> They are now used for mainly one purpose- for companies to market their full peacock feathers above & beyond the message. Which is text.
And like anything else, they are abused by people that want to abuse them. All the while quite a few of us are using it for work related activities.
I routinely copy from statistical software that will copy tables out in tabular format that I can share with colleagues -- I could put it into excel or PDF or convert it to a picture and attach, but in the end, I simply want to convey tabular results that are easy to read.
Quite often I will highlight a portion of someone's message when quoting it -- I try to only quote the relevant portions, but sometimes you might not want to repeat yourself.
That said, I disable all beacons and third party images. I don't allow my messages to respond back at all. These are aspects that should be removed -- my old boss gots angry occasionally that he couldn't see when I read my emails or would accuse me of not reading them. Nope. Not going to turn it on.
You can have all the things you hate without getting marketed to
Yup. So do I.
I use the interfaces when I need to get multiple streams of audio INTO the machine or if I need fast / precise latency on the way out (a few of mine will do internal monitor mixing so I have no computer based delay while playing instruments)...but 99% of the time? I'm still plugged directly into the headphone port. Its convenient and it isn't plugged 10 feet away in a rack that I have to stand in front of.
I have a feeling most audio professionals still use this more often than not. If they move to bluetooth...there is no fucking way I can deal with the latency even when just doing simple mixes.
I'm responding two weeks later...
However, the problem I have is that I could do what you are saying without handing it off to others.
The fact is, certain scientific principles REQUIRE adherence to mathematical principles. These are not hard formulas to follow...I model the forumula, I give an equation over, sometimes algebra / calculus require a a bit of interpretation to get it into the machine, however, this is why programmers have to have so much math. Because they have to be able to understand the equations, and have to be smart enough to understand how to break it apart to put it into code.
Sometimes, I can give ranges of values that can be expected -- which can simplify the code. However, you have to be able to see what I give you, you have to be able to interpret it, and put it into code. If I can model it in mathematica and have it generate the code I need and put it into the software...well...I can't find a reason to have a programmer around.
Nothing I have asked is that difficult, however, it seems programmers don't give a damn...
No, they cannot in most circumstances. A rather critical part of generating code is to understand what it is for and people that can specify architecture, design and functionality in a way that it can be implemented "anywhere" are a lot rarer than exceptional programmers and a lot more expensive.
In this case, it doesn't matter where exceptional programmers are, because I've had shitty programmers that could follow my directions and give me what I wanted because they paid attention. I work in a science based world and have to deal with code that is EXACT and no short cuts taken simply because someone doesn't understand plain simple logic. I've found a LOT of great programmers out there that could program the shit out of anyone else, but they don't listen. And when they do, the concepts go over their head. In the end, I have to go back and rewrite code I paid someone else to do and write it in a language that even nonprogrammers can follow the logic, write it in a way that is overly simplistic and inefficient, but it works. I've tried it the other way -- start off doing just this, and handing it over to programmers to optimize, but that takes me away from what I was originally trying to handle in the first place (and when I run functional tests between the two code bases, I still get differences because the coders can't understand why I would care about certain things, or "it only affects a small percentage of cases, which we just ignore" (paraphrased).
You need someone there with you, and great programming skills don't matter these days if you don't understand why you are doing something. I'd rather have a mediocre programmer that understands what we are trying to accomplish than a great programmer that doesn't. Not sure why, but it feels as if these skills are mutually exclusive.
I loved the old Mac. It was the most user friendly system out there -- and as a musician I needed just this. I also cut my teeth on unix (specifically SysV), so when OS X came out, it was the best of both worlds.
Give me a unix based system that I can do my research and gives me low latency with an interface that I don't have to think about, and I'll be happy. I can't stand Microsoft at all...it doesn't do userfriendly well, and the nerd side of it sucks (even if you put the GNU tools on it...I don't even know if these exist anymore, but it was the only way I could get by dealing with NT back in the day).
As someone that has always loved Apple products, you are right. As much as everyone hated Jobs, he made sure shit was right.
You and me both. Apple has sucked on the network side lately...it is sad, they adhere to the official specs, which as we all know isn't how things are implemented in the real world. If something doesn't work, it doesn't matter if it is right or not...this is one thing I think the community gets right, they do clean room specs, but then they make it work.
I know there was a community fix for this a while back, not sure if Apple implemented this or not.
Yeah, the media side goes away for XMAS. You can schedule things to go up -- in advance -- things like price changes and all that, but if it isn't in the scheduler, its locked.
On the OS side, this was supposedly a rush release...they made it mandatory, but let us know early it was going to drop. I believe enterprise users had the ability to run a script that would stop it...but I don't know why you would.
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley