Depends. If you're the Phish or the Grateful Dead, you make (made) your money from tours, even when your albums didn't even make the charts.
Interestingly, the most successful touring bands these days are the bands that allow audience taping -- the anthesis of the "strict control" model over IP being pushed by the record labels.
Sure. Read & post. It's easy to snowball a teacher, but you can't snowball a newsgroup or bulletin board. Eventually, after a couple of rounds of posting articles with weak arguments, bad spelling/grammar, and logical errors, and being royally flamed and embarrassed, you learn how to write... not because you are being graded, but because you want to be taken seriously.
Yes, but we are purists and preservationists. Our goal is for each and every person who receives a copy to possess an exact bit-image of the data stream that went onto the original tape. We are simply uninterested in anything less.
You may or may not agree with this philosophy, but that's our goal. It's what DAT trading has always been about. People who spend $20,000 and up on recording equipment aren't really interested in compromises.
The flip side of this is that in a patent driven R&D environment, there is a strong incentive to suppress non-patentable discoveries or inventions.
Take medical marijuana. Marijuana is, among other things, a strong anti-nausea drug and an appetite stimulant. (The "munchies" in the vernacular.) A side effect of many chemotherapy and AIDS medications is nausea and loss of appetite; to the point where the patients waste away and die, not due to the illness, but due to the inability to obtain nutrition.
Many of these patients are discovering that smoking a small amount of marijuana can relieve their nausea and stimulate their appetite to the point where they can eat, hold down food, and gain weight. The drug also has the additional calming side effect that makes it popular as a recreational drug.
A serious problem is that marijuana is a naturally occurring plant, and is not patentable. Therefore, no drug company is willing to spend the money required to obtain FDA approval of natural smoked marijuana as a drug.
In fact, the drug companies (along with the liquor and tobacco companies) spend a LOT of money every year to demonize marijuana and keep it illegal. Their front organization is the "Partnership for a drug-free America" -- and they are MUCH less interested in stopping "drug abuse" then they are in suppressing the use of non-patented drugs that don't bring them profits.
The result is that people are being arrested and sent to prison, for the crime of using the only drug that they can find to keep them alive, because the drug is "unapproved" by the FDA, which is really an oversight organization for the pharmecutical companies, who would stand to lose a LOT of money were marijuana rescheduled into schedule II or III (where it arguably belongs.)
http://www.marijuananews.com does a good job of tracking the medical marijuana issue.
Another possible IP issue is Freon. There are people who make the case, with various levels of credibility, that Freon does NOT cause ozone damage (It's 4 times heavier then air -- how does it rise into the upper atmosphere?... It has never actually been detected in the upper atmosphere... the "Ozone hole" is a natural phenomenon, and expands and contracts naturally, etc...), and that the real reason that Freon was banned was because the patent was about to run out. Once the patent reverted into the public domain, any company would be able to manufacture and sell freon, thus ending DuPont's monopoly. DuPont, so it is claimed, pushed for the ban on freon, and at the same time introduced a new line of "freon substitutes", with fresh patents. It will be interesting to see if, about 20 years from now, it is "discovered" that these new refrigerants cause environmental damage, and must be pulled from the market.
If you're interested, try a web search on "freon" and "fraud", and be prepared to wade through a lot of "New World Order" rheteric to get to the point.
My last example of the powerful damage done by IP law is the ever increasing length of copyright, done at the request of the most powerful corporations. Last year, the entertainment industry unleashed a propaganda campaign, claiming that all of Disney's copyrights on Mickey Mouse would run out shortly, and calling on congress to "rectify" the "problem" by extending copyright protection for another 20 years.
Once a popular film falls into the public domain, it can be picked up, restored, and released by anyone. The reason that "It's a Wonderful Life" became one of the most popular holiday films was mostly because the copyright lapsed, and it fell into the public domain. (Somehow the copyright owners re-obtained copyright, and as a result, it has mostly disappeared from television.)
Film collectors and distributors are sitting on vaults of old silent movies from the beginning of the 20th century. Many of these films are considered classics, and once these films fall into the public domain, IF EVER, they will be available to anyone and everyone to reproduce and distribute. Right now these films are unreleasable, because the copyrights are still active, and copyright royalties make their release impractical for the small-time operations that would be publishing public-domain material. The problem is that old films deteriorate, and by the time Congress regains its senses (if ever) and stops extending copyright protection, these films will be lost.
My point is that we are paying a heavy price for the benefits of patents and copyrights.
Nothing the RIAA wants EVER benefits the consumer. All this will do is stop people from buying the authorized copy protected MP3s and encourage the proliforation of unprotected, bootleg MP3s.
hmm... just to add to the flamebait, this expression is open to interpretation. The term "well-regulated" had an alternate meaning in reference to firearms in 1776 -- "in good working order". So, "a well-regulated" militia would mean that the populace should have guns, and they should be kept in good working condition.
Remember the mainframe days? Shortly after the PC came out, a torrent of similar "debate" emerged from the mainframe community. First they laughed, then they fought, then the PC community won. Suprise. History repeats itself.
Of course, IBM didn't help themselves by trying to alienate their customers in the early 90s by trying to withdraw all their mainframe source code. That was about the time we started looking into unix systems. BTW we're going to dump our entire machine room full of IBM mainframe equipment at the end of the year... and the source issue had a lot to do with it.
That's like equating the automobile to a neutron bomb, since -- like the N-bomb -- automobiles just killed the horse and buggy manufacturers, but left their prior work intact.
Hmmph. Clearly you've never had the opportunity to hack bare iron on a 3090. Much more fun then you would think... especially when you get the vector engines chugging
I'd use it to store nearly 17 hours of uncompressed digital audio. That would let me take my 500 or so Grateful Dead DAT tapes and reduce them to, say, 30 discs. Hmm. I like that. I want a 200 disc jukebox of these!
The nice thing is that we can just ignore them. If OSS were a profit-driven company, then this sort of FUD would be damaging, and could lead to the destruction of the company. Since OSS is driven by volunteer work, and since there is no "company" to take it off the market, we can simply ignore those who are afraid of open source, and continue doing whatever we want.
Just imagine what the state of open source software will be in 10 years. Projects such as Gnome and KDE will be either extremely mature, or superceeded by better technology.
He's right... The MP3 format will probably fade away in a couple of years, thanks to Moore's law.
All it will take is a single order of magnitude jump in network bandwidth and disk storage capacity.
An uncompressed.wav file of a CD track consumes 44100 x 4 = 176400 bytes/second.
An MP3 encoded at 128 Kbits/Sec consumes 16384 bytes per second.
So, at the point in time where an average hard drive capacity is 10 times the current average, and internet backbone speed is 10 times the current average, it will be as cheap and efficient to download and collect.wav files as it is to download.mp3s at the present.
I would point out that in theory, a gigabit ethernet link could transfer an entire 74 minute CD in (44100 x 74 x 60 x 4) / (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / 10) = about 8 seconds, and even a 100 Mbit/sec link could do it in about 80 seconds. Of course, your computer will have to be 10 times faster to keep up with the network port, but I expect that also.
When DVD-R eventually comes around, it will provide 5.2 gig capacity per disk... which comes to approximately 8.7 hours of unencoded music time, which is about 100 five minute songs on a single disk.
The future is clearly NOT in compressed audio. The future is in uncompressed audio. Lossy compression schemes such as minidisk and mp3 will become unnecessary and will fall by the wayside.
- jms
I'm amazed that CEOs don't DEMAND the code.
on
Open Source Windows
·
· Score: 1
company CEOs do not want their shops tinkering with the code.
I have harsh words for any CEO who says this. If you want software manufacturers to withhold technical information about their software because you can't stop your programmers from modifying your production system without authorization, then you have a management problem, and you'd better fix it. Plenty of shops have "no modifications" policies, and they work quite well. The computer crashes, the system programmers read the dump, consult the source code, identify the problem, call the support line, describe the problem exactly, and you get a fix really fast.
As opposed to an object-code-only system, where you call the support line, describe the problem, maybe FTP a dump in, and sit on the phone while someone who isn't familiar with your particular operating environment tries to fix a problem that may only exist in your particular computer.
I heard this argument back in the days when IBM was trying to close-source all of their mainframe operating systems. "We don't want our programmers tinkering with the code."
However, things start to seem a little different when the software is crashed, won't restart, and the system programmers, who are perfectly capable of fixing the problem, if they had the source code, are sitting on the phone instead saying things like "Please escalate this problem to the next severity level" and "I'm on hold". At this point, the corporate philosophy quickly changes to: I don't care... You know how these computers work... we've got the whole company playing solitaire... do whatever the hell it takes to get our sales and ordering system back on line. ANYTHING.
Of course, if you HAVE the source code, then you have that option. If you don't, then you don't have that option. It's as simple as that. Do you want the option of having your own people ABLE to understand and repair the basic technology that you trust to form the core of your business?
This problem will become particularly acute come the beginning of the year, when all of the missed Y2K bugs start to manifest themselves.
Do you think that any company has REALLY fixed ALL of their Y2K bugs? What do you think that the odds are that you'll even be able to get THROUGH on any software support telephone line for the first week or so of January 2000, much less actually get a bug fix?
How much computer downtime can YOUR company handle before it goes out of business?
Actually, mainframe CPUs themselves are not that much more overwhelmingly powerful then desktop CPUs. The mainframe benefits mainly from I/O channels, block mode devices (including terminals), and better scheduling algorithms.
I/O channels are CPUs dedicated to supervising I/O operations, so that if you need to read in 100 blocks from disk, you build a list of the blocks along with their addresses, and start the channel. The transfer is done, and you receive an interrupt when it is complete... as opposed to receiving an interrupt when each block transfer completes.
This really pays off when you include block mode terminals, like 3270s. A 3270 contains a screen buffer. When you are working in a text editor like VM XEDIT, everything you type is stored in the terminal until you press return, or a function key. At that point, the terminal transmits a list of all the screen fields that have been changed. If you were running VI on a unix system, you would be peppering the computer with console interrupts with each keystroke. More if you are running X. This is how mainframes can efficiently support 1000+ online terminal users.
Mainframe scheduling algorithms are specifically designed to separate the workload into interactive and non-interactive users. If the scheduler decids that you are an interactive user, you get small timeslices and more of them. When you start your big program, and it goes CPU bound, the scheduler notices that you are using your full timeslice, and quickly moves you into a different queue, so that, for instance, after a while, your program will receive a timeslice that is 16 times as long, but only receive the timeslice 1/16 as often as an interactive user. So your background process lurches along, but you don't notice because the instant it starts doing I/O to the terminal, it becomes an interactive process again. These sorts of tricks are what keep mainframes from appearing to be "bogged down" even when their resources are massively overcommitted.
These algorithms have been fine tuned for about 30 years, and are specifically designed to best utilize block mode I/O devices, and large numbers of interactive users attached to boring 3270 terminals. It's a VERY different workload then you'd find on a Unix system, and the two workloads don't compare well.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with mainframes is running TCPIP efficiently, because TCPIP *does* pepper the system with interrupts.
Hello... how about IBM's VM operating system? Originally called CP67, started in 1967.
They better NOT get a patent on a technology with a 32 year track record.
Intel's pricing model doesn't work that way...
on
Troubles with Merced
·
· Score: 1
I have no doubt that by the time Merced is ready to hit the market, Microsoft will have bloated up and fluffed out windows to the point where anything less powerful then a merced will be useless.
Actually, IBM has released an ADSM client for Linux. They claim it's unsupported, but it works as well as their other Unix clients. I've been backing up my workstation for several months, and, yes, I have tried a restore, and it works:)
It's not even a security problem inherent to source code. If you substitute the notion of "modify the binary" everywhere where he talks about modifying the source, it is clear that his argument has no merit whatsoever.
What he doesn't understand is that you don't need the source code to a program to install a trojan horse. Look at PC viruses. They modify binary programs THAT THEY KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT to change their behavior.
He's right... mp3 will eventually die, but not until both data storage and network bandwidth increase by one more order of magnitude.
The only real reason that MP3s are used at all is that they allow you to compress a 10 MB/Minute PCM data stream into a 1 MB/Minute file.
Once the internet speeds up by a factor of 10, and writable DVDs hit the market, you'll be able to transfer and store uncompressed, lossless music files as.wav's and.aiff's just as easily as you can now with MP3s.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. If you're the Phish or the Grateful Dead, you make (made) your money from tours, even when your albums didn't even make the charts.
Interestingly, the most successful touring bands these days are the bands that allow audience taping -- the anthesis of the "strict control" model over IP being pushed by the record labels.
216 GB would store 365 hours of UNCOMPRESSED CD quality audio and make MP3 obsolete as a storage format.
... obsolete!
Combine that with a backbone built around the new 1.6TB network technology, and MP3 becomes obsolete as a transmission format.
Which makes MP3
Sure. Read & post. It's easy to snowball a ... not because you are being graded, but because you want to be taken seriously.
teacher, but you can't snowball a newsgroup or
bulletin board. Eventually, after a couple of rounds of posting articles with weak arguments, bad spelling/grammar, and logical errors, and being royally flamed and embarrassed, you learn how to write
- jms
Yes, but we are purists and preservationists. Our goal is for each and every person who receives a copy to possess an exact bit-image of the data stream that went onto the original tape. We are simply uninterested in anything less.
You may or may not agree with this philosophy, but that's our goal. It's what DAT trading has always been about. People who spend $20,000 and up on recording equipment aren't really interested in compromises.
The flip side of this is that in a patent driven R&D environment, there is a strong incentive to suppress non-patentable discoveries or inventions.
... It has never actually been detected in the upper atmosphere ... the "Ozone hole" is a natural phenomenon, and expands and contracts naturally, etc ...), and that the real reason that Freon was banned was because the patent was about to run out. Once the patent reverted into the public domain, any company would be able to manufacture and sell freon, thus ending DuPont's monopoly. DuPont, so it is claimed, pushed for the ban on freon, and at the same time introduced a new line of "freon substitutes", with fresh patents. It will be interesting to see if, about 20 years from now, it is "discovered" that these new refrigerants cause environmental damage, and must be pulled from the market.
Take medical marijuana. Marijuana is, among other things, a strong anti-nausea drug and an appetite stimulant. (The "munchies" in the vernacular.) A side effect of many chemotherapy and AIDS medications is nausea and loss of appetite; to the point where the patients waste away and die, not due to the illness, but due to the inability to obtain nutrition.
Many of these patients are discovering that smoking a small amount of marijuana can relieve their nausea and stimulate their appetite to the point where they can eat, hold down food, and gain weight. The drug also has the additional calming side effect that makes it popular as a recreational drug.
A serious problem is that marijuana is a naturally occurring plant, and is not patentable. Therefore, no drug company is willing to spend the money required to obtain FDA approval of natural smoked marijuana as a drug.
In fact, the drug companies (along with the liquor and tobacco companies) spend a LOT of money every year to demonize marijuana and keep it illegal. Their front organization is the "Partnership for a drug-free America" -- and they are MUCH less interested in stopping "drug abuse" then they are in suppressing the use of non-patented drugs that don't bring them profits.
The result is that people are being arrested and sent to prison, for the crime of using the only drug that they can find to keep them alive, because the drug is "unapproved" by the FDA, which is really an oversight organization for the pharmecutical companies, who would stand to lose a LOT of money were marijuana rescheduled into schedule II or III (where it arguably belongs.)
http://www.marijuananews.com does a good job of tracking the medical marijuana issue.
Another possible IP issue is Freon. There are people who make the case, with various levels of credibility, that Freon does NOT cause ozone damage (It's 4 times heavier then air -- how does it rise into the upper atmosphere?
If you're interested, try a web search on "freon" and "fraud", and be prepared to wade through a lot of "New World Order" rheteric to get to the point.
My last example of the powerful damage done by IP law is the ever increasing length of copyright, done at the request of the most powerful corporations. Last year, the entertainment industry unleashed a propaganda campaign, claiming that all of Disney's copyrights on Mickey Mouse would run out shortly, and calling on congress to "rectify" the "problem" by extending copyright protection for another 20 years.
Once a popular film falls into the public domain, it can be picked up, restored, and released by
anyone. The reason that "It's a Wonderful Life" became one of the most popular holiday films was mostly because the copyright lapsed, and it fell into the public domain. (Somehow the copyright owners re-obtained copyright, and as a result, it has mostly disappeared from television.)
Film collectors and distributors are sitting on vaults of old silent movies from the beginning of the 20th century. Many of these films are considered classics, and once these films fall into the public domain, IF EVER, they will be available to anyone and everyone to reproduce and distribute. Right now these films are unreleasable, because the copyrights are still active, and copyright royalties make their release impractical for the small-time operations that would be publishing public-domain material. The problem is that old films deteriorate, and by the time Congress regains its senses (if ever) and stops extending copyright protection, these films will be lost.
My point is that we are paying a heavy price for the benefits of patents and copyrights.
- John
Nothing the RIAA wants EVER benefits the consumer. All this will do is stop people from buying the authorized copy protected MP3s and encourage the proliforation of unprotected, bootleg MP3s.
hmm ... just to add to the flamebait, this expression is open to interpretation. The term "well-regulated" had an alternate meaning in reference to firearms in 1776 -- "in good working order". So, "a well-regulated" militia would mean that the populace should have guns, and they should be kept in good working condition.
Remember the mainframe days? Shortly after the PC came out, a torrent of similar "debate" emerged from the mainframe community. First they laughed, then they fought, then the PC community won. Suprise. History repeats itself.
Of course, IBM didn't help themselves by trying to alienate their customers in the early 90s by trying to withdraw all their mainframe source code. That was about the time we started looking into unix systems. BTW we're going to dump our entire machine room full of IBM mainframe equipment at the end of the year
Also, my favorite:
... new articles six days a week.
www.marijuananews.com
Richard Cowan dissects newspaper stories on the drug war from around the world
Ignore the FUD. Just reply, "We will bury you"
:)
As of a few seconds ago, the links all disappeared and were changed into a link to the letter.
That's like equating the automobile to a neutron bomb, since -- like the N-bomb -- automobiles just killed the horse and buggy manufacturers, but left their prior work intact.
Sucks to be obsolete.
Things Hackers Detest and Avoid
IBM mainframes.
Hmmph. Clearly you've never had the opportunity to hack bare iron on a 3090. Much more fun then you would think
Things Hackers Detest and Avoid
IBM mainframes.
Hmmph. Clearly you've never had the opportunity to hack bare iron on a 3090. Much more fun then you would think
I'd use it to store nearly 17 hours of uncompressed digital audio. That would let me take my 500 or so Grateful Dead DAT tapes and reduce them to, say, 30 discs. Hmm. I like that.
I want a 200 disc jukebox of these!
The nice thing is that we can just ignore them. If OSS were a profit-driven company, then this sort of FUD would be damaging, and could lead to the destruction of the company. Since OSS is driven by volunteer work, and since there is no "company" to take it off the market, we can simply ignore those who are afraid of open source, and continue doing whatever we want.
Just imagine what the state of open source software will be in 10 years. Projects such as Gnome and KDE will be either extremely mature, or superceeded by better technology.
Articles like this can be safely ignored.
He's right ... The MP3 format will probably fade away in a couple of years, thanks to Moore's law.
.wav file of a CD track consumes 44100 x 4 = 176400 bytes/second.
.wav files as it is to download .mp3s at the present.
... which comes to approximately 8.7 hours of unencoded music time, which is about 100 five minute songs on a single disk.
All it will take is a single order of magnitude jump in network bandwidth and disk storage capacity.
An uncompressed
An MP3 encoded at 128 Kbits/Sec consumes 16384 bytes per second.
So, at the point in time where an average hard drive capacity is 10 times the current average, and internet backbone speed is 10 times the current average, it will be as cheap and efficient to download and collect
I would point out that in theory, a gigabit ethernet link could transfer an entire 74 minute CD in (44100 x 74 x 60 x 4) / (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / 10) = about 8 seconds, and even a 100 Mbit/sec link could do it in about 80 seconds. Of course, your computer will have to be 10 times faster to keep up with the network port, but I expect that also.
When DVD-R eventually comes around, it will provide 5.2 gig capacity per disk
The future is clearly NOT in compressed audio. The future is in uncompressed audio. Lossy compression schemes such as minidisk and mp3 will become unnecessary and will fall by the wayside.
- jms
company CEOs do not want their shops tinkering with the code.
I have harsh words for any CEO who says this. If you want software manufacturers to withhold technical information about their software because you can't stop your programmers from modifying your production system without authorization, then you have a management problem, and you'd better fix it. Plenty of shops have "no modifications" policies, and they work quite well. The computer crashes, the system programmers read the dump, consult the source code, identify the problem, call the support line, describe the problem exactly, and you get a fix really fast.
As opposed to an object-code-only system, where you call the support line, describe the problem, maybe FTP a dump in, and sit on the phone while someone who isn't familiar with your particular operating environment tries to fix a problem that may only exist in your particular computer.
I heard this argument back in the days when IBM was trying to close-source all of their mainframe operating systems.
"We don't want our programmers tinkering with the code."
However, things start to seem a little different when the software is crashed, won't restart, and the system programmers, who are perfectly capable of fixing the problem, if they had the source code, are sitting on the phone instead saying things like "Please escalate this problem to the next severity level" and "I'm on hold". At this point, the corporate philosophy quickly changes to:
I don't care
Of course, if you HAVE the source code, then you have that option. If you don't, then you don't have that option. It's as simple as that. Do you want the option of having your own people ABLE to understand and repair the basic technology that you trust to form the core of your business?
This problem will become particularly acute come the beginning of the year, when all of the missed Y2K bugs start to manifest themselves.
Do you think that any company has REALLY fixed ALL of their Y2K bugs? What do you think that the odds are that you'll even be able to get THROUGH on any software support telephone line for the first week or so of January 2000, much less actually get a bug fix?
How much computer downtime can YOUR company handle before it goes out of business?
- jms
Actually, mainframe CPUs themselves are not that much more overwhelmingly powerful then desktop CPUs. The mainframe benefits mainly from I/O channels, block mode devices (including terminals), and better scheduling algorithms.
... as opposed to receiving an interrupt when each block transfer completes.
I/O channels are CPUs dedicated to supervising I/O operations, so that if you need to read in 100 blocks from disk, you build a list of the blocks along with their addresses, and start the channel. The transfer is done, and you receive an interrupt when it is complete
This really pays off when you include block mode terminals, like 3270s. A 3270 contains a screen buffer. When you are working in a text editor like VM XEDIT, everything you type is stored in the terminal until you press return, or a function key. At that point, the terminal transmits a list of all the screen fields that have been changed. If you were running VI on a unix system, you would be peppering the computer with console interrupts with each keystroke. More if you are running X. This is how mainframes can efficiently support 1000+ online terminal users.
Mainframe scheduling algorithms are specifically designed to separate the workload into interactive and non-interactive users. If the scheduler decids that you are an interactive user, you get small timeslices and more of them. When you start your big program, and it goes CPU bound, the scheduler notices that you are using your full timeslice, and quickly moves you into a different queue, so that, for instance, after a while, your program will receive a timeslice that is 16 times as long, but only receive the timeslice 1/16 as often as an interactive user. So your background process lurches along, but you don't notice because the instant it starts doing I/O to the terminal, it becomes an interactive process again.
These sorts of tricks are what keep mainframes from appearing to be "bogged down" even when their resources are massively overcommitted.
These algorithms have been fine tuned for about 30 years, and are specifically designed to best utilize block mode I/O devices, and large numbers of interactive users attached to boring 3270 terminals. It's a VERY different workload then you'd find on a Unix system, and the two workloads don't compare well.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with mainframes is running TCPIP efficiently, because TCPIP *does* pepper the system with interrupts.
- jms
Hello ... how about IBM's VM operating system? Originally called CP67, started in 1967.
They better NOT get a patent on a technology with a 32 year track record.
I have no doubt that by the time Merced is ready to hit the market, Microsoft will have bloated up and fluffed out windows to the point where anything less powerful then a merced will be useless.
Who needs nuclear weapons when you have the slashdot effect!
Actually, IBM has released an ADSM client for Linux. They claim it's unsupported, but it works as well as their other Unix clients. I've been backing up my workstation for several months, and, yes, I have tried a restore, and it works :)
It's not even a security problem inherent to source code. If you substitute the notion of "modify the binary" everywhere where he talks about modifying the source, it is clear that his argument has no merit whatsoever.
What he doesn't understand is that you don't need the source code to a program to install a trojan horse. Look at PC viruses. They modify binary programs THAT THEY KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT to change their behavior.
He's right ... mp3 will eventually die, but not until both data storage and network bandwidth increase by one more order of magnitude.
.wav's and .aiff's just as easily as you can now with MP3s.
The only real reason that MP3s are used at all is that they allow you to compress a 10 MB/Minute PCM data stream into a 1 MB/Minute file.
Once the internet speeds up by a factor of 10, and writable DVDs hit the market, you'll be able to transfer and store uncompressed, lossless music files as
And then MP3 will die out.
- jms