Slashdot Mirror


Howard Stern Coming To the Net

theodp writes, "To promote an Internet radio service Sirius is launching this week, Howard Stern's 4+ hour program will be made available live online for free on October 25 and 26. The new Sirius service will offer 75+ channels of CD-quality programming for $12.95/month with no need to buy a Sirius satellite receiver."

334 comments

  1. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let me give that reaction a little more thought...

    Nope. Yawn sums it up.

    1. Re:Yawn... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      More specifically, decadence is boring.
      I wouldn't censor Stern--free speech is too important--except via the tuner.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  2. That sounds grand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say! Good show old chaps. BFD.

  3. "CD quality programming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    But not CD quality audio. I think the net stream is 32kbps.

    1. Re:"CD quality programming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Regular satellite-based Sirius is 64k. So even their bird isn't "CD-quality". That's just a tick above your average warbly / lossy internet radio station (that sounds like complete garbage on a decent stereo). I'd be very curious to hear the true bitrate of their web site.

      For now, it's Pandora.com for me. It's the best sounding internet radio / streaming music station I've heard.

    2. Re:"CD quality programming" by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given this is /. I think a plug for Virgin Radio's brilliant 160kpbs Ogg Vorbis stream is allowed:

      http://www.smgradio.com/core/audio/ogg/live.pls?se rvice=vrbb

      (Though they are a UK Ad supported pop music channel so the quality of the content is not guaranteed)

    3. Re:"CD quality programming" by woody06967 · · Score: 1

      The "basic" net stream for all programming is 32 kbps and is included with normal subscriptions. Sirius started offering a "premium" net stream add on subscription last month that for $2.95 extra per month allows you to stream 129 kbps for the music stations. Howard Stern is limited to 32 kbps for both subscription types. The normal Sirius bandwidth for the satellite broadcast is slightly less quality than the premium net stream.

    4. Re:"CD quality programming" by saberyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The new "Premium" stream is 129K bits/sec.

    5. Re:"CD quality programming" by achacha · · Score: 2, Informative

      I listen to Sirius radio on the web daily (because I work in a valley between 2 mountains and no reception is possible). Honestly, the quality is great, better than FM radio. I also have a Sirius unit that unfortunately broadcasts via FM (since my car doesn't have a direct input and I am too lazy to rewire it) and the internet stream sounds better than FM I get in my car.

      As far as Howard, his show is quite amusing for the guests he has and the non-standard questions he asks them. Even though on satellite he is not censored, the language is not overused. Bubba is also quite interesting in a dirty sexist sort of way.

      Howard is a good reason to get Sirius, but I presonally like Hard Attack channel where I can listen to new death metal and interview for which I would have no access over coventional radio.

      I don't care about CD quaity, I grew up in the tape-swap 80s and scrambled premium channel over airwaves decade, so I think my brain is trained to smooth out and unscramble stuff I hear and see :)

      I also listened to XM with the dish I had and their channels are not very diverse, XM feels like their channels are part of some genre-based market study (and very generic feeling); but that's just me. All Sirius needs is a 24/7 Pink Floyd channel and I will be happy.

      I think over time the bitrates will improve and I am hoping 3rd party software will allow me to record shows so I could listen to them when I have time.

    6. Re:"CD quality programming" by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      129? WTF is that. Why not just use 128? Does extra 1000 bits really make that much of a difference. And besides, we all know 128 isn't really CD quality. They used to pretend it was back in 1998 when Napster was cool, but we know that you get a lot better sound out of 192 Kbps encoding, and probably a lot closer to actual CD quality.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:"CD quality programming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Have you seen Spinal Tap? They turned the encoder to 11.

    8. Re:"CD quality programming" by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was on the bandwagon and all reared up ready to get Sirius at the beginning of the year for the sole purpose of listening to Stern. Sadly, Sirius (and probably Howard in particular) was unwilling at the time to embrace Internet broadcasts. Rumor has it, Stern was paranoid that people would steal his show and rebroadcast it so that he wouldn't get as much money. My commute into work is 7 minutes long, and I wasn't willing to pay for a subscription to listen to 7 minutes a day. Sure, I could've probably purchased additional receivers and listened in my office, or a boom box, but honestly, that's hundreds of dollars in outlay, not to mention a PITA to set up, just to listen to something that makes me chuckle every few minutes. Had Internet streaming been available, I would have not only subscribed to Sirius, but probably paid a few bucks extra to get Internet streaming so I could listen at home and at work without having to hook up a bunch of extra hardware.

      Now it's 10 months later, and frankly, I'm over Stern. I didn't think I could live without listening to his show, but due to his and his company's paranoia, I was forced to. Now, I have no desire to subscribe to Sirius. I started listening to the show that replaced his, and while not as funny as Stern, it's funny enough. I can listen over the Internet, in my car, and from my regular stereo at home.

      Lesson that they should have learned: strike while the iron's hot. I would have subscribed back then, and I'd still be a subscriber. I'm sure I'm not alone. There's absolutely no justifiable reason to have not put streaming in place 10 months ago. Hell, they were already doing it with their music channels. It's not like they didn't have the technology already. Plus, they can DRM the hell out of those streams, making it practically impossible to save the digital stream. Sure, someone could've ran their line out into their line in and recorded the show and put it up on BitTorrent, but they could do that with any of the regular Sirius equipment just as easily. I suppose that's what you get when your business people don't listen to your technology people.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    9. Re:"CD quality programming" by 0x15e · · Score: 1

      Thanks for confirming the satellite bitrate ... I've always wondered about that. I had Sirius for about 6 months last year but dumped it because it sounded horrible (worse than FM, IMO) and they dropped Remix.

    10. Re:"CD quality programming" by glamslam · · Score: 1

      Ok, this is off-topic, but this stream is really nice and very high quality sound. But, the other virgin stream that comes with Amarok shows the song titles. Why do they not show with this stream? Is it an ogg thing or an Amarok thing?

    11. Re:"CD quality programming" by achacha · · Score: 1

      The Stern broadcasts were being ripped to MP3s the day they started, people just converted incoming audio and converted to MP3 on the fly. I thought the reason for not going via internet initially was that they were owrrie dthey could not provide adequate bandwidth and once people thought it was crappy quality, they would never come back. Bad publicity/impression at start is devastating, so I can see why they held off.

    12. Re:"CD quality programming" by Ben174 · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you 1000 bits makes a difference with the volume of traffic they experience.

      --
      Here is my home page.
    13. Re:"CD quality programming" by Babbster · · Score: 2, Informative
      Rumor has it, Stern was paranoid that people would steal his show and rebroadcast it so that he wouldn't get as much money.

      Wow. Talk about bullshit. No, Stern wasn't "paranoid" about internet broadcasts (as long as they're paid for - this is a subscription-based business). He was talking about how they needed an Internet stream from virtually the day he arrived on the air.

      Stern and Sirius are no more "paranoid" that people will steal their shit than anyone else who has a service they're trying to tell - in other words, they don't want you to steal their shit.
    14. Re:"CD quality programming" by Asm-Coder · · Score: 1

      I do believe Pandora has a bitrate of 128 bps. Maybe not high enough for some, but I can't tell the difference. I'll keep listening. It's free music, what can I say.

    15. Re:"CD quality programming" by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      That's not the reply I got from the Stern show when I emailed them. It might not have been accurate, but the person who answered the email (I have no idea who it was - the email wasn't signed, so it was probably an intern) said that Howard was concerned that the Internet broadcasts couldn't be "locked down" and until Sirius could ensure that, his show would not be broadcast on the net. Again, I'm not speaking as a voice of authority. That might be a BS line that they were told to use when people asked about Internet streaming, but that was the response I got from the show. (I got the response from the show, not from Sirius.)

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
  4. Watch out! by dangitman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's a trap.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Watch out! by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now??

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Watch out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is great, now old people in Korea can listen to Howard Stern. Somebody just jumped the shark here, but I'm not sure if it is Sirius or the Internet.

    3. Re:Watch out! by Mooga · · Score: 1

      How can my post be redundant if it was the first one posted?
      Note to those with mod point: Check the TIME :-P

      --
      ~ Mooga
  5. $13 a month... by Reverend99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... to listen to Howard Stern's talk about midget lesbians. That's so awesome because like there isn't any other access to midget lesbians and other assorted pervsions anywhere else on the Internet.

    1. Re:$13 a month... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually if you bothered to RTFA, it's $13 a month to access all of Sirius' music channels as well as select talk channels like Howard Stern. You get a lot more than just Howard, over 75 channels of stuff.

      Frankly I'm surprised that Sirius isn't offering this subscription for less. $13/month is about what a regular radio subscription costs, and that includes access to the internet feeds. Since you can get Sirius radios for as low as $60 it'd make more sense to buy a radio and monthly subscription to get both radio & internet access instead of $13/month for just internet access.

    2. Re:$13 a month... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The internet access is just a gimmick to get you to buy the radio. Like Apple with the iPod, Sirius knows that if there's a Sirus radio in every car, then they will become the SERVICE of choice (driving out XM once and for all).

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:$13 a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually if you bothered to RTFA,

      Umm, no thanks.


      ...as well as select talk channels...

      WTF is a "select" talk channel?

      You get a lot more than just Howard

      What a great fucking deal. Thanks ever so much for sharing!

    4. Re:$13 a month... by x_solidus_x · · Score: 1

      Clearly someone who hasn't been listening...

    5. Re:$13 a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howard Stern gets a bad rap from people who only watched the E! show.

      The radio show is not all freakshows and porn stars. 90% of the show is just interesting conversation.

    6. Re:$13 a month... by IconBasedIdea · · Score: 1

      WTF is a "select" talk channel?
      You are misreading "select" in that context. It means a choice few out of a group, as in "not all." On the stream they have now, you won't get channels like Fox News, ESPN Radio, stuff that would also be licensed elsewhere. You get all the Sirius-only stuff, as far as I can tell.
      BTW I still listen to at least part of the Stern show every day. Big fan of Sirius.

    7. Re:$13 a month... by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      WTF is a "select" talk channel?

      Generally when some says you get a "select" anything, they mean a selection of choices from a larger group. In this case, the poster meant exactly that. A select talk channel is... one of a group of channels that are streamed. Not all channels are streamed - I believe this is because many of them probably have their own internet streaming audio, like the various NPR stations.

    8. Re:$13 a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is telling the truth. I'm a hardcore 15+ year HS fan, and for the most part thought the E! show sucked. It was boring, all strippers. The radio program is interesting, real conversations and witty humor.

    9. Re:$13 a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XM offers online only streaming as well, but its only 7.95 a month.

    10. Re:$13 a month... by Megane · · Score: 1

      ... to listen to Howard Stern's talk about midget lesbians. That's so awesome because like there isn't any other access to midget lesbians and other assorted pervsions anywhere else on the Internet.

      Oh yeah, I'm sooooooo excited over this. Not. Especially when I can get five hours of Penn Jilette weekly for FREE, one hour of which is MONKEY TUESDAY! (obligatory music)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:$13 a month... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since you can get Sirius radios for as low as $60 it'd make more sense to buy a radio and monthly subscription to get both radio & internet access instead of $13/month for just internet access.

      Not everybody in the world can receive the signal. (Though I do think the price is too high.)

    12. Re:$13 a month... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I suspect that others are correct that they're pricing this in a way such that it doesn't compete with the satellite business, but I also suspect that streaming via the web costs them as much as their satellite broadcasts (apart from the startup costs, which of course are already on the books). The Internet service costs them more every time someone accesses it, while the cost of satellite transmission is fixed and each additional subscriber defrays the cost.

    13. Re:$13 a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you can get Sirius radios for as low as $60 it'd make more sense to buy a radio and monthly subscription to get both radio & internet access instead of $13/month for just internet access.

      You neglect to mention, the cheapest radio is a $60 for THE CAR, which doesn't do much for those of us who would listen at home (or in my case, live in a large city and don't have a car.) Obviously it's cheap because they're agressively targetting that market.

      The lowest price I can find on a home system is $269.00... And that's a component, so you'll need speakers as well. Unless I'm missing something on their website... And the standalone is what, $300?

      That $13 kind of sounds like a bargain to me, especially if (like most people I know these days) your computer doubles as your stereo. And I don't see how much less they could really offer it for; I've seen other "internet radio" services charge $5-$10 to let you listen to their streamed mp3's... Really, what would be a "fair price" to you? $7? $1? Bandwidth alone can't possibly be cheap, especially if many people will listen all day. It's not like their existing satellites are shooting it through the internet tubes either, it obviously costs something to set up and maintain a reliable service on this scale.

      Oh... And they do pay their talent, too. Stern's ridiculous paycheck aside, most Sirius (and XM for that matter) hosts make money. Which is a good thing, because otherwise it would sound like college radio.

      Oh... and someone else mentioned... This is available worldwide, which satellite coverage isn't.

    14. Re:$13 a month... by pyster · · Score: 1

      Xact Sirius Radio: $35.00
      Service Per Month: $12.95+tax
      Listening to radio void of FCC content regulations: Priceless.

    15. Re:$13 a month... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      ... to listen to Howard Stern's talk about midget lesbians.

      Sigh, yet another know-it-all who's never listened to Stern for more than 5 minutes at a time.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    16. Re:$13 a month... by Reverend99 · · Score: 1

      I've listened to Stern off and on for some 10-15 years. It's impossible not to have been exposed to him repeatedly in our media saturated culture. I've heard him on the radio. I've watched both of his shows (yeah, I recall the late nite one from 10 years ago). Watched his movie. Watched the original airing of his TV interview with Dave where he proclaimed himself the "king of all media". Yeah, he covers some other stuff besides midget lesbians, but putting Grey Poupon on a shit sandwich doesn't make it a delicacy. But you were right about me knowing everything.

  6. oh dear. by joshsnow · · Score: 0, Troll

    The tone of the web is going to be lowered...

  7. CD quality? by LordSnooty · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, are they streaming WAV files?

    1. Re:CD quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up -- this is funny! (Because no, Virginia, lossy compression cannot possibly achieve "cd-quality", by the definition of lossy compression!)

    2. Re:CD quality? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CDDA is a very inefficient encoding. You could easily exceed CD quality with one quarter the bitrate using lossy compression if you started with a better-than-CD source. Is that what Howard Stern is planning to do? Almost certainly not. Does it even matter for his show? Absolutely not.

    3. Re:CD quality? by nester · · Score: 1

      They've upped the bitrate on 100 and 101 (stern's channels), i believe they're now stereo as well. The other talk channels have high freq compression artifacts. The music channels also suffer from artifacts - it's no where near cd quality. Don't buy xm or sirius if you want cd-quality sound. A strong fm station sounds better.

  8. News for Nerds? by bcmm · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't get it... Can someone explain?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:News for Nerds? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      I don't get it... Can someone explain?

      I'll have a go.

      The Sirius is on the internet, or they have a website at least which is on the internet (yeah, that'll do)

      Nerds use the internet

      This is news article about something on the internet

      So this is News for Nerds... I did it!!!

      That's Numberwang.

  9. Oh My! by LBt1st · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bababooey

  10. This will end up costing you money! by spywhere · · Score: 1

    When you hear the show, you will want it enough to pay the Sirius subscription fee.

  11. CD quality over the net? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    I guess they wont be playing much music on all those channels.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  12. 13 bucks a month? by saboola · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a glorified podcast? This is a bit expensive considering their regular real sat service is about the same price, and has the glorious side benefit of being able to be listened to in the car, where most people listen to music. Maybe if the cost was half this, but at 13 bucks I dont see this moving anywhere.

    1. Re:13 bucks a month? by frazell · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think they are launching this with Stern, because the intent is to draw in as many of his fans as possible. Not really the average listener. Else they would make the whole service available as a trial no?

      It would also seem logical to me that they could expand their web service by making it a cheap add on for their current subscribers. Otherwise, as you said, who is going to pay almost twice as much as XM or Yahoo!'s Launcast for the same type of service (although Yahoo!'s service offers personalization). Not to mention it would turn current subscribers off since they will be paying the same fee twice just to get the right to blast it on their computers.

      Mobile Device support would also be another area they could offer to really expand their coverage (if they aren't already offering this). As with more and more multimedia phones and higher speed wireless (cell-phone wireless) connections it can be seen as a way to offer their service without the hardware investment.

      If those two things are not really met I don't seeing the service going too far. I haven't looked at XM's offering in a long time, but when i trialled it about a year ago those were the reasons it wasn't useful to me.

    2. Re:13 bucks a month? by thc69 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It would also seem logical to me that they could expand their web service by making it a cheap add on for their current subscribers.
      It is free for current subscribers -- whose subscription rate is the same as this new rate. The only benefit this offers is that you don't need to buy a Sirius receiver.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    3. Re:13 bucks a month? by JLennox · · Score: 1

      Let me know of a podcast'er with a multi-decade broadcast career and makes 500m$ on a 5 year contract.

    4. Re:13 bucks a month? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      If those two things are not really met I don't seeing the service going too far. I haven't looked at XM's offering in a long time, but when i trialled it about a year ago those were the reasons it wasn't useful to me.

      XM has had a mobile device (MyFi, there may be others) for about two years now, and subscribers can listen via the internet which I believe offers some extra channels.

      I was under the impression that there were some models of receivers that came with rebates from time to time that made them free anyway - so I'm not sure what all the hype is with this offer from Sirius. Hype - I might have just answered my own question...

    5. Re:13 bucks a month? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      It is free for current subscribers -- whose subscription rate is the same as this new rate.

      Yes and no. Access to Sirius streaming is included with the normal subscription, but is a low bitrate stream of iffy quality. The streaming service the article talks about is a higher bitrate that satellite subscribers won't get unless they pay an additional $3 a month.

      I think they should throw in the bitrate upgrade for purchasers of the new Stiletto, but thats just me.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    6. Re:13 bucks a month? by michrech · · Score: 1

      Mobile Device support would also be another area they could offer to really expand their coverage (if they aren't already offering this). As with more and more multimedia phones and higher speed wireless (cell-phone wireless) connections it can be seen as a way to offer their service without the hardware investment.

      Sirius is already available on Sprint phones (if you pay for an access pack and then pay for access to Sirius). I have the $15 pack (I forget what it's called but it allows me unlimited data usage monthly plus lets me hear Sirius Hits). If I want the rest of the Sirius channels (or whatever Sprint offers -- I couldn't find any info on what channels they offer, specifically), it's another $7 a month (I believe).

      Sirius also has a portable radio now (Stiletto 100?), so there is that also..

      --
      bork bork bork!
    7. Re:13 bucks a month? by guarants · · Score: 1
      I think the idea is that there is a large demographic, college students, that don't spend time in cars but are on the internet all the time. This new service opens them up to the world of "satellite radio" without requiring them to pay for receiver hardware. As for the $13/month- I agree that is a bit high because:
      • commercial-free music is everywhere on the internet so mostly it's the talk-radio that people would be paying for.
      • the talk radio programming on Sirius has commercials and many of the shows are also broadcast on terrestrial radio. (Note: the commercial load on the Howard Stern show is 6 minutes/hour-- far less than anything on commercial terrestrial radio).
      • I'm guessing they won't let you actually download files- rather you can probably only stream it through Sirius's DRMd player.
      So in the end you pay purely for the "exclusive" talent (like Howard).
    8. Re:13 bucks a month? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Podcasts are glorified podcasts. Nobody's (other than you and your loser friends) listening.

    9. Re:13 bucks a month? by thc69 · · Score: 1
      but is a low bitrate stream of iffy quality. The streaming service the article talks about is a higher bitrate
      OIC. I didn't realize the normal stream was of low quality, but I haven't got particularly high quality ears.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    10. Re:13 bucks a month? by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 0

      stern kicks the shit out of most amateur podcasts. You have to remember the guy is connected and has a huge staff, this results in a much more polished production. Also, 5 hours a day 4 days a week is much more than most podcasters produce. Also, unlike most podcasters, he's very funny. I agree the price is high though. 13$ a month is very close to what they charge for normal satellite reception (which includes free streaming).

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  13. Mobile Clients? by Erwos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I could honestly care less about Howard Stern, I am interested in this Internet streaming service of theirs. Does it have support for mobile clients, like PalmOS 5 and Windows Mobile 5?

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:Mobile Clients? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny
      While I could honestly care less about Howard Stern
      You could? I couldn't. Really.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:Mobile Clients? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Mod parent informative/insightful. Or +1 grammer nazi, if it's available.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    3. Re:Mobile Clients? by Erwos · · Score: 1

      You assume that I meant "I hate Howard Stern". I meant what I said: I _could_ care less about him. I'm more or less neutral as to his presence on the service. Thanks for playing!

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    4. Re:Mobile Clients? by limpfish32 · · Score: 1

      I think he means 'couldn't care less'. "The idiom "couldn't care less", meaning "doesn't care at all" (the meaning in full is "cares so little that he couldn't possibly care less"), originated in Britain around 1940. "Could care less", which is used with the same meaning, developed in the U.S. around 1960. " How confusing.

    5. Re:Mobile Clients? by knightsnavi · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's called siriuce. Found at www.emulamer.com/siriuce. Its free, and runs on Windows Mobile. It's not the CD quality stream, at least not yet; radio subscribers (and 3 day trial users) can use SiriUCE to stream it at 32kbps, and you can subscribe to their SIR (Sirius Internet Radio) for an additional 6 bucks per month. It's a great alternative to buying a boombox type set for my office (that and the fact that I don't have a windows in sight).

    6. Re:Mobile Clients? by John+Nowak · · Score: 2, Funny

      *watches Erwos on his unicycle, flipping the bird, whilst backpedalling into a tree*

    7. Re:Mobile Clients? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that "Could care less" developed as a sarcastic version. "Yeah, like I could care less?". Etc.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    8. Re:Mobile Clients? by Stalyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Saying "I could care less" means "there is no limit on how less I care but rather a limit on the effort I put into not caring". For us Americans we don't challenge each other on the limit of not caring (which is a bottomless pit) but on how much effort is put into not caring (because we are so lazy, effort is more valuable).

      You couldn't care less? Well I surely could but it's not worth the effort.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    9. Re:Mobile Clients? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I once read (on Slashdot, so not a great source) that "Could care less" was just the short form of "I suppose I could care less, but i'm not sure how".

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Mobile Clients? by value_added · · Score: 1

      I meant what I said: I _could_ care less about him. I'm more or less neutral as to his presence on the service. Thanks for playing!

      I'll play the role of grammar nazi here. I seriously doubt anyone who is "more or less neutral" on a given subject would use either of the expressions "I could care less" or alternatively,"I couldn't care less." Both those expressions are meant to imply complete disinterest. One is correct and meaningful; the other, if not nonsensical, is awkward at best.

      What I find funny (and, at times, appalling) is how often the expression "I could care less" appears in common usage in recent years. My theory is that it's a variation on the "between you and I" construction, a choice of words whose dismal lack of comprehending simple subject/object relationships is matched only by the embarrassing failure by the speaker to sound important.

      That is, assuming you know better. And can tell the difference.

    11. Re:Mobile Clients? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of sarcasm?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    12. Re:Mobile Clients? by Lactoso · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Have you ever heard of sarcasm?"
      Nope, don't think I have, but it sounds like a LOT of fun...
    13. Re:Mobile Clients? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the expression is, "[I don't care very much at all.] I could care less, [so you should be thankful.]"

    14. Re:Mobile Clients? by AeroIllini · · Score: 1
      Saying "I could care less" means "there is no limit on how less I care but rather a limit on the effort I put into not caring". For us Americans we don't challenge each other on the limit of not caring (which is a bottomless pit) but on how much effort is put into not caring (because we are so lazy, effort is more valuable).

      That's what we call a "justification," and it's wrong.

      The phrase is "I couldn't care less," meaning I care so little there is no way I could care any less, regardless of effort. It equates to "I don't care" (the least amount of caring being logically zero).

      "I could care less" is sometimes considered a more sarcastic counterpart, equating to "I care," and only used when spoken sarcastically. However, this is a specious argument, since the original "I couldn't care less" is already dripping with sarcasm. The truth is, "I could care less" is a linguistic evolution, a lazyism propogated because pronouncing several consonants in a row is difficult, and most Americans don't care about their speech patterns (in fact, they couldn't care less). It's in the same category with "acrosst the street," "nucular," "towards," "besides the point," and "for all intensive purposes." "I could care less" also has a more natural rhythm and meter than "I couldn't care less," which makes it easier to say.

      Personally, I avoid it.

      http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

      </pedantic>
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    15. Re:Mobile Clients? by fithmo · · Score: 1

      pffft.... way too long an explanation to even bother not caring about.

  14. CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 4, Informative
    So many places say "CD-quality programming" and offer compressed audio . . . like CD-Quality MP3's etc. Typically this kind of audio isn't CD quality by definition of lossy compression and streaming rate. In fact last I checked the compression algorthim and bitstream rate for satellite talk radio is different from that of the same service's music stations (the talk radio stream has a lower bitrate and more compression) . . . because the audio frequency band and dynamic range are typically narrower in talk radio.

    CD-quality should imply a real and quantifiable level of quality . . . not "it sounds like a CD to the casual listener (that doesn't know that analog FM radio music is typically compressed in dynamic range and frequency and that radio broadcasts are already equalized for cheap car stereos and boomboxes)."

    1. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by Enry · · Score: 4, Informative

      CD quality is generally 128kbps, regardless of the codec. That's what's used by just about all MP3 hardware vendors when they tell you how many songs you can put on their device, so that statement has been around for a while.

      Stern's broadcasts on Sirius as received by the hardware satellite receivers isn't at talk quality (~32kbps), but at the same quality as their music channels (~128kbps).

      The Internet service you get with Sirius that's standard is ~32kbps for all channels, which makes it sounds a little off. Doesn't matter to me all that much, but some people notice the difference. The new service that is being offered gives the channels at the higher quality bitrate.

      For those of you that think that now Stern is just 4-hours of 4-letter words, it's not. They're in there, and the discussions get a bit more frank than before, but it's like the terrestrial broadcast without the bleeps for the most part. At one point early on, Stern yelled at someone (Ronnie?) and told him to quit swearing all the time because it wasn't funny.

      Don't like Stern? That's fine. My dad hates him with a passion. A few months ago he asked me about my Sirius and a few weeks later he had his own radio in the car. He loves it. It's like cable TV - listen to what you want, there's a lot of variety. An unexpected gem is radio classics, playing radio shows from way back when. Jack Benny's humor still stands the test of time.

    2. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CD-quality should imply a real and quantifiable level of quality . . . not "it sounds like a CD to the casual listener (that doesn't know that analog FM radio music is typically compressed in dynamic range and frequency and that radio broadcasts are already equalized for cheap car stereos and boomboxes)."


      You know, I'm getting deadly tired of people bragging about they mp3 compression kung-fu knowledge.

      YES, WE REALIZE IT'S COMPRESSED.

      Geez.. and yea, it's CD quality to the casual listener and in fact just THAT is what it's supposed to mean. If you wanna see how much people care about marginal improvements in quality, see where DVD-Audio went, and you can witness where HD DVD and Blue Ray will go (hint: nowhere... I know, I know).

      People whining about professionally encoded (encoder matters a lot) mp3 streams of 128kbps and more having terrible quality really amaze me. It'd a damn radio after all. It's not like you recover critical encrypted messages hidden in the audio and you need 1:1 correspondence of each sample, or your kidnapped wife is dead in 24 hours.

      In a nutshell, you can take your mp3 l33t skills and your 64-bit audio 256kHz 15+1 surround system and shove it up your audio output socket.
    3. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have XM rather than Sirius, but a lot of people have said that both services definitely don't reach the level of 128k MP3 quality. XM is 96kbps at best, which puts it more on par with FM, though I personally find the digital artifacts to be more annoying than FM static. Well, maybe Sirius is better -- I haven't had a chance to listen to it with a proper speaker setup (as in, something other than being piped in through the overhead speakers at a store).

      Oh, and that cable TV analogy doesn't work for me. It's true, but it doesn't work ;-) With cable TV, I'm paying for all these channels I don't want. Considering that sports channels are the most expensive for content providers, yet are the ones I watch the least, I wish I could get rid of them. Similarly, I'm only interested in a handful of XM channels. But, I suppose I haven't given them much chance -- I've had to turn off my satellite radio after ten minutes just because the audio quality problems became too annoying.

      Anyway, I just ended up getting satellite radio service as a built-in feature for the trim level I got on my car. I don't plan to continue the service after the initial free trial period.

    4. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by nester · · Score: 1

      I was very disappointed when i hooked up my sirius sportster replay (yes, it's plugged straight into the stereo) and discovered the music channels don't even have the fidelity of fm. I have to turn the treble down just to listen cuz they don't apply a low-pass filter to remove the aliasing.

    5. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 1
      Actually I think that really depends on the music that you listen to. I like a lot of older jazz and classical music and personally, I haven't found many so called "CD quality" 128 kbps recordings of these genres of music that IMHO sound very good.

      In fact I find the sound quality downright annoying compared with listening to a real CD and would rather listen to silence, because at least silence doesn't grate on my nerves as complex chords and countermelodies from a orchestra overwhelm the compression algorithm. 256kbps makes a huge difference to me.

      And though the styles of music that I listen to may put me in a minority of music listeners in general, I don't think that I am in a minority of listeners of these particular genres. With all due respect I personally think that it is harder to hear small compression artifacts in distorted guitar music than in the sound of strings and flutes. I'm not claiming that any particular music is "better" than another, but when one claims "CD-quality sound" and it only applies to particular types of music, that should be specified. Or the "CD-quality sound" should be CD quality for at least the major genre's of music on the radio. But it clearly is not.

    6. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by fz00 · · Score: 1

      You people are comparing apples to oranges. 128kbps on mp3 is very different than the satellite stream as far as I understand it. I'm not sure if they are using the same codec (aacplus?) to stream but if they are it could very well be CD quality. What do you care anyway when you're listening on tinny headphones, puny car stereo speakers and/or shitty laptop speakers??

    7. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      The devil's in the details - it's craftily worded. "CD-quality programming" doesn't say anything about audio quality. Programming means what kinds of shows they put on the air, in what order, and by which DJs. It's an apples to oranges comparison. "CD-quality programming" is like saying "bowl-quality soup".

    8. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by NEW22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is, why call it CD quality when its not? Why not call it FM quality, which would at least be somewhat closer to accurate, and somewhat farther from a lie? Also, a lot of people like you seem to dismiss people who actually care about the quality of the sound coming out of their XM/Sirius radios as marginal and somehow being jerks about all of this. Well, whatever you may think about their desire to have an actual quality signal, the fact is that advertising hype such as "CD Quality" exactly amounts to deception to this segment of the market. It is easy to see that someone might expect better quality out of a new technology, and saying "CD Quality" adds to this faulty impression.

      I'm not some Monster Cable, tube amp, super tech-literate wacked out picky audiophile, but very often I can tell a 128kbps encoded mp3 vs a CD or something of higher quality. Move encoding up to 160 kbps I am not sure that I could tell one way or another. All I am doing is actively listening to the music, which I realize is different from people who have it on as background noise, or as part of a social activity, but I'd like to think that its not so rare to actually actively listen to music for people, at least now and then, with some group or song they care about. If I had a choice between audio services, given how I occasionally like to listen to music, I would choose one with higher quality. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and actually was, that would be all I could ask for. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and I believed them, then I might (justifiably I think) be a little upset that I was lied to and that I can notice a lesser quality.

      That all seems pretty simple to me.

    9. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      translation, there's going to be a few tracks you like but not enough to justify the price tag.

    10. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      Sirius's sound is significantly worse that XM (I have both), but Sirius has better programming. The channels on XM have weird names that I'm sure make sense to someone (Fred? Ethel? Ricky? Lucy?) that play some music that you know, some that you don't, but it never seems themed somehow. The stations are grouped in a weird way on XM as well. I thought I would get used to it, but I haven't. At least not yet.

      Neither of them hold a candle to FM that is broadcast as it was meant to be (most public/PBS FM stations have significantly better quality), and there are a few commercial stations (WGMS) that have great quality. Hardly anybody broadcasts good FM anymore.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    11. Re:CD-quality programming . . .Yeah right by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      "If you wanna see how much people care about marginal improvements in quality, see where DVD-Audio went"

      There is no cause and effect here. DVD-Audio (and SACD) didn't fail because they only had "marginal improvements" in sound. They failed because they were worse that CDs in most ways:

      1) They couldn't be played in the car
      2) They couldn't be played in anything other than DVD players. With the right kind of output.
      3) They were heavily copy protected (you can't rip it any place else)

      However, to imply the sound difference between a CD and a 128kb/s is "marginal" is to put it kindly nonsense. I suppose what you're saying is true for people who only listen on headphones from their MP3 player. But the sound difference is huge.

      But to illustrate, I finally bought a dock for my 3rd generation iPod. I ripped a lot of my CD's in 128kb/s AAC because I couldn't hear much difference on my headphones while I ran. But when I plugged it into my home stereo. It was really an ugly sound. I quickly bumped iTunes up to 192 kb/s variable rate AAC and the difference is pretty clear.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  15. How much for the service without Howard? by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll happily pay more if they have a service without Howard. I'm getting ready to pick up a system and Howard Stern being on Sirius was the deciding factor not to go with them. It's personal tastes but I graduated high school a lot of years ago and hearing him takes me back to high school in all the bad ways. I can listen to obnoxious jerks for free, why would I pay for the priveledge. Yes I know I don't have to listen but I don't care to patronize a service that promotes that kind of programming. I was thrilled when he left the airwaves why would I want to chase the guy to satelite? Too many people these days are thrilled to tell you what to think. I grew up back at a time when the general belief was we should think for ourselves. Now we are all but taught that's dangerous. I guess it's easier for a lot of people to let the government, religous leaders or Howard Stern tell them what to think. If I want an opinion I'd rather go to one of the great minds of our time and Howard just isn't one of them. I don't need him to tell me who's cool or "in". I really don't care. It's childish and pointless.

    1. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll happily pay more if they have a service without Howard.

      You're in luck. It's $25.90/month without Howard Stern.

    2. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've happily had XM for years now.
      XM offers free listening online to is subscribers.

      No Stern.

    3. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by dtanderson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      edwardpickman said "Yes I know I don't have to listen but I don't care to patronize a service that promotes that kind of programming. " Talk about hypocritical, you are not choosing Sirius because they have Howard but you will go with XM when they have Opie and Andy which are just as bad as Howard. They were kicked of the airwaves after airing a couple having sex in a Catholic chapel in NY. Their show is just as bad as Howard's show if not worse. So, if you go with XM you are still patronizing a service that has "that kind of programming". I guess O&A are some of "the great minds of our time" that you would like to listen to and of course they are not "childish or pointless". I think is so funny that people choose XM because of "Howard's filth" but they will subsribe when XM has "Opie and Andy' Filth" which is just as bad. Sirius' music selection is much better than XM and all commercial free unlike XM. If I wanted to listen to commercials then I could listen to FM instead of paying for XM. I read about people swithing from XM to Sirius all the time because the music on Sirius is better. Just admit it you are just jealous of Howard and decided to choose XM not because of filth on his filth on Sirius because XM has filth also just for different personality (Opie and Andy).

    4. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by p4ul13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Calm-o fan-boy, calm.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    5. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Howard Stern was amusing when he was the only "Village Idiot" in the Media. Unfortunately, the Media now has a plethora of Village Idiots, so he is just another inane babbling voice. I agree that we should think for ourselves, but I don't agree that we are being told that thinking for ourselves is dangerous; rather I think that we are finding it increasingly difficult to find (relatively) unbiased information or have the time to listen to multiple biased sources and form our own synthesis of contradictory views. Of course, thinking for oneself takes time and effort, and it is much more convenient to absorb and regurgitate the views of whichever "Talking Head" one happens to agree with in the first one minute of listening.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    6. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Lummoxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes I know I don't have to listen but I don't care to patronize a service that promotes that kind of programming. I was thrilled when he left the airwaves why would I want to chase the guy to satelite? Too many people these days are thrilled to tell you what to think.

      I was with you at first, but the quoted bit above is where you lost me. You don't like him, you don't want to listen, you were glad when he left regular radio...man, that's cool.

      The whole "they tell you what to think" rap...eh, not so much. I've listened to Howard for years, and point blank, it's entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. Actually, Howard and the crew are really smart people. Sure, you tend to get a liberal slant on the occassions they delve into truly important topics, but at the same time, they tend to call things what they are.

      --

      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

    7. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > we are finding it increasingly difficult to find (relatively) unbiased information or have the time
      > to listen to multiple biased sources and form our own synthesis of contradictory views

      It's not hard to find. A few seconds on Google News exposes you to newspapers from around the world, and a few minutes on Google finds you loads of independant sources of information.

      If you don't want to spend the time, then fine, but people shouldn't kid themselves that they're too busy unless they spend absolutely every last waking minute working or looking after their families. (How many hours a week are most people wasting watching increasingly tedious tv shows, for example? Why isn't the superior word processors, special effects hard/software, cameras, editing tools etc equating into better films than those of the last 100 years?)

    8. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Take your XM Radio, flush it down the toilet, buy Sirius and fuck your mother" - Lil Jimmy Norton, Opie and Anthony Show

    9. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by 1stpreacher · · Score: 1

      I'm a Sirius fan (not a howard fan), but for the record... XM too has gone the commercial free route.

    10. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      You have a good point, even a very busy person has the time to actively seek out information. However, finding unbiased information has, and always will be, time consuming. Even an independant source can have a bias (for example, Radio Pacifica); raw, unvarnished news is easily obtainable from news wire services such as Reuters, but unbiased analysis of current events is rare. Foreign newspapers have their own biases also.

      As for sources of news, I prefer Reuters, Google News, the BBC, and CNN. Yes CNN and the BBC have biases, but for a quick "catch up", these serve. As for analysis, the Jim Lehrer NewsHour has considerably more depth than most of the other news shows. In magazines, the Economist has a global perspective; yes, they are biased, but it is a bias I am aware of. As for radio, it is simply not a source of rational discourse.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    11. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "Talk about hypocritical, you are not choosing Sirius because they have Howard but you will go with XM when they have Opie and Andy which are just as bad as Howard."

      I've been looking into both XM and Sirius lately. I have no idea who Opie and Andy are or that they were on XM. For the GP to say that he doesn't want to "patronize a service that promotes that kind of programming" is perfectly valid since XM obviously isn't doing enough to promote them (emphasis mine).

      I don't care one way or the other about Howard Stern. What I do care about is spending $13 per month to listen to radio with commercials and without my favorite talk show (Clark Howard). As such, I'll just keep my regular car antennae. I don't pay for nonprint media that wastes my time with commercials. I can get that for free.

    12. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Silverstrike · · Score: 1

      No cable TV then? Because, ya know, that's non-free non-print media that is chalk full of commercials.

      But, I'll keep mine for Comedy Central, History Channel, and Discovery. (They can keep the rest, as far as I'm concerned)

    13. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by sootman · · Score: 1

      Um... you know you don't *have* to listen to him if you buy the service, right?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    14. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I acutally commented about that below, but no cable or satellite for me. And keep mind that I said, "I don't pay for nonprint media that wastes my time with commercials." I don't really mind product placement as long as it doesn't interrupt things. For example, I did pay for Jet Moto on the Playstation and regularly pay for NFL games. Product placement galore but not in a way that I have to stop what I'm doing and watch/listen to an advert. That's the biggest reason I don't mind advertisements in newspapers, magazines, etc. I can easily skip them.

    15. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by dtanderson · · Score: 0
      1stpreacher said "XM too has gone the commercial free route."


      XM used to say "Commercial Free mucic" but they do not claim that any more because they were forced to put commercials on some of their music channels now they just claim "The Most Music". From what I have heard the music on Sirius is better than XM (playlists). Sirius is gaining about twice as many subscribers as XM every quarter that says alot about the service -- it is not all Howard's doing.
    16. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by michrech · · Score: 1

      Sirius' music selection is much better than XM and all commercial free unlike XM. If I wanted to listen to commercials then I could listen to FM instead of paying for XM. I read about people swithing from XM to Sirius all the time because the music on Sirius is better. Just admit it you are just jealous of Howard and decided to choose XM not because of filth on his filth on Sirius because XM has filth also just for different personality (Opie and Andy).

      Let me start out by agreeing with you as far as your seeming dislike for Opie and Anthony (You said Andy, which is not correct).

      Now, onto that part of your rant I quoted.

      I had XM for over a year. Decided to switch when Howard went to Sirius as every time someone played the show for me, it was funny. I went out and bought a cheap player ($50-ish at Wal*Mart), Called to cancel my XM service (they offered me 2 free months, which I (in hindsight) stupidly turned down). I activated my Sirius receiver and went about my listening. I keep hearing about how "much better Sirius stations are programmed compared to XM), but I couldn't listen to ONE single channel for more than a few songs as, invariably, they'd play some song I hated and I'd have to change (UNLIKE what I have with XM and Flight 26 although Mix 22 was FAR better before Clearchannel fucked it up).

      Ok.. So I'm listening to Stern and he makes fun of how XM offered people 2 free months if they call up to quit, saying all sorts of horrible things about that method of customer retention. I chuckle about it and keep listening. After a few days, Stern starts to grow old, and exactly one month from the day I activated, I canceled the service. I've outlined reasons why in another post (poor sound quality on the music channels compared to XM, poorly programmed stations in my opinion, etc). What does Sirius do? Offer me 2 free months!

      Now, onto your commercial comment. Every one of the XM controlled music stations (of which there are more than Sirius has) is commercial free (unless you count the "plugs" they give about other music stations they occasionally throw in). I don't have any problems with someone liking Sirius over XM (or vice-versa). It's when people like you start spouting off lies (IE : "XM's music channels are filled with commercials unlike Sirius'!") that I get pissed off. Look in google for the fight between Clearchannel and XM and you'll see what it was all about. Hell, XM even created 5 new channels that are programmed almost identically to the Clearchannel stations in reaction to what Clearchannel did!

      --
      bork bork bork!
    17. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1
      ...it's entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. Actually, Howard and the crew are really smart people

      Sounds like WWF (or WWE, or `roids and trash talk, or whatever it is called now). The whole gag about acting stupid or obscene for "entertainment" is getting old, and I just don't see the entertainment in it. Sounds like "Jackass" and others. Can someone explain why it is so entertaining to watch smart people do bad acting?

      However, I DO know how to use a remote, or how to press the buttons on my XM. So I can avoid crap like this, while some can be entertained by it.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    18. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by green+menace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is Howard different from any political or social talkshow? Expressing your opinion is not the same as telling people what to think. You might as well crawl into a hole and don't forget your earplugs. I wouldn't want your beliefs polluted with someone elses opinion. And why are you on Slashdot?? Almost every post is someone trying to tell you what to think or believe, including this one as well as your own. It is called discussion.

      If you want to be mad at someone over people blindly listening to celebrities/religious leaders/politicians, blame the sheep that actually follow blindly without thinking.

      As for Howard, personal preference. I really like it, and not just for the naughty bits. I enjoy their conversations with each other. It is like listening to a dysfunctional, opinionated family who thinks they are the bee's knees. I have to laugh at how full of themselves they can be, but I enjoy the show. Either way, every service that provides entertainment is gonna have some crap that is childish, annoying and offensive - Sirius, XM, cable tv, you name it.

    19. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Retardican · · Score: 1

      The whole "they tell you what to think" rap, eh, not so much. I've listened to Howard for years, and point blank, it's entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. ...
      they tend to call things what they are.

      Did you think that up yourself, or did Howard tell you that "they call things what they are."? (grin)

      --
      Will the War in Iraq get better or worse in 2007? Vote here
    20. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Lummoxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like WWF (or WWE, or `roids and trash talk, or whatever it is called now). The whole gag about acting stupid or obscene for "entertainment" is getting old, and I just don't see the entertainment in it.

      But that's not the entirety of his show. Yeah, it's a large part, and despite what anyone thinks it makes me, I get a laugh out of most of it.

      His interviews are the best. Whether asking serious questions, or the not so serious questions, no matter who is being interviewed, they tend to be interesting, and honest.

      Bottom line, it seems like his worst detractors don't even listen to the show. They base their opinions on what they hear, and not what they know, and if that's good enough for you, great. It's just the Howard Stern Show, afterall.

      If you're put off by any amount of the "adult oriented" humor, then yes, stay away. It doesn't mean that the Howard Stern Show isn't any good, or isn't entertaining, though. I think that's the point they miss, or don't want to hear.

      --

      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

    21. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      The whole "they tell you what to think" rap...eh, not so much. I've listened to Howard for years, and point blank, it's entertainment.

      I think that he's saying Mr. Stern isn't more than slightly entertaining, and the mere fact that he's a selling point of Sirius is in a way telling you what to think - that Howard Stern is a pinnacle of modern entertainment. He is most definitely not, in my opinion and presumably in GP's also. So the GP doesn't want to support a radio service that's telling him "Howard is entertaining, listen to him."

    22. Re:How much for the service without Howard? by pyster · · Score: 1

      Typical response from someone who really has never listened to the Howard Stern show. If it was only farts, lesbians, and freaks we'd would have abandoned it long ago. It's social confrontation.
      XM is currently spending tons of money on advertising and Sirius is still over taking them in subs per month. Sirius has better content over all than XM, and you can parental control your Sirius if you wish.
      For a heartbeat XM had Dr Demento. Too bad they didnt make this known, as most of us geeks would have swarmed on it.

  16. Who? by just_forget_it · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I had no idea Howard Stern was still relevant.

    1. Re:Who? by dtanderson · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Some people use that as an excuse to chose XM even though XM has Opie and Andy which are just as bad as Howard. You hear them whining "I won't buy Sirius because of that filthy Howard" but yet they subscribe to XM with that filthy Opie and Andy. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites. The only reason they chose XM is because they are jealous of Howard's success, that and they like the fact that XM has commercials on some of the music channels and they know that they would miss listening to the the commercials. Some people are scared of change and they are more familiar with hearing commercials when they listen to the radio and don't know what they would do it they had real commercial free music.

    2. Re:Who? by Cunk · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me which music stations have commercials? I have XM (which, BTW, I initially subscribed to solely because of Opie & "Andy") and so far I haven't heard commercials on any of the music stations I listen to. Obviously I don't listen to them all so I'm not contradicting you -- I was just curious because I thought XM advertises their music stations as being commercial-free.

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    3. Re:Who? by Cunk · · Score: 1

      Nevermind. I found my answer here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Radio#Clear_Channe l_programming_agreement

      Basically the commercials were forced upon XM by Clear Channel.

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
  17. Satellite radio in the car, great. At home, ??? by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have Sirius in my car as well as a home kit for use with my home stereo. I travel fairly often all over Western Canada so having satellite radio is sort of a must as I don't like to take scads of CDs with me. Sirus fits the bill perfectly and I have access to programs that I wouldn't normally on terrestrial radio, like Fox and CNN radio as well as the World Radio Network.

    Now, satellite radio in the car is one thing, but PAYING for the same content strictly for use in the home makes no sense. If you have the Internet you already have access to free, high quality radio stations playing a wide variety of music, never mind that all the cable and satellite companies include commercial free music stations as part of their basic digital service.

    I understand the need for Sirius to broaden their income base as they have yet to make money, but even the most novice Internet user is aware of free alternatives that offer essentially the same or better content.

    1. Re:Satellite radio in the car, great. At home, ??? by autophile · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Sirus fits the bill perfectly and I have access to programs that I wouldn't normally on terrestrial radio, like Fox and CNN radio...

      Thanks for turning me off to Sirius!

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    2. Re:Satellite radio in the car, great. At home, ??? by Zach978 · · Score: 1

      I've yet to find a decent internet radio station, and the ones on the cable box reallly suck. Yahoo! Launchcast is pretty good, but music only...with Sirius you get Stern, and news, and NFL, and NHL, and good music.

      --

      "I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
    3. Re:Satellite radio in the car, great. At home, ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I travel fairly often all over Western Canada so having satellite radio is sort of a must as I don't like to take scads of CDs with me.

      Have you heard of these new-fangled devices they're calling "mp3 players"? I hear Apple makes one that's real popular with the kids these days. Called something to do with peas...or maybe pods. You might want to look into it.

    4. Re:Satellite radio in the car, great. At home, ??? by Tripster · · Score: 1

      Loads and loads of great music, especially if you are into rock. Right now I've got The Vault playing in the background. I switch between that, Classic Vinyl, Classic Rewind, Octane, Buzzsaw, etc. and I am very happy with the selection available. Sure some channels can be a bit repetitive at times, but if you get sick of hearing that same song again just switch channels. I find I listen to different stuff depending on the mood.

      About once a month I might listen to Howard.

      I tried XM online for a month before settling on Sirius, XM just plays too much obscure stuff on their rock channels, they also lean much more towards alternative rock on the channels and I couldn't stand the channel naming, Fred? Ethel? Lucy? WTF?

      Here is a great Sirius resource ... www.dogstarradio.com

  18. Nothing new here, move on by PAjamian · · Score: 1

    ok, so Howard Stern is syndicated across what, 50-odd radio stations? What's the bet that at least 10 of them stream to the internet?

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    1. Re:Nothing new here, move on by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      howard isn't on any radio stations.. he's only on sirius, where he belongs, with his 10 listeners

      O&A! O&A! O&A! O&A! O&A!

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    2. Re:Nothing new here, move on by viriiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hoo-hoo Robin, I invented streaming my show on the internet, it was all me. Sirius, they're rippin me off.

    3. Re:Nothing new here, move on by pyster · · Score: 1

      heh. 5.1 million subs... o/p are no bodies :)

    4. Re:Nothing new here, move on by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      yes because every single sirius user listens to stern and only stern.. every other sirius channel has 0 listeners

      howie math is funny

      o&a have way more listeners, especially on terrestrial radio

      howard is irrelevant and delusional, as are his fans who actually believe howie math

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    5. Re:Nothing new here, move on by saridder · · Score: 1

      As soon as he joined, the Sirius subscriber numbers skyrocked while XM has slowed way down. He must have had something to do with that. Given this rate, Sirius should surpass XM in less than 2 years.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    6. Re:Nothing new here, move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's not syndicated anywhere. where the hell have you been?

    7. Re:Nothing new here, move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Given this rate, Sirius should surpass XM in less than 2 years.

      Yeah, and then the five-year-olds that find his show funny will grow up...

    8. Re:Nothing new here, move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron!

  19. Who cares? by MicrosoftRepresentit · · Score: 1

    Now, if Howard Stern was to release his own iPod killer, then I would be interested!

    1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Who cares? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... my sentiments too. Still, you can't really knock the guy for his success. The fact that you can mention his name in a place like this and everyone's familiar with him shows he's vastly more successful than most radio talk-show DJs.

      One thing I guess you can count on in America is plenty of immature guys!

    3. Re:Who cares? by JuT333 · · Score: 1

      Oh you didnt know? Howard Stern INVENTED the iPod....

  20. Pod Casting ... not streaming radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sirius needs to work on a pod-casting model with Howard Stern in the line up. Just about every podcast i've listened too is absolutely horrible. "Escape Pod" and "Ask a Ninja" set themselves apart from the likes of "TWiT", "Buzz Out Lood", etc ...

    I'd be more than willing to pay for quality shows put into a pod-casting format that I can use on my iPod. New, original, fiction that is produced with the quality of the old-time radio shows is what i'm really after, but talking heads that actually keep me entertained would be a nice switch as well.

    1. Re:Pod Casting ... not streaming radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try out opie and anthony on audible.com and xm radio

      also cosmiccircus.com with perrynoid one of the best podcast

  21. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe if I was still in my adolescence (or stuck in it) I'd really dig Howard Stern.

  22. Waited too long by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    I'll ignore that this story is spam, but I wonder why it took him so long to put a teaser on the net. I used to listen to him everyday, and Adam Corolla is no replacement. Now I don't, but $12.95/month might be reasonable when I strike it rich.

    1. Re:Waited too long by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Tastes differ. Personally, I like Adam Carolla a lot better than Stern. He has some bits that are unfunny time-fillers, and he's usually not coherent for the first half-hour of the show, but generally I laugh a lot more at the Adam Carolla show than I ever did for Stern.

    2. Re:Waited too long by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      I admit that Adam Corolla seems to improve as time goes on and he gets used to the format, but it's easy to tell that Howard Stern is the seasoned veteran at this. It will help Adam Corolla even more once he finds the right supporting cast.

  23. Maybe this works better for you.... by wish+bot · · Score: 0, Troll
    Howard Stern Killer Coming To the Net

    Posted by kdawson on Monday October 16, @09:01PM
    from the it's-a-killer! dept.

    killer writes,

    "To promote an Internet radio service killer Sirius is launching this week, a Howard Stern killer, 4+ hour program will be made available live online for free on October 25 and 26. The new killer Sirius service will offer 75+ channels of killer programming for $12.95/month with no need to buy a Sirius satellite receiver killer."
    --
    lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    1. Re:Maybe this works better for you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still Yawn! Maybe he should try selling cd or his show... wait... no... YAWN!

  24. Advertisement by Infernon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this pertinent to the geek community at all? It looks like an advertisement to me...

    1. Re:Advertisement by tenaciousdRules · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed! The slashdot coffers must be full of Karmazin payola! (I lost money on Sirius stock, who didn't? Makes me bitter.)

      --
      --Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
    2. Re:Advertisement by fobbman · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you?

  25. Re:stern = hack radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jealous fag! Fa Fa Foey to you!

  26. come again? by deviceb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well Howard Stern is already on the net. He is not on any radio stations FYI because the Feds stomped on his free speach. The fact that he can say whatever he wants [(even lez-miget wrestling in crisco) -waiting for that] makes satellite radio worth the $13 when traveling in yoru car. -That is of course if you listen to the radio at all.
    No commercials is worth it to me. (howard stern has commercials)

    Now offering 75 channels streaming online... i'm listening to sirus ATM in a cafe.. and it SUX compared to good old Shoutcast. Winamp has what.... 200+ stations that you can tweak the audio output of. Plus you do not need a browser window to keep the stream up. I like the freedom that satellite brings to the sheep, but i would never pay to listen online.. that is just absurd.

    --
    Kill your TV
  27. Behind the ball.... by jacks+smirking+reven · · Score: 1

    XM has offered streaming radio for almost a year now. I know for sure it's included in the monthly standard plan price (12.95) but i do believe they have a cheaper streaming only price as well.

    XM also has the far funnier Opie and Anthony as well.

    1. Re:Behind the ball.... by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Sirius began including streaming in it's standard price at the same time as XM did.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    2. Re:Behind the ball.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sirius has had a streaming client for a while as well- but you had to have a receiver befor you could sign up for it. This new service does not require you to have a receiver.

      Also ... when XM had Opie and Anthony as a "Premium" channel ... they pulled in a whopping 35,000 listeners.

    3. Re:Behind the ball.... by cnorrisjr · · Score: 1

      opie and athony are funny? THat's news to me. I listed to their show for the last week or so on my local free fm station. I wasn't laughing at all. they just aren't funny.

    4. Re:Behind the ball.... by dtanderson · · Score: 0

      Sirius subscription price has always included internet streaming and Howard. XM used to charge extra for internet streaming and Opie and Anthony, but they only increased their monthly fee and then included streaming and O&A to match Sirius and try to stop the flow of subscribers leaving for Sirius which has not helped. Sirius is now gaining twice as many customers a quarter as XM....

    5. Re:Behind the ball.... by thc69 · · Score: 1
      the flow of subscribers leaving for Sirius which has not helped. Sirius is now gaining twice as many customers a quarter as XM....
      It's bound to continue to happen until XM changes their service drastically. For mass market appeal, Sirius has XM beat because they have lots of channels playing the same stuff that is/was on FM. For niche appeal, Sirius has channels whose names indicate what type of music they play, many of whose format is easy to understand. For everybody, XM needs to get rid of Clear Channel so they don't have to play ads on music channels.

      That's not to say that XM is all bad. I had it and don't like it, but it's great for more artistic people. It plays more quantity of obscure and independent music. More channels offer variety, less are simply formatted. Even the channel names are artsy.

      However, for total radio market share, Sirius has the better formula.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  28. People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    People said the same thing about Cable TV. They'd never pay for something they could get for free... Guess what? Most of you nay sayers now pay for cable. In fact I'd wager ALL of you do.

    I never listened to Howard when he was on terrestrial radio but now I do on Sirius. He's funny and there are some interesting interviews. Not all the time mind you but a fair amount of time.

    To the prudes out there that can't stand to hear what he has to say, don't listen. Turn the dial.

    $13 bucks a month is worth having something to listen to on the way to work. There are more then just Howards 2 stations to listen to.

    1. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0, Troll

      re:"To the prudes out there that can't stand to hear what he has to say, don't listen. Turn the dial."

      The thing is - they have - to XM which has more than double the marketshare of Sirius. Sterns' listenership used to be above 10 million (which is kind of low when you think about it) but he brought in 100 million a year in revenue. This is why he got a fat contract at 100 million a year to jump ship. It didn't impact his operations for the next 5 years. Oh - but wait - his marginal audience doesn't move with him and now the radio stations are making more revenue with cheaper talent. His current numbers are a PORTION of Sirius' current subscribership which is around 5 million. So even if he got every listener on the Surius dial, he'd have only half what he previously had.

      Oh yes - people will pay for satelite radio - pitty XM has more than double the numbers (over 10 million) right now. That split marketshare has marginalized him, and exposed the deal for what it was. A desperate grab to attempt ratings and subscriber boost (at a cost of nearly one satelite launch per year) against a much stronger competitor - XM radio. Less than 1 year into it and they're trying to expand his near-dead ratings.

      I expected this to either be a minor win for Stern and Sirius when the deal went down - or a total train wreck for Stern. At this point, it's the later of the two. I expect lawsuits around February as both parties sue the bejeezus out of one another, withhold payments, or attempt to break contract - which he'll have to do since pop-culture doesn't weather hiatuses of 5 years very well. Such celebs turn into the has-been pile very quickly, and we've got an odds-on-favor here. The fun is just starting!

    2. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, you didn't post facts. The facts are Sirius has 5.1 Million subscribers, XM 7 Million. When Stern joined Sirius had 700,000.

      http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2006/10/04/sirius _subscribers_surpass_5/index.php

      Seems you got it wrong bub.

    3. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by danpsmith · · Score: 1
      People said the same thing about Cable TV. They'd never pay for something they could get for free... Guess what? Most of you nay sayers now pay for cable. In fact I'd wager ALL of you do. I never listened to Howard when he was on terrestrial radio but now I do on Sirius. He's funny and there are some interesting interviews. Not all the time mind you but a fair amount of time.

      Yep, people said the same thing and so cable did the same thing: promised commercial free television except on networks already broadcast via air. What happened? We ended up with just as many if not more commercials on basic cable stations than we had on the network ones, along with around the same level of censorship and bullshit.

      If everyone moved to satellite, I'd be willing to bet that the same thing will happen. Howard Stern already has some commercials, it's only a matter of time before channels would be split up into pay packages, they'd censor the rest and have commercials on near all of the stations. That is, if we actually subscribe. Until they can actually get all the subscribers they want, they'll treat everyone nicely. Just wait until they are satisfied or feel like they've penetrated the market as much as possible. That's when satellite radio becomes just like every other ad-infested censored crud that's already available.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    4. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bull.. when stern started on sirius they had 2.7 million subscribers.

      stop with the fucking howie math, all of sirius subsribers != stern fans, sure he has some listeners but not as many as he says that's just silly howie math

      and according to howie math all the subscribers that were there before he joined subscribed because of him, and all of those radios in unsold cars are also howie fans, as are about 700,000 people that actually exceed the subscription count of sirus

      hoo hoo

    5. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 1
      Mr. Troll,

      Please post links to your facts. I'm sure someone as smart as you can find some right?

    6. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      From the NYT:

      http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment- media-stern.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

      And if the link doesn't work (login? - crap!)

      "After fulfilling the last 14 months on his contract at CBS Corp., Stern debuted in January 2006 on Sirius under a five-year deal valued at $500 million and immediately became the marquee talent of the No. 2 satellite radio provider. He also recently ventured into the realm of video-on-demand television with an all-Stern channel available through several major cable operators. Sirius ended the third quarter with 5.12 million subscribers, an audience that pales in comparison to the 12 million listeners who regularly tuned into Stern at the peak of his CBS career. XM posted nearly 7.2 million subscribers for the third quarter."

      So I was off 2.8 million on XM. I also lowballed his origonal radio audience by 2 million so he's hurting even worse.

      Oh and I can assure you - not all of Sirius' subscribers listen to him hence the peak numbers will always lag the total subscriber base. That was infered in the previous post - but of course - the fanbase can be a bit - um - "slow".

    7. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by mac123 · · Score: 1

      >>People said the same thing about Cable TV

      There's a significant difference. Cable TV is an active entertainment device. People sit and watch. They schedule their day around shows, they usually don't do anything while watching.

      Radio is used as a passive entertainment vehicle, usually listened to while doing other tasks. People rarely schedule their day around it.

      I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for radio any more than I would for my toaster or washing machine.

    8. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 1

      Right.. you were only off by 50%

    9. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      "In fact I'd wager ALL of you do."

      I'll take that wager. I don't pay for cable or satellite. I used to have a Dish but I got rid of it two years ago and aside from the occasional football game, haven't really missed it. I do assume that I am in a serious minority judging by the reaction I got when I told the Dish rep that I was dropping service and replacing it with nothing.

      I have caught myself watching more TV shows lately with iTunes, that AOL TV thing, and free streaming offered by some networks but it's still an occasional thing instead of the habit it used to be.

    10. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Skater · · Score: 1

      If that happens, then I cancel. Very simple. I like Sirius now because there are no commercials in the music, but if that changed, I'd stop subscribing; I might as well go back to FM for free or listen to more CDs.

      And I'm sure I'm not alone, and I'm sure Sirius and XM both realize the risks they'd run if they did start doing commercials in the music.

      I'm sure people will jump on me about how I'll be out the cost of the hardware - well, I have three Sirius tuners for a total of about $250. If they start doing commercials in a couple years, at that point I'll feel like I've gotten $250 worth of use out of them and won't mind "losing" that money. So the only real risk is if they start doing commercials in the next year or two, which I'm sure won't happen.

    11. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      To the prudes out there that can't stand to hear what he has to say, don't listen. Turn the dial.

      You don't have to be a prude to not like Stern. In fact, prude is one of the least accurate words that one could use to describe me but I just don't think he's funny anymore.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by anothy · · Score: 1
      Most of you nay sayers now pay for cable. In fact I'd wager ALL of you do.
      sigh. why do you people do that? you have a reasonably sound argument: people will pay for more than they think they'll pay for, things become viewed as indispensable once they're familiar, and so on. but then you go and blow it by associating the argument with obviously false, trivially disprovable over-generalization. even though disproving the "ALL" doesn't impact the rest of your argument logically, it totally wrecks your credibility. for the sake of rational discourse everywhere, please don't do that!

      besides, this is slashdot. i know at least one user who lives in a trailer without electricity, and did you really think you weren't going to find anyone who gets all the programming they need over the internet? i've never paid a dime for cable or satellite. i'm still sitting on the fence regarding iTunes TV shows, but that's just based on the price being about 25% higher than feels correct; i like their model.
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    13. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I should have worded it:

      "In fact I'd wager ALL of you have at one time paid for cable"

    14. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      That would severly weaken that point in your argument. If we used to pay for cable but now don't, why would we pay for radio now?

    15. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by Lordleppard · · Score: 1
      I still stand by what I said though. People now pay for things that before were free. While sure you could get some of these things for free, people pay for the convieniance. Sure I could download, rip podcasts/etc, but for only $13 bucks a month, they do it for me.

      All I have to do is decide what I want to listen to.

    16. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Right and with Howard's origonal audience being larger formerly - that's a lot better for Stern's current numbers.

      Yes my XM numbers - touted as "ABOUT" (which infers a rough estimate in most cultures) - were off - but Sterns nosedive was worse than origonally cited.

      You're right, Howard is doing GREAT. No doubt about it.

      And to the people who though me citing figures derived from the New York Times, was a "Troll" go bitch to the NYT as well. Dumbfucks.

      "I don't like reality - wah - mod him down - that'll show him - sniff"

    17. Re:People said the same thing about Cable TV. by anothy · · Score: 1

      no, you should simply have skipped the over-generalization. words like "all", "never", and so on are very dangerous in arguments. as i said, i've never paid for cable or satellite, and i doubt i'm alone here.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  29. Hoo Hoo I invented Internet Radio, tell em Fred. by christowang · · Score: 2, Informative

    XM has been offering this for years now for $7.95.

  30. Stern == Boring by JuT333 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bought Sirius for Stern and the music channels just to find out that Stern takes off every Friday and the regular music channels is flooded with DJ's who talk to just hear themselves talk. I fixed this problem by buying XMradio

    1. Re:Stern == Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that although Howard takes Friday off his shows during the week Monday - Thursday are like 30-40% longer than his old FM radio shows right? Some shows have even run longer than 5 hours. Plus they replay his morning show during the day and replay his old shows as well. Plus on Friday they have the "Friday Show" which is awesome.

      You moved to XM? Hope you enjoy it!

    2. Re:Stern == Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He takes Fridays off because Hamptons > listeners.

    3. Re:Stern == Boring by JuT333 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm well aware that the shows are longer...But how much can one person take of Howard just talking about himself? I could make my reply 30-40% longer but does that mean its going to be any better? As far as the Friday show went for me, I didn't pay to hear Gary Dell'Abbate and the Jump the Shark guy to recap what went on during the week and what he thought. As far as XM goes, (not to be a commercial for them) The programming, the signal strength, and content beat Sirius hands down.

    4. Re:Stern == Boring by pyster · · Score: 1

      sure you did. this looks like a post by an o/a fan :) You switched to XM for what? That great o/p content?

    5. Re:Stern == Boring by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really bought Sirius for Stern. Here's why:

      When Stern was on terrestrail radio, he broadcasted from 6AM to 10AM Eastern time. They had about 20-30 minutes of commercials. So, in a week, you got about 12.5 hours of Stern ( 2.5 hours * 5 days).

      Now that he's on Satellite, he is regularly on until 12 noon. That's six hours, minus about 10-15 minutes of commercials. He has taken off about half of his Fridays. That's right, he is still on Fridays. So, you are getting 20.25 hours ( 4.5 hours * 4.5 days ) on Sirius.

      So you were getting way more Stern than you ever got. Also, the shows are regularly re-broadcast later in the day and evening, in case you weren't able to catch the whole show in the morning. So on terrestrial radio, if you didn't catch his four hour show in the morning, you didn't get it at all. Now, you can listen to all six hours in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night.

      You say in your subject "Stern == boring". How is it that Stern was interesting when you were listening to bleeps and half an hour of commericials on terrestrial, but now that he is on satellite doing outrageous stuff, not breaking for two hours, he's suddenly boring?

      You bought Sirius for Stern, and decided that getting twice the Stern you got on terrestrial radio wasn't enough, so you "fixed" it by moving to XM, where you got no Stern whatsoever? Uh, what are you listening to on XM? Oprah's half-hour-a-week show on her whole friggin channel?

      I'm sorry, but I can't help but thinking you are an anti-Stern troll.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:Stern == Boring by a55mnky · · Score: 1

      If you add up the extra 1+ hours of show Monday-Thursday (I don't think he is EVER off the air before 11 and mostly runs to 11:30) and the fact that when he was on terrestrial radio, there were more commercials than content you still get more Howard with him taking off Fridays (anyway he does not take off every Friday - it appears to about 1/2).

      Now if you dont like him, that is fine - but to use the Friday's off as a reason to move to XM is a poor argument to say the least.

      I do agree with your point about some of the DJ's being way to absorbed in the sound of their own voices. However, some of them are interesting, you can always change the channel to hear music elsewhere and I have friends with XM and the DJs over there don't seem to be any better.

      --
      Where oh where has my Underdog gone?
  31. He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    I can ignore him there too!
    Seriously, he was broadcasting in Montreal for a while and he couldn't cut it there because no one found him interesting.
    There are plenty of places where his humour just doesn't cut it and he comes across as rather boring and unimaginative.
    I imagine alot of people also find him shocking, but I just find him lame.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by pyster · · Score: 1

      actually, that isnt true. he was removed from the air by the canadian government. they regulate 'hate speech' in canada. I believe he called the french canadians a group of peckerheads or something like that. the ratings books clearly stated stern had listeners. before Sirius announced they would be allowing stern on it's canadian service, and it looks like it was never going to, i had several canadians i know ask me to register Sirius radios for them so that they could listen to Stern.

    2. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      I believe your story, but in my case (and several people I know), we all tired of his schtick way before he got taken off the air.
      There's nothing to Howard Stern. He's not interesting enough for me to listen to.
      YMMV

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    3. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by TortiusMaximus · · Score: 1

      >>actually, that isnt true. he was removed from the air by the canadian government. Nope. There were lots of complaints to the CRTC (the Canadian Radio & Television Commitee, which regulates this sort of thing), but CHOM (the station he was on in Montreal) made the decision to dump him as he had alienated much of their listenership. He was still on Q-107 in Toronto after that, but ratings declined until 2001 when they finally dumped him.

    4. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by pyster · · Score: 1

      heh. revisionist history. The wiki states differently. Please cite the ratings sources.

    5. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by TortiusMaximus · · Score: 1

      >>revisionist history

      You're accusing me of revisionist history but don't provide any support for YOUR assertion.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Canada

      An excerpt: "CHOM stopped airing Stern in August of 1998, and Q107 did the same in November 2001. Officially Q107's owners claimed they dropped Stern because they wanted to return to an all music, classic rock format, but it is widely rumoured that the real reason was a combination of falling ratings (Stern's last ratings in Toronto were around a 6% share, somewhere around 6th or 7th place in the market"

      Also from the same Wiki:

      "However, the CRTC had not in fact banned Stern's broadcast in Canada"

    6. Re:He's coming to the Internet! Cool - by pyster · · Score: 1

      heh. i have to conceed.

  32. Re:stern = hack radio by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    howard stern is a no talent hack and has been for years

    Care to explain how a "no talent hack" regularly had a highly rated syndicated radio show, multiple best-seller books, a movie that did reasonably well, and also highly rated television shows before being offered $500 million to go to satellite? How can a no-talent hack like me get a paycheck like that?

  33. Re:Check out Sirius' wrongdoing by Misch · · Score: 1

    CTRL-F, SIRIUS

    Nothing found.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  34. When Howard Stern announces... by Reverend99 · · Score: 0

    ... that he's developed a unified string theory that explains the totality of the universe... THEN it should be on Slashdot.

    1. Re:When Howard Stern announces... by pyster · · Score: 1

      Over the years anytime stern mentions a website for the first time gets hammered with traffic. Think rotten.com back in the 90s. It's clear that geeks listen to stern. Slashdotters appear to be concerned with tech and social/political issues.

  35. Re:Check out Sirius' wrongdoing by RandoX · · Score: 1

    Um, Sirius isn't on there, buttwipe.

  36. Re:stern = hack radio by jcr · · Score: 2, Funny

    How can a no-talent hack like me get a paycheck like that? Do you seriously believe that what Stern does shows a talent? If you want to do what Stern did, just get a radio show, and be an asshole. It worked for Stern, it worked for Limbaugh, and it could work for you, too. -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  37. Re:Check out Sirius' wrongdoing by joschm0 · · Score: 0

    I checked out that site and saw no mention of Sirius.

    --
    01/20/09
  38. If you dont like it, then dont listen by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Again, look at how many people are angry. If you don't want to listen, just dont! It's not like you HAVE to listen to satellite radio. I enjoy the program, so please dont go bitching to the FCC now just because you happened to: log on, click the link, and enjoy it until it got to something that offended you.

    Thanks,
    the 5+ million Sirius subscribers

    --
    stuff |
  39. How much??? by dlc3007 · · Score: 1

    They're joking, right?
    I actually pay for one internet radio service that has thousands of stations w/out commercials. Even if one gets redundant, I can probably find a dozen others that play a similar format -- plus formats that aren't even on Serius. It costs me around 1/3 of what Serius wants to charge.
    Now add in all the free audio on Shoutcast, all the broadcast stations that stream over the internet and the free XM stations that are available on Winamp and I think Serius is fooling themselves.
    Of course, there are probably enough idiots out there who will think it is a good deal that they'll see a profit -- especially since there's basically no additional cost for them.

    1. Re:How much??? by pyster · · Score: 1

      the music stations are all commercial free.

  40. Re:stern = hack radio by saridder · · Score: 1

    Nowadays it is impossible to be the next Stern with the FCC's overzealous regulations and right-wing overlords.

    Ba Ba Booey to you all.

    --
    --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
  41. Just tune your FM radio to 87.9! by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I listen to Howard Stern all the time, commuting on route 128. All I do is tune my FM radio to 87.9.

    Apparently many Sirius satellite radio receivers must be add-on units that work through FM modulators with the car's FM radio. And 87.9 is apparently the default FM conversion setting.

    Based on my unscientific poll, during drive time something like 2/3 of Boston-area Sirius subscribers are tuned to Stern.

    OK, to tell the truth, no, I don't get continuous, uninterrupted Stern that way, but, yes, I do keep one of my presets at 87.9 and I do check from time to time to see if anything is on there... and I get enough Stern to feel like I'm still "in touch" with him and his gang.

    So, the question I have is, which is it? are jackbooted Sirius thugs going to sue me for theft of services? Or are jackbooted FCC thugs going to toss the converter operators in jail for operating pirate radio stations?

    1. Re:Just tune your FM radio to 87.9! by Dmala · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're all tuned to 87.9 because it's just about the only clear frequency you can get in the Boston area. I have to wonder if there isn't going to be trouble with the FCC someday. With the car kit antenna attached, the Sirius transmitter is ridiculously powerful. I was following some friends one time and they were able to get my broadcast loud and clear more than three car lengths away. Another time, a co-worker was using a pair of wireless headphones in the office. I'm not sure if they were operating somewhere close to the FM band or what, but in just the right spot he was able to pick up someone's Sirius playing Howard from another floor of the building.

    2. Re:Just tune your FM radio to 87.9! by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder if there isn't going to be trouble with the FCC someday. With the car kit antenna attached, the Sirius transmitter is ridiculously powerful.

      It's not just Sirius. This summer I traveled with a church group numbering six full-size vans. All of us could tune to the iPod transmitter in the first van. By the sixth van it got a little grainy, but you could still hear it.

    3. Re:Just tune your FM radio to 87.9! by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Welcome to satellite radios version of war driving. ;)

      One of my friends has XM and I Sirius, so on lunch we'll take turns searching for obsecure one-hit wonders, etc. and flip our dials to the other's service.

      --
      Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
      Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
  42. Re:stern = hack radio by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1

    How much radio do you listen to? Stern is an important figure in the history of radio - this is accepted by most in the industry and it is not because of fart jokes.

  43. mod parent through the roof by krell · · Score: 1

    I don't like Howard Stern, nor do I like to listen to or watch his programs. However, I realize the power of the dial or channel/changer is enough. I merely change the station, and don't go into a hissy fit because someone somewhere likes Howard Stern, and I don't try to get legislatures and government bodies to force my personal listening preferences on others.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  44. parent = futurama reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And remember when Mayor Giuliani cracked down on jaywalking?

  45. This will ruin "regular" radio for you by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    First off, I'll say that I'm absolutely a Stern fan, and for those that don't find him funny, I'd just say that there are MANY more stations on Sirius that play all kinds of great music, so tune it to those and shut up already about this "Stern will lower decency of the net" and all that horseshit, gimme a break and stop being so dramatic, no one cares!

    As far as the significance of this for "nerds", I'd say that it has more to do with the likelihood that this is the direction that radio is going much in the way television went from broadcast signals to cable in the late 70's and early 80's. I got Sirius last March (mostly to hear Stern again, since he's been out of our market for a few years). I admit, I was thinking at the time that the music stations would be a nice "extra" but my real motivation was to be able to hear Howard uncensored.

    I was astonished at how good some of the music stations are. I bought a $16 receiver off of Ebay and stuck it in my car. I listen to the Internet Streams on my PC at home and at work and I find the selection of music MUCH better than other internet streams. Additionally, I ended up liking the Sirius in my car a lot more than I expected. OK, I'll concede that it's definitely not CD quality, but it's as good as FM. The main differences, of course, are no commercials on music stations, stations don't fade out once you get out of town (great for road trips), and a MUCH larger selection of music. I can't tell you the last time I listened to conventional radio, and I wouldn't mind a bit if I never did again.

    Before you put my off as a Stern/Sirius "fan-boy", consider this: when broadband first came out, a lot of people (ok, maybe not geeks) didn't see where it would make a big difference, and stuck with dial-up because they didn't want the added expense and didn't see it as being worth it. No problem, good for them, until the internet evolved and made itself basically unuseable to anything but a broadband connection. I'd contend that this is a real possibility with satellite radio, and if a big radio personality is using his name to start it off, I can see its relevance. Just as a person cannot bring him/herself to go back to dial-up once they're experienced the net on high speed, the same ends up being true with satellite radio...regular radio really sounds crappy afterward. Just my opinion.

    1. Re:This will ruin "regular" radio for you by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. After thinking about it for several months, I picked up a Sirius receiver on sale at Target. I have not listened to terrestrial radio since that day. There were three stations that I used to listen to here in memphis and over the years, they all seemed to converge on the exact same playlist. I could switch from one station to the other and within 15 minutes hear the same song the previos station played. Also, I got really tired of listenting to the local DJs as well as the 15 minute commercial blocks every half hour (as it seemed).

      I chose Sirius over XM because Sirius has a better overall selection of programming. Also, I did not want to support XM's choice of political talk programming offerings. It seems now that Sirius is the better choice. Since Howard Stern started with them their list of subscribers had increased dramatically. Their growth rate was neary 2x XMs rate last quarter. I do like Howard Stern, and have for years, but he was not my primary reason for switching.

      Some people may think it's insane to "Pay" for radio, but I think it's insane to stick with terrestrial radio and having to listen to Kelly Clarkson every hour followed by that horrendous remake/cover/whatever of "Tainted Love" by whats-her-name. I'll gladly pay $13 a month for satellite radio, it's worth every penny. Just like pay television, satellite radio provides an alternative to people who do not want to put up with the limitations of "mass market" programming and the constant foolishness of the FCC.

    2. Re:This will ruin "regular" radio for you by Tripster · · Score: 1

      Ditto here, I am in Canada and our local FMs are obligated to play 35% Canadian Content, which on the classic rock stations amounts to an ungodly amount of Tragically Hip, Kim Mitchel and other Canadian "talent" that would never have ever been played on radio if it weren't for government mandated quotas.

      So, a few months back I went Sirius, I'd heard a lot of their music channels already via Dish Network and loved them. Since I got the service I have not heard Tragically Hip once, whereas whenever I'd go out to town in the car I'd hear them within 10-15 minutes on the OTA FM services.

      I pretty much have my Sirius receiver running full time here, I don't watch much TV or anything and was also looking for some music for my home office, Sirius works perfectly. The bonus is I can also listen to it in other areas of the house since the FM transmitter is so powerful. Nothing like cranking it up on a couple of amps around the house :)

  46. Stern's Mentality by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    Howard Stern is perpetually stuck with the mind & maturity of a poorly disclipined teenager with a one track mind...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Stern's Mentality by dividedsky319 · · Score: 1
      Howard Stern is perpetually stuck with the mind & maturity of a poorly disclipined teenager with a one track mind...


      FudRucker is perpetually stuck with the mind & maturity of a poorly advised conservative with a one track mind...

      (in other words... have you people even listened to Stern recently? people who think he's offensive or immature have probably never even listened to the show, because it's far from offensive or immature)
  47. Re:stern = hack radio by dpiven · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Stern is an important figure in the history of radio like Nero was an important figure in the history of Rome.

  48. Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Leave it to a bunch of douchebags to trash talk Howard Stern in a geek forum. No talent hack? glorified podcast? I suppose the industry just hands half a billion dollars over to people who fit that profile.

    More relevant to the topic, I hope they don't take away net access to the people who already have subscriptions, or make them pay extra for it.

    1. Re:Surprise by brl4n · · Score: 1

      Yep. Being a big Howard fan just shows me that Slashdot is full of ignorant blabber mouths. They shoot shit on topics they know nothing about which is clearly the case in this post. Users listening all the reasons for not liking Howard stern are the reasons I do and just shows that people have different senses of humor.

  49. As usual, ignorance prevails... by lantastik · · Score: 1

    If you think his show is nothing but sex and midget strippers, you are sorely mistaken. That says to me that you have never even listened to the show, or your head is so far up the religious right's ass, you can't think for yourself and everything must be censored. He invented the talk radio entertainment genre and everyone else is just an imitator. Almost 5 million people didn't sign up in less than a year because Stern has no clout or nothing interesting to say like the guy from Montreal commented. But hey, he's a French Canadian, so we know how that goes. As a previous subscriber to XM and a current subscriber to Sirius, XM has a slightly better music offering, but the all-around package for sports, news, political discussion, music and entertainment, goes to Sirius. The only thing XM does better is music. There is a reason that they have had to lower their subscriber forecasts twice this year. The internet stream is not CD quality. It is a 128kbps, but it's above average for an internet stream. Before everyone bashes the service and Stern, try it out. His show is hilarious, Artie Lange is an amazing addition to the show and I gladly listen to the whole show every day.

    1. Re:As usual, ignorance prevails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes as usual ignorance does prevail. That you would use someones nationality as a reason to dismiss their opinion shows you have no opinion worth noting yourself. Howard Stern is an attention seeking jackass. I represent no religion or political agenda. Montreal fo life!

      P.S. Artie Lange deserves better than Stern.

    2. Re:As usual, ignorance prevails... by ellem · · Score: 1

      I already do and I have for almost 20 years.

      Fi'YAH!

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    3. Re:As usual, ignorance prevails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think his show is nothing but sex and midget strippers, you are sorely mistaken

      Yeah, there's the farts too. Oh, but wait... maybe for you that falls under "sex"?

  50. Re:stern = hack radio by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    All depends on how you define talent. If talent means that you have the ability to entertain a lot of people then Stern has tons of it. So, in the entertainment industry Stern is one of the top talents.

  51. One more stupid bandwidth wasting site to ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all these new stupid audio/video based bandwidth wasting sites, my proxy blacklist is getting full.

    Anyone know the ip range or host these will be on?

  52. And I care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God will someone smite this self important cockroach?

    You know Howard, fighting censorship Im cool with. Fighting for it so an ass like you can say poopy and pretend to be checking out naked women on the air is a waste of time.

    I apologize to cockroaches everywhere for grouping them with something as low, worthless, and a complete waste of space as Howard Stern.

    1. Re:And I care because? by pyster · · Score: 1

      the fight for freedom of speech is the fight for freedom of speech... saying fuck, shit, and cunt is just as important as being able to remark on your government. It really is an all inclusive fight.

  53. No Stern by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

    I am trying the free trial and there is no Howard Stern.

    Their web app sucks. It is streaming at 32K, far from "CD quality" and has little to no content. If they are only letting me have it for two days, give me more than 5% of what you have to offer. Or at least let me choose what I want to check out.

    You don't have to install their plugin to use it. Firefox doesn't recognize their plugin anyway...

    After picking through their site, Stern is supposed to fall under the "entertainment" category. All that is in there is Maxim Radio, Cosmo Radio and Martha Stewart. This trial sucks big time...

    1. Re:No Stern by Scottitude · · Score: 1

      The free "trial" is October 25 & 26, that's why "there is no Howard Stern".

  54. Re:Check out Sirius' wrongdoing by 1stpreacher · · Score: 1

    heheh - not only is sirius not on there (as MANY others have said) but they also link to 'proof' that the WTC was brought down by explosives... This is a site that should be held in high regard. And of course I laugh now because of South Park.

  55. Sirius by pyster · · Score: 1

    The $12.95+tax price tag includes service for one Satellite radio and the ability to stream various Sirius content, Non FCC controlled content. Sirius is an indispensable service for any of us who spend a lot of time in our cars and don't want the hassle of cds/mp3s and cant stand FCC sanitized radio with zero content. Remember the list of classic rock songs that can no longer be played because of the FCC crack down? How about most of the music in mp3 collection? It's well worth the price of a CD to hear uncensored content. Outside of Sal and Richard's homofest, The Stern show continues to get funnier everyday. Could use a little less of the Sybian too. Search any of the torrent sites and you will see just how popular the show is. (btw: Stern is no longer on terrestrial/fcc content controlled radio.) Sirius over all has a lot to offer XM. 2 NPR stations alone would be enough to go with Sirius over XM. I'm a big fan of firstwave, backspin, chill, and classic vinyl. Opie and Anthony now do a censored, FCC friendly show since they went back to FCC content controlled radio. XM charged/charges extra to listen subscribe to o/a, and they unable to get more than 500,000 listeners. They produce completely forgettable and unlistenable material. Notice that there are zero torrents for this crappy show no one cares about.

    1. Re:Sirius by wkurzius · · Score: 1
      Opie and Anthony now do a censored, FCC friendly show
      Half true. They do 3 hours on terrestrial and another 2 on XM, which is uncensored.

      XM charged/charges extra to listen subscribe to o/a, and they unable to get more than 500,000 listeners.
      XM no longer charge the extra dollar to listen to O&A. And where do you get your numbers from? As far as I know both companies do not release ratings for their programs, only the total subscription numbers.

      Notice that there are zero torrents for this crappy show no one cares about.
      Wrong.
    2. Re:Sirius by pyster · · Score: 1

      ok, these numbers have changed recently:
      http://torrentspy.com/search?query=opie+and+anthon y&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 (o/p 43)
      http://torrentspy.com/search?query=howard+stern&su bmit.x=0&submit.y=0 (howard 932)

      500,000 was the number posted on the o/p newgroup afew months back.

      the reality is still they are nobody.

  56. Anyway to get it outside the US? by rf0 · · Score: 1

    It appears that the offer is for US citizens only and with no apparent way of us outside the US getting access. Oh well back to bittorent

    1. Re:Anyway to get it outside the US? by guarants · · Score: 1

      They have specifically mentioned on the air several times today that the service will be available to anyone with internet access, world-wide.

  57. Howard was better when he was married.... by TheBigDuck · · Score: 0

    When Stern was married, he was hysterical.

    Millions of men could relate to rantings (or ravings)about being locked in a marriage, and still desiring (or lusting after) other women.

    It was the "Everyman" quality of Stern that made him so funny, and indentifiable.

    I used to commute 1.5 hours and I usually listened to his show, and found him funny 70% of the time (his ranting at other DJs or people was moronic).

    I don't have such a commute anymore, but even if I did, I doubt I'd still listen.

    P.S. If anyone knows where I can get a copy of the show where Tom Chiasono (the cheap station manager) "briefs" the interns on what "benefits" they get (with Howard scripting the questions from the interns), please tell me. I almost crashed my car on the Jackie Robinson Parkway I was laughing so hard.

    1. Re:Howard was better when he was married.... by SnapperHead · · Score: 1

      His show fell apart during his divorce. Everyday, all day he just whined about the whole ordeal. Every single day it was the same crap day in and day out. I got tired of it, and stopped listening to him.

      After all that, what you describe above is true.

      --
      until (succeed) try { again(); }
  58. Ho Hum by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

    Howard Stern is the reason I stayed with XM.

    --
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
  59. Re:Check out Sirius' wrongdoing by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1
    My favorite quote from that site:
    A little history: There was once a plan to bring about a fascist coup d'etat in the USA. It was planned by the Dupont family, the Remington family, J P Morgan, and General Smedley Butler. The plan was to assassinate FDR, impose martial law, and put a government like that of Adolph Hitler in place. Their patron was Fritz Thyssen who help Hitler come to power. Prescott Bush was one of Thyssen's loyal servants in the USA. Prescott Bush is George W Bush's grandfather.
    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
  60. Re:stern = hack radio by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yeah, and Britney Spears sells a lot of CD's too. That doesn't make her a musical genius.

    Howard is WAY past his prime, anyway. He's an interesting guy, and is even capable of the occasional intelligent insight. But the daily grind of listening to him go on...and on...and on...and on...and on about strippers/lesbians/his dick/porn stars/etc. tends to get VERY old, very fast.

    When he was in his heyday, I listened to him. He had some interesting stuff to say and his interviews were truly unique (who else could have gotten away with asking Julia Roberts how big Liam Neeson's dick was?). But it was, at best, one good segment for every 15 lame ones. And that was in his HEYDAY (10-15 years ago).

    Besides, without the FCC or his wife to mock anymore, what's really left for him to do? He's like an aging knight in a world where all the dragons have already been slain.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  61. stern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stern rules nuff said

  62. Mancow Muller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mancow Muller's show is superior to Howard Stern's.

    Discuss.

  63. Re:stern = hack radio by udderly · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with the things that Howard Stern says and does, but is he really a no-talent hack? Stern is a natural. Like another radio personality I try to avoid, Rush Limbaugh, he has a great voice, great feel for the medium, and obviously has an innate understanding of what people want to hear. I concede that he's a jerk while on the air, but to make it on talk radio, you definitely have to be over-the-top.

  64. Funny People doubting Stern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is really funny to see all of the responses claiming that Howared Stern is irrelevant or a talentless hack.

    Whether you like him or not, consider this: Sirius is paying Howard Stern $500,000,000.00 over five years. Now consider this: this investment has already paid off for them in the number of new subscribers that signed up. In other words, paying Stern $500,000,000.00 was a cashflow positive decision for Sirius. If you argue this you are an ignorant fool. This is simply fact.

    1. Re:Funny People doubting Stern by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      If you argue this you are an ignorant fool.

      How many of those "sales" numbers were "XM-ready" cars where the owner never signed up or did not extend whatever free trial was included? There's other allegations of numbers inflation.

      You *did* know about that angle to it, right, I mean, with you not being an ignornat fool and everything?

      And Stern is not talentless, but he HAS become another Chevy Chase in his old age. He's become what he once held in contempt: the rich kid with the cheerleader girlfriend who drops celebrity names whenever he can.

  65. Re:stern = hack radio by patrixmyth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's a mistake to equate the Howard Stern Show with Howard Stern. The show is dreck and appeals to the lowest common denominator in our society. If you lisen/watch for a bit, however, you'll realize that Howard Stern the person is a pretty smart guy who just happens to realize that appealing to the lowest common common denominator of society is pretty good for your paycheck. He doesn't respect his listeners and he knows that the second they have an opportunity to giggle and point at his misfortunes and kick him to the curb, they will do so. Meanwhile, he's getting a hell of a ride. He's a modern day P.T. Barnum barking for the freakshow. I never thought I'd use this term, but in this case it's true "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

    --
    "Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
  66. Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll

    Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? Honestly, I can't think of anyone saying anything about that guy since he jumped to some subscriber radio service and nearly killed it.

    1. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking of Opie and Anthony.

    2. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, no one is thinking about them at all.

    3. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh is it another of those FoS-type posts?

      Next time check your sources before you post another crap like this - Stern actually pretty much *saved* Sirius, pal.

    4. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      He moved to Sirius, which jumped from 600,000 subscribers before he was on it, to 6,000,000 subscribers now.

      He is credited with basically saving Sirius from going out of business, and at the same time making himself $500,000,000 (and more, probably, with stock options).

    5. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by MC+Negro · · Score: 0, Troll
      Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? Honestly, I can't think of anyone saying anything about that guy since he jumped to some subscriber radio service and nearly killed it.
      I think you're thinking of Opie and Anthony.

      FYI, Opie and Anthony broadcast on both XM and CBS' FreeFM in the mornings, and then switch over to an XM-exclusive portion of the show after a few hours. Of course the irony of Stern being replaced on FreeFM by the duo he gagged a couple years earlier is not lost on humble fence-sitters like myself. Regardless of who has the larger audience, I'm sure Howard is laughing all the way to the bank.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    6. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by kinglink · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nice numbers.

      Do the math. For every subscriber if your numbers are right he earns 100 bucks and more as you say.

      He may have boosted the subscriptions but they dug themselves a hole with the salary they gave him. They are in trouble as other posters have meantioned.

    7. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by therealking · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should do the math yourself, if he added 5 million subs at 12.95 a month thats $51 million a month attributable to him. 10 months and sterns paid for in full. The other 4 years and 2 months is profit. And that doesn't include the $49+ a radio every one of those subs bought to listen.

      Sirius knew what they were doing, and they made a good deal.

      --
      Gadget News at Gizmo.com
    8. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Every new subscriber cost Sirius $130. At $13 a month, it takes them most of a year to recover that cost. Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    9. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Do the math. For every subscriber if your numbers are right he earns 100 bucks and more as you say.

      So? Do the math yourself. I signed up for Stern. I've now been a member for 14 months.

      14 months x $13 = $182 they've made off me that they wouldn't have without Stern.

      His $500 million salary is spead over 5 years, that means in 5 years Sirius will have gotten $780 from me (and the same from other Stern fans), without paying anything extra to Stern.

      ANY subscription based business is a long term prospect. Assuming subscriptions keep growing at even a modest rate, and assumming Stern fans still like Stern enough to keep their accounts, I'm sure they will do fine.

      Again, I feel it's likely the two satellite companies will merge, but I don't really care about that, as I'm not a stockholder. I just want to keep listening to the content I like, with as little commercials as possible, in my car (since I have a long commute).

    10. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Except that it cost them $130 to sign you up. So, by your own numbers they have made $52 off of you in the last 14 months. That's less than $4/month. How much of that do you think is profit? How much of it do you think is available to pay Stern?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    11. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.

      Not true, at least not teh way you have phrased it. After they pay off what it costs to acquire subscribers, they do NOT lose money on every subscriber, they lose money overall. It doesn't cost them any extra to transmit to 6,000,000 people than it would to 600. Thus, there must be a point where if they have X subscribers, they will have positive cashflow. Their costs are fixed, but the # of subscribers is not.

    12. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but in 5 years, once I have paid in $780, how much extra have they paid to keep me signed up?

      The answer is nothing. And it doesn't cost them ANYTHING extra to transmit to me. Their signal goes out just the same, either way.

      So in five years, I will have generated them $650. Possibly more as I imagine I will have bought a second reciever by then.

      Multiple that $650 by a few million other people and you have a business model that is similar to Cable Tv, which also probably generated tremendous losses in the beginning.

      Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.

    13. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Sirius just released its third-quarter subscriber data: more than 5.1 million subscribers. That more than doubles the 2.2 million subscribers Sirius reported a year ago. Sirius claims it's out-grown competitor XM Satellite Radio for four straight quarters.

      It was about two years ago that Howard Stern and Sirius announced their deal. Recently I blogged about Stern's lower ad rates on sat radio compared with his old terrestrial radio net. As several readers pointed out, that's only part of the formula.

      Sirius currently charges $12.95 a month for a subscription. So every thousand subs means another $155,400 in revenue for Sirius. As cable TV does, sat radio gets two major revenue streams: subs and ads.

      So what's the magic number? When does Howard Stern become a profitmaker for Sirius? We may have passed that number some time ago. Stern and his production staff reportedly cost Sirius $100 million a year. That's roughly the income from 644,000 subs at the current monthly rate.


      link

      So, there you go. Assuming that # is correct, as long as around 650,000 people subscribe (and continue toi do so) expressly because of Stern, he is paying for himself.

    14. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by od05 · · Score: 1
      This is going to encourage a lot of people to sign up once they hear how good Sirius is. People don't like 20 minutes of commercials every hour, but most people don't want to install FM modulators and wire the Sirius unit to the back of their radios, that's what I believe is holding up more people from getting Satellite radio.

      I've been a Sirius subscriber since Howard announced the switch, and I will never go back to testicle radio again. The quality is as good as any radio station, but it cuts out under bridges and in hills. They need more repeaters like they have in the big cities, other than that I plan on sticking with Sirius until something better comes out.

      I'm listening to Howard's web stream right now.

    15. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.

      I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them. Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    16. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them.

      There is NO WAY the reciever I have is worth $300. Post some facts that prove this. It's a circuit board, a basic LCD, and a plastic housing. No way the circuit to recieve the satellite signal costs $280, and there is nothing else there that could possibly be worth more than $20- the LCD is what you'd get on a clock radio or something, the audio and DC power chips components have to be cheap since you can get discmans that play audio and run on DC power for $25. The antenna is just a standard passive antenna, as well. Are you really saying the satellite reciever chip is worth $280?

      And, even if that $130 figure you keep throwing around is due to the reciever, my above post remains unrefuted by you... namely, the fact that after the first 10 months of my subscription they've paid nothing extra to "keep" me, so years 2 and beyond of my subscription is gravy for them.

      Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.

      I strongly doubt this, since they offer a plan that lets you get a second reciever for an extra $3 a month (plus the cost of the reciever). They wouldn't do this if they were losing money on the deal.

      I doubt they make much money on those recievers, but between the recievers and and the accessory packs such as the boombox, they are at the very least breaking even, and I expect, making something back. There's no way you can say they are losing money on a $80 "boombox" that is just speakers, a battery compartment, and a slot to stick your reciever. Or on a car kit which is $50 and is just various glue strips and a passive car antennna. If you can break down how they could possibly be losing money on either of those items, I'd be interested in hearing it.

    17. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by monkeydo · · Score: 1
      Since you'll never believe me, why not go to the source?
      Subscriber Acquisition Costs. Subscriber acquisition costs include hardware subsidies paid to radio manufacturers, distributors and
      automakers, including subsidies paid to automakers who include a SIRIUS radio and a prepaid subscription to our service in the sale or lease
      price of a new vehicle; subsidies paid to chip set manufacturers; and commissions paid to retailers and automakers as incentives to purchase,
      install and activate SIRIUS radios. The majority of subscriber acquisition costs are incurred and expensed in advance of acquiring a subscriber.
      Subscriber acquisition costs do not include advertising, loyalty payments to distributors and dealers of SIRIUS radios and revenue share
      payments to automakers and retailers of SIRIUS radios which are included in sales and marketing expense. Subscriber acquisition costs also do
      not include amounts capitalized in connection with our agreement with Hertz, as we retain ownership of certain SIRIUS radios used by Hertz.


      http://www.shareholder.com/Common/Edgar/908937/950 117-06-2131/06-00.pdf
      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    18. Re:Howard Stern? Is it still 1995? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      I agree that all of those things cost, and can add up. I DISAGREE with your statement that the radio that I bought cost $300 to manufacture, which is what your original statement said: "A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them."

      Nowhere in there do you address retail or dealership commissions, so I didn't address that. You simply said that the reciever would cost $300 if they didn't subsidise them, which I still don't believe is true, nor did what you paste imply is true, either.

      Once you add in the other elements from what you just pasted, such as rental cars, automakers, retail stuff, sure - but none of those apply to the cost of MY player, since I didn't get it with a car, nor from a retail store.

      Again - find me something that says the basic, non car model radio would cost $300 just for the equipment, and I stand corrected. Otherwise, correct your own original statement to include factors that you didn't mention. Until then, I find it very hard to believe that this player cost $300+ to manufacture.

      And you still didn't refute any of my other points...

  67. Re:stern = hack radio by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, but he's EXTREME . Being EXTREME is cool. You want to be cool, don't you? Then listen to Howard Stern. Because he's EXTREME , and EXTREME is cool. By listening to Howard Stern, you then become EXTREME -- and therefore cool -- by extension.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  68. Free Stern? by catdevnull · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean I can get 4+ hours of infantile poopy jokes and lesbian fetish fantasies for free?

    I already get that with Slashdot and Fark!

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  69. Re:stern = hack radio by pyster · · Score: 1

    Weird, his old ratings books always said he was top with ppl who make over 50k and had a college education. and now it looks like his current listeners are those whom not afraid of new tech or paying to listen to him. Lowest common denominator? Please. Who doesnt love rotten, consumptionjunction, boing, etc? Where else will you hear someone doing battle with the crazy godhatesfags group? Or hear someone making the klan look foolish? Howards social political idealogies are hardly what we could consider lowest common denominator. Oh, and Poop jokes never stop being funny.

  70. Re:stern = hack radio by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    This is really the issue. I know people who think that Trailer Park Boys is a great TV Show. I think it's terrible, and stupid, and not funny in the least. Yet there's many people who think it's the best show ever. Myself, I think South Park is a great show, but there's others who don't hold the same opinion as me.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  71. .torrent by zarozarozaro · · Score: 1

    "Howard Stern's 4+ hour program will be made available live online for free..."

    I think this exists already, its called bit torrent.

    1. Re:.torrent by pyster · · Score: 1

      live...

  72. Feh. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    I can do this for no additional charge on my XM. And the XM radio cost $24 net last xmas.

    Howard stopped being funny when he stoped shocking New Yorkers in a novel way and just started amusing himself.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  73. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our midget lesbian overlords...

  74. Not with a choice by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    People said the same thing about Cable TV. They'd never pay for something they could get for free... Guess what? Most of you nay sayers now pay for cable. In fact I'd wager ALL of you do.

    I don't. That's because finally we have a choice other than subscription for a larger variety of TV - download (legal or otherwise). Why would I pay any monthy fee, much less the $60+ cable companies want, to watch just a few shows?

    No, if consumers are offered a choice many people prefer to pay as they go - and the rise of cable was all about that not being an option.

    Music is in the position where you can always pay as you go, and talk radio even the same way with podcasts. That's why the iPod has done so well, because it lets people escape radio and play what they like.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. Re:stern = hack radio by patrixmyth · · Score: 1

    When I say "lowest common denominator", I don't mean people who make under $50k and didn't go to college. I mean people who think that poop jokes never stop being funny.

    --
    "Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
  76. Good idea. Makes Sirius content more accessible. by Stopher2475 · · Score: 0

    It sounds pretty much like a no brainer. Their current business model ties their service, and thus their revenue, to an expensive piece of hardware. This add value to current subscribers and opens the market to those who don't want to invest in a satellite radio. One of the reasons I never even tried the service was because all the nicer radios were well over a hundred bucks.

  77. Only Reason I considered it by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
    Was NFL games, not Howard. And when I looked into it before (a few months ago) you had to have IE and active-x. Their web site was so uninformative (was NFL included ?) that I wrote them but never heard back. Great customer (proposed customer anyway) service there.

    Internet radio for music ? Shoutcast works well for me. I get it through streamtuner (windows versions also avail) which is better than through the shoutcast web site in my opinion... streamtuner, streamripper, xmms for Linux.. or steamtuner, streamripper, winamp for Windows and you'll be happy internet radio campers. (except that damn NFL.. thought it might go well with Fantasy Football)

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    1. Re:Only Reason I considered it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need to bother with satellite radio for the NFL over the internet. Unlike MLB, the NFL does not stop radio affiliates from broadcasting games over the internet. Chicago games are streamed by their main radio station, and I would wager that other games are also streamed by the local radio stations.

      Personally I am waiting for satellite radio to start adding commercials to "increase revenue so that the quality of service can be increased"

  78. Re:stern = hack radio by jcr · · Score: 1

    Stern is an important figure in the history of radio That doesn't mean he has any talent. Jerry Springer's an important figure in the history of TV, too. They've both shown that you can make a lot of money hosting a freak show. -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  79. Is Slashdot accepting ads as stories now? by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    In that case, please post a "story" for my business, too... 10% off my PHP development services when you mention this ad!

  80. Convenience - That's All by gadlaw · · Score: 1

    Some folks will pay for the convenience of it rather than hunting and pecking and surfing along the web finding or not finding the kind of music or talk they want to listen to. And if Sirius can sell that to John Q Public then good for them, everybody wins. Even the fanboys who say you can find music and talk on your own on the web can feel superior for their greater knowledge of surfing the web. Win Win.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
  81. free advertising on slashdot by illitereat · · Score: 1

    Since when does slashdot provide free advertising to Howard Stern? What's the next hot topic- viagara ads and Nigerian bank fraud schemes? This one slipped by the crap filter!

    1. Re:free advertising on slashdot by pyster · · Score: 1

      Since Howard Stern giving away 2 days of streaming for free interests many /. readers.

  82. whoops by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

    In trying to correct myself (streamtuner not steam) I thought I would try and find a URL for Windows version.. cant find it anymore.. sorry bout that. You still might find streamripper plugin for winamp handy though.

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  83. Sirius has some major flaws by businessnerd · · Score: 1

    All I've been reading so far is how awesome Sirius is and how much Stern sucks. Now I've never been a huge fan of Stern (for some reason I don't get too much enjoyment out of him asking every woman who walks into the studio to take their top off and then listen to him ooh and awe and remark on "that broad's sweet cans"), but want to bitch about is Sirius. When I bought a new car, it came with Sirius and a trial of its service. For a good 4 months, I listened to Sirius off and on and was utterly dissapointed. Now I am fully aware that this was a limited trial and I only had about 10 stations (not including Howard) but my biggest gripe was with the QUALITY OF SERVICE! Maybe it's just me, but I found that the audio quality was much WORSE THAN FM! I had heard others describe Sirius as being "tinny", and that's exactly what I heard when I turned on my stereo for the first time. No matter how much I tweaked the stereo, it always sounded like the treble was turned all the way up. For talk this doesn't matter, but for music, I want that full range of sound that pumps your chest (not for some shitty hip hop song, but for wicked double bass drum work and kick-ass basslines). Furthermore, whenever I went through an area with a lot of trees, or under an overpass, or through a tunnel, my signal dissapeared. Sitting in traffic under an overpass? Well you won't be able to pass the time listening to Sirius. All you can do is stare at the "Linking..." message on the display. I'm sick and tired of people singing the praises of satelite when it is clear there is still a lot of progress that needs to be made as far as the technology is concerned. If I'm even going to pay for radio service, I damn well expect it to sound better then anything I've heard and it better not stop playing because I drove past a couple trees. Eventually, my trial subscription expired and it was at least a month before I noticed. I had Sirius, and I did go back to "terrestrial" (btw, I hate how Howard Stern "invented" the term just so he can make satelite "radio"[cause it's not really a radio frequency if it's sent by satelites] sound so much superiorAs long as it is free of commercials, I'd much rather go with HD Radio, something based on a technology that is not dependant on line-of-sight to reach my receiver.

    Sorry that was quite a rant, but I just had to get it off my chest.

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    1. Re:Sirius has some major flaws by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 1

      I've not really noticed the "tinny" sounding music, or at least it does not bother me. It can be annoying to loose the signal at times, but even with those minor annoyances, satellite radio is still superior to the local radio stations in this area. I will not be switching back any time soon. There is really nothing local radio stations have to offer for free that would bring me back as a listener.

    2. Re:Sirius has some major flaws by pyster · · Score: 1

      hd radio = fcc content controlled radio. You arent gonna get to feel the bass of anything from NWA, heh, or many of your favorite classic rock songs for that matter. We listen to mp3s and streams, we're comfortable with less then HD in our cars. I noticed a little bit of tinniness myself, but I was able o resolve the issue with my stereo settings. The signal drops once in a while, but I have been experiencing those same kinda drops with am/fm my entire life. It's something that people with reasonable expectations have long come to terms with. I dislike the term terrestrial radio also. It should have been labeled FCC content control radio.

  84. Oh, that's nice by Zerbey · · Score: 1

    Great, so for $13 a month I can listen to some no-talent shock jock making dumb comments with his idiot buddies? Woohoo. No thanks.

    Howard Stern was mildly amusing when he was being censored, just to see how far he would push it. Now he's uncensored what little humour there was has been lost.

  85. He got too politically extreme, too by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I'm no Bush fan, but when he started trotting out the 9/11 conspiracy stuff before the last election, and Robin/Artie & Co could be heard just playing "yes, sir" to every allegation Stern spewed, that was it for me. Bash Bush. Fine. But don't trot out a pile of moonbat propagandistic bullshit that by necessioty drags hundreds, if not thousands, of other people through the mud.

    And, yeah, the end of his marriage broke him away from a sense of the common guy. How many times do I need to hear about his $500 meals out on the town with his trophy girlfriend and their stupid terrier? Wheee.

  86. Yeah, but who REALLY put the dookie in the urinal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is that site suppressing the TRUTH?

  87. It always has...just getting worse lately. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It always has...just getting worse lately.

    Ask yourself the same question the next time a Nintendo (proprietary gaming platform) or Google (proprietary search engine) blurb shows up. Many, if not most of Slashdot's stories are cheap, positive PR pieces for corporations open-source Slashdotters normally wouldn't support.

    1. Re:It always has...just getting worse lately. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Google actually does some good things for open source, like the whole Summer of Code thing, and hiring a bunch of open source developers. Nintendo is shit though in that department, and the most open console this generation is Sony.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  88. Stern's PR Guy by emaname · · Score: 1

    Now I know why a marginally entertaining, psuedo-news show like 60min would have this no-talent, self-centered, ego-maniac on. It was part of a new PR campaign leading up to this announcement. Stern's presence on satellite is irrelevant. He's not getting the attention he needs to generate the cash his promoters expect. So, just like the over-acheiving, brown-nosing kid in class that desparately waves his hand in the air to get the attention of the teacher, Howie is back on TV first in an attempt to regain some form of visibility and now s/he's on the web. Oh, joy. I think I almost yawned just now, too.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  89. Stiletto by blackmonday · · Score: 0

    I'm a happy Sirius subscriber...

    There's a new Sirius receiver, the Stiletto. It's a "walkman" style receiver, it uses the headphones as an antenna if it's not plugged into a docking station. This unit is the killer app for Sirius (XM hs something similar). The difference is that the Stiletto has a built in hard drive, and you can load your own MP3s or save songs onto the HD just by pushing thr Heart button on the unit when you hear a good song on the air.

    Best feature for me, the one that could get me to replace my Sportster Replay - Wifi streaming at no additional cost. You can get all Sirius channels thru Wifi without needing the Satellite connection.

    The programming is worth it to me, although they don't have a decent punk station like XM does with Fungus. I like Howard, and there's so much new music to discover all the time...

    1. Re:Stiletto by spiritgreywolf · · Score: 1

      Don't mean to correct you - but you CANNOT get all of the Sirius channels thru WiFI. You get the same number you would normally get when you stream it online via your browser. The music is there, Howard is there as is Martha Stewart and one or two others - but NONE of the other talk/news/comedy channels are streamed.

      This point in particular has me irritated more than anything and I've already complained about it. I'm actually seriously considering taking the radio back to the store for my money back because of this. I listen to Howard occasionally too, but the lack of the headline news and other channels streamed over WiFi has me pissed.

      At least XM has a home-repeater you can purchase so you can mount one antenna and broadcast the full satellite signal throughout your home. The nitwits at Sirius still haven't done this...

      --
      Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
  90. Howard Who??? by alvin67 · · Score: 1

    Isn't he retired or something?

    Is he working 3 days a week now or 4?

  91. Sirius is still probably headed out of business... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sirius trouble turning a profit
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Str eetPatrol/SiriusTroubleTurningAProfit.aspx

    Get Sirius? Not until the company does
    http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P134732.asp

    Jock pay stings Sirius
    Company's loss creates debate on Stern's value
    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117942418.html?c ategoryid=18&cs=1&s=h&p=0

    etc., etc., etc....

  92. actually i stream at 128Kbps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So not everyone cops out an easy way on the net.

  93. Re:stern = hack radio by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, to come back to your original question. Yes, I believe that Stern has talent. The skills he has demonstrated in his interview techniques have changed both radio and the larger entertainment world forever. Furthermore, I don't believe Stern has had such great success because of the fart jokes (which you seem to believe is all he does). I would say that Stern's greatest revolution is making the broadcaster (and the team behind the scenes) more than just a voice presenting a script. Stern revolutionized radio in his approach to the relationship between his personal life and his listening audience. Again, I believe this demonstrated talent and boldness, given the landscape of radio at the time.

    Unfortunately, too many broadcasters focused on reproducing the crass jokes rather than what really made Stern special. It doesn't appear you were able to get past that either.

  94. Re:stern = hack radio by pyster · · Score: 1

    get a clue, poop jokes are funny. the show is, and always has been, a mix of pop culture, politics/social issues, approached from a high and low brow angle.

  95. Re:stern = hack radio by NC-17 · · Score: 1

    Dude, you missed the underline. It's just not extreme enough without an underline... of course, you'd need to find a link for that here on /.

  96. *ahem* that is original idiot to you sir! by gosand · · Score: 1
    Howard Stern was amusing when he was the only "Village Idiot" in the Media. Unfortunately, the Media now has a plethora of Village Idiots, so he is just another inane babbling voice. I agree that we should think for ourselves, but I don't agree that we are being told that thinking for ourselves is dangerous; rather I think that we are finding it increasingly difficult to find (relatively) unbiased information or have the time to listen to multiple biased sources and form our own synthesis of contradictory views. Of course, thinking for oneself takes time and effort, and it is much more convenient to absorb and regurgitate the views of whichever "Talking Head" one happens to agree with in the first one minute of listening.

    To be fair, Howard isn't just a village idiot - he is the original village idiot. :)

    I used to listen to Howard every day, and thoroughly enjoyed his show. A lot of it is just blabber, but can be fairly entertaining. I didn't have a problem just changing the channel if he wasn't talking about something that interested me. (i.e. I am not one of the rabid fans who worship him as some kind of genius) When he went to satellite, I was kind of bummed. I thought about getting Sirius. But after doing a cost/benefit/hassle analysis, I realized that it wasn't even worth my time to do a cost/benefit/hassle analysis. Sure, I miss his show a little, but it isn't going to have a negative impact on my life. It just isn't that important. I pretty much despise all other talk shows, and music? Well, nothing really excites me. I have 60 GB of MP3s at home, and my car CD player reads MP3s on CD. So I can make my own mixes, or pull from my vast collection of things to listen to. There is the radio if I want to hear the latest punk-rock wannabes, or the hit songs from 2 years ago, or endless uber-annoying commercials. I listen to NPR to and from work, and I am better informed for it. I hear people expounding the virtues of satellite radio, just like people ooh and ahh over TiVO. Yeah, they are cool - but I guess it just isn't worth it to me. If I get a TiVO, then I'll have all this recorded crap I would feel the need to watch - or worse yet, I would have nothing recorded because there isn't too much I want to watch on TV anymore. I've heard it is more liberating because you can watch what you want when you want, but to me it is still restricting because you are still WATCHING. I'm not one of those "get rid of your TV" people, I just don't want it to be a controlling factor in my life. Same goes for satellite radio. I find that once I remove myself from it, I just really don't care about it all that much. And I am really OK with that.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  97. Wow! by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    Doesn't sound like a great deal considering you can already listen to Howard online along with a lot of the other Sirius channels on the net when you buy a receiver. If you like Sirius you want it in the car and not just a internet only subscription.

    1. Re:Wow! by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

      Reply to myself I guess. I just activated a second receiver this morning and found I still had the free internet streaming for the two accounts or I could upgrade to CD quality streaming for $2.99/mo extra. I usually just listen to Howard at work and I don't need any extra quality as it already sounds fine. What's not clear is if you upgrade to the CD quality if you get all the channels or just the ones they offer now for free(most of the music and few talk channels).

  98. Re:Sirius is still probably headed out of business by joshsisk · · Score: 1

    Probably/maybe now vs DEFINITELY before. Out of the two companies, Sirius is looking like a better bet at the moment, XM's subscriber rate is slowing while Sirius is growing.

    I don't really care, since I don't have stock in either. I imagine ultimately one will buy the other out.

  99. Howard Stern on the net? by gammoth · · Score: 1

    Yaaawwwwwwnnn....

  100. To all commenting on Stern "not being relevant" by electricmba · · Score: 2, Informative

    Love him or hate him, it is impossible to claim he is not relevant in 2006. In his domain (entertainment), he was one of the top grossing performers last year, nudged out by only the likes of Steven Spielberg for total income. He's also considered one of the most powerful men in showbusiness, as evindenced by this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/5S85.html ...which places him in position "7" out of 100 of the most powerful Celebrities in the entertainment business. The news story about having a couple of free days on Sirius may be ho-hum, and there may be many of you that have an extreme dislike for his programming...but irrelevant he is not.

  101. God damn. ALL OF YOU .... JUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..shut the hell up.

    Mind your own business. For some of us, $13 is not that much money. We can afford Sirius. Quit your jealous belly aching over something you don't even want to listen to.

    Babbabooey!

  102. Re:stern = hack radio by milimetric · · Score: 1

    That's a good analogy, but you're forgetting one thing. The FCC and his wife being gone has not stopped him from being popular. I thought it would, but 5 million people signed up for Sirius and proved me wrong. It's these very people that make him relevant. He's someone that people enjoy listening to, no matter what he talks about. I think it's his hypnotic voice and his sexual awareness that makes him interesting. But above all I find him interesting because he's a great way for me to find out what a lot of people are interested in, so it lets me see the world in a truer light.

  103. You've got to be sirius!!! by _Griphin_ · · Score: 1

    Wow and about time they offered the service online. I've always wondered when they were planning to make the step and offer it online for people, this can only mean that the company is greedy or there not making as much money as the investors predicted so this is how they can make more money. I've always wondered when they were planning to offer the service online, still if I wanted to actually listen to Howard Stern online I'd just download it from the newsgroups, right?!?

  104. FREE is cool by hisstory+student · · Score: 1

    Why would I want to spend $13/mo for something I can get for free?
    http://www.shoutcast.com/
    Yeah, I know, you can't get it over that special receiver you bought.

    --
    Heard any good sigs lately?
  105. Um, gee,,, by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Lemme think... Strippers, midgets, l0sers, all doing stupid things. Sex, crass language, etc. Um, isn't Howard just YouTube without the videos? -rick

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  106. Help me out here by ET_Fleshy · · Score: 1
    From Sirrus
    Get 100% commercial-free music and original programming from Howard Stern, Martha Stewart, SIRIUS Football Radio, Metropolitan Opera Radio, Deepak Chopra, Jimmy Buffet and the Rolling Stones to name a few. Try getting that from any other internet radio.

    Oookay... Shoutcast anybody?

    May not have such legendary radio talkers such as Martha Steward or Deepak Chopra (who?) but I'm pretty sure that they're free and you can get amazing music for any mood whenever you want with fairly good quality to boot.

    /not responsibly for any grammir/speeling errers
  107. marketing doublespeak by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Listen to Howard Stern for free, only $12.95 a month.

  108. I'm surprised.. by talksinmaths · · Score: 1

    ..at the general haughty nature of the posts. This is the same crowd that falls all over itself trying to come up with the most insipid 'Wii' jokes, isn't it?

    --
    Don't you have someone you'd die for?
  109. Re:Hoo Hoo I invented Internet Radio, tell em Fred by bigwang · · Score: 1

    And nobody cared. It certainly didn't make slashdot. I guess that answers the question, if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

  110. CD quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean that infinite loop skip-skip-skip that CDs sometimes do? I thought that went out with dusty records...

  111. Stern = Beatles, O&A = Monkees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL at all the O&A idiots who try to cast Stern as a failure while their two wannabe clones have returned their morning zoo to FCC-censored terrestrial radio with their tail between their legs. Despite all the spin, they have clearly failed to attract enough listeners to XM. Otherwise why would XM give up their exclusivity?

    O&A are in their 40's and have not accomplished 1/100th of what Stern had done by age 30. They are a couple of bitter, second rate, middle-aged hacks and that's all they'll ever be. Get over it, sheep.

    Stern's show on Sirius is AMAZING, by the way. Some of the best radio ever. Maybe that's why Sirius has outsold XM... EVERY MONTH FOR THE PAST YEAR!

  112. Shoutcast by bytor4232 · · Score: 1

    It sounds to me like they are trying to charge for basically what I get for free with http://shoutcast.com/. Sure the content might be different, but there are TONS of channels available up there.

    I think I'll stay away from this one. I have better things to spend 13 bucks on.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
  113. Re:Who's relevant by qubezz · · Score: 1

    I had no idea that commercial terrestrial radio was still relevant. I haven't turned on an FM tuner and listened more than 5 minutes in the last 10 months.

  114. Hoo Hoo Robin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope he crashes the howie-copter into the side of your mom's box

  115. Re:CD-quality programming ? Perhaps... by Lexor · · Score: 0

    This is a new service that has launched with higher quality sound. You need a supplemental subscription to access this "cd quality" service. I'll reserve judgement on the quality of this service until I hear it for myself.

    Can't blame anyone for the confusion, as I am a Sirius subscriber and had to do some research before I knew what was going on. Perhaps Sirius could do a better job selling this free promo -- when I hear "CD quality" I think music, not talk.

    --
    Regards, Lex
  116. not exactly by tacokill · · Score: 1

    You don't get all of the Siruis channels online when you buy a subscription to Sirius. They only offer a few channels online - mostly music. In fact, I don't think there is a single talk channel available.

    So, with this, you get ALL the Sirius channels online. That's cool. But, it's $13/mo. That's not cool.

    1. Re:not exactly by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

      You don't get all of the Siruis channels online when you buy a subscription to Sirius. They only offer a few channels online - mostly music. In fact, I don't think there is a single talk channel available.

      From here:
      Both Stern channels
      Football
      Playboy (pretty lame if you ask me)
      Sirius Left (liberal talk channel)
      Raw Dog comedy
      Maxim
      BBC

      and others... So there's a smattering of Sirius talk channels. Not all of them, but enough to keep you interested.

  117. Re:stern = hack radio by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Howard is WAY past his prime, anyway. He's an interesting guy, and is even capable of the occasional intelligent insight. But the daily grind of listening to him go on...and on...and on...and on...and on about strippers/lesbians/his dick/porn stars/etc. tends to get VERY old, very fast.

    Keep in mind that for the past 5 years or so on terrestrial radio he was really holding back because of more draconian FCC regulations as well as his own bosses being afraid of lawsuits, loss of their FCC licenses, etc. Since he's been freed on Sirius of all that he's back to his old self again.

    Another thing that many people don't seem to realize is that Stern also has the rights to all the tapes of all his old shows. That's 20+ years worth of some of the most entertaining radio content out there, and all uncensored. They've already started playing some of it, and apparently they may even set up an entire channel devoted to all this old material. If you liked him in the old days then you can listen to it all over again, and this time without the bleeps and the cuts from the dreaded "dump button".

  118. Re:Sirius is still probably headed out of business by heptapod · · Score: 1

    One of the things people aren't taking into account about all the new subscriptions is the fact they're being generated by bulk sales to auto manufacturers. Stern is a distant second when it comes to the reason for new subscribers.

    Plus Stern's not doing anything new or innovative considering his newfound freedom from his arch-nemesis of the FCC. He's coasting until his contract is up in 2011 so he can retire.

  119. Re:Sirius is still probably headed out of business by joshsisk · · Score: 1

    One of the things people aren't taking into account about all the new subscriptions is the fact they're being generated by bulk sales to auto manufacturers. Stern is a distant second when it comes to the reason for new subscribers.

    Is this a FACT, or a spin? You have some hard numbers to back that up?

    Plus Stern's not doing anything new or innovative considering his newfound freedom from his arch-nemesis of the FCC. He's coasting until his contract is up in 2011 so he can retire.

    I dunno, his show on satellite is wildly entertaining, and his channels are also quite entertaining. Six minutes of commercials versus 24+ on KROC is innovative enough for me. Especially since the show is one two channels at once (with a coastal time delay) so when the commercials play, I can switch to the other coast for a few minutes and never hear them at all.

    Also great is the fact that you can HEAR THE BITS. Everything was so censored on KROC that sometimes you couldn't even understand the stories the guests were telling. Now it's great, because if nothing else, Stern is good at getting juicy stories out of his guests...

    I'm a longtime fan of the show and now it's better than it's been since I first started listening in the mid 90s... maybe better, actually because Artie Lange is the best member of the cast he's ever had.

  120. Re:stern = hack radio by jcr · · Score: 1

    the fart jokes (which you seem to believe is all he does). Don't try to tell me what I believe, sunshine. I was living in the DC area at the time of the Air Florida crash. Stern is a fucking asshole, and that's about all there is to it. Just ask the NY Libertarians that he jerked around. Interview techniques, my ass. -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  121. Re:stern = hack radio by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    Sooo basically, you hate him and think he has no talent because you don't get him, and because you feel that you were insulted by him?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  122. Re:stern = hack radio by jcr · · Score: 1

    I despise him because he's an asshole, which he has demonstrated on many occasions. I say he has no talent, because he has never demonstrated any talent. I don't feel that I was insulted by him, because to the best of my knowledge, he's never said anything at all about me. -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  123. iTunes by sundy58 · · Score: 1

    iTunes has internet radio for free.

  124. Re:stern = hack radio by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
    "Don't try to tell me what I believe, sunshine."
    I didn't. I said that "you seem to believe"; I can only judge what you think based on what you are presenting. Now, since the best response you could come up with was to spew vulgarity at me, I will not reply to you and add you to my foes list so I am not bothered with your nonsense ever again.
  125. Re:Sirius is still probably headed out of business by heptapod · · Score: 1

    Sorry, when they replayed Larry Fine goes to Woodstock they still had the bleeps.

    Stern has not innovated anything on satellite. At best he's a spokesmodel.

    Howard has turned into the celebrity that he despised back when he was hungry and trying to make a name for himself. I cancelled Sirius a few weeks ago because Stern didn't live up to the hype. Listening to anything for twenty years is too long.

  126. Re:Sirius is still probably headed out of business by joshsisk · · Score: 1

    When I listen to Master Tape Theater (the old tapes show) content from KROC, the content is uncensored. Content from WNBC might still be censored though, maybe, because I think the only archives they have of that stuff is from air check tapes. An air check tape would probably contain the audio feed that goes out to the antenna, not one right from the board - I don't remember, I've been out of radio way too long now :)

    Anyway, I don't remember the bit you are referring to, so I dunno when that was from.

    No new content is censored, however, which is why I listen to the show - the live show, not the old tapes. Today was great, actually, Artie had made a bet with the gay wrestler that was fired from the WWE that if the Yankees didn't win the world series, he'd make out with Blue Iris, a 80 year old porn star. Well, today he paid off the bet... funny radio. Artie is definitely the heart of the show now. Howard is the ringleader/enabler, but Artie is the heart.

    But yeah, if you don't like the content, don't subscribe - that's a no-brainer. A lot of people do like it, though. Myself included. Makes my commute bearable.