LiteNite 2011-01-30 14:53:50

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfvt6xa-NE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfvt6 xa-NE</a>

!!!

OwnageGiy223 2011-05-22 18:05:16

What the fuck are you smoking?

S3C 2011-05-23 02:15:32

Your article is interesting but the majority of the reasons you listed are far from being mortifying.

"He created the software to give himself a broader spectrum of sound to experiment with."

This statement isn't really accurate. MIDI is not sound. (The synthesizer the MIDI is connected to is the sound) It's simply a system of digital data that triggers events. A broader spectrum of sound would be related to innovations in sound synthesis and acoustic and acoustic-electric instrument development and new ways to play these instruments to get different types of timbres.

"Better, tidier and more advanced alternatives to MIDI were created, but it was too late."

Such as?

"Thus, still to this day, musicians are bound by the limitations of software almost 30 years old. MIDI is locked-in. It's quite a frightful thought indeed; that a small project of work by one man could have such a drastic impact."

What you see as limitations are most likely the limitations of the software and hardware, not the actual design of MIDI itself. And MIDI has improved more or less in the past few decades. And it's not solely credited to the work of one man- like most if not all ideas that stand the test of time they start off very small by one or a few people and develop into behemoth projects built through the ideas of others.

In fact, the type of data that MIDI stores has been used since the late nineteenth century- i.e. "piano rolls".

"All of these (and many, many more) concepts had equabilitylly (if not more so) credible alternatives."

Such as?

Other concepts have not came to fruition because they're still (were) in their draft stages or we lack the technical requirements to create legitimate alternative solutions.

(WTF Tom and staff? There's significantly less space in the comments now. Continued->)

S3C 2011-05-23 02:32:10

"But unfortunately, lock-in within software is much more painful than railroads. Software must always adhere perfectly to a boundlessly particular and messy system of rules. So while lock-in may be an annoyance in the world of railroads, it's death by one thousand cuts in the digital world."

I'm struggling to find out what you mean by "death by one thousand cuts in the digital world". In order to change the the railroads it will require hours upon hours of labor of restructuring the rails, walls, possibly trains and the overall system to accommodate a more efficient and newer train transportation. With software, to make an update all the developer needs to is open up the source code file, append and change what's there and it's done. Press CTRL C and CTRL V to make copies and upload to the web. Hard Drive space is practically infinite and digital resources are easily accessible. Maybe you mean something entirely different, I don't know.

"There are some, although depressingly few, situations in which we escaped "lock-in". For instance, there was an active campaign in the 1980's and 1990's to promote the importance of visual aesthetics within software. Thankfully, the movement was successful due to the efforts of influential engineers within companies such as Apple and Microsoft- thus we have been saved from ugly fonts and software, for now at least."

If you trying to associate an early computer model with your negative perception of "lock-in" ideas then there are probably far from just a few instances were the technology "escapes". Once a product or idea reaches its zenith and outlasts it's initial purpose, then the luxuries and aesthetics come into play. A telephone has a visual screen and even DVD players and web browsers. A portable CD player has transformed into a pocket size Ipod that can hold the equivalent of millions of CDs and even play games and pick up radio frequencies. Cameras and video recorders are provided with photographic manipulation programs that allows people to edit such media with the craziest shit.

(Continued)

S3C 2011-05-23 02:56:18

"The freedom and anonymity offered by the internet encourage many people to express themselves in ways they may be unable to within the "real world". Young suggests that this freedom has negative consequences, as people with controversial opinions are given free reign to broadcast themselves."

An honest opinion is better than no opinion. How is expressing a controversial opinion considered negative? Aside from cyberbulling and spamming, which can be moderated irregardless.

Censorship breeds falsifications and inaccuracies. If one wants censorship in their news, turn on the television or read the newspaper. If one wants to hear the real ideas of other people, look on the internet.

"I think the real danger of anonymity is the impact it has upon our individuality."

Lacking a visceral identity can bring out someone's true identity thus bringing out their individuality even if such is perceived as a collective anonymous unit.

"Real people must has left all those anonymous comments on blogs and video clips, but who knows where they are now, or if they are dead? "

Does it really matter? an opinion is an opinion. whether youre male or female, gay or straight, white or black, if youre a criminal or a priest it shouldn't have any weight or special entailment on what a comment says.

"The sterile style of writing on Wikipedia removes any flavor or trace of humanity. In doing so, it filters the subtlety of authors opinions and essential information is lost."

Define "humanity". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a journal for the author's personal thoughts.

(Continued)

S3C 2011-05-23 03:14:16

"Furthermore, the collective authorships approach of Wikipedia tends towards the ideas and opinions of the crowd, potentially devaluing its own content."

It's not really based on the actual IDEAS and even moreso the OPINIONS of the crowd, but rather the information that the crowd has to contribute to the website. You cannot post your opinion on whether Barack Obama should get a second term on his page without it getting deleted. You cannot post your own idea of a 9/11 conspiracy theory unless it's fairly well recognized and has merit. And there's a a rather large group of neurotic pedants who filter and moderate the website so the encyclopedia retains a satisfactory level of legitimacy. It's up to the reader to check the articles' cited sources and from there evaluate the articles credibility. Being able to think for yourself will always trump censored content that's *just* fed to you by people with college degrees.

"Web services such as Twitter ask us "what are you doing now?", yet the question is fundamentally flawed. Twitter does not ask us to share ourselves, it asks us to share fragments of ourselves."

Unnecessary use of semantics. Twitter gives you like 50 characters per message, it's obviously just intended as a communication medium parallel to a text message that can be shared with the world.

As for the rest of your essay. Sure people may rely on computers and technology too much (as it's decreasing the amount organic communication and replacing leisure outlets that would normally be allotted to activities that involved excercise with computer games and online gossip) but I really think you're making an argument that no one is really arguing with to begin with.

Computers are indeed very stupid, if anyone disagrees they don't understand the question and/or the logic and process in which a computer works. Computers are simply nothing more than a (extremely useful) tool, but no one is deifying them in the first place to begin with.

(Continued)

S3C 2011-05-23 03:16:27

Gardeners will become useless once there is lawnmowers that can mow the grass by automation (which I'm sure has been invented). And there's no real harm in "robots" taking over human tasks. Thinking otherwise is delaying the progression of humanity (ironic eh?)- would you rather have a calculator do your calculations or have a team of ancient mathematicians move the pegs on an abacus?

Once the technology to cover a human job has developed, there are ALWAYS new job opportunities that arise for humans, anyway.

Socratius 2011-07-14 02:51:42

the drugs aren't right