Also, does anyone know of an OS X compatible USB audio interface? I have the iLamp, so I can't install a card.
Depends on what you're looking for. The Griffin Technologies iMic adapter is fine if you just need stereo audio. Edirol makes some decent all-purpose USB audio interfaces (many of them have MIDI).
But if you're looking for many more channels than two, go firewire. It's about at generation 1.5, so you might want to wait a bit, but the Mark of the Unicorn 896 is what I'm trying to save up for right now... ASIO drivers exist for most of these products, so they should work with most audio software.
Point one: from a cursory scan of the original post (and, if I'm in any way wrong, feel free to shoot me down) he at one point designates the CD singles base as "1%", then later recognizes it as "8%". Which is it?
You're assuming all sales are cds. CD singles account for 1% of total sales. All other cds (EPs and LPs) account for 92% of sales. The other 7% is probably cassettes, cassingles, and vinyl (yes people still buy vinyl).
Point two: single sales have to be viewed in light of the artist. Sure, a band like Metallica with a million-and-one compilation albums isn't affected by a drop in single CD sales. But what about (*shivvers*) Britney Spears? Little 12-year old girls are probably going out and buying that one song they really like (and is played over the radio constantly), instead of full albums of songs they haven't be clandestinely programmed into about. That is, they *were* doing this, until their older brothers came around and downloaded Napster for the family machine.
Actually, I bet those little 12 year-old girls were going out and buying every last Britney Spears item they could find, including the full album. Yeah, they might not buy the singles if their older brother shows them how to use Napster, but they're still buying merchandise...
What if you only went a few steps further and included not only serial numbers and water marks from scanners, and photocopiers and the like, but could also have all these devices 'communicate' with one another between say monetary transactions.
This is very likely an inevitability. IBM and others are working on systems and protocols for 'microtransactions.' Pretty soon everything will be able to bill in fractional increments of currency. Scanners might automatically charge you for scanning in copyrighted material and deposit the royalties to the originator of said material. The progression of technology is driven by market forces, and intelligent companies are realizing that every scrap of data can make money, from consumer profiles to automatic billing. The downside to this (if there even is an upside) is that privacy concerns are left in the dust. Many of these losses of privacy are being disguised as 'consumer services' (think about cell phone triangulation - helps 911, but also helps them keep tabs on you; cookies can be used to make browsing better but also can be used to compile consumer profiles) and the scary thing is that the public is eating it up.
We need to start making a stand against each ingress on our privacy. I think that many of these technologies, i.e., serial number embedding or what not, need to be a consumer choice. We need to opt-in instead of opt out or worse yet not have an option at all. Progress shouldn't mean the loss of privacy. Watermarking, serial numbers, and auto-billing don't necessarily have to mean the loss of privacy. It should be possible to create a system in which the scanning of a watermarked picture makes the correct monetry transaction without revealing consumer identity, but it's only going to happen if we stand up for our rights. Corporations and governments are going to walk on our rights in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
What's next? A terminal at every urinal? Is there really a need for this? Whatever happened to enjoying a nice drive for the drive's sake?
In any case, does anyone know how this is being paid for? I understand that Yahoo! contracted to put them in, but how are they making money? Or is this an 'advertising' expense? Seems to me that this could hemorrhage money. Cellular costs, initial equipment outlay, maintenance (cabs usually aren't that clean...), theft... the list goes on.
Any hierarchy I imposed on these would be entirely arbitrary, mostly unhelpful and probably a waste of time. Granted, your use may be different, but I don't see any advantage to 3d desktops. Of course, when one with a proper 3d interface (one that ignores all prevailing 2d paradigms) comes along, I may well change my mind.
Someone else posted somewhere about the idea of organizing work topics by 'rooms.' This appeals to my sensibility; creating more of an office instead of a desktop. However, I think that you cannot simply ignore all prevailing 2d paradigms, as you suggest, because there are certain tasks which are inherently two dimensional. Typing text comes to mind, as does graphic manipulation of 2d figures.
I think partially abandoning the concept of windows may help. Suppose in your 3d space you have a ball which represents your word processing application/document. Navigate to it in 3d, grab it, and it switches your view to the canonical 2d representation. A key combination returns you to 3d space. Furthermore, some applications will be inherently better in 3d; CAD and some graphing functions would be best represented that way. You could grab the object in 3d space which represents those apps and have your relevant data expand out into the 3d space. A windowed interface becomes cumbersome in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, does anyone know of an OS X compatible USB audio interface? I have the iLamp, so I can't install a card.
Depends on what you're looking for. The Griffin Technologies iMic adapter is fine if you just need stereo audio. Edirol makes some decent all-purpose USB audio interfaces (many of them have MIDI).
But if you're looking for many more channels than two, go firewire. It's about at generation 1.5, so you might want to wait a bit, but the Mark of the Unicorn 896 is what I'm trying to save up for right now... ASIO drivers exist for most of these products, so they should work with most audio software.
Point one: from a cursory scan of the original post (and, if I'm in any way wrong, feel free to shoot me down) he at one point designates the CD singles base as "1%", then later recognizes it as "8%". Which is it?
You're assuming all sales are cds. CD singles account for 1% of total sales. All other cds (EPs and LPs) account for 92% of sales. The other 7% is probably cassettes, cassingles, and vinyl (yes people still buy vinyl).
Point two: single sales have to be viewed in light of the artist. Sure, a band like Metallica with a million-and-one compilation albums isn't affected by a drop in single CD sales. But what about (*shivvers*) Britney Spears? Little 12-year old girls are probably going out and buying that one song they really like (and is played over the radio constantly), instead of full albums of songs they haven't be clandestinely programmed into about. That is, they *were* doing this, until their older brothers came around and downloaded Napster for the family machine.
Actually, I bet those little 12 year-old girls were going out and buying every last Britney Spears item they could find, including the full album. Yeah, they might not buy the singles if their older brother shows them how to use Napster, but they're still buying merchandise...
What if you only went a few steps further and included not only serial numbers and water marks from scanners, and photocopiers and the like, but could also have all these devices 'communicate' with one another between say monetary transactions.
This is very likely an inevitability. IBM and others are working on systems and protocols for 'microtransactions.' Pretty soon everything will be able to bill in fractional increments of currency. Scanners might automatically charge you for scanning in copyrighted material and deposit the royalties to the originator of said material. The progression of technology is driven by market forces, and intelligent companies are realizing that every scrap of data can make money, from consumer profiles to automatic billing. The downside to this (if there even is an upside) is that privacy concerns are left in the dust. Many of these losses of privacy are being disguised as 'consumer services' (think about cell phone triangulation - helps 911, but also helps them keep tabs on you; cookies can be used to make browsing better but also can be used to compile consumer profiles) and the scary thing is that the public is eating it up.
We need to start making a stand against each ingress on our privacy. I think that many of these technologies, i.e., serial number embedding or what not, need to be a consumer choice. We need to opt-in instead of opt out or worse yet not have an option at all. Progress shouldn't mean the loss of privacy. Watermarking, serial numbers, and auto-billing don't necessarily have to mean the loss of privacy. It should be possible to create a system in which the scanning of a watermarked picture makes the correct monetry transaction without revealing consumer identity, but it's only going to happen if we stand up for our rights. Corporations and governments are going to walk on our rights in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
Sorry to sound so preachy.
D.L.
What's next? A terminal at every urinal? Is there really a need for this? Whatever happened to enjoying a nice drive for the drive's sake?
In any case, does anyone know how this is being paid for? I understand that Yahoo! contracted to put them in, but how are they making money? Or is this an 'advertising' expense? Seems to me that this could hemorrhage money. Cellular costs, initial equipment outlay, maintenance (cabs usually aren't that clean...), theft... the list goes on.
Any hierarchy I imposed on these would be entirely arbitrary, mostly unhelpful and probably a waste of time. Granted, your use may be different, but I don't see any advantage to 3d desktops. Of course, when one with a proper 3d interface (one that ignores all prevailing 2d paradigms) comes along, I may well change my mind.
Someone else posted somewhere about the idea of organizing work topics by 'rooms.' This appeals to my sensibility; creating more of an office instead of a desktop. However, I think that you cannot simply ignore all prevailing 2d paradigms, as you suggest, because there are certain tasks which are inherently two dimensional. Typing text comes to mind, as does graphic manipulation of 2d figures.
I think partially abandoning the concept of windows may help. Suppose in your 3d space you have a ball which represents your word processing application/document. Navigate to it in 3d, grab it, and it switches your view to the canonical 2d representation. A key combination returns you to 3d space. Furthermore, some applications will be inherently better in 3d; CAD and some graphing functions would be best represented that way. You could grab the object in 3d space which represents those apps and have your relevant data expand out into the 3d space. A windowed interface becomes cumbersome in this case.