what are you talking about? I went to real.com (it loaded up just fine on firefox". Clicked on the listen for free button. Downloaded the plugin for firefox. Signed up. And it started playing music. Seems like an okay execution. No problems for me (except ofcourse the 25 play limit / mo).
while they're at it, why don't they make apple open up their media format? We all know they're the one's with the real monopoly on selling online music.
Why is it environmentally friendly? You're still burning fossil fuels to get electricity to get the hydrogen from the water. The only difference is the location of the pollution has changed from the car to whereever they produce the hydrogen.
think about it this way:
with every child having a laptop, all you'll need is 1cd with all the text/diagrams/flash stuff to teach the kid. All he has to do is copy and paste the files onto the harddrive and pass on the cd to the kid next to him. we won't need to print out books anymore for them, we'll just have a bunch of teachers in the u.s donate the time to write this stuff up, have a bunch of programmers/designers make it interactive and viola: the kid can learn by himself.
obviously the above would be targeted towards children around the age of 10. but it would probably work as long as the parents supported them. also, getting used to a laptop would help them in the future (pretty much every job nowadays in the U.S reqs some tech experience).
actually I love their portal. On one side I have the slashdot rss feed (along with a couple more at the bottom) and next to it I have my gmail feed. its very easy and gets me the info FAST, all i doo is press : alt+home when I want to check my mail, search or check out the new feeds. due to my broadband connection it doesn't slow the page loading down, nor is it intrusive.
why is this flamebait? I was just coutering the misunderstanding that linux never contributed anything to society. I did not flame bill gates nor did I say his contributions were useless. huh?
linux is *in it self* the donation. How much money did Linus sell linux for? NOTHING. Add to this the time contributions of the entire community and you have something that rivals gate's contributions. Linux is a boon the the economy, freedom... all all the other buzzwords that are alive and well in American politics today.
Much like alot of your argumentation, this has very little warrant. I'll try not to nit-pick every argument here this time. Just what I think is very important.
First off all you argue that critics have a 'better' ear for music. That is completly untrue, and even if it were, it would be impossible to tell which critic really has a good ear and which is just making it all up. I remember when pink floyd (a band I consider to be very high quality) came out with "Dark Side of the Moon", some 'critics' were bashing it like crazy. Turns out, the album has outlasted its critics and has become one of rock n' rolls most influential album. Even if someone else is writing britney spear's music that doesn't mean that the music doesn't come from the heart. That someone could actually feel what he is talking about. So you should probably take recommendations from a critic who talks good about music you like, but you shouldn't say "the quality of my music sucks because he said so".
Did you know that most starting bands get paid very little? I read one article that stated that each individual in the band earned about as much as a janitor! Surely, gettng that much money (source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/609 91p-57008c.html) , they must have some other motviation? Fame? Getting their message out? Furthermore, statments like this :
In the case of someone like Britney Spears, such stars spend a lot more time on things like choreography for live shows and they tend to let the song writters and record labels dictate the content. really hold NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER, because it is simply an ASSUMPTION!
I just feel that alot of your ideas seem to contradict what my notion of music is. So let me ask you, why defines quality? If it is the ear (who ever's listening) then we can't define quality at all because it'll differ from person to person (this is my overall argumentation). So please, in your next post please point out what exactly defines quality for you as that could eaisly clear up the debate in seconds. Your previous statement:
It is all, ultimately, subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't look at it critically and discuss subjective impressions. makes it look like you agree with me (with that one exception). We CAN discuss subjective impessions, but we can't say "there is an objective truth" as in : "this music's quality sucks and anyone who listens to it has no taste it music", you're better of saying : "I don't like the quality of this music".
As for "The key difference between this and the type of formula that a record label might use is that the music formula is used to generate sales, not to express a creative impulse." There are two wasy to argue against this:
At the very least I agree with you that to some extent there are always going to be artists who sell their souls to the labels. But that doesn't prove that most of pop music is like that. Far from it. I do agree they rely on forumulas (but not the kind of formulas you talk about) to use an accepted method to express their ideas, this usually doesn't change the ideas being expressed.
I do agree with you to a certain extent, but I have problems with they way you argue stuff
Furthermore, last time you were arguing that people don't 'enjoy music' , which you don't seem to want to bring up this time, so i'm guessing you agree with me on that point (that it is simply impossible to make an assertion like that). So lets examine your 'quality' argument. Heres the arguments I see comming out of your reply :
Formulaic music is bad quality and isn't genuine and most popular music is formulaic.
handmade furniture would always be better than machine made simply because it is hand made (and not machine made) and then you apply this to music.
To your first assertion I would argue, that
Just because its formulaic doesn't mean its not genuine. Maybe I know what to expess, but I don't know how to express it, and as a result I turn to a formula where I can better potray my ideas. In this example think of poetry. (ie. Quatrain, which is a sort of formula (style) that is used to design how the idea is potrayed but doesn't define the ideas being potrayed)
Most of all popular music is almost never forumlaic (even beyonce and britney spears consider what they do as art, and DO put time and effort into their work). Except for the subject matter, I almost never see a similarity between the songs of these artists. And remember subject matters are usually controlled by culture and current events (not record companies).
Most pop bands are already making songs before the record companies sign them up, which means they're doing stuff in a genuine manner. By this I mean: they aren't mindless dolls that do everything the record companies tell them to.
On your second point I would argue:
The analogy doesn't apply because music is far more subjective (it sounds different to different people).
What if I like the target furniture more because I like the minimalist design? Why does that make me a 'bad quality' type person? Once again you've missed my core point that : quality is subjective!!!!!!! Here is an example tied to music: Imagine there are two musicians. The first works for hours and hours (but has no real talent) and comes up with nonsensical lyrics (at least to your ears). The other works for only 2 seconds and has something that makes you want to dance. Just because one put more hours into it does not mean that his work is higher quality! It always depends on who is judging! As you say: "There are exceptions of course. Sometimes there are unskilled craftsmen who do bad work." This exception is a pretty big one and harms your argument substantially in my oppinion.
So here is my big picture: Art is subjective. Therefore our sense of quality differs all the time. Also most music made out there comes from the heart, it is not a 'machine' that is making the music, it is a person. Even if the person tries his very best to stick with formulas, he is inevitably going to put his personality (ie. what he thinks, how he speaks, what phrases he uses) into the music. As a result, some people may identify with his view of the world and listen to his music often and call it 'quality' whereas someone else may differ in oppionon. Central to this debate is my view of 'quality'. You assume quality means that the person works really hard at it. I assume quality means that the person witnessing it, likes it.
Was there ever a time when pop music was more than a formula? Look as far back as the 40's. Mostly trite, fomulaic crap. I think the reality is that the majority of people don't really *enjoy* music or have any real preferences. They mostly just listen to whatever is on the radio and whatever is in fashon. Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits.
Why on earth is this insightful. How can you make such a random accusation taht "most people don't really enjoy music"? Wow, you don't even justify it. I'm really into music, and when I hear bands like: 'audioslave' on radio I do enjoy it. Sometimes there are songs I do not like, that doesn't mean the songs are inherently bad, it just means that it's not my kind of tune. Also, just because I don't like the songs, it doesn't mean that others who listen to the songs do not enjoy music. Keep in mind: music is subjective. All art is. So what is 'quality' music to you, may sound like crap to me. I hate elitist statements such as these as much as I hate the record studios.
" With all the press they received about it... they should."
They'd have gotten this much press if they decided to take a vacation for a week. Doesn't mean its a good idea.
wow, you seem to not understand my point at all! lol. I'll try to be more clear this time, as this is getting kind of pointless.
I suggest you look at my original response. If I may do a loose quote/paraphrase, what you said was that American universities should rightfully recruit foreign students because they weren't inflicted with American culture. If you think American culture is an infliction (or affliction - the terms share a common root and meaning), and you're an American, then I suggest you emigrate. If you're not an American, then your dual standard is amazing to say the least.
1. I can be an american (i'm not, but lets assume for a second I am) and still be a part of a counterculture (and therefore reject the mainstream culture of america) therefore I can still be American and still criticize its culture.
2. My argument is that they recruit them because THEY think that diversity is good (not because american culture is bad). The rationale is : difference is good.
Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm just going by the writings of far smarter people than I.
Well if you quoted their warrant, then maybe I can respond to them. Otherwise there is no argumentation going on, all you're saying is: "someone told me that this is true, so you should prove me wrong else accept that it is true". The burden is on you to prove why you're right, otherwise you aren't making a point.
No, your argument is that diversity is good for (and needed by) American universities, but not necessarily for universities in other countries. If diversity is good, then all should practice it. Given that American universities are far ahead in "diversity", your focus should be on getting foreign universities to practice diversity.
You don't understand my argument. My argument is not about what I think, but is simply an observation of what each side thinks. In my opinion other countries should step up american admissions, but I also understand why they do not do this (but that doesn't make it correct).
Does condemning America for past slavery while other countries still practice it do anything to help those still enslaved? Not really, although it may give you a warm fuzzy about your imagined enlightened attitude. What?? Does that mean America should go back to slavery? No. In the same way, america should stick with admitting international students even though other countries do not follow suit.
"Sorry, just because others don't do it does mean it's true that it's a one-way street. Being an apologist doesn't change that."
What on earth do you mean? All I'm saying is that the fact that others don't follow it does not really harm the viability of the argument given that there are other reasons why these people don't follow it. Please clarify your argument. thanks.
I then give you the reasons
1. Prejudice
2. Because they THINK they have enough diversity
On point one you reply :
"How can a fan of diversity like yourself believe that the homogenous student bodies in European or Asian universities are diverse (enough) when compared to the diversity of race, nationality, age, and class in American universities? America is already the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet to start with."
You aren't reading my words, what I'm trying to say is that They have a preception that there is enough diversity (not me). Also I think you're making an assumption when you say 'America is the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet'.
You then reply :
"No, I don't get your point - you just proved mine. If the lack of outreach to American students is because of preconceived opinions about them, that is called prejudice, which is a demonstration of intolerance, and it certainly doesn't embrace diversity as a goal."
The problem with this is: just because others are prejudiced towards americans, does not mean that americans should be prejudiced towards them. Furthermore, (assuming) they don't embrace diversity as much as the u.s is no reason not to embrace diversity ourselves. You haven't really argued against the core of my argumentation (that diveresity is good), all you've done is say, "others don't believe diversity is good", which doesn't really help increase the overall discourse happening here.
Example, America got rid of slavery but at the same time there were countries in the world that didn't. Just because other countries disagreed on the question of slavery, did that make slavery right? Hell no.
I'd hate to be a negative kinda person, but every dubbed anime i've come across (including the voices I've seen in this one) 'suck' compared to their japanese couterparts. The english language just doesn't show enough emotions, its simply not expressive enough. I don't think its possible to do a good dub, which is why everyone should just WATCH THE SUBS (which are usually included in the dvds)!!! I was outraged when I heard the voices for the naruto dubs (shown on cartoon network). They couldn't even pronouce naruto's name right. haha. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I hope they continue trying to bring anime to the U.S.
Just because others don't do it doesn't mean its not true. Also there could be plenty of reasons why they don't do it :
1. Because of the reputation the U.S has around the world
2. Because maybe these universities don't follow that same philosophy (or believe they have enough diversity).
3. too tired to think... lol
but i think you get my point. most likely it's cause of reason #1, the perception of the u.s isn't very good out there, most people just assume kids from the u.s are arrogant and don't care about the world. I think however most U.S universities have study abroad programs so that could help.
the geek community will eaisly sidestep this, on the otherhand... a lay person probably doesn't even know what a gnutella client is and probably doesn't know about alternatives such as bittorrent.
Slashdot Mirror
what are you talking about? I went to real.com (it loaded up just fine on firefox". Clicked on the listen for free button. Downloaded the plugin for firefox. Signed up. And it started playing music. Seems like an okay execution. No problems for me (except ofcourse the 25 play limit / mo).
Yeah, I saw the moderation but couldn't figure out where the punchline was... sounded like a true story. Crazy slashdot mods....
while they're at it, why don't they make apple open up their media format? We all know they're the one's with the real monopoly on selling online music.
Why is it environmentally friendly? You're still burning fossil fuels to get electricity to get the hydrogen from the water. The only difference is the location of the pollution has changed from the car to whereever they produce the hydrogen.
"What kinds of precautions will be in place to keep someone else from signing you up for every rerun of Will and Grace or General Hospital?"
a username and a password? the same things that keep people from accessing your webmail.. etc..
think about it this way: with every child having a laptop, all you'll need is 1cd with all the text/diagrams/flash stuff to teach the kid. All he has to do is copy and paste the files onto the harddrive and pass on the cd to the kid next to him. we won't need to print out books anymore for them, we'll just have a bunch of teachers in the u.s donate the time to write this stuff up, have a bunch of programmers/designers make it interactive and viola: the kid can learn by himself. obviously the above would be targeted towards children around the age of 10. but it would probably work as long as the parents supported them. also, getting used to a laptop would help them in the future (pretty much every job nowadays in the U.S reqs some tech experience).
actually I love their portal. On one side I have the slashdot rss feed (along with a couple more at the bottom) and next to it I have my gmail feed. its very easy and gets me the info FAST, all i doo is press : alt+home when I want to check my mail, search or check out the new feeds. due to my broadband connection it doesn't slow the page loading down, nor is it intrusive.
then you're probably loading too much stuff at startup. I also have an amd64 laptop and startup only takes about a miniute (max).
why is this flamebait? I was just coutering the misunderstanding that linux never contributed anything to society. I did not flame bill gates nor did I say his contributions were useless. huh?
linux is *in it self* the donation. How much money did Linus sell linux for? NOTHING. Add to this the time contributions of the entire community and you have something that rivals gate's contributions. Linux is a boon the the economy, freedom... all all the other buzzwords that are alive and well in American politics today.
in related news: CaptDeuce is being sued by aol for realeasing important trade secrets on a public forum (slashdot).
haha. okay. sorry i offended you. I didn't purposely try to misrepresent you, but I understand that I did to a certain extent. Sorry.
strangest comment ever.
All i can say is that you aren't very critical.
9 91p-57008c.html) , they must have some other motviation? Fame? Getting their message out? Furthermore, statments like this :
Much like alot of your argumentation, this has very little warrant. I'll try not to nit-pick every argument here this time. Just what I think is very important.
First off all you argue that critics have a 'better' ear for music. That is completly untrue, and even if it were, it would be impossible to tell which critic really has a good ear and which is just making it all up. I remember when pink floyd (a band I consider to be very high quality) came out with "Dark Side of the Moon", some 'critics' were bashing it like crazy. Turns out, the album has outlasted its critics and has become one of rock n' rolls most influential album. Even if someone else is writing britney spear's music that doesn't mean that the music doesn't come from the heart. That someone could actually feel what he is talking about. So you should probably take recommendations from a critic who talks good about music you like, but you shouldn't say "the quality of my music sucks because he said so".
Did you know that most starting bands get paid very little? I read one article that stated that each individual in the band earned about as much as a janitor! Surely, gettng that much money (source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/60
In the case of someone like Britney Spears, such stars spend a lot more time on things like choreography for live shows and they tend to let the song writters and record labels dictate the content. really hold NO MERIT WHAT SO EVER, because it is simply an ASSUMPTION!
I just feel that alot of your ideas seem to contradict what my notion of music is. So let me ask you, why defines quality? If it is the ear (who ever's listening) then we can't define quality at all because it'll differ from person to person (this is my overall argumentation). So please, in your next post please point out what exactly defines quality for you as that could eaisly clear up the debate in seconds. Your previous statement: It is all, ultimately, subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't look at it critically and discuss subjective impressions. makes it look like you agree with me (with that one exception). We CAN discuss subjective impessions, but we can't say "there is an objective truth" as in : "this music's quality sucks and anyone who listens to it has no taste it music", you're better of saying : "I don't like the quality of this music".
As for "The key difference between this and the type of formula that a record label might use is that the music formula is used to generate sales, not to express a creative impulse." There are two wasy to argue against this:
At the very least I agree with you that to some extent there are always going to be artists who sell their souls to the labels. But that doesn't prove that most of pop music is like that. Far from it. I do agree they rely on forumulas (but not the kind of formulas you talk about) to use an accepted method to express their ideas, this usually doesn't change the ideas being expressed.
Furthermore, last time you were arguing that people don't 'enjoy music' , which you don't seem to want to bring up this time, so i'm guessing you agree with me on that point (that it is simply impossible to make an assertion like that). So lets examine your 'quality' argument. Heres the arguments I see comming out of your reply :
To your first assertion I would argue, that
On your second point I would argue:
So here is my big picture: Art is subjective. Therefore our sense of quality differs all the time. Also most music made out there comes from the heart, it is not a 'machine' that is making the music, it is a person. Even if the person tries his very best to stick with formulas, he is inevitably going to put his personality (ie. what he thinks, how he speaks, what phrases he uses) into the music. As a result, some people may identify with his view of the world and listen to his music often and call it 'quality' whereas someone else may differ in oppionon. Central to this debate is my view of 'quality'. You assume quality means that the person works really hard at it. I assume quality means that the person witnessing it, likes it.
Was there ever a time when pop music was more than a formula? Look as far back as the 40's. Mostly trite, fomulaic crap. I think the reality is that the majority of people don't really *enjoy* music or have any real preferences. They mostly just listen to whatever is on the radio and whatever is in fashon. Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits.
Why on earth is this insightful. How can you make such a random accusation taht "most people don't really enjoy music"? Wow, you don't even justify it. I'm really into music, and when I hear bands like: 'audioslave' on radio I do enjoy it. Sometimes there are songs I do not like, that doesn't mean the songs are inherently bad, it just means that it's not my kind of tune. Also, just because I don't like the songs, it doesn't mean that others who listen to the songs do not enjoy music. Keep in mind: music is subjective. All art is. So what is 'quality' music to you, may sound like crap to me. I hate elitist statements such as these as much as I hate the record studios.
" With all the press they received about it... they should."
They'd have gotten this much press if they decided to take a vacation for a week. Doesn't mean its a good idea.
rule 4: make a comment that points out the *obvious* bias of slashdot and get rated +5 insightful.
I guess you didn't read the date of the article: 09.12.03
wow, you seem to not understand my point at all! lol. I'll try to be more clear this time, as this is getting kind of pointless.
I suggest you look at my original response. If I may do a loose quote/paraphrase, what you said was that American universities should rightfully recruit foreign students because they weren't inflicted with American culture. If you think American culture is an infliction (or affliction - the terms share a common root and meaning), and you're an American, then I suggest you emigrate. If you're not an American, then your dual standard is amazing to say the least.
1. I can be an american (i'm not, but lets assume for a second I am) and still be a part of a counterculture (and therefore reject the mainstream culture of america) therefore I can still be American and still criticize its culture.
2. My argument is that they recruit them because THEY think that diversity is good (not because american culture is bad). The rationale is : difference is good.
Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm just going by the writings of far smarter people than I.
Well if you quoted their warrant, then maybe I can respond to them. Otherwise there is no argumentation going on, all you're saying is: "someone told me that this is true, so you should prove me wrong else accept that it is true". The burden is on you to prove why you're right, otherwise you aren't making a point.
No, your argument is that diversity is good for (and needed by) American universities, but not necessarily for universities in other countries. If diversity is good, then all should practice it. Given that American universities are far ahead in "diversity", your focus should be on getting foreign universities to practice diversity.
You don't understand my argument. My argument is not about what I think, but is simply an observation of what each side thinks. In my opinion other countries should step up american admissions, but I also understand why they do not do this (but that doesn't make it correct).
Does condemning America for past slavery while other countries still practice it do anything to help those still enslaved? Not really, although it may give you a warm fuzzy about your imagined enlightened attitude.
What?? Does that mean America should go back to slavery? No. In the same way, america should stick with admitting international students even though other countries do not follow suit.
"Sorry, just because others don't do it does mean it's true that it's a one-way street. Being an apologist doesn't change that."
What on earth do you mean? All I'm saying is that the fact that others don't follow it does not really harm the viability of the argument given that there are other reasons why these people don't follow it. Please clarify your argument. thanks.
I then give you the reasons
1. Prejudice
2. Because they THINK they have enough diversity
On point one you reply :
"How can a fan of diversity like yourself believe that the homogenous student bodies in European or Asian universities are diverse (enough) when compared to the diversity of race, nationality, age, and class in American universities? America is already the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet to start with."
You aren't reading my words, what I'm trying to say is that They have a preception that there is enough diversity (not me). Also I think you're making an assumption when you say 'America is the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet'.
You then reply :
"No, I don't get your point - you just proved mine. If the lack of outreach to American students is because of preconceived opinions about them, that is called prejudice, which is a demonstration of intolerance, and it certainly doesn't embrace diversity as a goal."
The problem with this is: just because others are prejudiced towards americans, does not mean that americans should be prejudiced towards them. Furthermore, (assuming) they don't embrace diversity as much as the u.s is no reason not to embrace diversity ourselves. You haven't really argued against the core of my argumentation (that diveresity is good), all you've done is say, "others don't believe diversity is good", which doesn't really help increase the overall discourse happening here.
Example, America got rid of slavery but at the same time there were countries in the world that didn't. Just because other countries disagreed on the question of slavery, did that make slavery right? Hell no.
I stand corrected. I agree that it is infact a cultural difference and not a lingual one. But an important difference nonetheless.
I'd hate to be a negative kinda person, but every dubbed anime i've come across (including the voices I've seen in this one) 'suck' compared to their japanese couterparts. The english language just doesn't show enough emotions, its simply not expressive enough. I don't think its possible to do a good dub, which is why everyone should just WATCH THE SUBS (which are usually included in the dvds)!!! I was outraged when I heard the voices for the naruto dubs (shown on cartoon network). They couldn't even pronouce naruto's name right. haha. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I hope they continue trying to bring anime to the U.S.
Just because others don't do it doesn't mean its not true. Also there could be plenty of reasons why they don't do it :
1. Because of the reputation the U.S has around the world
2. Because maybe these universities don't follow that same philosophy (or believe they have enough diversity).
3. too tired to think... lol
but i think you get my point. most likely it's cause of reason #1, the perception of the u.s isn't very good out there, most people just assume kids from the u.s are arrogant and don't care about the world. I think however most U.S universities have study abroad programs so that could help.
the geek community will eaisly sidestep this, on the otherhand ... a lay person probably doesn't even know what a gnutella client is and probably doesn't know about alternatives such as bittorrent.