I, for one, welcome something extraordinary with the electronics.
A large number of the significant improvements to the guitar that matter to guitarists have all happened ahead of the output jack. Humbucking pickups (which you already mentioned), active electronic pickup systems, locking tuners, various vibrato assemblies, noise cancelling single coil pickups like the Fender Lace Sensor and its successors, the Sustainiac and Fernandes Sustainer systems, piezoelectric pickups, different formulations of guitar strings and different neck and body materials and dimensions are all examples. Certainly, great gains have been made in amplification technology, and the proliferation of cheap mass-produced digital effects and moderately priced high-quality analog effects have allowed a greater variation of noises to emanate from the speakers of guitarists everywhere, but it's not like Ted Nugent could plug in some effect box and sound like Eddie Van Halen - a lot of things happen before the output jack. Also, to borrow the phrase from the coders - "Garbage In, Garbage Out." To marginalize what happens before the output jack is like the director that lets a bad take go and tells the crew "We'll fix that in post". Anything that can be done to get a better quality or more desirable signal out of the guitar in the first place should be considered, since it makes the job of all the things after the output jack all the easier. IMO, guitar effects are best like makeup - most of the time they're better when tastefully done and not noticed, and if you are going to draw attention to it, it better be awesome.)
Normally I have something to contribute on Cube-related things, but I clearly failed. Since I clearly failed on sarcasm and humor before, is it any wonder that I took the primary definition of party as the assumed term? I _know_ I'm an idiot. (My wife had me listed as 'Dumbass' on her phone.) I'll make you a deal. If you would like to kick me from slashdot, go ahead. Otherwise I will stay off for a month.
On a 20x20x20 cube, five random moves would be trivial to solve by inspection plus a tiny bit of brute force. Most kids with decent spatial skills can undo three or four moves on a regular cube without much trouble. What move or moves remained after what was easy to backtrack would only take a few attempts to discover. 20 moves might be a little bit more of a problem on a 20x20x20 cube - not enough moves to get to every possible state on a cube that size, but possibly too many moves to do by visual inspection.
You're right - I should clarify - my confusion had to do with the emoticon's existence, i.e. why was it placed there at all. Since sarcasm is an expected mode of conversation on slashdot, the addition of the frowny face made me wondered if we were supposed to take faux pity on the speaker, and the humor was contained there somehow - I couldn't find the humor there - or it was some new level of meta-sarcasm that I didn't get (but I am now suspecting to be the case). I realize most of the failure of language processing here is mine.
I know that I am typically no fun, I attribute that mostly to refusing to drink alcohol except on rare special occasions. The few times I am in social situations it is usually because I am obligated to be there. However, since Rubik's cube is one of my primary interests, I have one with me most of the time. In talking to other people about Rubik's cube (which is much easier for me than making small talk about myself) I have heard people make statements similar to the one above made by 'pinballer', and with complete seriousness. Since the serious comments by laypeople only illustrate how poorly most people perceive a very small, rigorous mathematical group, I am way past this being a funny statement, even in jest. (I was also confused by the placement of the frowny-face emoticon.)
Since my sarcasm meter is clearly broken, or I fail to see the humor in this at all, please describe in detail any state of a solvable Rubik's cube where only 5 of the six sides are solved.
Anybody with Mod points needs to give this guy a cigar.
If I already have a problem with people not knowing where they really are on the internet, and they get horrid stuff all over their computers, and I can't get them to change mbam.exe to mbam.com to run sneakily run Malwarebytes Anti-Malware because they're either completely unfamiliar with file extensions or just plain can't see them to change them, how could I possibly be in favor of the foreseeable URL-free future where they don't even know where they're browsing/downloading stuff from?
Instead of suggesting that 'billcopc' was being anticapitalist when I think all that was intended was an emotional outburst, perhaps we should suggest that he has discovered an unfilled market niche and he should build his own cars to fill said niche. That way, it would be quite hard to accuse him of anticapitalism.
That is a surmountable obstacle and hardly an excuse. I'm not convinced _every_ director is able to raise up someone's acting. Some directors are actor's directors, and some focus more on visuals and/or storytelling and need to cast crack actors to make it work so they don't have to worry about that part as much. Sometimes the editor is able to rescue stuff (but usually only if the director has shot multiple takes). The quality of Ewan McGregor's acting , trying to fill the giant shoes of Alec Guiness, or Liam Neeson's acting, was quite different as compared to Jake Lloyd's or Hayden Christensen's acting. Granted, it would have been quite difficult to cast someone with more experience as Anakin as Lucas seemed like he wanted a new face in the role, but if he _had_ cast someone with more experience, and perhaps in the second and third movie someone with more chemistry with Natalie Portman, there was the possibility that they could have overcome Lucas' ham-fisted lack of direction of dialogue.
Also, in light of all the complaints about Lucas' directing, while I always hear fans say "Empire" (that Lucas did not direct) is the best of them, how come nobody directly complains about "A New Hope" (that Lucas directed) that much?
The down side with the guy that's well-respected and only makes 250K a movie is that it is probably the only picture he's working on, so not only will that 250K be his salary for that year that the film takes in production, but it's got to cover him for the year he spends afterward going around to help promote the film, and possibly even the year after that where he's got to run around promoting the DVD. Once you get done with agents, accountants, and taxes, there's not so much to go around any more. Please refer to Chapter 36 of "If Chins Could Kill:Confessions of a B-Movie Actor" by Bruce Campbell. The chapter is called "Anatomy of a Paycheck".
Some people at those big studios know that big budgets are not necessary for big profits. James Cameron, Francis Ford Coppola, Ron Howard, Jack Nicholson, Peter Fonda, and Martin Scorsese (heard of any of those guys?) have all worked for Roger Corman before they were big time. Corman is a master at extracting value from a movie's budget and shooting films on a tight schedule. But, like you said, thanks to the way the accounting is done at most studios, it's not practical for most studios to operate any other way than the bloated way that they do.
The problem with a definition like "hardcore" is that it's not clear-cut, is in the eye of the beholder, and is relative.
When I was in college, my girlfriend and I scoured every odd pawn shop in town for the odd overlooked Nintendo game and stayed up all night playing Gauntlet and Xenophobe. After college but before I had kids, I burned many an afternoon with my friends playing Quake, Goldeneye 64, Gran Turismo or some incarnation of Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. Now that I have kids and my last-gen games are looking a bit dated (I have GameCube/PS2/Xbox), we got a Wii. I really enjoy Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Tatsunoko Vs CAPCOM, RE4:Wii Edition, and No More Heroes.
What games can I log a lot of time on? Mario, Zelda, and maybe some Tatsunoko Vs CAPCOM. RE4 and NMH end up being a after-the-kids-have-gone-to-bed game, and guess what. By the time they're asleep, I've probably had enough for one day too. By your definition, my older son who will play LEGO Batman until the Wii overheats is more hardcore than I am. I play TvC with a Gamecube controller, he uses the simple controls. How can I be the less hardcore?
Meanwhile I am presented with lots of odd scenarios.
"You play fighting games and you didn't own a Saturn or a Dreamcast? You're not hardcore."
"Wow, there's lots of stuff out there for the Wii that isn't a sports game collection? Thanks for helping me pick something out. It's nice that a hardcore gamer would be willing to help out a noob like me."
"You don't own a PS3 or a 360? How can you even call yourself a gamer?"
"Seriously, you finished Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden? Those games are brutal. I can't even have any fun playing them."
It took me years to finish Devil May Cry (2 and 3 were much easier), and some crosstraining from Ninja Gaiden may have helped a little, but the best thing about the Devil May Cry games is that you can save at absolutely any time. So, if there's an incident involving bodily functions that I need to tend to, or someone wants their third hot dog, or I can't stand how much sand got tracked on to the living room rug, I can deal with it. I think I have gravitated towards fighting games because single playthroughs are not 6+ hours. The other thing I really like is a game like Pikmin where time is naturally divided into 15 minute segments. And another thing - as a parent, it's a lot more satisfying to play Wii Bowling or Tatsunoko vs CAPCOM with my son if we have time to do that than to play a more difficult game by myself. It's not that I've 'grown out' of gaming, but how it fits into the rest of my life has necessarily changed because the rest of my life has changed.
The reason that most speedcubers use the Fridrich method is that it is affected less by cube conditions than the corners first method used by Minh Thai in the 80's. A corners first method involves a lot of slice moves (turning the middle layer between the two outer layers), effectively doubling the frictional force required to turn it. The Fridrich method has a large move table and emphasis on face turns instead of slices. The Kociemba algorithm, like what you would find in the 'Cube Explorer' program, uses a much larger move table even than the Fridrich algorithm, and is optimized for a low number of face turns - although not always minimal, it's usually pretty close. So even if the thing wasn't lubed that well, it's going to be fast just because of the low number of moves that it will be able to compute. I would also hope that the robot would be able to apply more torque more precisely than a human and isn't doing more than one cube turn with a given motion, so it has a good chance of overcoming the friction of a new cube. Human cubers do things like RU' (right face clockwise, top face counterclockwise) with a single hand motion and an unlubed cube would hang up on the transition between the two motions. The robot would do two separate clean twists without having to worry about a transition.
All of the V-Cubes, which would be any 6x6x6 or 7x7x7 available that I know of, are more speedcubing friendly right out of the box, as its design was done with correcting for small misalignments in mind so as not to put too much torque on the pieces when turning the cube.
It's 5 buttons, no joystick. Rotate Left, Rotate Right, Hyperspace, Thrust, and Fire. Your left hand gets the two rotate buttons, your right gets thrust & fire. The Hyperspace button is in the middle but away from normal hand reach - you have to abandon something else to press it.
Yeah, that's my point, and taken from the parent about the profit motive. While I don't think Kevin Smith is a great director for "Foundation" specifically, he's still capable of turning a profit with dialogue-driven material.
OK, so we don't think that Emmerich can do a dialogue-driven film. The internet puts up a big stink, and nothing happens. Emmerich is just one of the many ways to profitable film making. Of course, he's in the same camp as Cameron. Spend Big, win Big.
There are plenty of directors who are good at doing dialogue-driven films - Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Sam Mendes, Kerry Conran's one movie, and M. Night Shyamalan come to mind. All have worked with both small and big budgets. I'm sure most of the/. crowd could rattle off a few favorites that I didn't mention. As a matter of fact, with the dialogue being so important, perhaps the CG thing isn't too crazy. Let the actors rehearse the crap out of the lines and get it good and shoot it on green screen in a warehouse. No location shooting, no set building, just worry about blocking, acting, costumes and props. If you can keep the budget reasonable, and it doesn't suck, then it could make a profit. The down side is that other than M. Night, none of the directors in this bracket have ever cracked the top twenty in profits. We'll call this the "Craftsmanship on a Budget, win moderate" group. It's not they're losing money, it's just that it's not making enough money for the WSJ to take notice.
Of course, there's always the Roger Corman way. Granted, he wouldn't direct it these days, but he's still a proven producer.
Yeah, and scientists that say that they "only want to do research" don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting grants. Musicians that just want to play don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting gigs or a record deal. If you prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable, then you're paying someone else (hence, lowering the overall profit) to explain your beautiful piece of code. A straight-up salesman may be able to grease your customers better so that the purchase goes smoothly, but I would guess that he can't explain the product was well as the guy who coded it.
There's a lot to be said for dragging one's butt from the basement and interacting with customers, assuming that there's any capability to do so. Maybe you can't put your lead programmer in front of the customer but maybe one of his direct reports with a high understanding of the program and an ability to speak intelligently to the customer would create a better sales experience. (Of course, that direct report will get promoted sooner that way.) If you make a product that is intended to be sold to other humans in meatspace, some amount of responsibility should be yours to help explain and sell it. The best part about some interaction between design and customer relations is that it shortens the feedback loop.
Of course, you have to send someone that isn't going to tell the prospective customer to man up and use the command line every time there's a difficulty implementing a feature.:P
Although I can't vouch for the sound quality, there have been laser turntables since the late 1980's - although it was a while before they showed up for sale. A friend of mine (serious vinyl collector) found an article about them when we were in high school (demo at CES?), and we never saw the actual finished model advertised for sale until we were both back from college. The pro is that you don't have a needle dragging across the surface of your vinyl and wearing it down, and even some really old records that would otherwise be unplayable can be played on it. The con is that it was harder (at the time) to ignore dust particles and such, and a lot of the funny-colored records didn't play on it. I hope that the math has improved in 20 years, but there's no telling since I'm not a museum or a rich audiophile. Maybe the IRENE system that the Library of Congress uses (similar tech, but with conventional photography) could be ported to iPhone.
Doesn't the laissez faire capitalism model dictate that they do exactly this? With the threat of new bands forming at any time, demand for their product could inexplicably dry up at any moment.
Fine, yell "Poe's Law" and "shenanigans".
Honestly, I think bands would do well to provide quality service to fans, insuring that they still have fans. If musicians felt like they worked for their fans instead of the record company, there might not be such a disconnect between their actions and the economics of it all. If a band has a sufficient following on their website, why shouldn't they sell it there? Andy Partridge and Thomas Dolby are niche markets at best, but they're able to provide things now to their fans direct from their website that no record company executive would ever consider. Sure, it's not as convenient as iTunes or Amazon, but the crazy dedicated fans that every artist really wants are probably going to the band's website anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we're already being pedantic here, I might remind you that the actual trademarked term is 'LEGO' in all capitals.
A large number of the significant improvements to the guitar that matter to guitarists have all happened ahead of the output jack. Humbucking pickups (which you already mentioned), active electronic pickup systems, locking tuners, various vibrato assemblies, noise cancelling single coil pickups like the Fender Lace Sensor and its successors, the Sustainiac and Fernandes Sustainer systems, piezoelectric pickups, different formulations of guitar strings and different neck and body materials and dimensions are all examples. Certainly, great gains have been made in amplification technology, and the proliferation of cheap mass-produced digital effects and moderately priced high-quality analog effects have allowed a greater variation of noises to emanate from the speakers of guitarists everywhere, but it's not like Ted Nugent could plug in some effect box and sound like Eddie Van Halen - a lot of things happen before the output jack. Also, to borrow the phrase from the coders - "Garbage In, Garbage Out." To marginalize what happens before the output jack is like the director that lets a bad take go and tells the crew "We'll fix that in post". Anything that can be done to get a better quality or more desirable signal out of the guitar in the first place should be considered, since it makes the job of all the things after the output jack all the easier. IMO, guitar effects are best like makeup - most of the time they're better when tastefully done and not noticed, and if you are going to draw attention to it, it better be awesome.)
Normally I have something to contribute on Cube-related things, but I clearly failed. Since I clearly failed on sarcasm and humor before, is it any wonder that I took the primary definition of party as the assumed term? I _know_ I'm an idiot. (My wife had me listed as 'Dumbass' on her phone.) I'll make you a deal. If you would like to kick me from slashdot, go ahead. Otherwise I will stay off for a month.
On a 20x20x20 cube, five random moves would be trivial to solve by inspection plus a tiny bit of brute force. Most kids with decent spatial skills can undo three or four moves on a regular cube without much trouble. What move or moves remained after what was easy to backtrack would only take a few attempts to discover. 20 moves might be a little bit more of a problem on a 20x20x20 cube - not enough moves to get to every possible state on a cube that size, but possibly too many moves to do by visual inspection.
You're right - I should clarify - my confusion had to do with the emoticon's existence, i.e. why was it placed there at all. Since sarcasm is an expected mode of conversation on slashdot, the addition of the frowny face made me wondered if we were supposed to take faux pity on the speaker, and the humor was contained there somehow - I couldn't find the humor there - or it was some new level of meta-sarcasm that I didn't get (but I am now suspecting to be the case). I realize most of the failure of language processing here is mine.
I know that I am typically no fun, I attribute that mostly to refusing to drink alcohol except on rare special occasions. The few times I am in social situations it is usually because I am obligated to be there. However, since Rubik's cube is one of my primary interests, I have one with me most of the time. In talking to other people about Rubik's cube (which is much easier for me than making small talk about myself) I have heard people make statements similar to the one above made by 'pinballer', and with complete seriousness. Since the serious comments by laypeople only illustrate how poorly most people perceive a very small, rigorous mathematical group, I am way past this being a funny statement, even in jest. (I was also confused by the placement of the frowny-face emoticon.)
4/log(2) is 13.28, more than 11. 9/log(3) is 18.86, less than 20. This curve doesn't fit so great. Anybody do the math for the 4x4x4 already?
Since my sarcasm meter is clearly broken, or I fail to see the humor in this at all, please describe in detail any state of a solvable Rubik's cube where only 5 of the six sides are solved.
If I already have a problem with people not knowing where they really are on the internet, and they get horrid stuff all over their computers, and I can't get them to change mbam.exe to mbam.com to run sneakily run Malwarebytes Anti-Malware because they're either completely unfamiliar with file extensions or just plain can't see them to change them, how could I possibly be in favor of the foreseeable URL-free future where they don't even know where they're browsing/downloading stuff from?
Came for 'Sony + root' comments, was not disappointed.
Instead of suggesting that 'billcopc' was being anticapitalist when I think all that was intended was an emotional outburst, perhaps we should suggest that he has discovered an unfilled market niche and he should build his own cars to fill said niche. That way, it would be quite hard to accuse him of anticapitalism.
That is a surmountable obstacle and hardly an excuse. I'm not convinced _every_ director is able to raise up someone's acting. Some directors are actor's directors, and some focus more on visuals and/or storytelling and need to cast crack actors to make it work so they don't have to worry about that part as much. Sometimes the editor is able to rescue stuff (but usually only if the director has shot multiple takes). The quality of Ewan McGregor's acting , trying to fill the giant shoes of Alec Guiness, or Liam Neeson's acting, was quite different as compared to Jake Lloyd's or Hayden Christensen's acting. Granted, it would have been quite difficult to cast someone with more experience as Anakin as Lucas seemed like he wanted a new face in the role, but if he _had_ cast someone with more experience, and perhaps in the second and third movie someone with more chemistry with Natalie Portman, there was the possibility that they could have overcome Lucas' ham-fisted lack of direction of dialogue. Also, in light of all the complaints about Lucas' directing, while I always hear fans say "Empire" (that Lucas did not direct) is the best of them, how come nobody directly complains about "A New Hope" (that Lucas directed) that much?
The down side with the guy that's well-respected and only makes 250K a movie is that it is probably the only picture he's working on, so not only will that 250K be his salary for that year that the film takes in production, but it's got to cover him for the year he spends afterward going around to help promote the film, and possibly even the year after that where he's got to run around promoting the DVD. Once you get done with agents, accountants, and taxes, there's not so much to go around any more. Please refer to Chapter 36 of "If Chins Could Kill:Confessions of a B-Movie Actor" by Bruce Campbell. The chapter is called "Anatomy of a Paycheck".
Some people at those big studios know that big budgets are not necessary for big profits. James Cameron, Francis Ford Coppola, Ron Howard, Jack Nicholson, Peter Fonda, and Martin Scorsese (heard of any of those guys?) have all worked for Roger Corman before they were big time. Corman is a master at extracting value from a movie's budget and shooting films on a tight schedule. But, like you said, thanks to the way the accounting is done at most studios, it's not practical for most studios to operate any other way than the bloated way that they do.
At the risk of being pedantic (which I doubt is much of a problem on /.) SHOW YOUR WORK.
When I was in college, my girlfriend and I scoured every odd pawn shop in town for the odd overlooked Nintendo game and stayed up all night playing Gauntlet and Xenophobe. After college but before I had kids, I burned many an afternoon with my friends playing Quake, Goldeneye 64, Gran Turismo or some incarnation of Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. Now that I have kids and my last-gen games are looking a bit dated (I have GameCube/PS2/Xbox), we got a Wii. I really enjoy Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Tatsunoko Vs CAPCOM, RE4:Wii Edition, and No More Heroes.
What games can I log a lot of time on? Mario, Zelda, and maybe some Tatsunoko Vs CAPCOM. RE4 and NMH end up being a after-the-kids-have-gone-to-bed game, and guess what. By the time they're asleep, I've probably had enough for one day too. By your definition, my older son who will play LEGO Batman until the Wii overheats is more hardcore than I am. I play TvC with a Gamecube controller, he uses the simple controls. How can I be the less hardcore?
Meanwhile I am presented with lots of odd scenarios.
"You play fighting games and you didn't own a Saturn or a Dreamcast? You're not hardcore."
"Wow, there's lots of stuff out there for the Wii that isn't a sports game collection? Thanks for helping me pick something out. It's nice that a hardcore gamer would be willing to help out a noob like me."
"You don't own a PS3 or a 360? How can you even call yourself a gamer?"
"Seriously, you finished Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden? Those games are brutal. I can't even have any fun playing them."
It took me years to finish Devil May Cry (2 and 3 were much easier), and some crosstraining from Ninja Gaiden may have helped a little, but the best thing about the Devil May Cry games is that you can save at absolutely any time. So, if there's an incident involving bodily functions that I need to tend to, or someone wants their third hot dog, or I can't stand how much sand got tracked on to the living room rug, I can deal with it. I think I have gravitated towards fighting games because single playthroughs are not 6+ hours. The other thing I really like is a game like Pikmin where time is naturally divided into 15 minute segments. And another thing - as a parent, it's a lot more satisfying to play Wii Bowling or Tatsunoko vs CAPCOM with my son if we have time to do that than to play a more difficult game by myself. It's not that I've 'grown out' of gaming, but how it fits into the rest of my life has necessarily changed because the rest of my life has changed.
All of the V-Cubes, which would be any 6x6x6 or 7x7x7 available that I know of, are more speedcubing friendly right out of the box, as its design was done with correcting for small misalignments in mind so as not to put too much torque on the pieces when turning the cube.
It's 5 buttons, no joystick. Rotate Left, Rotate Right, Hyperspace, Thrust, and Fire. Your left hand gets the two rotate buttons, your right gets thrust & fire. The Hyperspace button is in the middle but away from normal hand reach - you have to abandon something else to press it.
I thought that this comment was hilarious but was incredibly dissappointed by all the urination-in-the-breakfast-cereal comments which followed it.
-SMC
/uses both derivatives and stats IRL
/been known to integrate ocassionally
/never had to use Green's Theorem outside of a classroom because I'm not a M.E.
"Is there a sign out there that says 'Dead Robot Storage'? Is there?"
Yeah, that's my point, and taken from the parent about the profit motive. While I don't think Kevin Smith is a great director for "Foundation" specifically, he's still capable of turning a profit with dialogue-driven material.
There are plenty of directors who are good at doing dialogue-driven films - Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Sam Mendes, Kerry Conran's one movie, and M. Night Shyamalan come to mind. All have worked with both small and big budgets. I'm sure most of the /. crowd could rattle off a few favorites that I didn't mention. As a matter of fact, with the dialogue being so important, perhaps the CG thing isn't too crazy. Let the actors rehearse the crap out of the lines and get it good and shoot it on green screen in a warehouse. No location shooting, no set building, just worry about blocking, acting, costumes and props. If you can keep the budget reasonable, and it doesn't suck, then it could make a profit. The down side is that other than M. Night, none of the directors in this bracket have ever cracked the top twenty in profits. We'll call this the "Craftsmanship on a Budget, win moderate" group. It's not they're losing money, it's just that it's not making enough money for the WSJ to take notice.
Of course, there's always the Roger Corman way. Granted, he wouldn't direct it these days, but he's still a proven producer.
What - you were hoping for Sam Raimi?
There's a lot to be said for dragging one's butt from the basement and interacting with customers, assuming that there's any capability to do so. Maybe you can't put your lead programmer in front of the customer but maybe one of his direct reports with a high understanding of the program and an ability to speak intelligently to the customer would create a better sales experience. (Of course, that direct report will get promoted sooner that way.) If you make a product that is intended to be sold to other humans in meatspace, some amount of responsibility should be yours to help explain and sell it. The best part about some interaction between design and customer relations is that it shortens the feedback loop.
Of course, you have to send someone that isn't going to tell the prospective customer to man up and use the command line every time there's a difficulty implementing a feature. :P
Although I can't vouch for the sound quality, there have been laser turntables since the late 1980's - although it was a while before they showed up for sale. A friend of mine (serious vinyl collector) found an article about them when we were in high school (demo at CES?), and we never saw the actual finished model advertised for sale until we were both back from college. The pro is that you don't have a needle dragging across the surface of your vinyl and wearing it down, and even some really old records that would otherwise be unplayable can be played on it. The con is that it was harder (at the time) to ignore dust particles and such, and a lot of the funny-colored records didn't play on it. I hope that the math has improved in 20 years, but there's no telling since I'm not a museum or a rich audiophile. Maybe the IRENE system that the Library of Congress uses (similar tech, but with conventional photography) could be ported to iPhone.
Fine, yell "Poe's Law" and "shenanigans".
Honestly, I think bands would do well to provide quality service to fans, insuring that they still have fans. If musicians felt like they worked for their fans instead of the record company, there might not be such a disconnect between their actions and the economics of it all. If a band has a sufficient following on their website, why shouldn't they sell it there? Andy Partridge and Thomas Dolby are niche markets at best, but they're able to provide things now to their fans direct from their website that no record company executive would ever consider. Sure, it's not as convenient as iTunes or Amazon, but the crazy dedicated fans that every artist really wants are probably going to the band's website anyway.