attn: mods: if you wanted to counterbalance the unfair "flamebait" mod, why choose "informative" of all things to describe this useless post?! Why not...funny, maybe?
Thank you. This claim in the Reuters article blows me away: "They said the finding casts doubt on theories that babies are born knowing all the possible sounds in all of the world's languages."
What modern linguist / cognitive linguist actually thinks this??? It boggles my mind that the people fighting this retarded "language war" are so one-sided either way. Anyone seriously interested in current research in the direction this field is going might be into Jerome Feldman's work on the Neural Theory of Language at UC Berkeley. It's still in its early stages but (as far as I know) he's the first to offer a genuine "bridging theory" between neuroscience and language / linguistics, while building on the excellent work of many others, notably George Lakoff.
It's a breath of fresh air to deal with real research for once instead of armchair science (so sorry, Chomsky).
Well, that's an interesting analysis, and I would certainly agree with #2. But where's option number 3: He just doesn't care about making a bunch of money? At the risk of sounding like a "communist nutjob," is this not even an imaginable position to most people? I'll hold out my silly, optimistic hope that he simply wanted to give the music away. I don't find that very hard to believe. A lot of bands have released internet-only albums after a career of published music (the band Self is the first one I think of). Sure, they may not be household names, but they've made money in the past off of album sales, and yet they curiously decided to give away an album. Maybe they like making music?
I know what you mean, man (or madame). I've been there too, lots of sleeping in cars on tour. I want people to experience my music as well, and if they feel so inclined, buy it. I would absolutely love to live off my music--but my point is, I don't expect to be able to. If somehow everybody loved it *and* I was savvy enough to jump on that excitement, I bet I could make a few bucks. But I don't expect to be able to. I wouldn't imagine a typewriter salesman would expect to sell a million typewriters next year, given the market. And yet here we have a case of record stores getting pissed off that a popular artist is "denying" them money because they've come to expect that money. Absolute gall, and it's making me sick.
However they see fit. They can sell music, sell themselves, sell out, maybe quit and go into marketing, do whatever they can think of to live.
My point is simply that there's this absurd expectation that music-as-product should somehow generate mountains of profits. IMO It's absurd to expect any profits at all. Don't get me wrong--I *want* musicians to live on music. I would love to live on my several music projects--who wouldn't? But when anyone starts demanding money--by litigation, lobbying congress, general whining, whatever--they seem to have completely forgotten that there's no magical guarantee for anyone to make money doing anything. This is what upsets me. Record stores bitching about a famous artist giving something away for free, when THEY could have been making money off of it? Boo-hoo! The gall just astounds me! If they want to go into the business of exploitation, why not be pros and start a child-labor camp?
What is interesting to me is the European tendency toward goverment-artist subsidies (grants, etc) for bands and musicians. Have you ever toured in Italy? I HIGHLY recommend it--they're actually interested in maintaining and nourishing culture. As far as I can tell the idea of granting the talented to pursue and generate their talent benefits everyone except people whose sole existence in life is to generate money. And when an artist of any medium has the ability to execute their work without the pressure of their work as a commodity, I will cheerfully guarantee you nothing but good results.
I want to scream in these executive's faces: "The value of music is not monetary."
That's all there is to it. Music obviously can be bought and sold, and I don't care if you buy it or sell it. But the fact that these labels and businessmen cannot fathom a world in which it is not bought or sold is just disgusting.
Markets change, douchebags. Everybody lives with it. But the real value of music isn't going to change as long as humans have ears.
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
In all seriousness, I would not mind seeing some of the energy behind the ideas and innovation Google has come up with over the years put into a new OS, or at least, window manager. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with OSX;)
Thirdly it can park in small spaces in cities which other cars can't. Exactly. I drove one of these around Basel, Switzerland and it was a dream -- you can maneuver it anywhere and park anywhere! Haha, it was kind of like a really, really awesome golf cart!
I've been thinking a lot about this ever since I first heard about the Creation Museum, and I find myself powerfully troubled and conflicted -- not over its content, which I know exactly where I stand on -- but over my intense desire to decry this "museum" as an utter abomination. I have always tried to endorse tolerance and understanding, and I've always let people believe whatever they want.
But I have a big, big problem when it comes to the public actions of those believers. How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?
I don't know what to do. I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want. It's the first time I find myself wanting to "think of the children" who may very well grow up into the willfully ignorant bible beaters that are founding this "museum."
And yet there I am, suddenly the intolerant monster I have never been able to stand. Yet I tremble to imagine a future dark ages in America, where real science -- the search for the evidence of the reality of the universe -- is stoned in the streets and systematically rubbed out.
Please: before you mod me into oblivion, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Well, you're right, you make a lot of really good points. And I agree that functionality / features are really important to certain markets. I think my original post is geared towards adoption by the greater public, people who probably never thought they would want anything close to a smart phone (course, on the other hand, the iPhone is going to cost HOW MUCH??). So the target market, I suspect, is a bit different, with different priorities.
That said, I am totally with you on a personal level regarding 3G (SSH would be great) and especially extensibility. I'm really anxious about the whole "no third-party development" stuff... I'm hoping it's just misinformation and hasn't been proven one way or the other?? Because yes, that would be just unbelievably sad. I can kind of understand Apple's position in terms of quality control (meaning: if nobody can write software for the iPhone, nobody can write AWFUL software for it) but come on! They MUST realize how important third party and independent developers are??!?
I'm going to reiterate what I said yesterday about the iPhone:
It's not features that will make or break a smartphone device as the iPhone comes out, it's the ingenuity of the interface. Just because this has a touch-screen doesn't mean it's going to be a fraction as intuitive or usable for the average person. Windows Mobile is not a platform based on new ideas.
--Ted
It's not the phones that suck. There are many great phones out there. I think you're still making the same mistake that most of us slashdot readers tend to make. Making a good phone is not about features or capabilities. It's about inventing ways of using and interacting with the device that allow anyone, anywhere, at any time use it without learning entire paradigms of computing that are highly likely to be unfamiliar to them.
We all have a crapload of experience with computing, and we're generally so familiar with the tropes and ideas of interacting with computers that we never have to think about it. But, as should be more obvious, most of the world (read: consumers) doesn't have that experience, and probably never will. And for most of them, they don't need it and don't want it.
The proof is in the pudding: If you can design a device that anyone can use, it's going to sell. If there was a cheap version of the iPhone available I'd bet a good deal of money on its success. Even the expensive one will probably do pretty well.
I'm probably like the 10th person to make this very point on this story so far, but people here are so resistant to believing that not everyone knows what a "menu" is. Surprise, but these things are not obvious to everyone, and that's not their fault. Apple is inventing a lot of genuinely innovative ways of using their technology, and as a fellow interactivity designer it's really freaking inspiring! If you can come up with new ways of using a computer that require literally no instruction, that's progress. And we've been observing over the past couple of years that Apple has a serious knack for this ability. (Another notable company: IDEO.) Apple's not the only company with talented designers with truly new ideas, but significantly, pretty much all the other technology companies still haven't come around to honestly believing that design matters--and I'm not talking about the pretty package the technology comes in, I'm talking about understanding how it's really going to be used and how that experience can be improved.
Imagine going to an artist's gallery, and you see a well-done drawing and decide to sit there and draw it yourself. The artist would probably yell at you
But yes, the point is, it's not about the copy at all, it's what you use it for. That's what Creative Commons addresses. Now if we can just stop these maniacs from continuing to abuse the old broken copyright laws...
Slashdot Mirror
attn: mods: if you wanted to counterbalance the unfair "flamebait" mod, why choose "informative" of all things to describe this useless post?! Why not...funny, maybe?
Thank you! Finally, a succinct reply to those trolls... Well said!!
Thank you. This claim in the Reuters article blows me away: "They said the finding casts doubt on theories that babies are born knowing all the possible sounds in all of the world's languages."
What modern linguist / cognitive linguist actually thinks this??? It boggles my mind that the people fighting this retarded "language war" are so one-sided either way. Anyone seriously interested in current research in the direction this field is going might be into Jerome Feldman's work on the Neural Theory of Language at UC Berkeley. It's still in its early stages but (as far as I know) he's the first to offer a genuine "bridging theory" between neuroscience and language / linguistics, while building on the excellent work of many others, notably George Lakoff.
It's a breath of fresh air to deal with real research for once instead of armchair science (so sorry, Chomsky).
Watch the video and use those mod points!
Build your own multi-touch sensitive display device? It's surprisingly easy:
A LLSTEPS
http://www.instructables.com/id/EJIXKOEF3ER7VN5/?
Well, that's an interesting analysis, and I would certainly agree with #2. But where's option number 3: He just doesn't care about making a bunch of money? At the risk of sounding like a "communist nutjob," is this not even an imaginable position to most people? I'll hold out my silly, optimistic hope that he simply wanted to give the music away. I don't find that very hard to believe. A lot of bands have released internet-only albums after a career of published music (the band Self is the first one I think of). Sure, they may not be household names, but they've made money in the past off of album sales, and yet they curiously decided to give away an album. Maybe they like making music?
I know what you mean, man (or madame). I've been there too, lots of sleeping in cars on tour. I want people to experience my music as well, and if they feel so inclined, buy it. I would absolutely love to live off my music--but my point is, I don't expect to be able to. If somehow everybody loved it *and* I was savvy enough to jump on that excitement, I bet I could make a few bucks. But I don't expect to be able to. I wouldn't imagine a typewriter salesman would expect to sell a million typewriters next year, given the market. And yet here we have a case of record stores getting pissed off that a popular artist is "denying" them money because they've come to expect that money. Absolute gall, and it's making me sick.
However they see fit. They can sell music, sell themselves, sell out, maybe quit and go into marketing, do whatever they can think of to live.
My point is simply that there's this absurd expectation that music-as-product should somehow generate mountains of profits. IMO It's absurd to expect any profits at all. Don't get me wrong--I *want* musicians to live on music. I would love to live on my several music projects--who wouldn't? But when anyone starts demanding money--by litigation, lobbying congress, general whining, whatever--they seem to have completely forgotten that there's no magical guarantee for anyone to make money doing anything. This is what upsets me. Record stores bitching about a famous artist giving something away for free, when THEY could have been making money off of it? Boo-hoo! The gall just astounds me! If they want to go into the business of exploitation, why not be pros and start a child-labor camp?
What is interesting to me is the European tendency toward goverment-artist subsidies (grants, etc) for bands and musicians. Have you ever toured in Italy? I HIGHLY recommend it--they're actually interested in maintaining and nourishing culture. As far as I can tell the idea of granting the talented to pursue and generate their talent benefits everyone except people whose sole existence in life is to generate money. And when an artist of any medium has the ability to execute their work without the pressure of their work as a commodity, I will cheerfully guarantee you nothing but good results.
That *would* solve a lot of pesky DRM issues ...
I want to scream in these executive's faces: "The value of music is not monetary."
That's all there is to it. Music obviously can be bought and sold, and I don't care if you buy it or sell it. But the fact that these labels and businessmen cannot fathom a world in which it is not bought or sold is just disgusting.
Markets change, douchebags. Everybody lives with it. But the real value of music isn't going to change as long as humans have ears.
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
;)
In all seriousness, I would not mind seeing some of the energy behind the ideas and innovation Google has come up with over the years put into a new OS, or at least, window manager. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with OSX
This is why I am a member of the ACLU. I hope this project can expand all over the nation.
Ridged? Like a more uncomfortable version of "ribbed for her pleasure?"
OK, sure. What are you getting at?
Thank you :) Why did you post as AC?
What do you mean? I expect to be decomposing. But I'm not sure why you quoted "systematically rubbed out?"
Thank you :) It's definitely a good reminder. :)
I've been thinking a lot about this ever since I first heard about the Creation Museum, and I find myself powerfully troubled and conflicted -- not over its content, which I know exactly where I stand on -- but over my intense desire to decry this "museum" as an utter abomination. I have always tried to endorse tolerance and understanding, and I've always let people believe whatever they want.
But I have a big, big problem when it comes to the public actions of those believers. How many thousands of children and impressionable adults will never even have the chance to learn basic tenets of logic, reason and science after being indoctrinated by a "museum" like this and the cooing, gentle voice of its proponents, telling children stories about dinosaurs living next to adam and eve and jesus?
I don't know what to do. I fully believe in Voltaire's classic quotation on freedom of speech and belief. But in this instance, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to defend the "Creation Museum's" right to make up whatever crazy "facts" they want. It's the first time I find myself wanting to "think of the children" who may very well grow up into the willfully ignorant bible beaters that are founding this "museum."
And yet there I am, suddenly the intolerant monster I have never been able to stand. Yet I tremble to imagine a future dark ages in America, where real science -- the search for the evidence of the reality of the universe -- is stoned in the streets and systematically rubbed out.
Please: before you mod me into oblivion, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Precisely why I've created this helpful annotated version of the graphic in TFA:
Bear Facts
Why? Will these games be released for OS X?
Well, you're right, you make a lot of really good points. And I agree that functionality / features are really important to certain markets. I think my original post is geared towards adoption by the greater public, people who probably never thought they would want anything close to a smart phone (course, on the other hand, the iPhone is going to cost HOW MUCH??). So the target market, I suspect, is a bit different, with different priorities.
... I'm hoping it's just misinformation and hasn't been proven one way or the other?? Because yes, that would be just unbelievably sad. I can kind of understand Apple's position in terms of quality control (meaning: if nobody can write software for the iPhone, nobody can write AWFUL software for it) but come on! They MUST realize how important third party and independent developers are??!?
That said, I am totally with you on a personal level regarding 3G (SSH would be great) and especially extensibility. I'm really anxious about the whole "no third-party development" stuff
Thanks for your reply! --Ted
I'm going to reiterate what I said yesterday about the iPhone:
It's not features that will make or break a smartphone device as the iPhone comes out, it's the ingenuity of the interface. Just because this has a touch-screen doesn't mean it's going to be a fraction as intuitive or usable for the average person. Windows Mobile is not a platform based on new ideas. --Ted
We all have a crapload of experience with computing, and we're generally so familiar with the tropes and ideas of interacting with computers that we never have to think about it. But, as should be more obvious, most of the world (read: consumers) doesn't have that experience, and probably never will. And for most of them, they don't need it and don't want it.
The proof is in the pudding: If you can design a device that anyone can use, it's going to sell. If there was a cheap version of the iPhone available I'd bet a good deal of money on its success. Even the expensive one will probably do pretty well.
I'm probably like the 10th person to make this very point on this story so far, but people here are so resistant to believing that not everyone knows what a "menu" is. Surprise, but these things are not obvious to everyone, and that's not their fault. Apple is inventing a lot of genuinely innovative ways of using their technology, and as a fellow interactivity designer it's really freaking inspiring! If you can come up with new ways of using a computer that require literally no instruction, that's progress. And we've been observing over the past couple of years that Apple has a serious knack for this ability. (Another notable company: IDEO.) Apple's not the only company with talented designers with truly new ideas, but significantly, pretty much all the other technology companies still haven't come around to honestly believing that design matters--and I'm not talking about the pretty package the technology comes in, I'm talking about understanding how it's really going to be used and how that experience can be improved.
But yes, the point is, it's not about the copy at all, it's what you use it for. That's what Creative Commons addresses. Now if we can just stop these maniacs from continuing to abuse the old broken copyright laws...