From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #209 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, June 12 2003 Volume 12 : Number 209 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: trying to respond to several digests at once... [UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com] Re: Safari, so good [UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com] liking artists I like/photoshop/movie motives [grutness@surf4nix.com (Jam] Re: Fegs and all things Egyptian (RH content) [Ethyl Ketone ] spectre ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: spectre ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: Advanced text editing in OS X. Advanced music downloading everywhere else. ["Terrence Marks" ] Re: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus ["Gene Hopstetter] Re: Advanced text editing in OS X ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Advanced text editing in OS X [Ken Weingold ] The return of the howling monkey (or was that hooded?) [The Great Quail <] Re: Advanced text editing in OS X ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: Advanced text editing in OS X [Dr John Halewood ] Re: RE: Advanced text editing in OS X ["Stewart C. Russell" ] an ass in the hole ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: Advanced text editing in OS X [Steve Talkowski ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:54:38 EDT From: UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com Subject: Re: trying to respond to several digests at once... Natalie Jane wrote: > It was the line about, "Do you know who *I* saw in the hotel? BOB from > SESAME STREET!" that won me over. Me too! I was already feeling better about Mr. Tweedy before, but that scene along with the ones with his kids totally gave me a warm feeling about him. > > I find that my feelings about an artist's music often vary depending on my > > feelings for the artists personality. Does anyone else ever do that? > > I dont know if its a good thing or just annoying personality quirk. > > It kinda depends on the artist. I mean, knowing that Jay Farrar and > Stephin Merritt are assholes is disappointing - I'd like to think that every artist > I like is someone I'd want to meet - but I love their music so much that it > really doesn't matter to me ultimately. Knowing that an artist is a cool > person, however, does tend to make their music more enjoyable to me. Like, > Wayne Coyne just seems like a nice guy, you know? And I liked the Lips > already, but that knowledge is just icing on the cake. Yeah sometimes it doesnt matter if they're assholes. Like with Merritt I've become so acustomed to his prickliness that its almost charming. But it is totally kick ass when they turn out to be cool people as well. And a nice personality does nothing to help shitty Music, like i heard an interview with Trey Anatasio the other day and he seemed like the sweetest guy in the world but that doesnt change the fact that his music is horrid jam band shit. Later, Nora ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 03:01:49 EDT From: UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com Subject: Re: Safari, so good Eb wrote: > I swear -- I did NOT hire Nora to join the list. I swear! I'm not entirely sure what this means but I will confrrm that Eb did no such thing. The only things i know about him are that he is concerned about old feces impacted in his colon, his father died recently, Miles values his opinion, and he has a mac. But if he wants to send me cash i wont object! Later, Nora ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:03:04 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: liking artists I like/photoshop/movie motives >> >I find that my feelings about an artist's music often vary depending on my >> >feelings for the artists personality. >> >> It kinda depends on the artist. I mean, knowing that Jay Farrar and Stephin >> Merritt are assholes is disappointing - I'd like to think that every artist >> I like is someone I'd want to meet - but I love their music so much that it >> really doesn't matter to me ultimately. I feel the same. It unsettles me, for a fairly extreme example, to think that Wagner was a racist bastard, but I avoid thinking about that when I'm thinking about the music. I don't know any rock musicians I like that are quite that extreme, but there are quite a number whose music or music-related work I enjoy despite knowing something of their less than savoury personalities. James Brown, Phil Spector, and Chuck Berry come to mind, as do - to a lesser extent - Jarvis Cocker, Paul Weller, and Joni Mitchell. I doubt I would get on well with Robert Fripp, either. On the other hand, I would feel extremely disappointed if I discovered several of my favourite musicians to have less than amiable personalities (and I suspect that this is part of the reason why the list went into a spin over Pete Townshend a while back). >>Photoshop is, hands >>down, the best image editing software out there. Bar none. FWIW, it's the best I've used, too. And one that I find myself using for several hours per week. Not that I'm a graphics expert, but it does everything I need, and does it very easily, and very sweetly indeed. > Feature film will probably never be a medium of the people, that's for > sure. The number of people and amount of money that go into producing > even the "low-budget" films are staggering. The movie "Clerks" was a minor hit worldwide. Its budget was $27,000 US. Peter Jackson got his start with "Bad Taste", budget $180,000 NZ (that's about $90,000 US). Good, low budget films needn't (and often don't) cost huge amounts. > I do believe that one goal of literature (and, indeed, > art) is to comment on that which is common to the human condition > regardless of local culture or personal orientation, but when ALL of your > art and literature is going for that kind of mass appeal If any medium IS more likely to look for a mass market than most it is the cinema. Yet the proliferation of arthouse is a big clue to the fact that a lot of movies aren't going for mass appeal. So, I think you're way off with this one. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:29:40 +0200 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Re: Fegs and all things Egyptian (RH content) Dear Feggys, After a 4 year hiatus that included, among other things, an MFA, 8 trips cross country, my mother's death, a move to Italy and beginning a teaching career (in Italian no less, which I did not know upon arrival), I have returned to fegmaniax, and I find comfort in the fact that so little has changed on the list. So many familiar voices and a few new ones (Welcome Nora!). Even some of the old quarrels and lingering personal digs remain the same. Of course I want to know what flag James is flying and where the hell is Randy? Oh, and your snail address Gnat. I bought Luxor on Amazon UK. It's going to be a slow grow I think. I haven't seen our man since the Rock Armada in Philly & NYC (with marvelous fegs) so I may have missed the introduction of some of these songs live (always the best way to get the new RH). But, while I am a great fan of acoustic Robyn (Moss Elixir, Jewels for Sophia and You & Oblivion being some of my faves) I find this a tough listen. I don't mind his love songs (I have a friend who believes R only does good work when he's single and miserable) but these feel so quick. Like little ditties he made for Michelle on a Thursday afternoon when it was raining and he couldn't go out and buy the turnips for dinner. I've only been lurking for a few weeks so maybe there was an entire discussion about Luxor that I missed and this is old ground, but I'd be curious if anyone else finds this a bit trite. Boring really. Of course his voice is well, very wonderfully Robyn. But I just don't find the lyrics engaging at all. I've thought about listing all the vegetables mentioned on the cd however. It seems a great many. I've not bought Robyn Stings ;-) yet but do love his Dylan covers so may get it soon. His Visions of Johanna at the GAMH in 98 or 99 was the most beautiful rendering of that song I've ever heard. So greetings to all fegs from Venice, Italy and if'n yer ever in the neighborhood... Be Seeing You, - - carrie ************************************** "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." ************************************** C. Galbraith / Ketone Press meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:22:01 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Safari, so good >Of course, the Academy Awards are infallible in their selection of the >highest art and culture. No way is the Academy ever swayed by PR, hype, >or plain bribery. Gee, Jeme, thanks for letting us in on the big secret about the Oscar choices being less than perfect. Once again, your lacerating insight saves the day. > Just ask James Cameron, Marisa Tomei, Halle Berry, >Cher... (And be sure NOT to ask Nicholas Roeg, Jim Jarmusch, Jeff >Bridges... or anyone at all who isn't American.) How about asking Roman Polanski or Pedro Almodovar, both foreigners who won top awards at this year's Oscars? Honestly, Jeme...since you think any film which requires a budget is transient fluff, why bother commenting on film at all? You look all saucy and superior with yer facile, anti-Hollywood swipes, but I wonder if you can even come up with many specific "little films" which you think were robbed of Oscars. This all seems to be nothing but a matter of abstract principle for you. Just another puzzle piece in your overall violent, "anti-corporate" stance. >The point is that this stuff is still just put out for entertainment's >sake and anyone that thinks they're producing anything lasting, important, >or meaningful is deluding themself. This claim is just as credible as its final word. Enjoy your Star Trek tapes, Eb PS General aside: I saw the Fruit Bats tonight. Much like the recently seen Essex Green, they were a case of good music, dully performed. In this case, I actually *welcomed* the lead singer babbling a little between songs -- it gave the set some personality which was otherwise missing. Oh, and if any of you hopped on the Kingsbury Manx train when I was raving about them a year or so ago, I'd definitely advise checking out the Fruit Bats. Also recommended to anyone who likes the Beach Boys' Friends album.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:24:33 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: spectre One just went for GBP 22.51 on eBay -- is it worth it, I wonder? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:44:37 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: spectre Did I mention I found several cassette copies of Respect in a discount book shop for 25p each? If so, then 23 quid does sound a little steep... That said, I think it's a great format for an interview - I wish there were more track-by-track album interviews with any interesting artists. Cheers Matt >From: "Stewart C. Russell" > >One just went for GBP 22.51 on eBay -- is it worth it, I wonder? > > Stewart - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get the gossip faster - it's FREE with MSN Messenger! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:19:29 -0400 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: RE: Advanced text editing in OS X. Advanced music downloading everywhere else. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Gene Hopstetter, Jr. Eb sed: >> 3) I hate TextEdit, as opposed to good ol' SimpleText. >Open Terminal. Type "vi " and drag the file you want to edit to the >terminal window. Hit Enter. > >Now *that's text editing. > >Bet you can't do *that* in Windows XP. I was surprised to find that Windows XP includes edlin, for all of your "I learned a program 15 years ago and I'm going to keep using that program no matter how difficult and counterintuitive it is" one-upmanship needs. Or you could just use start->run->edit for slightly more reasonable old-school text editing. I could never stand SimpleText. It bugs me that a program with a name like that doesn't give you a regular plaintext document. Personally, I use Textpad (available at http://www.textpad.com) for my text-editing needs. And if we're talking about supporting software or not supporting software, I don't mind paying for a decent application. What I mind is crap like Limewire or Kazaa* that takes over your computer, automatically installs software you don't want, tracks what sites you go to, shows you a few dozen pop-up ads, takes you to their sponsored webpages automatically, and what have you. (Or, if new.net crashes, Internet Explorer stops working. Or if it doesn't crash, it can stop your antivirus program from working). About 10-20% of the calls I get in a day are because of this crap. It's getting worse than viruses. If you've got any kind of file-sharing program, you need Spybot (http://security.kolla.de) to keep this off your machine. Everybody's all talking about, you know, "Me and Kazaa versus the corporate bigwigs at the RIAA", as if Sharman Networks were some great force for freedom and equality that were on your side. File sharing is just bait. People these days don't know (or don't care) what their computer is doing to them. Terrence Marks *: http://www.spywareinfo.com/articles/p2p/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:52:22 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: Safari, so good > -----Original Message----- > From: Capuchin > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:48 AM > To: 'Nerdy Groovers' > Subject: RE: Safari, so good > > People NEED software and people can PRODUCE software. That relationship > means, in this economic system, money can be made. But you don't have to > SELL THE SOFTWARE to make that happen. > > Writing software is like any other form of skilled labor with the > exception that its fruits are not scarce AFTER their production. The > scarcity in the software equation comes BEFORE the software is written. > So you get paid to write software, but there's no reason to charge for the > software once it's written. Ugh. I really don't even know where to start with this. > No, the scarcity of software is 100% artificial. As is the scarcity of music. Are you against the idea of paying musicians for their most recent collection of songs? If you ARE against the idea (and I'm banking that you would be) is that opinion based on principle, or on the fact that new systems have come into the mainstream that greatly reduce the cost of duplication and transfer? Continuing to look at the current whipping boy, photo software; twenty years ago, if you wanted to engage in intricate image manipulation, you would have had to commission an experienced darkroom technician. It would have been a pricey venture for a very nominal return of one or two prints. Not exactly "open" to the masses because you're paying, each time you need it, for ABILITY. Now, with widely available software (whether it's a legit or cracked Photoshop, free GIMP, or almost-free Ifran) people have access to photo manipulation on that scale. The mode has changed and, simply because the ability to do a task is based in ones and zeros on a spinning magnetic platter rather than in a living person, should you have free access to that ability? Is there some ingrained belief of self-entitlement here that I'm missing? In the economic climate of the US--the market economy--there's an idea of creation for profit. (GASP!) You get an idea in your head ("digital image manipulation for print media", say) and you lay out some groundwork. Plans for an application, say. Then you stable some engineers (i.e. developers) and pay them a salary to create an application to complete a task. Eventually, should you finish it, you pay someone to duplicate it (or host it on a site for download). There may be marketing and distribution. God forbid even advertising. Suddenly there's a demand for this product that you dreamt up. Is it an artificial demand? Perhaps partially, but you may just find yourself filling a void in the market. Is it villainous, then, to charge for the rights to use the product that you worked on? Whose foundations are based on your ideas and concepts? Not in my opinion, it isn't. > The JPEG compression > is a routine that is independent of you and infinitely reproducible after > you've written it. Once it's out of your head and on a disk, there is no > scarcity and therefore no market value. > > However, scarcity can be created by using the coercive power of the state > and its threats of force to prohibit the otherwise free and natural > copying of the software. There is market value if the right to distribute that routine is protected by copyright law. In this country, if you play your cards right (and by the rules) you can use--and, gasp again, benefit from--copyright laws. I'll admit that there are fine examples of copyright run amok in our society today. Then, again, there aren't too many parts of the judicial system here in the States that don't need some slapping around to get back into shape. > The ABILITY of the software is something the software can do whether you > (the programmer) are there or not. And that ability can be reproduced > with a simple command or click of the mouse. True, however the SOFTWARE wouldn't be there in the first place if it weren't for a programmer. As the creator of a commodity (in this case a computer application), I should be able to control the duplication and distribution of it if I want to. > The programmer's market value is in the programs he has not yet written. > The programs already written may flow freely from one to another without > cost or burden to any in the path. They MAY, yes. Should they? Is a songwriter's value in the songs not yet written, with those that came before supposedly flowing freely? If that's the case, then in light of their recent works, Dylan and the Stones aren't worth a hill of beans, are they? - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:58:58 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus Stewart C. Russell wrote: > being all grown up, I use the tubes from bottles of Laphroaig, > Glenlivet and Balvenie. But none of them have worked as well as the > CartonCam. Imagine that -- after my first bottle of Laphroaig, everything looked all fuzzy and artistic to me, just like in your picture. And that bottle was much cheaper than a decent camera. That was my last bottle of Laphroaig, by the way. I tried the Scotch Thing and it just didn't work for me. I'm happy with a few bottles of Young's Oatmeal Stout. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:03:39 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Advanced text editing in OS X Ken asked: > Huh. All that does is paste the path to the file. Or do you mean to > drag the highlighted contents of the text file? Yep, after it pastes the path to the file, hit Enter and vi will open the file. That click-and-paste functionality in Terminal is *real* handy for moving and copying files, too. F'rinstance: cd (drag source folder here) cp *.* (drag destination folder here) Blam-o. Quick and easy file copying. I love that, 'cause I'm on a crazy, heterogenous SMB cross-platform network. Makes things real easy. Yeah, yeah, I'm probably preaching to the Unix Converted. But it might be interesting to somebody else. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:09:41 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Re: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > > I tried the Scotch Thing and it just didn't work > for me. If Laphroaig's what you're trying, it's no wonder you find it hard. It's rather more than an acquired taste. Balvenie Double Wood would be my choice. In a few short months, I have my colleagues hooked on it. Very smooth, very sweet, yet cheap at C$56 at the LCBO. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:10:39 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: Albini vs. the press Jeffrrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey writ: > Yeah, you can read over and over again how (say) Steve Albini's an > asshole...but as we discussed in another context, the press needs > hooks, and > once established (Strokes/VU) it's very hard to dislodge. For all I > know, > Albini was an asshole once or twice to some journalist (who themselves > may > have been an asshole), and every since then, Albini tops the asshole > list. While it's possible Albini is a bona fide asshole, I tend to think it's just that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. After years of inane questions from music journalists, I'd start acting like an asshole, too. It's always journalists who are saying Albini's an asshole, right, and not people you know? I'd actually like to meet Albini. I think we'd have a lot to talk about (tube amplifiers, good vinyl, bad bands, etc.). Case in point: for years and years, I read that Jim Thirlwell (aka Foetus) was a mean, insufferable misanthrope. Imagine how nervous I was when I picked him up for an interview in 1995. He turned out to be a quiet, considerate, well-spoken, and intelligent man. But I was very well familiar with his work, and I didn't act like a sycophant, and we got along very well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:22:39 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Advanced text editing in OS X On Thu, Jun 12, 2003, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > >Huh. All that does is paste the path to the file. Or do you mean to > >drag the highlighted contents of the text file? > > Yep, after it pastes the path to the file, hit Enter and vi will open > the file. Oh oh oh. I use vim, not vi. That must be it. > That click-and-paste functionality in Terminal is *real* handy for > moving and copying files, too. F'rinstance: > > cd (drag source folder here) > cp *.* (drag destination folder here) > Yes, I like the drag and paste functionality to and from Terminal windows. Cool stuff. Btw, 'cp *' is fine in Unix. *.* is a DOS thing for the most part. ;-) > Yeah, yeah, I'm probably preaching to the Unix Converted. But it might > be interesting to somebody else. Nah, I only do Unix sysadmin for a living. :) - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:22:26 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: The return of the howling monkey (or was that hooded?) Ah, lovely! After another absence, Jeme returns with posts full of insults, hypocrisy, and general unpleasantness..... > Selling software is evil (as is selling anything that you could copy and > distribute for almost nothing). That's right -- because the act of creation should have no benefits for the creators and producers. Why not *give* away art, music, software, books, films...? I'm sure all those pesky artists, editors, producers, writers and so on can hold other menial rent-paying jobs, after all, just so long as they *walk* to work. Ah, Jeme. Please -- point to just one thing, just one original thing, that you yourself have created and that any one of us here would *want* to pay for a copy. As usual, your argument is so untenable, so deliberately incendiary, so disinclined to invite a reasonable response. I have no desire to debate this with you -- there is no debate. I just want to log on and express -- again - -- my frustration at you willingly playing the part of the troll. > Well, I guess if you're whole raison d'arte is creating little animated > ditties for mall consumption, fostering a culture of secrets, mistrust, > and greed is pretty much a prerequisite. Great, now you stoop to insulting Steve's job, too, which is also one of the the man's passions -- a rare and happy coincidence in this world of Mammon. Jeme, why can't you just be *nice*? Are you really so lonely that you really need to focus such attention onto yourself? Or was Nora right -- are you really just an asshole? I've met you in person, and you seemed like a stand-up guy; but online, you are a rude, arrogant, self-righteous jerk. Why is that? Why did you have to throw your monkey shit all over Steve, who has been nothing but nice, considerate, and enthusiastic? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:16:35 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Advanced text editing in OS X Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > > cp *.* (drag destination folder here) surely cp * (drag destination folder here) 'cos that'll leave out all the files which don't have '.' in their names. There's a good chance that plain old cp will skip all the hidden files/directories that OS X seems to need. You might want to look at 'cp -r', or the delightfully baroque (but useful): (tar cvf - . ) | ( cd destination ; tar xf - ) Oh, and OS X comes with emacs. End of story. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:29:59 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Advanced text editing in OS X On Thu, Jun 12, 2003, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > Oh, and OS X comes with emacs. End of story. Yes it does. That's why the OS X distribution had to go to a second cdrom. ;-) - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:00:02 +0100 From: Dr John Halewood Subject: RE: Advanced text editing in OS X Quote Stewart Russell: > Oh, and OS X comes with emacs. End of story. That's just a practical joke to make MAC users get RSI, right? Time to re-ignite the unix editor wars thread I guess... cheers john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:17:10 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: RE: Advanced text editing in OS X Dr John wrote: > > That's just a practical joke to make MAC users > get RSI, right? now you can use emacs on eMacs! (as I do when editing my software for Catherine.) Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:24:53 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: reap David Brinkley, 82. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:30:06 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: an ass in the hole >I dunno - it could be that you, Natalie, have met Farrar and Merritt >several >times, and they've consistently proven themselves assholes...but if not, I >wouldn't assume. Failings are magnified in the public eye - just imagine >yourself at your worst behavior, and imagine the whole world ended up >knowing about it. Farrar is mainly an asshole to journalists, who, of course, are the people who disseminate the image of an artist to the rest of us slobs. Therefore, he gets a reputation as an asshole. But I've also heard a few eyewitness accounts of him snubbing fans, though it seems to be more out of shyness/reclusiveness than asshole-ness. My overall impression is that he is not necessarily someone I'd want to meet, but possibly "asshole" is too strong a word. Stephin Merritt has a very well-established reputation as a jerk and I've read many interviews and articles to that effect. He was polite when I met him (the tinfoil Thoth softened him up, I think), but his manager/mommy figure Claudia Gonson warned me beforehand that he was "probably going to be rude to me." I guess the lesson there is that people aren't consistent and an asshole in one setting is not necessarily an asshole in another. >I don't know who this Farrar person is, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Merritt >still lives here in town and so does Natalie, so the odds aren't real bad. You're thinking of Steven Malkmus, the shining star of trivia night. Stephin Merritt lives in New York. I don't know if Malkmus is an asshole or not, but he seems willing to mix with the "common people," so who knows. All I know is that he sure is a looker. Hoo-ee! n. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:33:30 -0400 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Advanced text editing in OS X Dr John wrote: > That's just a practical joke to make MAC users get RSI, right? Not if you use one of these (just read about this in todays NY Times "Circuits" section: http://www.fingerworks.com http://www.fingerworks.com/TS_PowerBook.html It sounds pretty cool. I'd love to give it a try. Perhaps they'll have a booth at next month's Macworld Creative Expo here in NYC? - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:40:23 -0500 (CDT) From: tanter@tarleton.edu Subject: Peter Gabriel rocks! We saw Peter in Dallas last night and he was awesome! We were waiting for a severe thunderstorm and just as the show (outdoor theatre) was ending, the lightning show began. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:45:51 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Safari, so good Quoting stevetalkowski@mac.com: > On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 07:38 PM, Capuchin wrote: > > The entertainment industry (the entire copyright industry, in fact) is > > built on the absolute requirement that information does not fall into > > the > > hands of those who do not pay. > > Information? Dude, it's entertainment - you said it yourself. Do you > think everything should be free? I'm not Jeme, and I look nothing like Jabba the Hutt, but I think the principle here is this: yes, people can be paid for their knowledge and skills - i.e., in developing new information (entertainment is a form of information, or can be regarded as such, and certainly is when it's a collection of bits) - but since that information, once created, is infinitely reproducible w/o depriving anyone of their possession of that information (unlike a physical object: if I steal your car, you don't have your car; if I duplicate your file, you still have the file), copyright imposes an artificial scarcity upon that information by making it available legally only to those who can afford it (i.e., Photoshop costs how many hundred dollars?). I can see the merit in this argument...but I can see some flaws too. One of the more obvious is how to get there from here: right now, development is undervalued in most cases (risk: just because someone might be able to develop something doesn't mean they will do so) because it's predicated on recouping its costs through future profits. The question is, if I'm in a position to pay someone to develop information (write code, etc.), under Jeme's system, how am I to get that money back? Or more broadly, how am I to benefit from having spent that money? In college, I lived in a housing cooperative. One of its chief flaws, esp. since its living costs were low compared to the surroundings, was that, inevitably, it attracted freeloaders: people who wouldn't do the work expected of them (the idea is that everyone works, everyone benefits, everyone owns the coop). This bred resentment, frustration, etc., and wasted time. The analogy is this: what's to prevent most people from freeloading off the work of others while contributing nothing themselves? I think I'm less utopian than Jeme appears to be. I'll acknowledge that, as an engine of economic growth, capitalism is pretty much unparalleled. However, it also lacks effective steering mechanisms ("invisible hand" theorists are kidding themselves) and it utterly lacks brakes. As a result, in the process of generating this economic growth, anyone not fortunate enough to be aboard this, uh, great iron sledge (!) gets crushed in its path. So, I don't have a problem with people making money...but not when they're doing so off the backs of people who are literally starving to death. So I guess I'm some sort of democratic socialist... Since it seems Jeme, too, is not at all pleased with the current economic system...which means that arguments which run, "but that's how capitalism works" are pointless and irrelevant to his positions: he's implying that some other economic system would work better. > > These days, that includes the curtailing, > > subjugation, and outright suppression of technologies that would make > > it > > easier for people to communicate with one another and share their > ideas > > and culture. > > Thank God for the Internet! (oops, wrong again, you have to PAY to > PLAY) I'm not sure what you're getting at, Steve - in this case, Jeme is correct in that the profit motive has blocked progress time and again. Medicines made from common plants are not broadly produced until some wrinkle is introduced that can make them copyrightable and hence profitable, as a result of which, people die. Leaving aside for the moment the need for other modes of transportation, the technology for cars to double or triple their fuel efficiency exists: but implementing that technology would cut into oil company profits, so it doesn't happen. And of course, all kinds of software is held up until companies can try to safeguard its inherent reproducibility, and systems are hindered by DRM tech that inhibit their functionality. > > The handful of commercially successful artists are held up as > > justification for the oppression of the hundreds of thousands of > > non-commercial artists and the entire rest of human culture and > > civilization. > > Man, where do you GET this stuff? The newspaper? Read past the overheated rhetoric: all he's saying is that, say, the reason Robyn Hitchcock doesn't have a decent contract, can't get his music decently distributed, is because the control of such distribution is held by those who are more concerned with profit than art. I mean, that's just obvious! > Of course, you still have to pound the pavement to get it distributed, > but wait - there's this thing called the "Internet" where short > independent films are starting to thrive and be seen. One of the problems here is that that relative ease of production (true w/music too) has created such a glut of product that it's very difficult to sift and winnow through to find the good stuff. Or, more accurately, it's frustrating to imagine you're finding the best stuff because there's way more of it than you'll ever have time to experience. One more thing: I'm always a bit taken aback by how outright *offended* people can be when basic economic/political precepts are questioned. I mean, to read only Nora's reaction to Jeme's post a few days ago, you'd think he personally insulted her, her mother, and her pet goldfish, as well as put cayenne pepper in her contact lens solution. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad np: s/b something by Negativland, but isn't ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #209 ********************************