From where I'm sitting, it looks like the Palestinians are doing a fine job by themselves, and with all this internal bickering going on, the Israelis are benefiting from a few moments peace in their own streets.
The thing is, the entire WORLD is guilty of sticking their collective noses into the Middle East, not just the US. Sure, the US plays a bigger part than most, but there is more than enough blame to go around.
Now, back to the issue at hand, this all has to boil down to international law and how it applies to space. If the US were to burn a Chinese satellite out of the sky, China would be clamoring for restitution, whether it be war or money. Would everyone here expect the same for the US? Some of you might say that the US deserves to have a few birds shot down out of the sky. In that same sense, you justify the US turning around and doing more of the same. Every country has the right to look down on this fair planet (with a rather dimwitted populace) from space, irregardless of border. Sure, some countries have no means to get an observer in the sky, but they still have the right. In the same sense, any country has the right to blind that observer (using a laser to overload optics) as long as the means of blinding is not permanent. If permanent damage is caused, then restitution must be made. In some circles, this would constitute an act of war. In others, I'm sure monetary remuneration would suffice.
All countries must hold to a higher standard. To do any less would show our barbaric roots, and prove that we really haven't moved too far from our ignorant past.
And last I checked, Palestine is still on the map. They have more autonomy now than they had in 1948, and the potential for peace is within grasp, if only people would be willing to give up their thirst for retribution (on both sides, I may add). Israel has made a move that they said would never happen; they are willing to trade land for peace. Not because they are afraid of what the Palestinians might do...they have seen the worst...but because there is a new awakening in the next generation that things cannot continue as they have in the past...that it is not right...and most importantly, they are tired of keeping assault rifles in their closets ready to be pulled out at a moments notice. I would be tired too.
You know, superbrose has it right...the model (as it works now) puts the power int he hands of the middlemen, and they get to decide how much the source of their wealth gets paid. It's time to not only turn the whole method of distribution on its ear, but the entire model as well. And this has been happening more and more as artists begin to invest in their own labels and control their own destiny.
The cost of production hardware has gone down considerably with the advent of better and better computers and software that becomes more easily used and more widely available with every generation. This means that production facilities will grow according to the demand by talent, and the price should become a lot more reasonable. People with production talent and experience will become more available with their time as the software gets easier to work with, and more people should be drawn to the work since it now has a lower overhead for entry into this field of work. Need I mention that most labels aren't even printing their CDs in the USA anymore? Sure, they probably have a few facilities left in the USA, but I bet there are shirts in boardrooms with plans as we speak who are looking at the cents-on-the-dollar gain they would make by pushing all this manufacturing to China just like they do with everything else now.
The really savvy artist will know that their product is THEIR commodity. They are much better off demanding the terms on how it should be distributed and sold. A savvy artist will see the Label model for what it is...a means to separate a fool from his money (or intellectual property). They will turn the model on its ear and decide how much of the money they get to KEEP rather than how much they are going to get paid. It puts the burden of negotiating with production on the artist, though, but then, the savvy artist already knows this and has enough business acumen to either handle it himself, or to appoint faithful stewards who are willing to work for a piece of the pie.
Ask any artist where the money is in music, and they will tell you that anyone who handles the business also handles the money. Either that will be the producer, manager, or the label of the artist. And not all of them are thinking more than beyond a means to enrich their own accounts, rather than the integrity of the artist.
Granted, not all artist are savvy. In fact, the vast majority of them would rather not be bothered by the business side of music. But they should be. This has been how many great artists have come to be burned by bad business decisions that were made en absentia. If there are any aspiring musicians out there who spend their time tuning out in the garage, then the best advice anyone can give them is that they had better chase a business degree as well as a music degree, because the artists who work the business tend to be the most successful.
Take David Bowie, for example. I'm not a huge fan of his work (though I do admit, he had some great moments back in the late 70s and early 80s), but he has been extremely smart in his musical business decisions. In fact, most of the money he has made over the years didn't actually come from his own music, but rather, from producing his own music (as well as several other musicians). If you look at his career, he pretty much "got it" from the first day he probably picked up a guitar pick and microphone. And now he is one of the richest musicians in the world today. I think we need to see more artists follow this model. These artists are able to dictate to the labels exactly how much they are willing for the labels to take. And they do it because they prove to the labels that they DON"T NEED THEM ANYMORE.
It's probably this fact alone that creates nightmares among the RIAA rank and file. All it takes is a handful of really successful names to stride out on their own and their whole business model is just as dead as if Napster were still free (as in beer). These people would embrace the new distribution model. They would make the deals with Amazon, Apple, Walmart and Microsoft for distribution. They can also make deals with smaller labels who are starved for good musicians. But in the end, THEY dictate the terms, not the labels.
You know, I've been giving this a bit of thought. The FUD going around right now about the AMD/ATI merger and the end of ATI's business with Intel...AMD could actually turn all this into a profit. If they are able to take ATI's work to date with chipsets/mainboards that support Intel processors and are able to adapt Hypertransport to replace Intel's lackluster FSB architecture, AMD could very well develop a better mainboard chipset for Intel processors than Intel is currently able to field. This could very well turn into a win for AMD even when an integrator uses an Intel processor, but decides to use an AMD mainboard chipset.
They will probably be using proprietary WiMP codecs and DRM. I wonder if the EU is going to even bother trying to open up their DRM? Might just give the EU one more tangent to fight the Microsoft monopoly if they are able to edge Apple out of the top spot. But doing that would take some doing. First, Microsoft has to play pattycake with the record labels. Apple has been able to do this so far by turning over the lionshare of the profits to the labels and making their profits on iPod sales. But if Microsoft wants to do this, they also have to price their player competitively with the iPod (less profit), AND less money on the content? Sounds like they will be a loss leader for a number of years to get a foothold in the market. But, this isn't exactly new for Microsoft, is it (hint: XBox)?
How about using this idea to replace the coal-fired power plant that dot the US? Here's a novel idea...let's take those sewage treatment facilities, introduce some bio-engineered bacteria that loves to do nothing but fix electrons and reproduce, seal them into this fixed environment and feed them on sewage and sugar (much like brewers do with yeast) and sit back and watch them generate electricity back onto the grid. And just like a brewery, flush the environment and reintroduce fresh components (bacteria, sugar, sewage) to reduce the chance of an unwanted bacterial population from sneaking in.
And to make things even more interesting...we all know that sewage is just rife with bacteria already...well, to reduce the chance of unwanted bacteria populations even further, gather up some of that nuclear waste we have hanging around and use it to irradiate the raw sewage before introducing it to our "good" bacteria...Viola! Raw sewage sterilized by radioactive waste!
So, we have put radioactive waste, sewage, and bacteria to work, and out of this we get electricity and treated sewage (as well as solid waste that can be used as fertilizer for things like tree farms, landscaping, etc). Seems like a win-win situation to me.
Any time you REQUIRE your users to go to the command line, you have already lost the user base you would consider "n00b." By the way, this is the user base the future needs to focus on. Why? Because there are a lot more people out there who can be classified as "n00b" than there are who are leet. That, and the leet are more than happy working entirely in the command line. Hell, we're talking about the same user base who would much rather look at a web page in raw HTML than use a web browser.
Do you want to make Linux a more attractive OS than Windows? Standardize the interface, make applications work consistently, and untie OS functions from the command line (or give a GUI equivalent). Make 90% of the operating system functions available from a single button mouse, with the other 10% requiring minimal keyboard involvement (ie, password entry, etc). Make the OS more friendly to the uninitiated by reducing the number of technical or cryptic references (does an 80 year old grandma really need to know the difference between TCP and UDP, or whether their enet01 is running half or full duplex?). In other words, foolproof the OS like you would babyproof a house with a toddler, yet leave the full features still accessible for the power users. Apple has had a trememndous amount of accolade from doing just this. And, in a much more limited sense, Windows has done this too. Linux...well, there are a lot of good ideas out there, but there is a general inability for everyone to get behind just one good idea (ie, KDE and GNOME).
No, that's the internet's paternal grandmother...
Look's like Al's gonna have some explaining to do...go easy on him, Tipper...he was young and in love...
Slashdot Mirror
From where I'm sitting, it looks like the Palestinians are doing a fine job by themselves, and with all this internal bickering going on, the Israelis are benefiting from a few moments peace in their own streets. The thing is, the entire WORLD is guilty of sticking their collective noses into the Middle East, not just the US. Sure, the US plays a bigger part than most, but there is more than enough blame to go around. Now, back to the issue at hand, this all has to boil down to international law and how it applies to space. If the US were to burn a Chinese satellite out of the sky, China would be clamoring for restitution, whether it be war or money. Would everyone here expect the same for the US? Some of you might say that the US deserves to have a few birds shot down out of the sky. In that same sense, you justify the US turning around and doing more of the same. Every country has the right to look down on this fair planet (with a rather dimwitted populace) from space, irregardless of border. Sure, some countries have no means to get an observer in the sky, but they still have the right. In the same sense, any country has the right to blind that observer (using a laser to overload optics) as long as the means of blinding is not permanent. If permanent damage is caused, then restitution must be made. In some circles, this would constitute an act of war. In others, I'm sure monetary remuneration would suffice. All countries must hold to a higher standard. To do any less would show our barbaric roots, and prove that we really haven't moved too far from our ignorant past. And last I checked, Palestine is still on the map. They have more autonomy now than they had in 1948, and the potential for peace is within grasp, if only people would be willing to give up their thirst for retribution (on both sides, I may add). Israel has made a move that they said would never happen; they are willing to trade land for peace. Not because they are afraid of what the Palestinians might do...they have seen the worst...but because there is a new awakening in the next generation that things cannot continue as they have in the past...that it is not right...and most importantly, they are tired of keeping assault rifles in their closets ready to be pulled out at a moments notice. I would be tired too.
You know, superbrose has it right...the model (as it works now) puts the power int he hands of the middlemen, and they get to decide how much the source of their wealth gets paid. It's time to not only turn the whole method of distribution on its ear, but the entire model as well. And this has been happening more and more as artists begin to invest in their own labels and control their own destiny. The cost of production hardware has gone down considerably with the advent of better and better computers and software that becomes more easily used and more widely available with every generation. This means that production facilities will grow according to the demand by talent, and the price should become a lot more reasonable. People with production talent and experience will become more available with their time as the software gets easier to work with, and more people should be drawn to the work since it now has a lower overhead for entry into this field of work. Need I mention that most labels aren't even printing their CDs in the USA anymore? Sure, they probably have a few facilities left in the USA, but I bet there are shirts in boardrooms with plans as we speak who are looking at the cents-on-the-dollar gain they would make by pushing all this manufacturing to China just like they do with everything else now. The really savvy artist will know that their product is THEIR commodity. They are much better off demanding the terms on how it should be distributed and sold. A savvy artist will see the Label model for what it is...a means to separate a fool from his money (or intellectual property). They will turn the model on its ear and decide how much of the money they get to KEEP rather than how much they are going to get paid. It puts the burden of negotiating with production on the artist, though, but then, the savvy artist already knows this and has enough business acumen to either handle it himself, or to appoint faithful stewards who are willing to work for a piece of the pie. Ask any artist where the money is in music, and they will tell you that anyone who handles the business also handles the money. Either that will be the producer, manager, or the label of the artist. And not all of them are thinking more than beyond a means to enrich their own accounts, rather than the integrity of the artist. Granted, not all artist are savvy. In fact, the vast majority of them would rather not be bothered by the business side of music. But they should be. This has been how many great artists have come to be burned by bad business decisions that were made en absentia. If there are any aspiring musicians out there who spend their time tuning out in the garage, then the best advice anyone can give them is that they had better chase a business degree as well as a music degree, because the artists who work the business tend to be the most successful. Take David Bowie, for example. I'm not a huge fan of his work (though I do admit, he had some great moments back in the late 70s and early 80s), but he has been extremely smart in his musical business decisions. In fact, most of the money he has made over the years didn't actually come from his own music, but rather, from producing his own music (as well as several other musicians). If you look at his career, he pretty much "got it" from the first day he probably picked up a guitar pick and microphone. And now he is one of the richest musicians in the world today. I think we need to see more artists follow this model. These artists are able to dictate to the labels exactly how much they are willing for the labels to take. And they do it because they prove to the labels that they DON"T NEED THEM ANYMORE. It's probably this fact alone that creates nightmares among the RIAA rank and file. All it takes is a handful of really successful names to stride out on their own and their whole business model is just as dead as if Napster were still free (as in beer). These people would embrace the new distribution model. They would make the deals with Amazon, Apple, Walmart and Microsoft for distribution. They can also make deals with smaller labels who are starved for good musicians. But in the end, THEY dictate the terms, not the labels.
You know, I've been giving this a bit of thought. The FUD going around right now about the AMD/ATI merger and the end of ATI's business with Intel...AMD could actually turn all this into a profit. If they are able to take ATI's work to date with chipsets/mainboards that support Intel processors and are able to adapt Hypertransport to replace Intel's lackluster FSB architecture, AMD could very well develop a better mainboard chipset for Intel processors than Intel is currently able to field. This could very well turn into a win for AMD even when an integrator uses an Intel processor, but decides to use an AMD mainboard chipset.
They will probably be using proprietary WiMP codecs and DRM. I wonder if the EU is going to even bother trying to open up their DRM? Might just give the EU one more tangent to fight the Microsoft monopoly if they are able to edge Apple out of the top spot. But doing that would take some doing. First, Microsoft has to play pattycake with the record labels. Apple has been able to do this so far by turning over the lionshare of the profits to the labels and making their profits on iPod sales. But if Microsoft wants to do this, they also have to price their player competitively with the iPod (less profit), AND less money on the content? Sounds like they will be a loss leader for a number of years to get a foothold in the market. But, this isn't exactly new for Microsoft, is it (hint: XBox)?
How about using this idea to replace the coal-fired power plant that dot the US? Here's a novel idea...let's take those sewage treatment facilities, introduce some bio-engineered bacteria that loves to do nothing but fix electrons and reproduce, seal them into this fixed environment and feed them on sewage and sugar (much like brewers do with yeast) and sit back and watch them generate electricity back onto the grid. And just like a brewery, flush the environment and reintroduce fresh components (bacteria, sugar, sewage) to reduce the chance of an unwanted bacterial population from sneaking in. And to make things even more interesting...we all know that sewage is just rife with bacteria already...well, to reduce the chance of unwanted bacteria populations even further, gather up some of that nuclear waste we have hanging around and use it to irradiate the raw sewage before introducing it to our "good" bacteria...Viola! Raw sewage sterilized by radioactive waste! So, we have put radioactive waste, sewage, and bacteria to work, and out of this we get electricity and treated sewage (as well as solid waste that can be used as fertilizer for things like tree farms, landscaping, etc). Seems like a win-win situation to me.
Any time you REQUIRE your users to go to the command line, you have already lost the user base you would consider "n00b." By the way, this is the user base the future needs to focus on. Why? Because there are a lot more people out there who can be classified as "n00b" than there are who are leet. That, and the leet are more than happy working entirely in the command line. Hell, we're talking about the same user base who would much rather look at a web page in raw HTML than use a web browser. Do you want to make Linux a more attractive OS than Windows? Standardize the interface, make applications work consistently, and untie OS functions from the command line (or give a GUI equivalent). Make 90% of the operating system functions available from a single button mouse, with the other 10% requiring minimal keyboard involvement (ie, password entry, etc). Make the OS more friendly to the uninitiated by reducing the number of technical or cryptic references (does an 80 year old grandma really need to know the difference between TCP and UDP, or whether their enet01 is running half or full duplex?). In other words, foolproof the OS like you would babyproof a house with a toddler, yet leave the full features still accessible for the power users. Apple has had a trememndous amount of accolade from doing just this. And, in a much more limited sense, Windows has done this too. Linux...well, there are a lot of good ideas out there, but there is a general inability for everyone to get behind just one good idea (ie, KDE and GNOME).
"I'm terrified beyond all capacity for rational thought."
No, that's the internet's paternal grandmother... Look's like Al's gonna have some explaining to do...go easy on him, Tipper...he was young and in love...