While I agree with the idea that the music industry needs to reinvent itself, I really think this is a simplistic arguement.
Tool are a major band who have had massive promotion from the same groups that you're criticising - don't you know their lyric "I sold my soul to make a record, and then you bought it"
Most people are not prepared to go and see non-major bands. The reason for this is that people want the experience of being in a massive, hyped-up crowd, and be "part of history" ("I was there - at that Robbie Williams concert") - it's not even really about the music for a lot of people. They also want to be garunteed of a good time, and one way they do this is by going to see a well-branded performer.
I don't mean this in a snobby way, either, I'm just saying that many people like music for the associated experience, and not just for the music itself.
In summary, I reckon that if we do away with major record labels, and just go for bands promoting themselves on line, music will tend to become more parochial and localised - because bands won't be able to afford to tour. Concerts will also tend to be smaller and cheaper. To be honest, I don't think this is what most people want - as evidence, consider the popularity of massive concerts, sporting events, etc!
I pretty much agree with you, and want to add these (slightly off-topic thoughts).
Cycling is quickly dismissed by many people, but it is actually the *most* efficient form of transport. When I finished high-school, I went for 3 years doing no exercise. Then I started cycling to university - about 13km (~8 miles) each way. The first day was a real struggle, but it wasn't long before it became routine. I think the cycling gave me added self-confidance and self-reliance. It also helped my concentration, and (I think) made me smarter. I'm now finishing up a PhD - and I'm pretty certain that I would not be doing this had I not started cycling to uni.
Cycling is all about mind-set. I hear lots of people talk about cycling in the rain, but I actually find it very pleasant (provided one has dry clothes to change into at work - in fact changing clothes at work means that one doesn't _need_ to shower, even when cycling on hot days). There's a very liberating point where one cannot get any wetter - and it's lovely.
If you think it's impossible to cycle to work - think again. If you think it's just out of your reach - give it a go. I honestly can't recommend it highly enough - it's changed my life....and it has great environmental benefits.. and it's cheap! What more can you want?
I don't think apps _should_ be identical on different OSs. My (somewhat naive) uderstanding is that wxWidgets causes different behaviour on different systems, so that various users' disparate expectations are met. That Photoshop behaves differently on XP to OSX is a Good Thing, IMO...
Anyway, it'd sure be nice for some more commercial apps on Linux.
I think it's bloody stupid. How the hell are they going to know who's bought a particular DVD - even though it might have a unique watermark?
The only way to do this would be to have a huge database where everyone was represented, along with serial codes for all the movies they'd bought. Maybe that would link in with a national ID card.
Of course, you'd also have to notify them of any DVDs bought/sold second hand - hence there'd have to be a central DVD 2nd-hand dealer - no doubt controlled by the same corporations.
Also, for it to be practical, any video recorded at home would need to be watermarked, hence you'd need to use your personal ID card to watch TV, or use a PVR - or a PC.
Would you really be prepared to trade DRM for a facist state?
Didn't you read the article? It's "tamper-proof" and "uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology" - so terrorists won't be able to do that. You can sleep easy, little fella, there's nothing to worry about - us big folk have it all under control...
You're kidding, right? that's like saying that paying council workers to fix the road before a terrible car accident is 'protection money'. I'd instead call it investment in society for the benefit of everyone.
And it can't ever work as you describe so long as they are essentially "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." and any government attempt at welfare programs must degenerate to that, almost by definition but certainly in practice.
well, I don't think this is true. Firstly, that is not what I advocate. I don't think everybody's equal, nor that some communistic ideal is acheivable. But using a welfare system to get people off welfare and back into the workforce seems to be working here in Australia.
if one is entitled, simply by virtue of citizenship... to deciding they are OWED a living.
Well, let's look at the evidence. My understanding of the US welfare system is that it's very limited. One receives 6 weeks or so of welfare, after which one must look out for oneself. The case in Australia is that there is no time limit, but people collecting welfare must demonstrate that they're actively seeking work. We have ~4% unemployment in Oz (this figure is somewhat fudged by the govt, and included casual and part-time work, but I still think it has some relevancy) and very low rates of homelessness. Beggars are rare in Australia. My understanding is that the US has something like 10 million homeless people. I wonder what the unemployment rate is?
Let me put my thoughts in a nutshell: I suggest individual responsibility. Pay/wealth commensurate with ability and effort. However, sometimes people get into financial trouble through no fault of their own, and it's in society's interest to help them get back on their feet - it's cheaper in the long term. Look at all the social problems in the US - compare them to countries like Sweden, Denmark (though they're by no means perfect - I know there are slackers there) and even Australia which have better welfare systems, and much lower incidents of homelessness, crime, gangs, domestic violence....
I don't agree with your assessment, even though it might be true for _some_ leftists.
I think there's a place for saying that the state (elected by the populace) provides some support for people in need, while trying to assist them to regain their independence from state funds. We already do this - most people are quite prepared to pay taxes for goods and services (roads, police, hospitals, etc), and I think that helping people via welfare* is an extension of this service: it can reduce longer-term costs (that might arise if those people aren't helped: crime, etc), while at the same time re-integrating them into society. I think it could be argued that such a system _increases_ individual liberty when compared to a dog-eat-dog anarcho-capitalistic system.
* I realise that in general, welfare systems - as they're currently implemented, do not function in this way
Even more so, it amazes me how many people go to a gym and then get back in their car. If they walked/cycled, they could burn those calories in a much more useful way!
You describe "massive destruction in the economy", but I think what you really mean is "massive change to the economy". This is known as a disruptive technology, and this isn't the first time it's occured. Unfortunately, one can't legislate around it.
Yes, it seems likely that there'll be greater decentralisation of the content production business, but that's not really due to piracy, but is rather the result of lower cost of entry to the market, and greater ease of distribution (facilitated by digital networks).
Piracy is made the scapegoat because the big content distributers cannot adapt to the new technologies that are arising, because there is no place for them any more - at least not with their present size and power. They're using piracy to justify their last attempts at maintaing their position (lawsuits, legislation, etc), much like a drowning man may stand on his comrades shoulders...
So what are you saying - that some of the smartest and most dedicated people you know are unable to fund their research?...and you think that's a good thing? Academic researchers are not paid well (compared to industry), and most people who stay in academia are not there so they "don't have to go into the real world."
There are many advances that have no immediate commercial or practical value, but have nonetheless made a truly massive difference to society and the economy, and have opened up many new avenues for commercial exploitation. It seems to me that you're letting your anti-government dogma influence your rational judgment.
Remember kids, the most amazing discoveries are made by chance.
While dashboard is, I suppose, not really an application, I often run multiple apps within X11 - a mixture of remote (ssh -X) and local apps, such as Matlab, the Gimp and Gnucash..
I was just taking the piss...;-) But OSX on my G4 really isn't too bad. Not as fast as the new MacBooks, etc, but very usable. Hell, I do multi-track music recording on it!
Having said that, my AMD64 box is a _tad_ speedier;-)
Heh. And Apple's "super slick" interface runs just fine on my three year old iBook (800Mhz G4, 640mb RAM) and I typically have >15 applications open at a time.
I know this is not a reasonable comparison, as Windows can't open 15 apps at a time (joke)
The calculations involve adjusting the weight of connections between neurons, which generally scale exponentially with the number of neurons. This is because each neuron typically has connections to many other neurons.
So, your math might be right, but your assumptions are wrong.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with the idea that the music industry needs to reinvent itself, I really think this is a simplistic arguement.
Tool are a major band who have had massive promotion from the same groups that you're criticising - don't you know their lyric "I sold my soul to make a record, and then you bought it"
Most people are not prepared to go and see non-major bands. The reason for this is that people want the experience of being in a massive, hyped-up crowd, and be "part of history" ("I was there - at that Robbie Williams concert") - it's not even really about the music for a lot of people. They also want to be garunteed of a good time, and one way they do this is by going to see a well-branded performer.
I don't mean this in a snobby way, either, I'm just saying that many people like music for the associated experience, and not just for the music itself.
In summary, I reckon that if we do away with major record labels, and just go for bands promoting themselves on line, music will tend to become more parochial and localised - because bands won't be able to afford to tour. Concerts will also tend to be smaller and cheaper. To be honest, I don't think this is what most people want - as evidence, consider the popularity of massive concerts, sporting events, etc!
"I will be waiting for
Then you should check out Democracy (internet TV program):
http://www.getdemocracy.com/
Not to nitpick (I agree with what you way) I don't think "causational" is a word. The word you want is "causal" Cheers!
I pretty much agree with you, and want to add these (slightly off-topic thoughts).
...and it has great environmental benefits.. and it's cheap! What more can you want?
Cycling is quickly dismissed by many people, but it is actually the *most* efficient form of transport. When I finished high-school, I went for 3 years doing no exercise. Then I started cycling to university - about 13km (~8 miles) each way. The first day was a real struggle, but it wasn't long before it became routine. I think the cycling gave me added self-confidance and self-reliance. It also helped my concentration, and (I think) made me smarter. I'm now finishing up a PhD - and I'm pretty certain that I would not be doing this had I not started cycling to uni.
Cycling is all about mind-set. I hear lots of people talk about cycling in the rain, but I actually find it very pleasant (provided one has dry clothes to change into at work - in fact changing clothes at work means that one doesn't _need_ to shower, even when cycling on hot days). There's a very liberating point where one cannot get any wetter - and it's lovely.
If you think it's impossible to cycle to work - think again. If you think it's just out of your reach - give it a go. I honestly can't recommend it highly enough - it's changed my life.
you're supposed to put the electrodes on your head ;-)
While I agree with the gist of your post,
"the apps are still not *identical*"
I don't think apps _should_ be identical on different OSs. My (somewhat naive) uderstanding is that wxWidgets causes different behaviour on different systems, so that various users' disparate expectations are met. That Photoshop behaves differently on XP to OSX is a Good Thing, IMO...
Anyway, it'd sure be nice for some more commercial apps on Linux.
Jeez mate - you don't _have_ to, but you _can_. Why are we using Linux again?
I think it's bloody stupid. How the hell are they going to know who's bought a particular DVD - even though it might have a unique watermark?
The only way to do this would be to have a huge database where everyone was represented, along with serial codes for all the movies they'd bought. Maybe that would link in with a national ID card.
Of course, you'd also have to notify them of any DVDs bought/sold second hand - hence there'd have to be a central DVD 2nd-hand dealer - no doubt controlled by the same corporations.
Also, for it to be practical, any video recorded at home would need to be watermarked, hence you'd need to use your personal ID card to watch TV, or use a PVR - or a PC.
Would you really be prepared to trade DRM for a facist state?
I hear you. When you're hiking, you want to be as light as possible.
;-)
Unfortunately, my wife and I absolutely *must* have a bottle* of wine when we go hiking!
*we've actually got the latest in technology - a 1L wine cask! no more glass...
"Untested fads by fashionable marxists ... "
Mr J.E. Hoover - is that you?
Seriously, communism is dead,
There ain't no reds under the bed.
Just draw a deep breath and relax, ok?
I guess it's all about how people think about that cost. Many people would say "$75! And every one else has to pay hundreds! It's a bargain!"
Whereas I'd say, "it's $75 more than OO, and it doesn't even run natively on my OS - what a piece of crap!!"
Didn't you read the article? It's "tamper-proof" and "uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology" - so terrorists won't be able to do that. You can sleep easy, little fella, there's nothing to worry about - us big folk have it all under control...
(/sarcasm)
You're kidding, right? that's like saying that paying council workers to fix the road before a terrible car accident is 'protection money'. I'd instead call it investment in society for the benefit of everyone.
What a specious arguement...
And it can't ever work as you describe so long as they are essentially "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." and any government attempt at welfare programs must degenerate to that, almost by definition but certainly in practice.
... to deciding they are OWED a living.
well, I don't think this is true. Firstly, that is not what I advocate. I don't think everybody's equal, nor that some communistic ideal is acheivable. But using a welfare system to get people off welfare and back into the workforce seems to be working here in Australia.
if one is entitled, simply by virtue of citizenship
Well, let's look at the evidence. My understanding of the US welfare system is that it's very limited. One receives 6 weeks or so of welfare, after which one must look out for oneself. The case in Australia is that there is no time limit, but people collecting welfare must demonstrate that they're actively seeking work. We have ~4% unemployment in Oz (this figure is somewhat fudged by the govt, and included casual and part-time work, but I still think it has some relevancy) and very low rates of homelessness. Beggars are rare in Australia. My understanding is that the US has something like 10 million homeless people. I wonder what the unemployment rate is?
Let me put my thoughts in a nutshell: I suggest individual responsibility. Pay/wealth commensurate with ability and effort. However, sometimes people get into financial trouble through no fault of their own, and it's in society's interest to help them get back on their feet - it's cheaper in the long term. Look at all the social problems in the US - compare them to countries like Sweden, Denmark (though they're by no means perfect - I know there are slackers there) and even Australia which have better welfare systems, and much lower incidents of homelessness, crime, gangs, domestic violence....
I don't agree with your assessment, even though it might be true for _some_ leftists.
I think there's a place for saying that the state (elected by the populace) provides some support for people in need, while trying to assist them to regain their independence from state funds. We already do this - most people are quite prepared to pay taxes for goods and services (roads, police, hospitals, etc), and I think that helping people via welfare* is an extension of this service: it can reduce longer-term costs (that might arise if those people aren't helped: crime, etc), while at the same time re-integrating them into society. I think it could be argued that such a system _increases_ individual liberty when compared to a dog-eat-dog anarcho-capitalistic system.
* I realise that in general, welfare systems - as they're currently implemented, do not function in this way
Even more so, it amazes me how many people go to a gym and then get back in their car. If they walked/cycled, they could burn those calories in a much more useful way!
You describe "massive destruction in the economy", but I think what you really mean is "massive change to the economy". This is known as a disruptive technology, and this isn't the first time it's occured. Unfortunately, one can't legislate around it.
Yes, it seems likely that there'll be greater decentralisation of the content production business, but that's not really due to piracy, but is rather the result of lower cost of entry to the market, and greater ease of distribution (facilitated by digital networks).
Piracy is made the scapegoat because the big content distributers cannot adapt to the new technologies that are arising, because there is no place for them any more - at least not with their present size and power. They're using piracy to justify their last attempts at maintaing their position (lawsuits, legislation, etc), much like a drowning man may stand on his comrades shoulders...
I was reading this thinking:
"WTF?!? (k)Ubuntu is going to Hurd? It's no longer Linux? Christ!
ohh..... hErd.. ok.."
So what are you saying - that some of the smartest and most dedicated people you know are unable to fund their research?
There are many advances that have no immediate commercial or practical value, but have nonetheless made a truly massive difference to society and the economy, and have opened up many new avenues for commercial exploitation. It seems to me that you're letting your anti-government dogma influence your rational judgment.
Remember kids, the most amazing discoveries are made by chance.
Excellent, well reasoned reply. Thank you.
Firefox, Mail, Adium (IM client), Preview (pdf viewer), calander, address book, itunes, X11, Terminal, Bibdesk, LyX, 2 text editors, finder, Dashboard
While dashboard is, I suppose, not really an application, I often run multiple apps within X11 - a mixture of remote (ssh -X) and local apps, such as Matlab, the Gimp and Gnucash..
I was just taking the piss...
Having said that, my AMD64 box is a _tad_ speedier
Heh. And Apple's "super slick" interface runs just fine on my three year old iBook (800Mhz G4, 640mb RAM) and I typically have >15 applications open at a time.
I know this is not a reasonable comparison, as Windows can't open 15 apps at a time
(joke)
WTF?... it _has_ component output..
http://www.apple.com/appletv/connect.html
The calculations involve adjusting the weight of connections between neurons, which generally scale exponentially with the number of neurons. This is because each neuron typically has connections to many other neurons.
So, your math might be right, but your assumptions are wrong.