Ah yes. Because they never used compression on vinyl.
Vinyl is NOT better. Good vinyl beats bad CDs. Good CDs beat good vinyl. I've got a pretty large vinyl collection and some modestly high-end playback gear, and I regularly listen to a lot of my records. However, it's simply not as good as CD. Pitch stability, wow/flutter, frequency errors, dynamic range, channel variance, crosstalk, IM and harmonic distortion products, rumble, and so forth are all enormously less on CD than on vinyl, if they exist at all (many disappear entirely in the digital domain).
What about the sound, though? Good sound is good sound. If you're missing that 'airy' sound that good vinyl has, then try this: Get a noise generator, and inject random-phase noise (I _think_ pink noise, 'though I can't remember for sure) at about -80db into the audio stream from your CD player. Suddenly, there's the missing piece.
Records were compressed just as badly as CDs in their heyday. I've got a few albums I've picked up over the years where there's about 10db total dynamic range. However, by compressing the audio and limiting bass response, they could put cut a tighter groove, and put MORE MINUTES onto a record, for greater sales.
Vinyl, CD, even MP3 aren't inherently garbage or great--they're just made that way by cheap record companies who can get away with selling shit-on-a-shingle. Great audio is possible in all of these formats (although MP3 has some caveats)--but it takes care and skill.
Consumer's don't want shit, they just accept it. The real problem is that they don't particularly want or care about quality. The studios work hard to promote shit because it's cheaper to create, and (more to the point) REALLY cheap to keep repackaging and reselling. Why write new songs that will take effort to sell, when you can resell the macarena as a country song (Achey Breaky Heart) or some other such crap?
I think the two biggest reasons that shit has become so prevalent in the past decade are that (a) rap music and (b) pitch correctors have removed all necessity for talent or ability. Now all the studios need to create and sell an album is a misogynist thug with bad fashion sense, or a half-naked slut with no clothes.
Dreamfall: 2006 Runaway 2: 2007 Paradise: 2006 Sam & Max: 2006-2007, six episodes
The genre isn't dead, it just hasn't grown to the same extent as action games. When a third-rate shooter can sell five times as many games, it takes some determination to release an adventure game. As a result, there's fewer of them coming out, but they do exist.
Wikipedia is a great idea, and a great interface, but leads to exactly this sort of behaviour. If a company edits their entry to reflect their side of the story, is it editing or abuse?
He who edits last, wins. Over the long run, that doesn't work. That's why one of the founders of wikipedia (Larry Sanger) decided to take the idea of wikipedia and add in some accountability. The project was named citizendium, and was started just about a year ago. It is based on three fundamental differences from wikipedia:
* all contributors must apply for membership in the project under their real names, which are then visibly associated with all articles
* all articles are reviewed by experts in their particular fields, offering suggestions and criticism as the articles evolve with the goal for each article to be "approved"
* that vandals, trolls, and disruptive editors are quickly and permanently banned from further work on the project.
It's MUCH smaller than wikipedia at present , but also not loaded with garbage and editorial pissing matches. Take a look, join the community, and help make the next generation online encyclopedia better.
No. It's not. It is not. No way, no-how. No other qualifiers (countries, noble causes, etc.) are necessary for this statement.
"But I am not against spam a priori"
Ah hah! That's the problem--spam is inherently wrong, not just coincidentally bad. If you can believe that some cases of spam are OK, then you (a) have started sliding down a steep slope, and (b) are just plain wrong. In fact, the flawed reasoning becomes clear just a few short lines later:
"Why is spam a problem? Because the cost of receiving a message, however minor, is more than the benefits."
This is NOT correct! The reason that spam is a problem is that the cost of it is forcibly incurred by the recipient. It doesn't matter how large or small the cost is, nor does it matter what the benefit is. When someone sends out spam, they are forcing the people who get the spam to pay for it in terms of storage, bandwidth, and computing cycles. You can argue that it's not much cost, but that would be (a) incorrect, and (b) irrelevant.
Spam isn't bad because of the content, spam is bad because it's spam. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.
"ACSI says that to the untrained eye, Google's home page today looks almost identical to the way it looked years ago. This is where Google's simplicity is apparently hurting it in the long-term, as new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings..."
Typical market survey.
1) Say, "Hey, I wonder if..." 1) Ask some questions and see some results. 2) Draw conclusions from the results which support your initial premise.
Is Google's market share dropping? Well if the numbers are correct then then answer is yes. The WHY of it is a matter of conjecture, though. I suspect that far more than being 'hurt by simplicity,' Google is suffering because their search engine is no longer much better than the others. Yahoo has improved, and at the same time, Google has degraded. Too many of the top results for any given search are ads for a product (especially from Amazon), or stupid metareview sites like nextag or buy.com, that everyone despises.
I generally use alltheweb.com as my main search engine, and google as a backup. If Google wanted to get my attention back 100%, then they should FIX THE SEARCH ENGINE, so that the results are as good as they once were. Even better, let me set (via a cookie) which sites I never ever ever ever ever want to see results from again.
They don't need a fancier website, they need to improve their core business offering. Of course, ACSI would rather come up with marketing reasons.
"Ideally these databases would be stored on the SQL servers and the other files stored on the file server, but this is not happening."
Well there's your answer: Make it happen.
Laptops (a) should NOT have critical information stored on them, and (b) should ABSOLUTELY NOT NEVER NO WAY be the only repository for critical information.
Does anyone know how the Opteron is designed? I'll give you a hint: Two cores/CPU, two CPUs/system is the optimum configuration. There is the ability to run signals across core cross-links, such that each core is only one step away from any other--in a four way system.
Last I heard, they don't. However, the UltraSPARC line isn't really what you want in a laptop anyways. Much better to get an X64 laptop and run Solaris10/x86 on it. You can use the list of tested and proven hardware for Solaris x86 to make sure it'll run without fiddling.
There's been a lot of (justified) doubt in the past about Sun's commitment to Solaris x86, bit it clearly is the future of consumer-directed Solaris. And it rocks.
Actually, I worded that poorly. OSS isn't inherently an unusable solution for this problem. However, a roll-your-own system is. As I wrote in this post, OSS could be a fine solution as long as there's a disinterested party behind it. Your suggestion of Counterpane makes sense, but I would expect them to come to the table with a solution, rather than me having to decide on the solution and then present it to them. How they implement it and what software they use is (from a legal standpoint) irrelevant, as long as it works, and they're willing to own the liability of the system.
For every option you consider, ask yourself this question:
Could Bernie Ebbers hire someone to break my system?
This is one case where I would firmly say stay away from roll-your-own OSS. Buy a commercial product with a contract assigning liability, and get your lawyers to bless it. The company can use OSS if they want, but the responsibility of the system's integrity is NOT something you want to take on. This isn't a technical challenge, it's a legal one. To understand, compare it with backup software.
Case #1) You have been told to come up with a backup scheme for your company's data. After some research you decide on Amanda, writing disk-to-disk-to-tape, which is stored offsite. You write up the exposure document (i.e. the data centre burns down before the current tape is sent offsite, and you lose 48 hours of data) and the execs sign off on it. If you are confident in your technical choices and skills, then this is a fine solution. When the data centre burns down, you go to the vault and recover the data from the last tape, just like the document says.
Case #2) You have been told to come up with an unalterable logging scheme for SOX/HIPAA compliance. After some research you decide on some OSS tools. You write up the risk document (in this case, pointing out how the system could be compromised) and the execs sign off on it. Two years later, your CEO gets called in front of a grand jury for fraud charges. You get called as a subject matter expert, and some very belligerent prosecution lawyer says, "prove to me, the judge, and this jury of 12 random people BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these logs could not have been altered in any way, shape, or form by the CEO or anyone else, including yourself." What if the code is buggy? What if there's a flaw in the logic? What if the jury just doesn't get it, and you aren't given the time to properly explain? It doesn't matter if those logs aren't altered, or even if they're unalterable--what matters is the due diligence, and reasonable belief. If you can say, "We bought this product from NetApp and according to our contract, the federal government certifies this implementation as being unalterable," then your job is done. Your CEO may hang or not, depending partly on his guilt or innocent, but you are off the hook. If you build it yourself, you could end up sharing a cell with the CEO.
Buy a product. Let someone else take the risk, and do the research.
Of course we have to consider that their measure of 'smarter' is IQ, which has nothing to do with making good life choices.
I can sympathise. My wife and I are the same age as you, and are trying to adopt a child. Every once in a while I question whether we're insane to be pursuing this, when it's clear that we're going to be in debt and struggling for a long time as a result (In addition to the 'normal' costs of raising a child, there's about $15k extra for adoption). We went on a nice vacation last month, knowing that it may be our last big trip abroad until we're near retirement age.
A friend of mine said, "Well I had kids young and can party now that I'm older. You partied young, and are having kids later." Great plan, except that I studied my ass off and then went to work in biotech (many hours, no life) immediately afterwards, so I didn't get a lot of youthful partying in either.
Basically, high IQ doesn't prepare you for reality.
These are NOT unalterable logs by any stretch of the imagination! These are logs that people can't casually or accidentally break, which has no relevance for governmental compliance. Consider the fundamental premise behind SOX legislation, and then ask yourself this question:
Could Bernie Ebbers hire someone to break this system?
What the OP needs is a truly write-once system. CDROM is marginally acceptable for this purpose, only if the infrastructure around it is regulated and controlled. Systems like NetApp's SnapLock and LockVault are the real answers, but very spendy. Simple commands don't solve the problem. OpenSource solutions won't address the liability issues.
I paid about $50 for games on my old Atari VCS. Then I paid about $50-60 each on games for the Atari 400. After a long ride on that platform, I jumped into the PC world, and started buying games for...$60. Some were less (DOOM was a great deal), and some were more (Under a Killing Moon was $85. Ouch!).
The reason I don't pay that kind of money for games now is that I don't (generally) buy games when they're first released, but if I did, I'd have no problem paying $60 for 'em, as long as they're good.
It's a tough call as to how one would define 'superior.'
The 8-track format was inferior to the cassette in every way except for one--tape speed. The spliced loop, pulling tape from the centre of the reel, the built-in (cheap, plastic, rapidly wearing) pinch rollers, moving heads, all led to one conclusion: Low quality, limited life.
But on the other hand, it _was_ the first car audio tape player, thanks to Ford. Note that it wasn't the first music player in a car--Chrysler briefly had 45RPM turntables, and reel-to-reel players popped up now and then.
OK, I disagree with the Beta/VHS thing. Or at least, I don't think your picture of events is complete.
Beta lost because Sony wouldn't allow porn to be released on it. The growth market for home video was porn, and Sony wouldn't license it to the porn studios. Simple as that.
8-track sucked. I mean, it UTTERLY SUCKED!!! The very design was flawed for playback. Have you ever taken apart an 8-track cart? The way the tape was manhandled was appalling. "Let's pull tape out from the centre of a spool and feed it through the heads." Then there's the problem of recording eight tracks across the tape, and having to realign the heads for each track-pair. In the very best of systems, this is still a fundamentally bad idea.
While you're right that DRM did a brilliant job of killing HDAudio and SACD, the fundamental reason they didn't take off is that they're not necessary. CD is good enough. CD done well is essentially flawless. (Yes, the audiophules can argue all they want about the superiority of vinyl, but that 'superior sound' is due to flaws.) Furthermore, the next format was already developing without the major companies: Online files. The CD is and will be the last physical format for music.
BeOS: No argument from me. It was OS/2 all over again.
MiniDisc: It was aimed at professionals, and the consumer decks were expensive, flakey, _and_ tied down by (bad) DRM. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite ideal for professional use, and tape stayed at the top of the list until hard drive recording came along.
I never took any classes from him, but when I was working in Brian Sykes' lab (biochemistry), I met Jonathan a few times. Definitely the sort of person that Universities were made to encourage--like Feynman, for instance.
I remember when his checkers program took the title of 'best player,' and he predicted that he'd solve the entire game in a few more years. Now he's done it. Good on ya, JS.
From what I recall of the Guardian, the primary purpose of their entertainment and lifestyle columnists is to derisively sneer at everything not esoteric or unattainable. If more than six people in London like something, it is inherently crap.
I approached the Harry Potter books with a great deal of cynicism and distrust, and actually found that they're GOOD TO READ! They're not complex stories, the writing isn't Nabokov or even Gaiman, but they're better than most.
Consider this: The average 'best-seller' is manufactured tripe. Stephen King is a surprisingly good writer (read some of his short fiction), but he's never let that get in the way of writing simple horror dreck for mass consumption and blockbuster sales. Then there's the fine works of Danielle Steel, Jilly Cooper, and other bestselling authors. In comparison, Rowling wrote some good stories that are fun and involving to read. They're not flawless certainly, but they're above average.
"...for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing."
So it's not acceptable for adults to write to children? That's a fascinating opinion! Remember, these books weren't initially targeted at adults--they were WRITTEN FOR KIDS! Adults started reading them because they're better than most other heavily-marketed books out there.
Methinks that the columnist needs to read some prose from actual nine-year-olds.
Ah, yes. Old people remember things better than young people, therefore it's the 'young people gadgets' that causes it. Well, at least it's not the new math anymore.
They're taking a faulty premise, then using faulty data to support a faulty conclusion. Of course, this little statement couldn't possibly be relevant:
"Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine..."
The well-known author Umberto Eco discussed this subject four years ago, in a lecture on the supposedly imminent death of books. It's very interesting to hear commentary from someone well outside of the computing field. The entire text is here, but here's an excerpt:
Let us start with an Egyptian story, even though one told by a Greek. According to Plato in Phaedrus when Hermes, or Theut, the alleged inventor of writing, presented his invention to the Pharaoh Thamus, the Pharaoh praised such an unheard of technique supposed to allow human beings to remember what they would otherwise forget. But Thamus was not completely happy. "My skillful Theut," he said, "memory is a great gift that ought to be kept alive by continuous training. With your invention people will no longer be obliged to train their memory. They will remember things not because of an internal effort, but by mere virtue of an external device."
Yep. Even Plato was discussing such issues, with regards to the invention of writing. We'll lose some skills which are less important, and replace them with others. That's how it goes.
There is no "consumer revolt against crapware." Consumers gleefully upgrade to the latest product in time, no matter what, and then will complain endlessly about how much they hate computers. The complaints are irrelevant--they don't punish companies for bad software, and they don't stop buying computers or software altogether.
Fundamentally, most people don't actually realise that computers don't have to suck. They don't know that it's possible to have a good, reliable, easy-to-use computer that does what they want in a reasonable time (and amount of computing resources), so they don't demand it. They just 'hate computers.'
There is no revolt. There has never been one in computing, and there probably never will be either.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. Because they never used compression on vinyl.
Vinyl is NOT better. Good vinyl beats bad CDs. Good CDs beat good vinyl. I've got a pretty large vinyl collection and some modestly high-end playback gear, and I regularly listen to a lot of my records. However, it's simply not as good as CD. Pitch stability, wow/flutter, frequency errors, dynamic range, channel variance, crosstalk, IM and harmonic distortion products, rumble, and so forth are all enormously less on CD than on vinyl, if they exist at all (many disappear entirely in the digital domain).
What about the sound, though? Good sound is good sound. If you're missing that 'airy' sound that good vinyl has, then try this: Get a noise generator, and inject random-phase noise (I _think_ pink noise, 'though I can't remember for sure) at about -80db into the audio stream from your CD player. Suddenly, there's the missing piece.
Records were compressed just as badly as CDs in their heyday. I've got a few albums I've picked up over the years where there's about
10db total dynamic range. However, by compressing the audio and limiting bass response, they could put cut a tighter groove, and put MORE MINUTES onto a record, for greater sales.
Vinyl, CD, even MP3 aren't inherently garbage or great--they're just made that way by cheap record companies who can get away with selling shit-on-a-shingle. Great audio is possible in all of these formats (although MP3 has some caveats)--but it takes care and skill.
I don't _quite_ agree, although you're close.
Consumer's don't want shit, they just accept it. The real problem is that they don't particularly want or care about quality. The studios work hard to promote shit because it's cheaper to create, and (more to the point) REALLY cheap to keep repackaging and reselling. Why write new songs that will take effort to sell, when you can resell the macarena as a country song (Achey Breaky Heart) or some other such crap?
I think the two biggest reasons that shit has become so prevalent in the past decade are that (a) rap music and (b) pitch correctors have removed all necessity for talent or ability. Now all the studios need to create and sell an album is a misogynist thug with bad fashion sense, or a half-naked slut with no clothes.
Dreamfall: 2006
Runaway 2: 2007
Paradise: 2006
Sam & Max: 2006-2007, six episodes
The genre isn't dead, it just hasn't grown to the same extent as action games. When a third-rate shooter can sell five times as many games, it takes some determination to release an adventure game. As a result, there's fewer of them coming out, but they do exist.
...also known as citizendium.
Wikipedia is a great idea, and a great interface, but leads to exactly this sort of behaviour. If a company edits their entry to reflect their side of the story, is it editing or abuse?
He who edits last, wins. Over the long run, that doesn't work. That's why one of the founders of wikipedia (Larry Sanger) decided to take the idea of wikipedia and add in some accountability. The project was named citizendium, and was started just about a year ago. It is based on three fundamental differences from wikipedia:
* all contributors must apply for membership in the project under their real names, which are then visibly associated with all articles
* all articles are reviewed by experts in their particular fields, offering suggestions and criticism as the articles evolve with the goal for each article to be "approved"
* that vandals, trolls, and disruptive editors are quickly and permanently banned from further work on the project.
It's MUCH smaller than wikipedia at present , but also not loaded with garbage and editorial pissing matches. Take a look, join the community, and help make the next generation online encyclopedia better.
"Is it OK to send unsolicited e-mail to users..."
No. It's not. It is not. No way, no-how. No other qualifiers (countries, noble causes, etc.) are necessary for this statement.
"But I am not against spam a priori"
Ah hah! That's the problem--spam is inherently wrong, not just coincidentally bad. If you can believe that some cases of spam are OK, then you (a) have started sliding down a steep slope, and (b) are just plain wrong. In fact, the flawed reasoning becomes clear just a few short lines later:
"Why is spam a problem? Because the cost of receiving a message, however minor, is more than the benefits."
This is NOT correct! The reason that spam is a problem is that the cost of it is forcibly incurred by the recipient. It doesn't matter how large or small the cost is, nor does it matter what the benefit is. When someone sends out spam, they are forcing the people who get the spam to pay for it in terms of storage, bandwidth, and computing cycles. You can argue that it's not much cost, but that would be (a) incorrect, and (b) irrelevant.
Spam isn't bad because of the content, spam is bad because it's spam. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.
"ACSI says that to the untrained eye, Google's home page today looks almost identical to the way it looked years ago. This is where Google's simplicity is apparently hurting it in the long-term, as new users just aren't seeing Google's new offerings..."
Typical market survey.
1) Say, "Hey, I wonder if..."
1) Ask some questions and see some results.
2) Draw conclusions from the results which support your initial premise.
Is Google's market share dropping? Well if the numbers are correct then then answer is yes. The WHY of it is a matter of conjecture, though. I suspect that far more than being 'hurt by simplicity,' Google is suffering because their search engine is no longer much better than the others. Yahoo has improved, and at the same time, Google has degraded. Too many of the top results for any given search are ads for a product (especially from Amazon), or stupid metareview sites like nextag or buy.com, that everyone despises.
I generally use alltheweb.com as my main search engine, and google as a backup. If Google wanted to get my attention back 100%, then they should FIX THE SEARCH ENGINE, so that the results are as good as they once were. Even better, let me set (via a cookie) which sites I never ever ever ever ever want to see results from again.
They don't need a fancier website, they need to improve their core business offering. Of course, ACSI would rather come up with marketing reasons.
"Ideally these databases would be stored on the SQL servers and the other files stored on the file server, but this is not happening."
Well there's your answer: Make it happen.
Laptops (a) should NOT have critical information stored on them, and (b) should ABSOLUTELY NOT NEVER NO WAY be the only repository for critical information.
Does anyone know how the Opteron is designed? I'll give you a hint: Two cores/CPU, two CPUs/system is the optimum configuration. There is the ability to run signals across core cross-links, such that each core is only one step away from any other--in a four way system.
He's Finnish. There's no accounting for such behaviour.
Last I heard, they don't. However, the UltraSPARC line isn't really what you want in a laptop anyways. Much better to get an X64 laptop and run Solaris10/x86 on it. You can use the list of tested and proven hardware for Solaris x86 to make sure it'll run without fiddling.
There's been a lot of (justified) doubt in the past about Sun's commitment to Solaris x86, bit it clearly is the future of consumer-directed Solaris. And it rocks.
Actually, I worded that poorly. OSS isn't inherently an unusable solution for this problem. However, a roll-your-own system is. As I wrote in this post, OSS could be a fine solution as long as there's a disinterested party behind it. Your suggestion of Counterpane makes sense, but I would expect them to come to the table with a solution, rather than me having to decide on the solution and then present it to them. How they implement it and what software they use is (from a legal standpoint) irrelevant, as long as it works, and they're willing to own the liability of the system.
For every option you consider, ask yourself this question:
Could Bernie Ebbers hire someone to break my system?
This is one case where I would firmly say stay away from roll-your-own OSS. Buy a commercial product with a contract assigning liability, and get your lawyers to bless it. The company can use OSS if they want, but the responsibility of the system's integrity is NOT something you want to take on. This isn't a technical challenge, it's a legal one. To understand, compare it with backup software.
Case #1) You have been told to come up with a backup scheme for your company's data. After some research you decide on Amanda, writing disk-to-disk-to-tape, which is stored offsite. You write up the exposure document (i.e. the data centre burns down before the current tape is sent offsite, and you lose 48 hours of data) and the execs sign off on it. If you are confident in your technical choices and skills, then this is a fine solution. When the data centre burns down, you go to the vault and recover the data from the last tape, just like the document says.
Case #2) You have been told to come up with an unalterable logging scheme for SOX/HIPAA compliance. After some research you decide on some OSS tools. You write up the risk document (in this case, pointing out how the system could be compromised) and the execs sign off on it. Two years later, your CEO gets called in front of a grand jury for fraud charges. You get called as a subject matter expert, and some very belligerent prosecution lawyer says, "prove to me, the judge, and this jury of 12 random people BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these logs could not have been altered in any way, shape, or form by the CEO or anyone else, including yourself." What if the code is buggy? What if there's a flaw in the logic? What if the jury just doesn't get it, and you aren't given the time to properly explain? It doesn't matter if those logs aren't altered, or even if they're unalterable--what matters is the due diligence, and reasonable belief. If you can say, "We bought this product from NetApp and according to our contract, the federal government certifies this implementation as being unalterable," then your job is done. Your CEO may hang or not, depending partly on his guilt or innocent, but you are off the hook. If you build it yourself, you could end up sharing a cell with the CEO.
Buy a product. Let someone else take the risk, and do the research.
Of course we have to consider that their measure of 'smarter' is IQ, which has nothing to do with making good life choices.
I can sympathise. My wife and I are the same age as you, and are trying to adopt a child. Every once in a while I question whether we're insane to be pursuing this, when it's clear that we're going to be in debt and struggling for a long time as a result (In addition to the 'normal' costs of raising a child, there's about $15k extra for adoption). We went on a nice vacation last month, knowing that it may be our last big trip abroad until we're near retirement age.
A friend of mine said, "Well I had kids young and can party now that I'm older. You partied young, and are having kids later." Great plan, except that I studied my ass off and then went to work in biotech (many hours, no life) immediately afterwards, so I didn't get a lot of youthful partying in either.
Basically, high IQ doesn't prepare you for reality.
These are NOT unalterable logs by any stretch of the imagination! These are logs that people can't casually or accidentally break, which has no relevance for governmental compliance. Consider the fundamental premise behind SOX legislation, and then ask yourself this question:
Could Bernie Ebbers hire someone to break this system?
What the OP needs is a truly write-once system. CDROM is marginally acceptable for this purpose, only if the infrastructure around it is regulated and controlled. Systems like NetApp's SnapLock and LockVault are the real answers, but very spendy. Simple commands don't solve the problem. OpenSource solutions won't address the liability issues.
I paid about $50 for games on my old Atari VCS. Then I paid about $50-60 each on games for the Atari 400. After a long ride on that platform, I jumped into the PC world, and started buying games for...$60. Some were less (DOOM was a great deal), and some were more (Under a Killing Moon was $85. Ouch!).
The reason I don't pay that kind of money for games now is that I don't (generally) buy games when they're first released, but if I did, I'd have no problem paying $60 for 'em, as long as they're good.
It's a tough call as to how one would define 'superior.'
The 8-track format was inferior to the cassette in every way except for one--tape speed. The spliced loop, pulling tape from the centre of the reel, the built-in (cheap, plastic, rapidly wearing) pinch rollers, moving heads, all led to one conclusion: Low quality, limited life.
But on the other hand, it _was_ the first car audio tape player, thanks to Ford. Note that it wasn't the first music player in a car--Chrysler briefly had 45RPM turntables, and reel-to-reel players popped up now and then.
OK, I disagree with the Beta/VHS thing. Or at least, I don't think your picture of events is complete.
Beta lost because Sony wouldn't allow porn to be released on it. The growth market for home video was porn, and Sony wouldn't license it to the porn studios. Simple as that.
Some things I need to mention here.
8-track sucked. I mean, it UTTERLY SUCKED!!! The very design was flawed for playback. Have you ever taken apart an 8-track cart? The way the tape was manhandled was appalling. "Let's pull tape out from the centre of a spool and feed it through the heads." Then there's the problem of recording eight tracks across the tape, and having to realign the heads for each track-pair. In the very best of systems, this is still a fundamentally bad idea.
While you're right that DRM did a brilliant job of killing HDAudio and SACD, the fundamental reason they didn't take off is that they're not necessary. CD is good enough. CD done well is essentially flawless. (Yes, the audiophules can argue all they want about the superiority of vinyl, but that 'superior sound' is due to flaws.) Furthermore, the next format was already developing without the major companies: Online files. The CD is and will be the last physical format for music.
BeOS: No argument from me. It was OS/2 all over again.
MiniDisc: It was aimed at professionals, and the consumer decks were expensive, flakey, _and_ tied down by (bad) DRM. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite ideal for professional use, and tape stayed at the top of the list until hard drive recording came along.
Ah yes, because nothing improves news more than pointless conjecture and outright fiction.
I never took any classes from him, but when I was working in Brian Sykes' lab (biochemistry), I met Jonathan a few times. Definitely the sort of person that Universities were made to encourage--like Feynman, for instance.
I remember when his checkers program took the title of 'best player,' and he predicted that he'd solve the entire game in a few more years. Now he's done it. Good on ya, JS.
"An insightful Guardian columnist..."
From what I recall of the Guardian, the primary purpose of their entertainment and lifestyle columnists is to derisively sneer at everything not esoteric or unattainable. If more than six people in London like something, it is inherently crap.
I approached the Harry Potter books with a great deal of cynicism and distrust, and actually found that they're GOOD TO READ! They're not complex stories, the writing isn't Nabokov or even Gaiman, but they're better than most.
Consider this: The average 'best-seller' is manufactured tripe. Stephen King is a surprisingly good writer (read some of his short fiction), but he's never let that get in the way of writing simple horror dreck for mass consumption and blockbuster sales. Then there's the fine works of Danielle Steel, Jilly Cooper, and other bestselling authors. In comparison, Rowling wrote some good stories that are fun and involving to read. They're not flawless certainly, but they're above average.
"...for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing."
So it's not acceptable for adults to write to children? That's a fascinating opinion! Remember, these books weren't initially targeted at adults--they were WRITTEN FOR KIDS! Adults started reading them because they're better than most other heavily-marketed books out there.
Methinks that the columnist needs to read some prose from actual nine-year-olds.
Ah, yes. Old people remember things better than young people, therefore it's the 'young people gadgets' that causes it. Well, at least it's not the new math anymore.
They're taking a faulty premise, then using faulty data to support a faulty conclusion. Of course, this little statement couldn't possibly be relevant:
"Professor Roberston, who oversaw the research to mark the launch of Puzzler Brain Trainer Magazine..."
Let us start with an Egyptian story, even though one told by a Greek. According to Plato in Phaedrus when Hermes, or Theut, the alleged inventor of writing, presented his invention to the Pharaoh Thamus, the Pharaoh praised such an unheard of technique supposed to allow human beings to remember what they would otherwise forget. But Thamus was not completely happy. "My skillful Theut," he said, "memory is a great gift that ought to be kept alive by continuous training. With your invention people will no longer be obliged to train their memory. They will remember things not because of an internal effort, but by mere virtue of an external device."
Yep. Even Plato was discussing such issues, with regards to the invention of writing. We'll lose some skills which are less important, and replace them with others. That's how it goes.
There is no "consumer revolt against crapware." Consumers gleefully upgrade to the latest product in time, no matter what, and then will complain endlessly about how much they hate computers. The complaints are irrelevant--they don't punish companies for bad software, and they don't stop buying computers or software altogether.
Fundamentally, most people don't actually realise that computers don't have to suck. They don't know that it's possible to have a good, reliable, easy-to-use computer that does what they want in a reasonable time (and amount of computing resources), so they don't demand it. They just 'hate computers.'
There is no revolt. There has never been one in computing, and there probably never will be either.
"I need to make alt.internet.was.better.in.98"
Make it '94, before Canter and Siegel sent out the green card spam.