That's it in a nutshell. As long as AOL is involved, there will be an over-supply of idiot managers who salivate at the prospect of taking an otherwise perfectly fine product and wrecking it.
It's deeply imbeded into their corporate culture.
(used to have a netscape.net free email account, until AOL got their hands on it and thoroughly ruined it.)
the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me.
Talk is cheap. So the VP of Sales says they're going to sue. I'd treat this as just so much bluster until you get served.
In my experience, people who threaten to sue rarely do. People (and especially companies) who actually file litigation don't threaten first, they just do it.
If you want to be vindictive, send a letter to your ex-company's legal dept outlining the conversation. My guess is that the VP will get his hand slapped for throwing around idle threats. But you're probably best off by just moving on and putting these clowns behind you.
CD quality, my ass. With a 10 to 1 compression ratio, it's not even going to be stereo (or at least everything above 5khz will be collapsed to mono.)
But the real sticking point isn't so much that the digital signal will sound worse than the current analog signal. It's that by adding a bunch of digital junk onto the sidebands, the quality of the analog signal will be reduced and the station's coverage area will be reduced.
Now, I'm not a radio engineer anymore (I used to do it professionally, for about 10 years), so I'm glad that I don't have to explain to the general manager why the station's signal to fades out 20 miles sooner than it used to.
My bet is that since it inevitably degrades the existing signal (yeah, yeah, Ibiquity swears that it doesn't, yada yada yada) a lot of stations are going to wait to install it until there's a user base before switching. And user will wait until there's a significant amount of product before buying.
Which is to say that it probably won't fly. But that's to be expected, because the whole point of IBOC was to thwart digital radio and preserve the stations' investment in spectrum real estate.
I actually took a few minutes to read the filing, and I don't think the intro above adequately reflects what this suit is about. The heading above says: Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit... which gives the impression that they're being sued for carrying news about the lawsuit.
That doesn't appear to be the case; the gist of the complaint is that when users enter "Pets Warehouse" as search criteria, his site isn't at the top of the list of results. In other words, he's bitching about his Google ranking and suing them because he's not first!
I'd recomend reading the complaint - it's definitely good for a chuckle at the least: My favorite line is item #28 "Plaintiff demands that Google remove any material deemed objectionable by Plaintiff."
Slashdot Mirror
That's it in a nutshell. As long as AOL is involved, there will be an over-supply of idiot managers who salivate at the prospect of taking an otherwise perfectly fine product and wrecking it.
It's deeply imbeded into their corporate culture.
(used to have a netscape.net free email account, until AOL got their hands on it and thoroughly ruined it.)
the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me.
Talk is cheap. So the VP of Sales says they're going to sue. I'd treat this as just so much bluster until you get served.
In my experience, people who threaten to sue rarely do. People (and especially companies) who actually file litigation don't threaten first, they just do it.
If you want to be vindictive, send a letter to your ex-company's legal dept outlining the conversation. My guess is that the VP will get his hand slapped for throwing around idle threats. But you're probably best off by just moving on and putting these clowns behind you.
Uh oh.
Does that mean that my degree is going to be changed to "Weaver of Science" ?
>Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps?
CD quality, my ass. With a 10 to 1 compression ratio, it's not even going to be stereo (or at least everything above 5khz will be collapsed to mono.)
But the real sticking point isn't so much that the digital signal will sound worse than the current analog signal. It's that by adding a bunch of digital junk onto the sidebands, the quality of the analog signal will be reduced and the station's coverage area will be reduced.
Now, I'm not a radio engineer anymore (I used to do it professionally, for about 10 years), so I'm glad that I don't have to explain to the general manager why the station's signal to fades out 20 miles sooner than it used to.
My bet is that since it inevitably degrades the existing signal (yeah, yeah, Ibiquity swears that it doesn't, yada yada yada) a lot of stations are going to wait to install it until there's a user base before switching. And user will wait until there's a significant amount of product before buying.
Which is to say that it probably won't fly. But that's to be expected, because the whole point of IBOC was to thwart digital radio and preserve the stations' investment in spectrum real estate.
I actually took a few minutes to read the filing, and I don't think the intro above adequately reflects what this suit is about. The heading above says: Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit... which gives the impression that they're being sued for carrying news about the lawsuit.
That doesn't appear to be the case; the gist of the complaint is that when users enter "Pets Warehouse" as search criteria, his site isn't at the top of the list of results. In other words, he's bitching about his Google ranking and suing them because he's not first!
I'd recomend reading the complaint - it's definitely good for a chuckle at the least: My favorite line is item #28 "Plaintiff demands that Google remove any material deemed objectionable by Plaintiff."
BTW, IANAL, but neither is Bob Novack.