10-15% is EXACTLY the point. 10 years ago it wasn't Facebook, it was TV, and it wasn't 15% but 0.01%.
And before the advent of broadcast/record media, the only way to see performance art was to be present while it was performed. 0.01% would not have done the job.
The idea that art and culture is almost entirely a spectator sport is a new one, and a bad one. I see the death of the old media monopolies as the first step to escaping it.
This post stinks of class-envy. Don't you go psychoanalyzing me. I love capitalism, and if I ever get an opportunity to sell out and get rich doing music, I promise that I will be off like a shot.
I'm sure Tom Cruise probably does love acting (though there's plenty of evidence against if you've ever watched him ACT) but I know for damn sure that he isn't the richest actor in the country by virtue of being the best, and I am equally sure that we could have given that money to other people who would have used it to make better art.
The problem that I see with the state of pop culture is that it is based on a broadcast model, where there's very few providers of content and a zillion consumers. This was a technological necessity when the press, and later radio and TV and recorded media, were the big things.
Since those media were great at distributing a single stream of data to a whole bunch of people, the most efficient way to monetize content was to use marketing to make the world's music and TV and film tastes as homogeneous as possible.
This is why Hollywood makes so much boring crap, and why that boring crap is so commercially successful. They have spent billions of dollars convincing the entire world to like the same type of movie.
Do you personally know that each A-list celebrity doesn't enjoy their job?
No, but I do know that every amateur musician, actor, or author whom i patronize, does. They sure as hell aren't doing it for the money.
Do they all of the sudden not love doing it for the money once they become famous? Or do we demote them again?
You're missing my point. I am not saying we should never have famous people. I am saying that we must eventually ditch the mass-distribution model (in which it was most efficient to convince all of America to have 5 or 10 favourite actors, rather than produce enough diverse content to cater to all tastes).
If amateur artists instead get popular through read-write channels such as YouTube and Kuro5hin and so forth, we will end up with a much more vibrant, diverse cultural landscape, and we won't have to subsidize a whole inflated, elitist, drug-addled industry to access it.
Because I'd rather buy media produced on small scales, by people who produce for the love of it. They do a better job for less money, and there's more of them to choose from.
Tom Cruise, for instance, is worth something close a quarter billion dollars. Would you say he has produced more cultural value than 500 actors would, if in their careers they made half a mill each?
All I am talking about is how things are. We can argue until the cows come home about how data ought to behave, but if it doesn't behave in a way that makes it easy to leverage it into money, we aren't going to be able to talk it into acting differently.
That is why I specified "not wrong, just unrealistic."
...youtube will still be around in its current form?
I said nothing of the sort. All I claim is that today's kids are going to understand data differently from us. I'm sure the businesses catering to them will change names and owners and business models many times along the way.
Without any kind of commercial industry, all of the content will be gone.
Poppycock. Music and art existed before they could be monetized for mass-production, and they will continue to exist after they can't be monetized in this way anymore.
You're right that the big-money industry might collapse. Maybe it will be impossible to recoup an $80M film budget in the future, and so $80M films won't get made anymore. Maybe A-list celebrities will cease to exist.
Well, all currency is is a symbol of scarcity. The entire point of a dollar is that there are only so many in existence, whereas an illegal copy of Photoshop will shop your photos just as effectively as a legitimate one.
But you're right about one thing: technology is getting better, and the physical anti-counterfeiting measures currently in use are not going to be adequate forever. Eventually our currency is going to have to be made of prime numbers or knapsack problems or similar.
Lots! Automatically downloading and installing code from an untrusted party is pretty much the only way to make sure your software continues working as expected.
Okay, but I think that compatiblist responses like this only serve to procrastinate the answer to this question.
Right now, the sanctity of bits is protected by lots of social mores and traditions. Copyright law is one of them. Another is the practice of including album art and liner notes in albums. The way we trade information in the commercial world still seems to ascribe value to owning the authentic recorded media, rather than just having access to the bits contained therein. This is the way we have learned to think, growing up buying albums and games and so on.
The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value. Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally.
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
I learned 3D animation on a pirated copy of 3d Studio Max. On my own, I could never justify the purchase of this piece of software, as at the time it was just a hobby.
Down the road, when I got a job at a university doing environment design, my boss had a quite understandable interest in not having pirated software installed on school computers. A copy was subsequently bought for me, and discreet inc. has warez to thank for that sale.
Is the creator who wants to be paid for his or her software simply inherently wrong?
Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do.
So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
It's tricky and can take some adjusting. A good place to start is around 2x or 3x as long as the highest latency spike you are likely to get in normal operation.
If you'd rather not measure that, just start with 10 seconds and swubtract 2s a day until it gets unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
Router on a stick!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+volt+times+1+ampere
Are you sure you're a qualified geek licensing agent?
Sir, I will pay you 40 shillings to make it rain upon my orchard!
Guys, guys.
We've got it covered. Just close your eyes, bend over, and wait for Silverlight.
Mods, this was a clever jab about the timeframe of such a project. C'mon.
but is the temperature 50 km above the surface of Venus hotter than the temperature 50 km above the surface of Mercury?
Probably. I can't imagine Mercury having much of an atmosphere at all above 50km.
I am insensitive, you Russian clod!
10-15% is EXACTLY the point. 10 years ago it wasn't Facebook, it was TV, and it wasn't 15% but 0.01%.
And before the advent of broadcast/record media, the only way to see performance art was to be present while it was performed. 0.01% would not have done the job.
The idea that art and culture is almost entirely a spectator sport is a new one, and a bad one. I see the death of the old media monopolies as the first step to escaping it.
This post stinks of class-envy.
Don't you go psychoanalyzing me. I love capitalism, and if I ever get an opportunity to sell out and get rich doing music, I promise that I will be off like a shot.
I'm sure Tom Cruise probably does love acting (though there's plenty of evidence against if you've ever watched him ACT) but I know for damn sure that he isn't the richest actor in the country by virtue of being the best, and I am equally sure that we could have given that money to other people who would have used it to make better art.
The problem that I see with the state of pop culture is that it is based on a broadcast model, where there's very few providers of content and a zillion consumers. This was a technological necessity when the press, and later radio and TV and recorded media, were the big things.
Since those media were great at distributing a single stream of data to a whole bunch of people, the most efficient way to monetize content was to use marketing to make the world's music and TV and film tastes as homogeneous as possible.
This is why Hollywood makes so much boring crap, and why that boring crap is so commercially successful. They have spent billions of dollars convincing the entire world to like the same type of movie.
No, but I do know that every amateur musician, actor, or author whom i patronize, does. They sure as hell aren't doing it for the money.
You're missing my point. I am not saying we should never have famous people. I am saying that we must eventually ditch the mass-distribution model (in which it was most efficient to convince all of America to have 5 or 10 favourite actors, rather than produce enough diverse content to cater to all tastes).
If amateur artists instead get popular through read-write channels such as YouTube and Kuro5hin and so forth, we will end up with a much more vibrant, diverse cultural landscape, and we won't have to subsidize a whole inflated, elitist, drug-addled industry to access it.
Because I'd rather buy media produced on small scales, by people who produce for the love of it. They do a better job for less money, and there's more of them to choose from.
Tom Cruise, for instance, is worth something close a quarter billion dollars. Would you say he has produced more cultural value than 500 actors would, if in their careers they made half a mill each?
Did I say the word "justified" anywhere?
All I am talking about is how things are. We can argue until the cows come home about how data ought to behave, but if it doesn't behave in a way that makes it easy to leverage it into money, we aren't going to be able to talk it into acting differently.
That is why I specified "not wrong, just unrealistic."
I said nothing of the sort. All I claim is that today's kids are going to understand data differently from us. I'm sure the businesses catering to them will change names and owners and business models many times along the way.
Poppycock. Music and art existed before they could be monetized for mass-production, and they will continue to exist after they can't be monetized in this way anymore.
You're right that the big-money industry might collapse. Maybe it will be impossible to recoup an $80M film budget in the future, and so $80M films won't get made anymore. Maybe A-list celebrities will cease to exist.
I can't wait.
Well, all currency is is a symbol of scarcity. The entire point of a dollar is that there are only so many in existence, whereas an illegal copy of Photoshop will shop your photos just as effectively as a legitimate one.
But you're right about one thing: technology is getting better, and the physical anti-counterfeiting measures currently in use are not going to be adequate forever. Eventually our currency is going to have to be made of prime numbers or knapsack problems or similar.
http://www.infopackets.com/news/security/2008/20080417_vista_security_update_bricks_usb_devices.htm
Lots! Automatically downloading and installing code from an untrusted party is pretty much the only way to make sure your software continues working as expected.
Okay, but I think that compatiblist responses like this only serve to procrastinate the answer to this question.
Right now, the sanctity of bits is protected by lots of social mores and traditions. Copyright law is one of them. Another is the practice of including album art and liner notes in albums. The way we trade information in the commercial world still seems to ascribe value to owning the authentic recorded media, rather than just having access to the bits contained therein. This is the way we have learned to think, growing up buying albums and games and so on.
The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value. Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally.
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
I learned 3D animation on a pirated copy of 3d Studio Max. On my own, I could never justify the purchase of this piece of software, as at the time it was just a hobby.
Down the road, when I got a job at a university doing environment design, my boss had a quite understandable interest in not having pirated software installed on school computers. A copy was subsequently bought for me, and discreet inc. has warez to thank for that sale.
Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do.
So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
I would mod you insightful but I just blew all my points.
of cruose it ins't.
WAITASEC
As it turns out, porn consumers have more money to spend than antiporn advocates.
Then you don't have a problem unless you go buying some DVDs!
A participle may be used in place of an infinitive. The OP is sound.
fixed.
It's tricky and can take some adjusting. A good place to start is around 2x or 3x as long as the highest latency spike you are likely to get in normal operation.
If you'd rather not measure that, just start with 10 seconds and swubtract 2s a day until it gets unstable.