thing, but that's a different discussion.
What is so bad about copyright? Why can't I have the copyright to my music while I'm alive? The general public can listen to my music already (the vast majority of it for free, be it from downloads or be it something they hear on tv), so why do they need it to be public domain? What about the things I make money from to support myself? Why does the public need to be able to use that music as their own? Many of the things that I license or sell are older pieces that are more than 5-10 years old. I've written a lot of music in my life, and sometimes it's easier to revisit something I wrote 10 years ago but never used than to make something new.
If you want your favorite artists to give away their music, that's one thing (I'm not accusing you, but I suspect some other posters of having that motive). If you have serious ideological qualms with extended copyright, that's another. There are plenty of people making money (for the first time) off of old music. I can also tell you that most of that music would never have been made if not for copyright. If anyone can use my music the moment I write it, that is the end of my musical career. If anyone can use my music 5 years after the fact, I'll at least have a day job. Just so you know.
Apple are progressively upgrading the OS having smaller releases. Microsoft does exactly the same thing. The last upgrade for XP (SP2) was about a year and a half ago. The difference is that they don't charge $100 for it.
Apple doesn't charge for security updates either. SP2 was basically just bugfixes plus windows firewall. SP1, iirc, was just bugfixes and offered no added functionality.
Apple's 10.x updates always offer added functionality in addition to bugfixes, be it expose, spotlight, or the upcoming spaces and time machine. Their 10.x.x updates are generally just bugfixes, and those are free.
The problem with current remote access solutions that in my eyes Web OSes address better than the solutions you mentioned is a problem of simplicity. Specifically, you essentially have to set up a server and keep your computer running to use these services. This isn't a problem for many people, and probably isn't much of one at all for the slashdot crowd. However, I do feel that the WebOS concept is much more appealing because you don't have to worry about the server end of things. It's just so easy to visit a website (especially on locked down computers like you might find at an internet cafe or a library) and have everything there waiting for you.
Now, I know there are still problems with the actual services, and I've tried a few of these OSes and I'll freely admit that they aren't very useful right now. However, I just think that nobody is thinking about this conceptually, and that noone can see past the (admittedly bad) products that are out there. It WOULD be a good product if it was executed well, and I think a well-done web OS would be a much better solution for the average user than the suggestions you mentioned (nothing to set up on your home computer, no need to run software on a remote computer, just pop open a web browser and type in the address).
Do I think that a web OS is a promising concept? Yes. Would I invest my money in a web OS company? No. Although I think there are uses for a web OS (that was the original question, after all), I don't have much faith that anyone is going to turn the concept into a decent product anytime soon. Agree with you there. It's pretty early in the game, though.
Nobody seems to be able to think of any use at all for these, which is surprising to me (although i guess it isn't useful if you never leave your house, which might explain the slashdot reaction). Lets set aside for a moment the fact that these systems are slow and may not work particularly well, and assume that we live in a perfect world and they are feature-complete and snappy and have all the programs you need and even a way to add more programs or what not. I can head down to the library and simultaneously research and work. I can pop into an internet cafe while traveling and add an idea to a project. I can visit family over the holidays and do work on their computers when i'm tired of dealing with them, and not have to worry about bringing a laptop (especially nice if one doesn't have a laptop).
Of course, pretty much every computer nowadays has internet and word processing already, and there are myriad ways to transfer your documents on the internet that are probably more convenient. WebOSes need to offer some advantage over this. If they can manage to replicate or come very close to your standard, at-home desktop experience, it'll be great. (How cool would it be if the webOS thing took off and developers could port apps like photoshop, logic, autocad, dreamweaver, etc... to webOSes in addition to regular OSes.)
The best thing I could think of is something a friend of mine (not me) built. He's a bagpipist, and also a music engineer, and he built an interface for a remote control car that accepts midi information from an electronic bagpipe.
It's pretty cool - accelerates or decelerates based on how much air you're putting through, and different notes steer the thing. I think he won some sort of contest for the thing this year.
Software hasn't really improved for maaany years now, Spreadsheets and Word Processors are more colourful, higher resolution. But are these products smarter, better at all?
So what you're saying is that microsoft office hasn't improved at all. Surprisingly, there's more software out there than office applications, and many of them have indeed benefitted from more powerful computers. Look at digital audio and digital video applications. Digital audio hasn't really been possible without external dsp (a la Protools) until fairly recently - within the last 5 years or so. Digital video is still at the point that digital audio was at 10 years ago, too - we're not going to see personal computers that can truly handle processing of digital video effects with ease for another few years. So while newer, faster computers might not make your word processing experience much better, they're still pretty exciting in other fields.
Slashdot Mirror
What does this polluting plant have to do with anything? I can't see how they would have decided to build a 59 million dollar supercomputer to placate protesters that were protesting against something completely irrelevant to supercomputers.
(to answer your question, after 4 years the computer loses public funding, but doesn't cease operation.)
Wow. That took me a minute... at first I just had an image of soldiers trying to reach HQ on foot, perhaps with Sergeant's pull cart in tow. Much stranger, but definitely makes less sense that way.
If you like pitchfork, you ought to read this onion article, which pretty effectively summarizes all of the main issues with pitchfork. Plus it's hilarious.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8
p.
Here!
you're not talking about digital performer 4.2, are you? if so lmk.
p.
I'll trade you a bottle of Crystal Pepsi for a jar of your internet..
High frequencies sound crisper, and they don't attenuate quite so much (I find that most other cheap plugs make everything too quiet for my tastes - I like to keep things safe but loud). They're flat enough that I don't even mind singing with them in, and usually I find it hard to sing with any earplugs in. :)
I try not to sing as much as i can, though.
I'm not sure if I used the top-end hearos, but I definitely used one of their nicer non-custom plugs. It was a while ago though - haven't used anything but the etymotics for about two years now.
Anyway, certainly recommend trying the etymotics if you need a new pair. They're not perfect but they sound quite good for $12, and it's not a huge deal if you lose them (vs. a $200 custom pair).
p.
It's also possible that engineers are distorting sounds because they like the way it sounds, and not as part of some "loud music conspiracy."
I am an audio engineer, and I love compression (i.e. audio signal compression, not referring to mp3 compression and the like). I use it on everything, and so does most any other engineer. It's a wonderful tool. These days, with digital audio, it is far easier to use compression in a more accurate and transparent fashion. It makes it far easier to achieve a desired result without having to be as vigilant during the tracking (recording) process.
And technically, it does distort the sound and makes it louder. Which is not to say that sound quality suffers when I use compression, because I am in charge of the process and I am making a conscious decision to use it, correct?
Frankly I laugh whenever I see articles like this. It's not like CDs now can be any louder than they were when they were introduced in the 80s. It's easier to raise the RMS level to make the average volume louder with modern technology, but that should be the engineer's prerogative, right? Engineering is more of an art form than most people give it credit for.
p.
My suggestion for a cheap pair, over the hearos, are from etymotic research. They make terrific molded earplugs, but these are the best cheap plugs i've found for $12.
I play in several touring bands and am often in loud concert situations most days in a month, and I keep a pair of these on my keychain wherever I go. These attenuate an average of 15 db, and I think they also make a pair that attenuates 8 db or something like that.
Definitely recommended.
p.
What if you have an uncomfortable home?
Nobody ever considers this end of things.
My last phone was a samsung, and it was just terrible. Made me swear off samsung phones forever due to the inane number of bugs and random shutdowns. Worst design feature, though - there were two identical buttons right next to each other on the same side of the phone, and if a call came in, one of the buttons silenced the ring and the other answered the call on speakerphone.
There were all too many times when my phone went off in a class and suddenly a voice emerged from my pocket crying "hello? are you there?"
p.
Possible boardroom scenario speculation alert.
You're nintendo, and your top analysts tell you that demand for your new system is going to be in the 200k/mo range. You set up manufacturing plants accordingly.
Your console becomes a runaway hit, and demand is closer to 300k+.
Your options now - invest a fair bit of cash in new manufacturing facilities, or let it be until supply again outstrips demand.
Pro/cons for new facilities - obviously, gets systems in the hands of everyone who wants one. Costs a pile of money to set up, however, takes a few months anyway, and they may not be needed after the initial surge of purchases.
Pro/cons for waiting it out - makes system desirable, generates press. Can't sell as many right off the bat, and might lose some of those sales eventually.
Just a thought. If I were an exec that had come up with a best case scenario of selling 250k units/month in order to make a pile of cash, I might be content with riding that out in lieu of upping my investment. Nintendo seeming like a prudent company, I wouldn't be surprised if they just keep on selling 250k systems a month until they're blue in the face. I'm sure it's not killing them financially.
Anyway, if they had 100k systems lying around in a warehouse I don't think they'd see a problem with selling them, but as far as investing a lot of money to make new systems... that's a stickier issue.
p.
The NY Times has an interesting opinion article that is rather highly critical of the YouTube awards. Makes for a good read. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/arts/27tube.html
p.
You're absolutely correct. I run a record label in Miami that just put out our first major release this month. (Won't promote, but it's in my sig if you're curious.) We're charting fairly high on college radio, but CD sales have been VERY slow. Our album has been pirated many more times than we've sold CDs, and I know this because I've seen it go up on several trackers that I frequent. :)
:) Anybody can do this on their own now.
At the same time, I'm not upset by this. For one, we weren't planning on bringing in any profit on this album - the long term goal is getting our foot in the door and building a name. So the more people listening the better. That aside, however, even if we sell out of our initial pressing we just break even. Live shows and licensing have been the money makers thus far. Having CDs to sell at live shows (which is where probably 80% of the sales have been so far) is gravy, but one well-paying show or placing one song on a commercial or tv show is like selling hundreds of CDs.
Anyway, we're doing the work ourselves, which is the future of the music business. We made the record ourselves. We didn't go out hunting for a label, we formed one ourselves. We figured out the numbers and put our own money into it. And everything we couldn't do (manufacturing, radio/press promotion, etc), we just outsourced. We're music school graduates, not business graduates. (Well, one guy is a business grad.
The days of letting someone else do the work for you are coming to an end. Anyone who puts in the work has a shot.
p.
I certainly wish he would.
Chuckle.
World of Warcraft. Less socially acceptable than smoking crack.
nice.
I am a professional musician. I exclusively create music for a living. If things worked the way you laid them out, I would not be a professional musician, and I would instead be something that I could make a living doing.
Quick pro-copyright argument in support of the gp. (You can extend it to lifetime copyright.) I am not opposed to giving away music. If you go to my record label, which I won't spam but you could figure it out if you tried, you can download literally hundreds of songs for free. We just released five albums as no strings attached, free downloads to celebrate the new year. About 15 songs from those albums are my compositions.
Without copyright none of that would exist. Without copyright I would not have the bread and butter work to support myself with. I wouldn't be able to put free music out there just because I want people to hear it. I wouldn't be able to dedicate my life to music and still pay the bills. You can argue that this may be a positive thing, but that's a different discussion.
What is so bad about copyright? Why can't I have the copyright to my music while I'm alive? The general public can listen to my music already (the vast majority of it for free, be it from downloads or be it something they hear on tv), so why do they need it to be public domain? What about the things I make money from to support myself? Why does the public need to be able to use that music as their own? Many of the things that I license or sell are older pieces that are more than 5-10 years old. I've written a lot of music in my life, and sometimes it's easier to revisit something I wrote 10 years ago but never used than to make something new.
If you want your favorite artists to give away their music, that's one thing (I'm not accusing you, but I suspect some other posters of having that motive). If you have serious ideological qualms with extended copyright, that's another. There are plenty of people making money (for the first time) off of old music. I can also tell you that most of that music would never have been made if not for copyright. If anyone can use my music the moment I write it, that is the end of my musical career. If anyone can use my music 5 years after the fact, I'll at least have a day job. Just so you know.
p.
Apple doesn't charge for security updates either. SP2 was basically just bugfixes plus windows firewall. SP1, iirc, was just bugfixes and offered no added functionality.
Apple's 10.x updates always offer added functionality in addition to bugfixes, be it expose, spotlight, or the upcoming spaces and time machine. Their 10.x.x updates are generally just bugfixes, and those are free.
p.
The problem with current remote access solutions that in my eyes Web OSes address better than the solutions you mentioned is a problem of simplicity. Specifically, you essentially have to set up a server and keep your computer running to use these services. This isn't a problem for many people, and probably isn't much of one at all for the slashdot crowd. However, I do feel that the WebOS concept is much more appealing because you don't have to worry about the server end of things. It's just so easy to visit a website (especially on locked down computers like you might find at an internet cafe or a library) and have everything there waiting for you.
Now, I know there are still problems with the actual services, and I've tried a few of these OSes and I'll freely admit that they aren't very useful right now. However, I just think that nobody is thinking about this conceptually, and that noone can see past the (admittedly bad) products that are out there. It WOULD be a good product if it was executed well, and I think a well-done web OS would be a much better solution for the average user than the suggestions you mentioned (nothing to set up on your home computer, no need to run software on a remote computer, just pop open a web browser and type in the address).
Do I think that a web OS is a promising concept? Yes. Would I invest my money in a web OS company? No. Although I think there are uses for a web OS (that was the original question, after all), I don't have much faith that anyone is going to turn the concept into a decent product anytime soon. Agree with you there. It's pretty early in the game, though.
p.
Nobody seems to be able to think of any use at all for these, which is surprising to me (although i guess it isn't useful if you never leave your house, which might explain the slashdot reaction). Lets set aside for a moment the fact that these systems are slow and may not work particularly well, and assume that we live in a perfect world and they are feature-complete and snappy and have all the programs you need and even a way to add more programs or what not. I can head down to the library and simultaneously research and work. I can pop into an internet cafe while traveling and add an idea to a project. I can visit family over the holidays and do work on their computers when i'm tired of dealing with them, and not have to worry about bringing a laptop (especially nice if one doesn't have a laptop).
Of course, pretty much every computer nowadays has internet and word processing already, and there are myriad ways to transfer your documents on the internet that are probably more convenient. WebOSes need to offer some advantage over this. If they can manage to replicate or come very close to your standard, at-home desktop experience, it'll be great. (How cool would it be if the webOS thing took off and developers could port apps like photoshop, logic, autocad, dreamweaver, etc... to webOSes in addition to regular OSes.)
p.
The best thing I could think of is something a friend of mine (not me) built. He's a bagpipist, and also a music engineer, and he built an interface for a remote control car that accepts midi information from an electronic bagpipe.
It's pretty cool - accelerates or decelerates based on how much air you're putting through, and different notes steer the thing. I think he won some sort of contest for the thing this year.
p.
I spent about 10 seconds figuring out why people from India were saving the Amazon in South America with google maps.
And those are 10 seconds that you can never have back. Damn story titlers.
Gotta love how the release notes say "a shortcut lets users quickly re-open an accidentally closed tab." Anyone know what said shortcut is?
Neat sounding feature, but kinda useless if you can't find the shortcut anywhere.
P.
Software hasn't really improved for maaany years now, Spreadsheets and Word Processors are more colourful, higher resolution. But are these products smarter, better at all?
So what you're saying is that microsoft office hasn't improved at all. Surprisingly, there's more software out there than office applications, and many of them have indeed benefitted from more powerful computers. Look at digital audio and digital video applications. Digital audio hasn't really been possible without external dsp (a la Protools) until fairly recently - within the last 5 years or so. Digital video is still at the point that digital audio was at 10 years ago, too - we're not going to see personal computers that can truly handle processing of digital video effects with ease for another few years. So while newer, faster computers might not make your word processing experience much better, they're still pretty exciting in other fields.
TLDR