Installing Amazon MP3 Downloader on 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid Lynx)

I was looking to buy a few albums from Amazon today, when I found out that they only provide their mp3 downloader in a 32-bit package. Moreover, it requires other packages that are not available in the Lucid repositories.

Why do I want the Amazon downloader? Well, you can download individual songs/files from Amazon without the downloader, but in order to get whole albums at once (as well as some goodies that are sometimes packaged only with albums), you need the downloader.

I found a post that addresses this issue in a slightly earlier version of Ubuntu, but it didn't work immediately for me.  So, here's what I did:

1. First, I backed up my /etc/apt/sources.list
2. Then, in the original /etc/apt/sources.list file, I replaced all instances of "lucid" with "karmic". There are packages that the downloader needed that are available in the Karmic repositories, but not Lucid. Specifically, these are the 1.34 versions of Boost libraries:
   
   
   • libboost-filesystem
   • libboost-date_time
   • libboost-iostreams
   • libboost-regex
   • libboost-signals
   • libboost-thread
   I got the idea to use the Karmic repositories from http://www.hilltopyodeler.com/blog/?p=294.
3. Use synaptic to refresh your package list, and to install the above packages as well as libglademm-2.4-1c2a (you can do it from the command line, but I used synaptic).
4. From here, follow the instructions at http://www.ensode.net/roller/dheffelfinger/entry/installing_amazon_mp3_downloader_under (look in the comments for the current location of getlibs.deb). While installing amazonmp3.deb, if it tells you that there are other dependencies missing, go ahead and install those as well.
5. After you've finished, don't forget to restore your /etc/apt/sources.list from the backup you made in step #1.

Hope this helps someone else.  Thanks to the two sites linked above for their prior work on the issue.

Am I an Entrepreneur?

I'm having a bit of trouble recently understanding what I'm doing.

I'm not working for anyone else right now. No steady paycheck (no real paycheck's at all, yet). But I'm not unemployed. More and more I'm hearing the word entrepreneur. Of course, I've known the word, but never though it'd be applied to me. I've though about starting a business, other organizing endeavors, etc., but never wanted to be an entrepreneur.

I think, as I'm coming to understand it, there's nothing inherently that I have against entrepreneurialism. I think this is just another instance where I am deeply frustrated by the game we're playing.

Dictionary definitions of "entrepreneur" are usually similar to: One who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise. But the dictionary definition isn't really what I'm referring to here. It's rather the concept of what an entrepreneur is in my mind. For me, the concept of entrepreneur smacks too strongly of capitalism for me to be completely comfortable with it. It sounds like someone trying to make a buck. It sounds like the infinite creativity of humans directed toward financial gain.

Being around all of the independent workers, free agents, and self-proclaimed entrepreneurs that I have been recently, I'm realizing that they don't all share my feelings about the concept. I'm learning that entrepreneurialism is multifaceted, complicated (as most things are). According to a video by Grasshopper, which Cameron Herold showed in a TED talk, "entrepreneur" is just a relatively new word for "thinker", "doer", and "innovator". In a presentation that he gave at the European Creative Cities Conference, Blake Jenelle says that, to him, entrepreneurialism is "The art of building something that has never existed before.

I like Blake's definition, but that's not what an entrepreneur is to me. For me, an entrepreneur is someone who devises a way to make money off of something, whether it existed before or not. And maybe that's why I like the concept of missioneur, so far, which Jenelle has been evangelizing lately. For me, the appeal of missioneurialism is not any affinity for entrepreneurship, but instead because I see it as a tool with which to move money from the center. As such, I do not see it as entrepreneurship, though.It's entrepreneurialism as much as grassroots community organizing or non-profit work. By definition, each of those activities may be entrepreneurial, but they are not considered in the same vein.

To do: Write (and post) my mission. This is what will guide me, more than labels of entrepreneur or missioneur.

Positive <==> Successful?

Went to an IndyHall happy hour tonight at National Mechanics. It was excellent.

There's one thing I've been noticing over the past couple weeks. "Successful" people are positive. I know this is nothing new or terribly original, but it's something that, when you really get to talking to people, you can't help but notice. They have a way of seeing the lesson and the value in almost any experience.

I have only anecdotal evidence yet (I'm a scientist), but I think it may be true that positive people are "successful" too. I'm thinking this is because there are fewer opportunities for outright failure when the majority of experiences have some value. So positive people are less likely to classify what other people would as outright failure; they're just stepping stones—educational moments—on the way to something else.

Ok, that's enough Tony Robbins for tonight.

By the way, I don't really hate marketing. I just have a lot to learn.

Lies Facebook Tells

I'm just a little frustrated at Facebook right now. When I created my event, I checked the little box that said "Anyone can view and RSVP (public event)". Then, on my event page, under Event Information, it says:

This is a public event. Anyone can see the event, RSVP, or invite others to this event.

Awesome. Sounds good.

So why, when I clicked on a link to my event without being signed in today, did it tell me that "You must log in to see this page."?!?! Turns out that when they say that anyone can see the event, they're just lying to you. Really what they mean is:

Only people with a Facebook account, or people that were explicitly invited, can view your event. And there's no way to open it up. Because the only public that we care about is the select portion of the public that chooses to use Facebook. We will alienate anyone else. Sorry.

Damn it, Facebook! I already sent out the announcements.

*Sigh*, I should have tested harder.  The moral of the story: you can use Facebook, just don't believe a thing it tells you.

I Hate Marketing

I hate marketing.  I guess the marketing I'm referring to is the sending of notices through email, twitter, facebook, and every other communication channel you can access. It makes my palms sweat. Makes my heart beat fast. I feel like I'm bothering people. I feel like I'm inundating a lot of already over-inundated people with extra information.

Part of this is that I have to get better at using different communication channels. For example, I sent out a tweet about the Phillyware meeting this thursday. It said:

hey folks, i'm holding a brainstorming meeting for ideas on building civic software community in philly. come by:http://tinyurl.com/24n8g3s

Someone from Refresh Philly repackaged it as:

Interested in building civic software tools for Philly citizens? Join @mjumbewu at @indyhall this Thurs http://bit.ly/9QOg1p

I found that a much more appropriate blast. Why? They both talked about the meeting, but while my message leads with what I was doing, RefreshPhilly's leads with the reason you would be interested. It engages you with a question, an actual prompt through which to consider the meeting, in 140 characters or less.

This is, of course, something that anyone with any experience in marketing would know.

I (heart) My Gnome Desktop

So I was sitting here yet again enjoying my Gnome desktop experience, and I was so moved by my enjoyment that I had to write a post about it. I'm really loving my Gnome these days.

Someone Read this Blog

Someone commented on my post-RefreshPhilly post the other day. Which was weird because I never really expect anyone to read this blog. It's more of a personal space. But then if I didn't invite it, I'd have made the blog private.

Anyway, it makes me nervous about writing anything disparaging. It prompted me to re-read my post, nervous about what I said.  But I have no reason to be nervous (my most harsh comment was that the talks weren't "earth-shattering"). Really, I just have to remember that, even when writing to myself, I'm incredibly forgiving of my subjects.