Here's a great video of one of the concerts from Hangout
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Digital Music Greatest Hits
Ok, so I've accepted this whole new music industry that incorporates online media. I stand completely behind sharing music online because I think it puts the control more in the artists' hands. Some people download music for free or listen to it on pandora, last.fm, youtube, whatever. I think this is fine if you give some support to the band and the industry in general. One way of giving to the band is to go see them live. This is the avenue by which I've chosen to give most of my support to bands. I love live music and I think digital media has helped to make live music more enjoyable and profitable.
I listen to Phish quite a bit and I think they have a great model. You buy a ticket to the show, have a great time, and then you get a free download of the show from phish live. This gives you a soundboard professional quality recording of the show you actually saw (and maybe don't remember for various reasons). Phish allows their phans to then take these recordings and trade with other phans in accordance with their policies. This I think helps build and sustain a pretty nice community of hippies.
Another way digital music has made live performances better is that it lets the band and users decide what songs are hits and worth listening to. I started thinking about this the other day when I started looking at some of the acts that I haven't heard that I will see at the hangout festival this summer. Instead of going to their website or trying to listen to them on the radio I went to youtube. There I found a wealth of music with comments and reviews from everyday listeners like myself. I think this allows people to decide what songs are the best and give a great snapshot of an artist.
This is where the greatest hits idea comes from. Phish does not really have "greatest hits" albums, but everyone knows the best jams. Because I can get live shows from bands I have never heard of before I can get a sense of how the concert will be and what songs a band loves to play. I love the fact that I can look through setlists and decide what songs will likely be played and listen to them. If I like it than I'll try out some more of their music, if I don't like it so much than at least I gave it a try and I know that I actually listened to what the artist wants to say about themselves instead of what some industry exec whats me to think about the band.
Please do not interpret my post to be authorizing or endorsing 'pirating' or any other illegal activity. I just think a new music industry is emerging and I'm excited to see where it heads. For me, I'm gonna try and give bands the benefit of the doubt. When I listen to a new band I've never heard I'm gonna listen to the songs that the band wants people to hear and what other listeners think are their best songs. In this respect, a new 'greatest hits' designation takes form shaped by the band and user input. That excites me.
I listen to Phish quite a bit and I think they have a great model. You buy a ticket to the show, have a great time, and then you get a free download of the show from phish live. This gives you a soundboard professional quality recording of the show you actually saw (and maybe don't remember for various reasons). Phish allows their phans to then take these recordings and trade with other phans in accordance with their policies. This I think helps build and sustain a pretty nice community of hippies.
Another way digital music has made live performances better is that it lets the band and users decide what songs are hits and worth listening to. I started thinking about this the other day when I started looking at some of the acts that I haven't heard that I will see at the hangout festival this summer. Instead of going to their website or trying to listen to them on the radio I went to youtube. There I found a wealth of music with comments and reviews from everyday listeners like myself. I think this allows people to decide what songs are the best and give a great snapshot of an artist.
This is where the greatest hits idea comes from. Phish does not really have "greatest hits" albums, but everyone knows the best jams. Because I can get live shows from bands I have never heard of before I can get a sense of how the concert will be and what songs a band loves to play. I love the fact that I can look through setlists and decide what songs will likely be played and listen to them. If I like it than I'll try out some more of their music, if I don't like it so much than at least I gave it a try and I know that I actually listened to what the artist wants to say about themselves instead of what some industry exec whats me to think about the band.
Please do not interpret my post to be authorizing or endorsing 'pirating' or any other illegal activity. I just think a new music industry is emerging and I'm excited to see where it heads. For me, I'm gonna try and give bands the benefit of the doubt. When I listen to a new band I've never heard I'm gonna listen to the songs that the band wants people to hear and what other listeners think are their best songs. In this respect, a new 'greatest hits' designation takes form shaped by the band and user input. That excites me.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Long time, no see
Alright, its been a while since I've posted, I know. But I have a whole new set of interesting topics to discuss and I just got the mobile app for blogger so hopefully I will be more diligent. Discussions to follow.......
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
New Page
If you are reading the comment, you are most likely on the blog and noticing that there have been some changes. Which makes this notification a moot point. Either way, enjoy the new view.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Christmas Break
More than a month after I promised to write shortly I am back with too many ideas and too little specifics to write about. First of all, I'm feeling very Robert Goulet-ish while reading next to my mother's fireplace. Very homely. Anyway...
The first topic I will discuss stems from the book I am currently reading. I found myself really intrigued by medical malpractice when we covered the professional standard of care in Torts class. I think the biggest reason why I became so concerned with the topic is because there was so much talk about tort reform before the passage of the health care bill, note I did not call it Obamacare, Republicans are really utilizing the Goebbels rhetoric with that one and this has become one of my greatest pet-peeves. If you have a legitimate problem with the plan, I will likely agree; although senseless name calling is not an intellectual endeavor. Sorry, I digress. Tort reform comes in many different forms and variations. Some measures seem certainly plausible, although I think the focus of the book attacks the more fundamental idea that the system needs changing. I've only just begun the book so I will be sure to write again once I finish.
The second topic focuses more around current events. It seems that Congress thinks they have saved the internet today with a vote to 'promote' net neutrality. I have only recently begun to understand and educate myself on this topic. I am very grateful to be going to a law school that has a Telecom program and a very distinguished scholar on the topic, Marvin Ammori. It seems to me that the advancement made by Congress today was only nominal and did little to actually advance the idea of 'net neutrality'. By the way, I watched the news tonight and two journalists were attacking the name 'net neutrality'. I was not really under the impression that it was such an outdated term. I'm not sure if this is a semantic ploy or if there really is better terminology for the topics, so I will continue to use 'net neutrality' to refer to its original idea.
I have two problems with the legislation as I understand it. First, it still allows companies to block competitor sites. Secondly, it allows device manufacturers to regulate the internet while placing rules on the service carrier. I think this is a good characterization of what I've read so far, although I will read more before I comment on these issues so I can make sure I have my facts straight.
One issue that is clear however, is that Congress believes that certain measures are not as imperative with open-source devices, like Android. This is completely wrong. Open source devices merely allow better control over the software that is on the device. Net neutrality is talking about browsing Apple itunes as opposed to Rhapsody, or using Google instead of Bing. Open-source devices, and what some people refer to as 'rooting', refers to the actual browser on the device you are using or the app. This is completely off point and doesn't really seem to add anything in the discussion.
Great example: I used to be able to use my HTC Incredible as a mobile hot-spot to connect my computer to the internet wirelessly. I had Verizon and did not pay for the broadband service 'tethering' that they wanted me to. Recently, they blocked the internet access to Incredible users by placing the block on the internet and no longer on the device (like when I had an old Blackberry). I have since 'rooted' my phone in efforts to install open-source software, ROMS, and new kernels. I am however, still restricted from using the 'tethering' service through my carrier, Verizon. This is perfectly fine, and I understand the reasoning. It really does take up so much more bandwidth and requires more from their network. The problem I have is that the issue is not with open-source devices or other ones. The issue lies with the Network's right to regulate how much of their network I use.
Very few people have a problem with an internet provider saying "You download content like a University computer lab, we will charge you for all that usage." The problem that net neutrality tries to address is that these companies are trying to say "If you use Bing, your internet will be super-fast. If you use Google, it will be significantly slower. And don't even ask about using Skype, because you cannot." The point becomes, Comcast is engenieering their own internet. They are now offering a limited version of the internet. What if internet completely turned this way? Would it make sense? What if all I could watch was the "bed intruder video" and all my friend on AT&T could see was "Marcel the shell"? What if all you could use on Comcast was MySpace, Facebook on Verizon, and LinkedIn on AT&T? It seems like this would defeat the purpose of the internet.
In closing, I know some of what I said was comical. Although, there are serious implications for this sort of monopolization and manipulation. Free market economics just suggests that we let it happen and everyone sign up for a new carrier that offers the whole internet. Is this necessary? I thought thats why the internet came about; unrestricted, open, a true "market place of ideas" (sorry for the cliche). Congress is in the process of greatly failing the citizens of the United States again. They are about to sell the internet to large corporations in the almighty name of re-election.
Just remember: if you are an AT&T customer, you may only access Democratic websites, MSNBC, and your Iphone can only get Obama themes. If you use Verizon, get used to Fox News, the Palin Network, and Glenn Beck podcasts.
Okay, I promise that the next time I write I will focus on a slightly more philosophical issue and less on some current event. I will also update on my progress in the Medical Malpractice book. Until then
The first topic I will discuss stems from the book I am currently reading. I found myself really intrigued by medical malpractice when we covered the professional standard of care in Torts class. I think the biggest reason why I became so concerned with the topic is because there was so much talk about tort reform before the passage of the health care bill, note I did not call it Obamacare, Republicans are really utilizing the Goebbels rhetoric with that one and this has become one of my greatest pet-peeves. If you have a legitimate problem with the plan, I will likely agree; although senseless name calling is not an intellectual endeavor. Sorry, I digress. Tort reform comes in many different forms and variations. Some measures seem certainly plausible, although I think the focus of the book attacks the more fundamental idea that the system needs changing. I've only just begun the book so I will be sure to write again once I finish.
The second topic focuses more around current events. It seems that Congress thinks they have saved the internet today with a vote to 'promote' net neutrality. I have only recently begun to understand and educate myself on this topic. I am very grateful to be going to a law school that has a Telecom program and a very distinguished scholar on the topic, Marvin Ammori. It seems to me that the advancement made by Congress today was only nominal and did little to actually advance the idea of 'net neutrality'. By the way, I watched the news tonight and two journalists were attacking the name 'net neutrality'. I was not really under the impression that it was such an outdated term. I'm not sure if this is a semantic ploy or if there really is better terminology for the topics, so I will continue to use 'net neutrality' to refer to its original idea.
I have two problems with the legislation as I understand it. First, it still allows companies to block competitor sites. Secondly, it allows device manufacturers to regulate the internet while placing rules on the service carrier. I think this is a good characterization of what I've read so far, although I will read more before I comment on these issues so I can make sure I have my facts straight.
One issue that is clear however, is that Congress believes that certain measures are not as imperative with open-source devices, like Android. This is completely wrong. Open source devices merely allow better control over the software that is on the device. Net neutrality is talking about browsing Apple itunes as opposed to Rhapsody, or using Google instead of Bing. Open-source devices, and what some people refer to as 'rooting', refers to the actual browser on the device you are using or the app. This is completely off point and doesn't really seem to add anything in the discussion.
Great example: I used to be able to use my HTC Incredible as a mobile hot-spot to connect my computer to the internet wirelessly. I had Verizon and did not pay for the broadband service 'tethering' that they wanted me to. Recently, they blocked the internet access to Incredible users by placing the block on the internet and no longer on the device (like when I had an old Blackberry). I have since 'rooted' my phone in efforts to install open-source software, ROMS, and new kernels. I am however, still restricted from using the 'tethering' service through my carrier, Verizon. This is perfectly fine, and I understand the reasoning. It really does take up so much more bandwidth and requires more from their network. The problem I have is that the issue is not with open-source devices or other ones. The issue lies with the Network's right to regulate how much of their network I use.
Very few people have a problem with an internet provider saying "You download content like a University computer lab, we will charge you for all that usage." The problem that net neutrality tries to address is that these companies are trying to say "If you use Bing, your internet will be super-fast. If you use Google, it will be significantly slower. And don't even ask about using Skype, because you cannot." The point becomes, Comcast is engenieering their own internet. They are now offering a limited version of the internet. What if internet completely turned this way? Would it make sense? What if all I could watch was the "bed intruder video" and all my friend on AT&T could see was "Marcel the shell"? What if all you could use on Comcast was MySpace, Facebook on Verizon, and LinkedIn on AT&T? It seems like this would defeat the purpose of the internet.
In closing, I know some of what I said was comical. Although, there are serious implications for this sort of monopolization and manipulation. Free market economics just suggests that we let it happen and everyone sign up for a new carrier that offers the whole internet. Is this necessary? I thought thats why the internet came about; unrestricted, open, a true "market place of ideas" (sorry for the cliche). Congress is in the process of greatly failing the citizens of the United States again. They are about to sell the internet to large corporations in the almighty name of re-election.
Just remember: if you are an AT&T customer, you may only access Democratic websites, MSNBC, and your Iphone can only get Obama themes. If you use Verizon, get used to Fox News, the Palin Network, and Glenn Beck podcasts.
Okay, I promise that the next time I write I will focus on a slightly more philosophical issue and less on some current event. I will also update on my progress in the Medical Malpractice book. Until then
Friday, November 12, 2010
Lack in Attention
Ok, so absolutely nothing is new on here but my life has chaged dramatically. I will be writing soon.
-The lethargic author
-The lethargic author
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Ending My Undergrad Career
Ok, now that tests have been made and everything is running good we can get down to business. This past semester I have been working on cognitive studies and reading about consciousness. I like views from Daniel Dennett and other materialists and seem to find my self cringing at dualists (even dualists in disguise). I am curretly working on writing an article that reflects the magnitude of the error made by Descartes. It is meant to argue that Dennett's heterophenomenology is a better alternative to understanding consciousness that Descartes' dualism. I am trying to keep an nonfoundationalist account of understanding and knowledge about consciousness while building a solid materialist account of consciousness. I am not convinced it will work, but we will see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)