Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Go back to making horses and buggies, if they can't even spend 30 minutes on the fucking Internet using teh Google? Then they ARE FUCKING LAZY and they don't deserve to make shit, much less sit on their ever widening asses because they wrote a little 3 minute song a decade ago.

Lazy? A woma who spends all year teaching, composing, recording, touring and playing weddings, and whose holidays are almost always combined with work? A guy who plays and records with multiple bands and works as a theatre janitor because the theatre management understand his need for flexible work so he can go on tour? A guy who spent years on the breadline trying to get his break as a session musician in London, and now spends most nights in pubs singing other people's songs? Etc

Lazy people don't survive in music, and my friends all manage to make a living doing what they love. They don't do that by selling T-shirts.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

its really easy to have those made you just have to get off your ass and get 'er done.

Fuck off. Does that seem rude to you? To me, it's less rude than "get off your ass", because I'm not assuming anything about you when I tell you to fuck off. None of my friends who perform professionally or semi-professionally are lazy, but your statement assumes they are. They are hard-working and dedicated, but none of them sell mugs, T-shirts or keyrings because their audiences just aren't interested in tat like that. I don't buy band T-shirts, mugs or keyrings, and I'm not going to feel guilty for that. Do you know what I'm happy to pay for from musicians? I'll give you a clue: for doing their job; for making music. Should a baker have to sell T-shirts to his customers to make a living? Should I reward my taxi driver by buying a wallet with his face on it? No.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Most people are annoyed about how the publishing business is working hard to undermine better ways of obtaining music because they want to set up their tollbooths to not just monetize, but to monetize in a manner that least upsets their current business model. That means they work to kill anything that they can't figure out how to make money off of.

If that "better way" doesn't make profit for the labels or the artists, then why exactly should they support it? Spotify themselves bleat about making a "loss" on the free end of freemium whenever the labels and/or artists complain about low profits. But Spotify make money on every single advert for a free user, and the "losses" on free users all are just shuffling of moneys from premium users' plays to free users' plays, and they profit from both types of user. In the end, users get a cheap service not because of efficiencies or innovation at Spotify, but because Spotifypays its suppliers as unsustainable low rate.

The only way they are actually hurting is that they still want to be selling people CDs for $20+ per disc with one song that people want to hear.

That's a strawman. We're not talking about track-bundling here, we're talking about freemium services that are little more than leeches.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Hate ?

I just don't buy into the B.S. they are doing this for the artists, or that the artists will ever see anything in their pocket from this.

Recording contracts set out labels' and artists' shares as a percentage. Anything that increases the total income therefore benefits both label and artist. The whole point of a commission-based system is ensures that making money for the client is always in the representative's interest.

Comment: Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score 1) 244

Artists negotiating direct with Spotify would be stuffed. Labels may not do a brilliant job of negotiating on artists' behalf, but they do negotiata. And they have to, because they receive a percentage of royalties, so if prices rise, both the label and the artist profit.

Comment: Re:turning tide (Score 1) 167

by Half-pint HAL (#49683039) Attached to: Texas Regulators Crack Down on App-Driven Hauling Service

"paid for out of general taxation"

IOW, "someone else pays".

When a child becomes sick, someone else always pays. In this case, it's not the parents. Why should a child's health be determined by the parents' wealth?

"no premiums" ... except for the taxes, so mostly paid by the wealthy. You're welcome!

Wealth is generated by society.

"no waivers, no limits" ... except the various government rationing organs who determine what disorders and treatments are covered, how far to go to save someone's life - i.e., when to give up and give that scarce hospital bed resource to someone else.

You didn't think it really violates the natural laws of scarce resources?

Money violates all natural laws. In a fully market-based healthcare system, a childless millionaire bachelor nearing the end of his natural lifespan can outbid a healthy 18-year-old accident victim for a scarce resource such as a liver. If it came down to a fight for control of the resource, I'd bet on the kids, his friends and his family over the lonely old man any day.

Comment: Re:turning tide (Score 1) 167

by Half-pint HAL (#49680047) Attached to: Texas Regulators Crack Down on App-Driven Hauling Service

(Hint: apprx. all "insurance" programs provided by governments aren't insurance.)

Really? Well that's fine -- I'm more interested in free healthcare than insurance. Like for example for my niece, born last night and already transferred to another hospital for potentially life-saving surgery. All bought and paid for out of general taxation, no premiums, no waivers, no limits.

Comment: Re:turning tide (Score 1) 167

by Half-pint HAL (#49676669) Attached to: Texas Regulators Crack Down on App-Driven Hauling Service

"Boo hoo, first world problems"

I don't actually care, as I don't have a TV. What I was trying to do was demonstrate the extreme differences in cost between pooled and unpooled resources.

I have been led to believe that it is theoretically possible for individuals to voluntarily pool their interests, buy mass-made products - even information products.

Of course it is. But the bigger the pool, the greater the efficiency savings. This is why healthcare in the US can bankrupt you, whereas healthcare in most of Europe is essentially a marginal cost.

I am not saying regulation is the only option, I'm saying it's the best option.

Comment: Re:More approachable? (Score 1) 270

by Half-pint HAL (#49672015) Attached to: Swift Vs. Objective-C: Why the Future Favors Swift

I don't know how this idea started, but only a non-programmer could think Swift is more approachable than Objective-C. Swift is way more complicated and has more fundamentals that must be understood.

let versus var

Neither "var" nor "let" is more approachable to someone not already informed. Programmers know variables, mathematicians are familiar with the "let" convention.

optionals, including implicit and explicit binding

Optionals are actually pretty intuitive when you're not already in the programmer's mindset. Why can't we simply ask whether something is there or not? Many languages force you into all sorts of silly workarounds, including subtyping, flag management, or (lazy man's favourite) exception handler.s

differences between structs and classes (value versus reference)

There's never an easy answer to that one. Values are far more intuitive, but classes as values are never likely to work.

Comment: Re:Don't go out on a limb, Paul (Score 1) 270

by Half-pint HAL (#49671653) Attached to: Swift Vs. Objective-C: Why the Future Favors Swift
Yeah, and the Czechoslavakians used to make plotters out of Meccano sets. (Well, "Merkur" brand, but essentially the same thing.) The point is that lots of people can do lots of cool things with the tools at hand, but if you gave them better tools, they'd be able to do soooo much more.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce