If all your words and actions were stored endlessly, noone would ever get a job, etc. I'm hoping that would include the person interviewing you for the job...
Are you trying to be funny or something? I'd like to think so... but I'm also a huge fan of doing things the hard, but more rewarding way.
All modern studios are digital. The recording is digital, the music is mastered with digital tools and filters. Even in a music that sounds totally acoustic, there are plenty of sampled material, digitally injected and corrected. "Digitally injected and correct" and plastic sounding as possible. Yes, you're talking to somewhat of an analog purist. Not a complete purist, mind you, because I think that computers can add something to your music. But if you're going to use computers, be creative with them. Don't use them to mask your lack of talent, or, to be less dramatic, to mask your human element. Trent Reznor has made a career of making great creative music with digital means, but with an "analog mentality".
Hey, I just like more analog elements in my music, as opposed to more digital elements. I don't think that the spontaneous element of making mistakes and keeping them should be removed to make everything sound as slick as technologically possible.
Computers in music are everywhere. Analog instruments also. They work together, and produce music. There's no "fake music" and "real music". You're putting artificial boundaries and your snobbery where they don't belong. It wasn't long ago when people lamented how "artificial" CD-s sound like and hugged their "warm and real sounding" cassettes. You're just like them. That's a great sounding stereotype. I'm not name brand, though. Sony makes better stereotypes. They really make Britney Spears sound like she knows what she's doing. (yes, that's supposed to be funny... laugh)
For the most part, musicians use computers to make music, not follow misguided attempts to prove Linux best in everything. Correction: musicians use musical instruments (ie, guitars, drums, bass, cow bells...) to make music. People who think they are musicians use computers to emulate music.
Well I support the bands I like by buying merchandise from their websites...they get ALL the profit from that purchase and promotion. First of all, I think this response here is just for the sake of winning the argument. I don't really believe that you support bands by buying their t-shirts, hats or whatnot. And no, they don't get ALL the profit from those sales because they have to pay the t-shirt manufacturers, etc.
You have to pay someone in order to distribute your product, unless you know how to do it yourself. That includes both the t-shirt makers AND the record labels. The internet is making it easier for bands to distribute their music, but it is also making it easier for people who like to rip them off. But in the end, their music is their merchandise. It's the centerpiece of all their merchandise. Without it, you would never even have the opportunity to buy their other merchandise.
I will continue to pirate until all the profits from CDs go to those bands and I don't have to waste money on filler tracks or on other crappy tracks on the album. Creativity and quality of music is the laissez-faire of this market as far as I'm concerned. Well, here's a question for you. What makes you think that, if those bands receive "all" of the profits from the sale of a cd, that they will cease to record filler or crappy tracks?
Creativity and quality of music really has little to do with this. You'll continue to pirate music, even IF "all" (and I'd like to see you qualify the word "all") of the profit goes to the band. Why? Because it's just easier on your wallet that way.
It's no wonder why unrestricted free music has such an appeal...especially to those poor college students (like myself). Since when did it become an inalienable right to music for free that it took others their time and effort to create? I don't want to hear some lame ass excuse about how you're only paying for 5 or 6 good tracks, when the rest are crap. If you're really that conscientious about the music you listen to, then I doubt that there are many fillers on any of the albums you'd buy... unless you just happen to like Britney Spears or Sum 41, I dunno...
Anyway, I don't care how badly the RIAA is gouging the musicians. You're worse than the RIAA because the musicians don't get ANY money (either literally or figuratively) when you're ripping them off.
I get what you're saying, but that's just begging for Microsoft to find other ways to fork with you. I can just imagine how Microsoft might just install a bunch of their own worthless add-ons, designs and other pre-packaged crap on the browser. I'd uninstall their Firefox and go download it directly from Mozilla, just to be safe.
I definitely see the usefulness of getting them to permanently EXCLUDE Internet Explorer, however. I'd be 100% behind that initiative.
You are not the first to have said something similar. And I certainly won't be the last.
And who are you to say they aren't? (Hint: "It's the law", is not a good answer. Laws can and should be changed to reflect the times we are living in. Digital technology is such a change) Who are you to question who I am to say that they aren't?
Habit. You're conditioned to associate the packaging with the enjoyment of owning and being able to listen to a new piece of music. Newer generations that grow up with mp3s will not have this response. Besides, do you enjoy having to rip it to mp3 before you can transfer it to your mp3-player as well? Newer generations are being conditioned to be lying, thieving whores, who think they are entitled to a new piece of music just because it's easily available to download.
I'm confused here. Are there still people who pays for music on physical media? That's so 1990s! Yes. Believe it or not, I actually like the insert booklets and other such packaging, along with the music that is included on the disc.
The only people buying music on CDs today are doing it either out of guilt, habit, fear of new technology, or lack of knowledge. First of all, it's not "guilt" to pay someone for the work they do. It's not habit to go into a store and buy a cd. It may be for some people, but it's not a habit for me. I am also not afraid of new technology, but then again that's almost completely irrelevant to this discussion. Lastly, I'm certainly not suffering from a lack of knowledge.
I'm not going to waste time convincing you of anything because you seem pretty enamored of your own opinions. Just letting you know that you're wrong about the reasons why people buy/don't buy cds anymore. For the record, I don't buy many cds anymore because most of the music that's put out these days sucks donkey dung.
And that is relevant to the keyboard being or not what limits a laptop size because? For make profit glorious speaking english, please.
What I meant was that, just as keyboards/keypads can become too small, so to can the screens that the keyboards/keypads create output for. And it was meant as a slight joke.
Considering the screen on my laptop is twice the size of its keyboard, I would say no. Isn't the point of having a screen to be able to actually see the screen? Personally, I like the fact that my monitor is big enough that I actually have to dilate my pupils in order to see everything on the screen. Gotta keep up that daily exercise regiment for my eyeballs...
Yes. I'm stoked. I'm hoping they go on tour and visit somewhere near me,as I was never able see them before they broke up. Have you heard anything about who is going to be filling out the rest of the band yet? I can't imagine James or D'arcy will be joining back up with Billy, but you never know...
Well, it would hard for me to say Melon Collie was "worse" than any other album. I probably prefer Siamese dream because of the stage of life I was at when it came out. Yeah, that's how I feel about Live's Throwing Copper.
Man... did you really have to call yourself a "young whipper snapper" in referring to the Pumpkins? Geez... and "they're" about to come out with a new album and everything! Get with the times, man.
Seriously, I don't understand what the deal was with Siamese Dream. The tone of that album could just "suffocate" your ears. VERY long-winded... and muddy production quality. Then again, that's always been Corgan's MO. I will always consider that as one of the (many) reasons that Mellon Collie is the better album between the two.
Are you talking about cold booting a system via wireless or would it have to be in some sort of standby mode? I don't see how you could cold boot the system unless there was at least a component in the system that was in some sort of sleep mode.
Anyway, maybe you could program the wireless capabilities directly into the BIOS (or is that what you meant?). Of course, that would open up a huge security risk to the system, but maybe you could program security checks and balances into the boot-up process. I'm not smart enough (yet) to know what those checks and balances would be, but I'm sure someone could come up with something, if they haven't already.
How about this one:
"Why does the Command Prompt maximize only to cover a portion of the monitor screen instead of the entire thing?"
And, as an extension of this one:
"Why do you have to adjust the properties of the Command Prompt in order to get it to maximize it full-screen?"
Not to defend the music business, but do you honestly think that the only place the money goes is to either the artist (the smallest chunk) and to the big whigs at the record label? How do you think the PR people, the advertising people, the people who create the art for the cd packages, the photographers for the photos included in cd packages, the A&R people at the label, the secretaries, the IT people, the business people, etc. etc. etc. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay all of those people who provide those services?
I have a front row view to the fact that the music business is not an artist-friendly place. For all of the things I said in the above paragraph, record labels treat true artists like shit. No, actually they treat them like diarrhea. They squeeze artists dry of the best music the band will likely ever have because after that initial burst of on-edge creativity, the band is forced into the studio every 1 and a half to 2 years to pump out some re-hashed version of the album they just put out. Music that took years of experience to build it up is just expected to be reproduced like some Britney Spears shit... whatever, I could go on. However, I laugh... no, I curse like a sailor whenever I hear people talk shit about how downloading the music helps them to determine whether or not they are going to buy the music or not. That's such an utter crock of shit that it's not even remotely funny. Why the hell would anyone, unless they were actually driven by a sense of right and wrong, buy what they can easily get for free off the internet? They can blame the evil music business empire or greedy "artists" all they want. They're just bums trying to get a free meal from the chef slaving in the kitchen.
The point isn't just that Americans are privledged, but that this privelege isn't really due to some inherent factors, but rather the luck of living in the particular period of time in which we do. There is nothing about us that entitles us to this privelge, and if we lose it, complaining about it is kinda hollow.
I disagree. Everything we have, everything we are, as human beings is due to inherent factors. Luck has nothing to do with it. We inherit a free country from others who are willing to lay their lives down for it every day. We inherit this internet because of other people's work. We inherit Linux because Linus Torvald decided that he thought it could do it better, and DID. We inherit this conversation because of the original post about Reverse off-shoring. And I inherit this feeling of annoyance because you continue to group everyone up and stick them in boxes you've built: "There is nothing about us that entitles us to this privilege" Once again, speak for yourself.
Moreover, how is globalization like socialism?
I didn't say that it was socialism. I said what you seem to be advocating is socialism. I wasn't necessarily referring to off-shoring as socialism. I was more or less referring to the logic in your arguments. "What globalization means is the breaking down of that "caste". You don't get to live comfortably just because you're an American." Oddly enough, you said in this last post that "Outsourcing is indeed the exact opposite of socialism. It's the application of free market principles to the labor market. It's what happens when consumers of labor (businesses), look at what sources of labor have the highest cost-benefit ratio, and purchasing those sources of labor. It's the exact same thing I do when I go to NewEgg to buy a hard drive, instead of paying a huge markup to shop at CompUSA."
So, which is it? Is out-sourcing the "application of free market principles" or is it the breaking down of the 'caste'", which I interpret to be nothing more than 'leveling the playing feild'?
It has nothing to do with penalizing anybody for anything.
I disagree. It's penalizing the people here who already hold the jobs for people who will take the jobs at a lower price... to save a buck or two. And I'll just go ahead and let you know now that you probably won't be able to convince me otherwise.
There is a point to be made, in that the costs of outsourcing is higher than many bean-counters realize. In particular, there is a hidden cost in what happens when the outsourcing contract expires and that foreign employee leaves, taking his skills and knowledge with him.
I hadn't thought of that one. And you've also got to include terrorist activity, which is much more prevelant in other parts of the world. Obviously we're not immune from it, but it is not a regular occurance here the way that it is in other parts of the world.
Yes, and those in the developing world give up that necessity every day. Americans can afford to visit family an airplane ride away on a regular basis. Much of the world can't.
Again, you're not speaking for me. And you're not speaking for just about every person I know.
To save on space, I agree with your point that America is very priviledged, but it's a wasted point. Who here doesn't realize and appreciate that? Well, speaking only for myself, I do. It seems to me that all you're advocating is, in my mind at least, nothing more than work-force socialism on a globalized scale. If the "rest of the world" wants to invest in that, so be it. America has a history of bucking trends, so I don't see why she wouldn't have a problem bucking that one as well.
My take on outsourcing, plain and simple, is that I'm tired of seeing companies trying to UNNECESSARILY save money by taking jobs away from QUALIFIED Americans and handing them over to "qualified" foreigners just because they can work for a fraction of the cost that an American can work for. I don't care how you spin it, it's not right to penalize Americans simply because they were born in America.
His point is that the comfortable lives we lead as Americans, including our ability to be constantly in touch with friends and family, is one that we live by virtue of us being Americans, not by virtue of our hard work, etc. What globalization means is the breaking down of that "caste". You don't get to live comfortably just because you're an American. In a way, this sounds egalatarian, but at the same time, its really not what Americans want. We don't want fairness, we don't want equality of opportunity, we want to live more comfortably just through the sheer virtue of being American.
That's the biggest crock of shit I've read in a long time. Regardless of which country you live in, being in touch with your family is part of what is considered a basic necessity of life. People in ALL countries want and strive for that necessity, not because it's one of the byproducts of the country they live in, but because of the human need for RELATIONSHIP, something all of these ignorant companies who are drooling over outsourcing seem to have misplaced.
No, globalization is the result of greedy bastard corporate pricks who don't have to worry about moving to fucking Bombay in order to keep their jobs. It has nothing to do with making sure the "greedy Americans" (as if greed was inherent to America...) have to "work for their comforts".
And no, you do not speak for me here: "We don't want fairness, we don't want equality of opportunity, we want to live more comfortably just through the sheer virtue of being American." SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
The fact that a web application is running in a browser doesn't make it any less PC-bound.
EXACTLY! This whole "web-based" revolution just has this whole "I have some lake-front property on Mars I'd like to sell to you for a hundred bucks" feel to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I just like more analog elements in my music, as opposed to more digital elements. I don't think that the spontaneous element of making mistakes and keeping them should be removed to make everything sound as slick as technologically possible. Computers in music are everywhere. Analog instruments also. They work together, and produce music. There's no "fake music" and "real music". You're putting artificial boundaries and your snobbery where they don't belong. It wasn't long ago when people lamented how "artificial" CD-s sound like and hugged their "warm and real sounding" cassettes. You're just like them. That's a great sounding stereotype. I'm not name brand, though. Sony makes better stereotypes. They really make Britney Spears sound like she knows what she's doing. (yes, that's supposed to be funny... laugh)
You have to pay someone in order to distribute your product, unless you know how to do it yourself. That includes both the t-shirt makers AND the record labels. The internet is making it easier for bands to distribute their music, but it is also making it easier for people who like to rip them off. But in the end, their music is their merchandise. It's the centerpiece of all their merchandise. Without it, you would never even have the opportunity to buy their other merchandise. I will continue to pirate until all the profits from CDs go to those bands and I don't have to waste money on filler tracks or on other crappy tracks on the album. Creativity and quality of music is the laissez-faire of this market as far as I'm concerned. Well, here's a question for you. What makes you think that, if those bands receive "all" of the profits from the sale of a cd, that they will cease to record filler or crappy tracks?
Creativity and quality of music really has little to do with this. You'll continue to pirate music, even IF "all" (and I'd like to see you qualify the word "all") of the profit goes to the band. Why? Because it's just easier on your wallet that way.
Anyway, I don't care how badly the RIAA is gouging the musicians. You're worse than the RIAA because the musicians don't get ANY money (either literally or figuratively) when you're ripping them off.
I get what you're saying, but that's just begging for Microsoft to find other ways to fork with you. I can just imagine how Microsoft might just install a bunch of their own worthless add-ons, designs and other pre-packaged crap on the browser. I'd uninstall their Firefox and go download it directly from Mozilla, just to be safe.
I definitely see the usefulness of getting them to permanently EXCLUDE Internet Explorer, however. I'd be 100% behind that initiative.
I'm more worried about the war against the machines...
What I meant was that, just as keyboards/keypads can become too small, so to can the screens that the keyboards/keypads create output for. And it was meant as a slight joke.
Man... did you really have to call yourself a "young whipper snapper" in referring to the Pumpkins? Geez... and "they're" about to come out with a new album and everything! Get with the times, man.
Seriously, I don't understand what the deal was with Siamese Dream. The tone of that album could just "suffocate" your ears. VERY long-winded... and muddy production quality. Then again, that's always been Corgan's MO. I will always consider that as one of the (many) reasons that Mellon Collie is the better album between the two.
Yeah! How dare they question the almighty, EMPIRICALLY UNQUESTIONABLE theory of evolution?!?
Are you talking about cold booting a system via wireless or would it have to be in some sort of standby mode? I don't see how you could cold boot the system unless there was at least a component in the system that was in some sort of sleep mode. Anyway, maybe you could program the wireless capabilities directly into the BIOS (or is that what you meant?). Of course, that would open up a huge security risk to the system, but maybe you could program security checks and balances into the boot-up process. I'm not smart enough (yet) to know what those checks and balances would be, but I'm sure someone could come up with something, if they haven't already.
How about this one: "Why does the Command Prompt maximize only to cover a portion of the monitor screen instead of the entire thing?" And, as an extension of this one: "Why do you have to adjust the properties of the Command Prompt in order to get it to maximize it full-screen?"
Not to defend the music business, but do you honestly think that the only place the money goes is to either the artist (the smallest chunk) and to the big whigs at the record label? How do you think the PR people, the advertising people, the people who create the art for the cd packages, the photographers for the photos included in cd packages, the A&R people at the label, the secretaries, the IT people, the business people, etc. etc. etc. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay all of those people who provide those services?
I have a front row view to the fact that the music business is not an artist-friendly place. For all of the things I said in the above paragraph, record labels treat true artists like shit. No, actually they treat them like diarrhea. They squeeze artists dry of the best music the band will likely ever have because after that initial burst of on-edge creativity, the band is forced into the studio every 1 and a half to 2 years to pump out some re-hashed version of the album they just put out. Music that took years of experience to build it up is just expected to be reproduced like some Britney Spears shit... whatever, I could go on. However, I laugh... no, I curse like a sailor whenever I hear people talk shit about how downloading the music helps them to determine whether or not they are going to buy the music or not. That's such an utter crock of shit that it's not even remotely funny. Why the hell would anyone, unless they were actually driven by a sense of right and wrong, buy what they can easily get for free off the internet? They can blame the evil music business empire or greedy "artists" all they want. They're just bums trying to get a free meal from the chef slaving in the kitchen.
To quote a sig I read here some time ago: "black and white are also shades of gray."
Only in the hands of the jittery.
So, is murder right or wrong?
The point isn't just that Americans are privledged, but that this privelege isn't really due to some inherent factors, but rather the luck of living in the particular period of time in which we do. There is nothing about us that entitles us to this privelge, and if we lose it, complaining about it is kinda hollow.
I disagree. Everything we have, everything we are, as human beings is due to inherent factors. Luck has nothing to do with it. We inherit a free country from others who are willing to lay their lives down for it every day. We inherit this internet because of other people's work. We inherit Linux because Linus Torvald decided that he thought it could do it better, and DID. We inherit this conversation because of the original post about Reverse off-shoring. And I inherit this feeling of annoyance because you continue to group everyone up and stick them in boxes you've built: "There is nothing about us that entitles us to this privilege" Once again, speak for yourself.
Moreover, how is globalization like socialism?
I didn't say that it was socialism. I said what you seem to be advocating is socialism. I wasn't necessarily referring to off-shoring as socialism. I was more or less referring to the logic in your arguments. "What globalization means is the breaking down of that "caste". You don't get to live comfortably just because you're an American." Oddly enough, you said in this last post that "Outsourcing is indeed the exact opposite of socialism. It's the application of free market principles to the labor market. It's what happens when consumers of labor (businesses), look at what sources of labor have the highest cost-benefit ratio, and purchasing those sources of labor. It's the exact same thing I do when I go to NewEgg to buy a hard drive, instead of paying a huge markup to shop at CompUSA."
So, which is it? Is out-sourcing the "application of free market principles" or is it the breaking down of the 'caste'", which I interpret to be nothing more than 'leveling the playing feild'?
It has nothing to do with penalizing anybody for anything.
I disagree. It's penalizing the people here who already hold the jobs for people who will take the jobs at a lower price... to save a buck or two. And I'll just go ahead and let you know now that you probably won't be able to convince me otherwise.
There is a point to be made, in that the costs of outsourcing is higher than many bean-counters realize. In particular, there is a hidden cost in what happens when the outsourcing contract expires and that foreign employee leaves, taking his skills and knowledge with him.
I hadn't thought of that one. And you've also got to include terrorist activity, which is much more prevelant in other parts of the world. Obviously we're not immune from it, but it is not a regular occurance here the way that it is in other parts of the world.
It might not work? Buddy, just how long have you been out of the working class?
Yes, and those in the developing world give up that necessity every day. Americans can afford to visit family an airplane ride away on a regular basis. Much of the world can't.
Again, you're not speaking for me. And you're not speaking for just about every person I know.
To save on space, I agree with your point that America is very priviledged, but it's a wasted point. Who here doesn't realize and appreciate that? Well, speaking only for myself, I do. It seems to me that all you're advocating is, in my mind at least, nothing more than work-force socialism on a globalized scale. If the "rest of the world" wants to invest in that, so be it. America has a history of bucking trends, so I don't see why she wouldn't have a problem bucking that one as well.
My take on outsourcing, plain and simple, is that I'm tired of seeing companies trying to UNNECESSARILY save money by taking jobs away from QUALIFIED Americans and handing them over to "qualified" foreigners just because they can work for a fraction of the cost that an American can work for. I don't care how you spin it, it's not right to penalize Americans simply because they were born in America.
His point is that the comfortable lives we lead as Americans, including our ability to be constantly in touch with friends and family, is one that we live by virtue of us being Americans, not by virtue of our hard work, etc. What globalization means is the breaking down of that "caste". You don't get to live comfortably just because you're an American. In a way, this sounds egalatarian, but at the same time, its really not what Americans want. We don't want fairness, we don't want equality of opportunity, we want to live more comfortably just through the sheer virtue of being American.
That's the biggest crock of shit I've read in a long time. Regardless of which country you live in, being in touch with your family is part of what is considered a basic necessity of life. People in ALL countries want and strive for that necessity, not because it's one of the byproducts of the country they live in, but because of the human need for RELATIONSHIP, something all of these ignorant companies who are drooling over outsourcing seem to have misplaced.
No, globalization is the result of greedy bastard corporate pricks who don't have to worry about moving to fucking Bombay in order to keep their jobs. It has nothing to do with making sure the "greedy Americans" (as if greed was inherent to America...) have to "work for their comforts".
And no, you do not speak for me here: "We don't want fairness, we don't want equality of opportunity, we want to live more comfortably just through the sheer virtue of being American." SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.