I still stand by my age old reasoning for the dip in the music industry: The music that the RIAA is shoving into our faces these days is crap.
I'm tired of Britney, I'm tired of the Boy Bands, the Crap-Rap artists and the average bullshit you hear on the radio. Is the radio playing it because its popular? Or is the music popular because the radio is playing it? I believe the RIAA (rather, the companies under its blanket) select a few artists to fully promote, and the cutting-edge bands tend to get left in the dust.
Anyhow...that's a whole different argument. My point here is that the dip in CD sales can easily be associated with a whole lot of things. But it's one of those cause/effect issues. What causes what? Did napster cause the dips in sales? Or are there people out there that only like one or two songs from an album (the rest being crap), and they resort to programs like Napster to get what they want? Or they borrow and rip from friends. What about the lesser known artists? Maybe the CDs are harder to get ahold of, and much easier to get via digital means.
We can make broad sweeping statements about what is happening in the music industry all we want. There are so many things that can easily change CD sales. Would it really hurt the industry THAT much to experiment with some online distribution methods? I would gladly pay a dollar or two to download a tune from any artist if I liked the tune. Or is that not legit in the eyes of the RIAA?
I took my entire salary for the month of September
and donated it to a number of orginzations that previously existed for tragedy relief, or orginizations that were created for releif from 9-11 -- in all, about $8,000 (USD). My logic was that I had the money to pay my bills, and I didn't need anything else...so why not give to the families that truly suffered.
There is another newspaper near me that has special ads for the day. To place an ad in the newspaper was free for today...with one exception. To place an ad, you had to donate a certain amount of money to a charity orginization, and your ad had to explain somewhere where the money went. What happened is that a lot of businesses took up their ad space to basically show tribute to those who died, and in very tiny text at the bottom, they stated who they were. This was satisfactory to me.
Fear not...I'm not one who criticizes with a hypocritical nature.
They would need an excuse. That's why they predict they'll only be able to do it for a month or so.
On a normal day, in a normal year...if a newspaper said "we want X amount of money for a full page ad", a business would question the price. In fact, they probably still would. But this time the paper replies "Oh, we had to increase costs slightly for a while to cover the cost of the ad-free newspaper we published on 9/11/02". What's a company going to say to that? I'm sure some companies won't buy that. But many would probably simply eat the cost so long as there is a reason.
I feel the need to do my normal routine today. Yes, it's the day we observe 9-11, but it should also be the day that we start to get back to normal lives. We're well on our way...but the economy is still affected, and the world is still mourning.
I'm not watching TV because I don't feel the need to relive such events. I don't want to see those images again. I would rather see stories about the future. I would rather see a story about what's going to be built in its place. And I would like to see a story about what the businesses are doing, where they moved to, and how they're making out. But I can't expect that from the coverage. For the five minutes I watched...I saw images of the towers falling again, I saw a story of the sorrow a woman felt. I don't want to see that stuff...I've seen it, and while I can't forget it, I don't want to relive it.
They won't make money now....but they will later on.
It's an image ploy. It's kinda like offering "Shindler's List" without commercials a couple of years ago. Everyone thinks they're a nice network...so they're more likely to watch in the future. It sounds silly, but it is a common ploy in the media.
Our newspaper published today without any ads. A friend at the paper told me that its a nice thought, to the public...but to advertise for the next month, it's going to be much more expensive to "cover the costs of today's paper". In actuality...the paper makes out in the long run. I wouldn't put it past the TV networks to do something similar.
I was pretty befuttled by the article, until I read your comment. It got me to thinking about this particular reporter's testing. Did he time his printing averages from the moment he pressed the print button? Or did he wait 'til the first page started printing?
Then I realized that we don't know that, because the reporter never published his method.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It's been proven, and has stood the test of time. The method should be applied to all testing, even in the computer world. And the method should always be published with the result data. As is the case with this reporter, we don't know this information, and therefore his test is not reproducable.
I guess I don't necessarily believe this writer's data. I do, however, agree with his market analysis of the printer market. Printer makers make the money off of the print cartridges -- but this is not anything new, and I don't see any problem with that sort of market plan. This type of market plan is very common -- in the game console market, in some current games (any MMORPG game), even with some hardware (like ZIP drives, JAZ drives, etc). Is there any reason to have a problem with such a market? It is fairly profitable...and I have no problem with that.
I have learned to conserve my printing over the years. I don't print useless stuff anymore. I'm sure that many people do the same.
In their own niche, they're fine. But it's a matter of preference, and a matter of equipment.
I will admit that I am not 100% familiar with all that you have listed. But I am aware that some of those do not support my hardware. I mean, if I could hook my synth up to ScreamTracker, I'd be happy about it. That's where I started. Even it's following, Impulse Tracker, only supports MIDI from a SoundBlaster MIDI interface. Anyone that's serious about music on their computer knows that Sound Blaster does not make good professional sound cards. Not even the audigy compares to professional quality cards. So why would I be using that for my MIDI interface? Now how can I hook Impulse Tracker up to that? And even if I did...why can I not use Impulse Tracker to the full expanse of that my MIDI hardware can support?
For what I do, Cubase, Sonar or Logic Audio are really the only true options. None of which are available on Linux.
It's an interesting study, even if the report doesn't seem entirely inclusive of all data.
It seemed to me that the story talked about conversions on a server level. My first thought was "Oh, that's only on the server level?" But then I realized something: Linux is best at the server level.
I don't mean to start another flame war...but I'm am one who firmly believes that what you want to do fully impacts what OS you use. I have three computers at home. One runs Linux full time. One runs Windows XP full time. The laptop runs both Windows 98 and Linux (Dual boot). If I want to write music and stuff, I sure as hell ain't going to be using linux. If I want to be doing some serious firewalling...I'm not going to use WinXP.
So in conclusion, I would have to say that the migration is nice...but I don't care where they migrate from. I'm not in the open source war to beat down what we already have. One of the faults of war is to blatently avoid everything associated with the enemy. There should be some middle ground. After all, Marketing aside, Microsoft does have something.
My point was that it wasn't about the essential hardware market per-se. I agree with your points 100%. But the article very briefly mentioned the correlation between the $400 video card and the computer case made to look like a troop transport. There is a correlation, but I believe the article to be more about the non-essential hardware.
Your point is well taken, and again, I agree. But it's pretty fair to assume that a UGO driver is not going to be painting his car with flames, putting glass packs and a super charger on his 3-cyl engine. It's also safe to assume that the average Web and Solitare computer user won't be putting windows with neons and digital hard drive coolers into their computers. It's still the computer market, but its a niche market. Thermaltake doesn't deal with the average user, they deal with a small percentage of the computer users out there. The use of said hardware is interesting. And THAT was my point.
I read through all the comments that are posted right now that havn't already been moderated below my threshold (which is set at 2 for the time being). If I read yet another spoof like "audiophiles drive the high end stereo market" and so on, I'm going to up my moderation threshold again.
If you READ the article, you'd realize it isn't really about the Mhz, the Megabytes and the Refresh rates. It's about the "Hot Rod" appeal. It's about the guys with clear cases, the guys with neon lights, and the guys with flames painted on the sides of their cases. All you would have to do is click the link and see right there in front of you a picture of a clear acrylic computer case. Logic would therefore lead me to believe that the average person tries to get their comment posted to/. before reading the article.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the article. While it wasn't anything new to me, it is a niche culture that has turned their computers into center peices and art. This is the generation that loves the I-Mac, and the same generation where the PC Counterparts want to have cool looking cases too. These are the people keeping Alienware and Thermaltake in business. And while a case fan might be essential, one that has brass grilles and neon lights are not. If you read the article, you'd comment on that, not Mhz and GBs.
How many of you guys are shouting RTFM to the non-geeks that bug you? Maybe we should be shouting RTFA!
One worrying question - are they getting all the power for the smartcard from that laser pulse? Really? Probably means a battery, so your CD or DVD now has an even more limited lifetime. Tinker with the battery size and Hollywood now has a way to program in obsolescence into that new DVD, forcing you to buy a new copy!
It all comes down to a scene in a demoscene demo of years ago. The demo is called "Eden". I can't remember the group that designed it..."Psychic Monks" or something like that. Anyhow...there was a scene where there was an oldskool anti-soviet poster stating "Big Brother is Watching". But instead of Lenin on the poster, it was Elvis. I always thought that was a funny paralelle, as the entertainment industry is always trying to find more ways to charge more for consumers.
I'm still on the fence about this one. Am I happy that Hollywood/RIAA wants to come up with some sort of encryption system built into their media? No. But I can sorta see where they're coming from. After all, if that were your business, you'd try to figure a way around it as well.
However, the gaming industry might have realized one minor fact that Hollywood and RIAA have overlooked -- spend all your money on research, and its likely going to get wasted. It doesn't matter what you do, someone will find a way around your "security". The goal of an entertainment industry is literally just to make more gains than losses (profit). I'd be curious to know (if there is a way to measure it) the difference between the net loss relative to piracy and the cost put into research for anti-piracy devices such as this. I wouldn't be surprised if it came close to balancing out.
The reality of the entertainment industry...with some exceptions, a movie, or a CD or a game or anything of the sort has a life span. It is popular for a certain amount of time, and then people loose interest. They get interested in the next new thing. The industry could take advantage of that.
This would be a huge mistake for any competitor. Why would you want to jump into line with MS? You would have no opportunity lead. You would just play catch up and never be able to offer the customer a superior product.
I agree with you. But it doesn't end at that. The argument isn't that simple. Following the standards, and toting that fact means nothing. You won't earn market share verses the most common browser on the planet: IE.
Whether or not you agree with what MS is doing with IE, that's moot point. One of the realities of business is competition. Especially in the software industry, you need to be able to do things that no one else can, but also offer things that everyone else does as well. There is NO OTHER WAY to get ahead.
A better, but more tedious and time consuming, method to beat the competition is to first make your browser 100% compatible with the market leader (in this case, IE). THEN, start offering frills, and other features. Obviously, you can do this concurrently. But consumers* are not going to pay you an ear if it doesn't look like they like when they view it on IE.
This happened with Wordperfect vs. MS Word. WP was the innovator...but MS beat them at their game. How? They first made it possible to import WP files into Word...then they offered all the features of WP (except the codes window, which I miss). Then they added more frills, and tied it into an office suite. WP didn't do that until they realized they were behind the leader. By then, it was too late...people were switching to Word. MS knows the business...they're not idiots.
If you're working on anything, be it software, hardware, medicine, or ANYTHING, it all comes down to marketing and consumer perception. You're not catering to the technical savey. That only makes up a small percentage of the population. You're catering to the idiots that don't care about standards, they only care about how things end up. If it looks good, they're sold. Keep that in mind when it comes time to revise the standards. In the business world, standards are created for the consumer, not the other way around. Maybe the software industry should keep things like that in mind.
*NOTE: A Consumer is basically any idiot that you can convince to buy your product, whether or not they know if they need it. If they don't need it and they buy it, chances are they don't understand it.
Actually, the more I think about it, I guess I do see the relevance. Problem is, while it might be useful to get your hacking and other "tools" (as they are called") evaluated towards credits, is it a worthwhile battle? I, for one, tried to get Acadamia to accept my digital work accepted for project work, and didn't have much luck. I am, however, in Landscape Architecture, which is an oldskool field -- perhaps a bit behind the technology of today. Maybe the case is different in other fields (such as humanities, for example) where such digital media might be more acceptable as a form of research?
Read it (have a copy), but I don't see the relevance.
Still, Humanities Computing sounds like an interesting aspect of the field. It could be very useful in most corporations (like my Engineering company, for example).
Don't get into a fight if you got implants like that. For starters...you can only see 12 Frames per second, so you can't block. But supposing the guy rips the cables out? Obviously you wouldn't feel any pain (no pain sensors in the brain), but imagine the blood? You'd pass out rather quickly.
Nope. Volume 10, Issue 9. That's how Wired numbers their magazines.
I just read this article, its from the September, 2002 issue. That in itself is kinda frustrating, as I'm reading the article online only a few days after reading it in my subscription. Oh well, subscription is cheap enough anyhow. Besides, the non-article content isn't always published on the web.
Why is this modification getting praise? Beyond it being a nifty idea, and a lot of dedicated time to do it...it's useless. Why would anyone want to do this?
Ok, the small profile of the case is really cool. But attach it to something useful. A chair is hardly worth attaching a computer to. Why not stick the damn thing on a desk, and not sacrifice your ability to move around. So take the chair out of the picture.
Assuming you wanted a good computer on the road for your MP3s, something to do at rest-stops...etc. Slap AC/DC converter in there, and bolt the thing into your car. That is useful.
PC mods are cool, but when it gets to a point where its rediculous, or even more useless, than it's a pointless mod. Pointless mods lose points in my book. Make your case sound proof, make it clear, make it glow, make it project things on a wall...whatever -- those types of mods don't render the thing useless. This crossed the line, and it IS useless. I'm not impressed. You wish you had the time to do it? Aye...but I'd spend the time doing something else.
I'm not so sure that M$ will change their licensing this time. I think they've been under a lot of pressure as of late. I think they have realized that people have this view of the "Evil Empire" and they have been making some PR moves lately that might make small steps to make them look more friendly than they always have been. Remember that issue where that guy discovered security issues in the XBox? MS didn't step in there to prevent the paper from being published. I think MS wants people to believe that they care about the end user.
On the other hand, if they were to try to throw Dell under the bus, and change their licensing...not only would they loose a lot of respect from the consumers, but they'd loose the respect of Dell. I don't believe for a minute that Dell makes this move to spite MS. Dell is a business as well, and if their consumers aren't going to use Windows, they're more likely to buy a computer without it. Even if Dell were to offer said machines for cheaper than the windows-toting counter parts, Dell would surely make more money off of each computer, and not have to pay royalties to MS for that particular machine.
It's great that Dell found this loophole. If MS were to do anything, I'd bet that Dell would make a big stink, the consumers would make a big stink, and MS would look more evil than it already does. Dell is large enough of a company now that it can actually get away with things like this under the shadow of MS. MS is on touchy ground...this is the OS war they never thought they'd have to deal with, and they're fighting companies that offer their products for free. It's all about image now -- they have to listen to consumers, they have to listen to retailers, and they have to end up looking good to win.
On a side note, keep in mind the average linux user (who might potentially buy a machine without an OS). Chances are, if they buy from Dell, they're buying large quantities for a company that will run Linux. The minor difference in cost isn't always worth the extra trouble...so it doesn't impact a corporation nearly as much to buy a machine, rip the OS and start over. They practically do that anyhow. The typical consumer who uses linux is likely the same type of consumer who builds his own machines...so he's less likely to buy a Dell for his Linux box anyhow. Just an observation.
Company or not -- the product is still being updated by someone, is it not? When a download is complete, it even growls at you in the trademark sound.
Mozilla or Go!Zilla...which is more of an exploitation?
What about the component names: Seamonkey? Do they still sell those awful things? Will they try to sue Mozilla too? Or don't they have enough money to do so? Maybe we don't have to worry there.
All those projects on that site are really neat. I especially like the "iSee" project. Though, in the wrong hands, I can imagine it being a problem for authorities (it plots survelance cameras).
But the Street Writer and Grafitti writer are very cool uses of automation. It kinda reminds me of those silly clocks with the swinging arm and 8 or so LEDS that turn on just when you need to. Of course...it also reminds of the Dot Matrix printers. Very cool reading...thanks.
There is a bit of a statistic that I would like to see. I would like to see how much Return on Investment that these companies get by using popup ads, banner ads and the like. I would like to see a ratio showing the relation between the number of ads shown and the number of ads where users actually clicked through. then I would like to see how many users who clicked through actually bought something. This last part, albeit, might be difficult to use as evidence. After all, if I were to ever click through on an ad, I would make a bookmark, and then inevitably come back later. So, it would be very hard for such statistics to be tracked. But clickthrough statistics would be easy to track.
I can't imagine the ratio of displays vs. clickthroughs to be very high. I also can't imagine that these companies would be doing such a thing without keeping some sort of statistics. From a marketing point of view...how low does such a ratio have to be before a company ultimately axes an advertising campaign? It's just a baffling concept to me.
It's interesting that you bring up audio quality. My friend has one of the old Shuttle bare bones systems, and the sound quality is comparable to the average gaming platform sound card (SB). It's not bad, and it can play MP3s and the like pretty well. Problem is, it's a no-frills on-the-motherboard sound card. So you can't expect nice features like the SB Audigy.
You especially can't expect anywhere close to the S/N ratios or the Response curves that you get with professional quality sound cards. FYI, The SB Audigy, even though SB would like you to believe so, IS NOT professional quality.
Good for a hobiest or a gamer. But if you want to write music...the Shuttle small profile systems are not for you. For that matter, anything on the motherboard is often not good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm tired of Britney, I'm tired of the Boy Bands, the Crap-Rap artists and the average bullshit you hear on the radio. Is the radio playing it because its popular? Or is the music popular because the radio is playing it? I believe the RIAA (rather, the companies under its blanket) select a few artists to fully promote, and the cutting-edge bands tend to get left in the dust.
Anyhow...that's a whole different argument. My point here is that the dip in CD sales can easily be associated with a whole lot of things. But it's one of those cause/effect issues. What causes what? Did napster cause the dips in sales? Or are there people out there that only like one or two songs from an album (the rest being crap), and they resort to programs like Napster to get what they want? Or they borrow and rip from friends. What about the lesser known artists? Maybe the CDs are harder to get ahold of, and much easier to get via digital means.
We can make broad sweeping statements about what is happening in the music industry all we want. There are so many things that can easily change CD sales. Would it really hurt the industry THAT much to experiment with some online distribution methods? I would gladly pay a dollar or two to download a tune from any artist if I liked the tune. Or is that not legit in the eyes of the RIAA?
I took my entire salary for the month of September and donated it to a number of orginzations that previously existed for tragedy relief, or orginizations that were created for releif from 9-11 -- in all, about $8,000 (USD). My logic was that I had the money to pay my bills, and I didn't need anything else...so why not give to the families that truly suffered.
There is another newspaper near me that has special ads for the day. To place an ad in the newspaper was free for today...with one exception. To place an ad, you had to donate a certain amount of money to a charity orginization, and your ad had to explain somewhere where the money went. What happened is that a lot of businesses took up their ad space to basically show tribute to those who died, and in very tiny text at the bottom, they stated who they were. This was satisfactory to me.
Fear not...I'm not one who criticizes with a hypocritical nature.
On a normal day, in a normal year...if a newspaper said "we want X amount of money for a full page ad", a business would question the price. In fact, they probably still would. But this time the paper replies "Oh, we had to increase costs slightly for a while to cover the cost of the ad-free newspaper we published on 9/11/02". What's a company going to say to that? I'm sure some companies won't buy that. But many would probably simply eat the cost so long as there is a reason.
I feel the need to do my normal routine today. Yes, it's the day we observe 9-11, but it should also be the day that we start to get back to normal lives. We're well on our way...but the economy is still affected, and the world is still mourning.
I'm not watching TV because I don't feel the need to relive such events. I don't want to see those images again. I would rather see stories about the future. I would rather see a story about what's going to be built in its place. And I would like to see a story about what the businesses are doing, where they moved to, and how they're making out. But I can't expect that from the coverage. For the five minutes I watched...I saw images of the towers falling again, I saw a story of the sorrow a woman felt. I don't want to see that stuff...I've seen it, and while I can't forget it, I don't want to relive it.
I'm sure that many people agree.
It's an image ploy. It's kinda like offering "Shindler's List" without commercials a couple of years ago. Everyone thinks they're a nice network...so they're more likely to watch in the future. It sounds silly, but it is a common ploy in the media.
Our newspaper published today without any ads. A friend at the paper told me that its a nice thought, to the public...but to advertise for the next month, it's going to be much more expensive to "cover the costs of today's paper". In actuality...the paper makes out in the long run. I wouldn't put it past the TV networks to do something similar.
Then I realized that we don't know that, because the reporter never published his method.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It's been proven, and has stood the test of time. The method should be applied to all testing, even in the computer world. And the method should always be published with the result data. As is the case with this reporter, we don't know this information, and therefore his test is not reproducable.
I guess I don't necessarily believe this writer's data. I do, however, agree with his market analysis of the printer market. Printer makers make the money off of the print cartridges -- but this is not anything new, and I don't see any problem with that sort of market plan. This type of market plan is very common -- in the game console market, in some current games (any MMORPG game), even with some hardware (like ZIP drives, JAZ drives, etc). Is there any reason to have a problem with such a market? It is fairly profitable...and I have no problem with that.
I have learned to conserve my printing over the years. I don't print useless stuff anymore. I'm sure that many people do the same.
I will admit that I am not 100% familiar with all that you have listed. But I am aware that some of those do not support my hardware. I mean, if I could hook my synth up to ScreamTracker, I'd be happy about it. That's where I started. Even it's following, Impulse Tracker, only supports MIDI from a SoundBlaster MIDI interface. Anyone that's serious about music on their computer knows that Sound Blaster does not make good professional sound cards. Not even the audigy compares to professional quality cards. So why would I be using that for my MIDI interface? Now how can I hook Impulse Tracker up to that? And even if I did...why can I not use Impulse Tracker to the full expanse of that my MIDI hardware can support?
For what I do, Cubase, Sonar or Logic Audio are really the only true options. None of which are available on Linux.
I'm still not a fan of Maxtor. I'm not convinced that they can honestly maintain the same quality while trying to jump so far ahead.
It seemed to me that the story talked about conversions on a server level. My first thought was "Oh, that's only on the server level?" But then I realized something: Linux is best at the server level.
I don't mean to start another flame war...but I'm am one who firmly believes that what you want to do fully impacts what OS you use. I have three computers at home. One runs Linux full time. One runs Windows XP full time. The laptop runs both Windows 98 and Linux (Dual boot). If I want to write music and stuff, I sure as hell ain't going to be using linux. If I want to be doing some serious firewalling...I'm not going to use WinXP.
So in conclusion, I would have to say that the migration is nice...but I don't care where they migrate from. I'm not in the open source war to beat down what we already have. One of the faults of war is to blatently avoid everything associated with the enemy. There should be some middle ground. After all, Marketing aside, Microsoft does have something.
Your point is well taken, and again, I agree. But it's pretty fair to assume that a UGO driver is not going to be painting his car with flames, putting glass packs and a super charger on his 3-cyl engine. It's also safe to assume that the average Web and Solitare computer user won't be putting windows with neons and digital hard drive coolers into their computers. It's still the computer market, but its a niche market. Thermaltake doesn't deal with the average user, they deal with a small percentage of the computer users out there. The use of said hardware is interesting. And THAT was my point.
If you READ the article, you'd realize it isn't really about the Mhz, the Megabytes and the Refresh rates. It's about the "Hot Rod" appeal. It's about the guys with clear cases, the guys with neon lights, and the guys with flames painted on the sides of their cases. All you would have to do is click the link and see right there in front of you a picture of a clear acrylic computer case. Logic would therefore lead me to believe that the average person tries to get their comment posted to /. before reading the article.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the article. While it wasn't anything new to me, it is a niche culture that has turned their computers into center peices and art. This is the generation that loves the I-Mac, and the same generation where the PC Counterparts want to have cool looking cases too. These are the people keeping Alienware and Thermaltake in business. And while a case fan might be essential, one that has brass grilles and neon lights are not. If you read the article, you'd comment on that, not Mhz and GBs.
How many of you guys are shouting RTFM to the non-geeks that bug you? Maybe we should be shouting RTFA!
It all comes down to a scene in a demoscene demo of years ago. The demo is called "Eden". I can't remember the group that designed it..."Psychic Monks" or something like that. Anyhow...there was a scene where there was an oldskool anti-soviet poster stating "Big Brother is Watching". But instead of Lenin on the poster, it was Elvis. I always thought that was a funny paralelle, as the entertainment industry is always trying to find more ways to charge more for consumers.
I'm still on the fence about this one. Am I happy that Hollywood/RIAA wants to come up with some sort of encryption system built into their media? No. But I can sorta see where they're coming from. After all, if that were your business, you'd try to figure a way around it as well.
However, the gaming industry might have realized one minor fact that Hollywood and RIAA have overlooked -- spend all your money on research, and its likely going to get wasted. It doesn't matter what you do, someone will find a way around your "security". The goal of an entertainment industry is literally just to make more gains than losses (profit). I'd be curious to know (if there is a way to measure it) the difference between the net loss relative to piracy and the cost put into research for anti-piracy devices such as this. I wouldn't be surprised if it came close to balancing out.
The reality of the entertainment industry...with some exceptions, a movie, or a CD or a game or anything of the sort has a life span. It is popular for a certain amount of time, and then people loose interest. They get interested in the next new thing. The industry could take advantage of that.
I agree with you. But it doesn't end at that. The argument isn't that simple. Following the standards, and toting that fact means nothing. You won't earn market share verses the most common browser on the planet: IE.
Whether or not you agree with what MS is doing with IE, that's moot point. One of the realities of business is competition. Especially in the software industry, you need to be able to do things that no one else can, but also offer things that everyone else does as well. There is NO OTHER WAY to get ahead.
A better, but more tedious and time consuming, method to beat the competition is to first make your browser 100% compatible with the market leader (in this case, IE). THEN, start offering frills, and other features. Obviously, you can do this concurrently. But consumers* are not going to pay you an ear if it doesn't look like they like when they view it on IE.
This happened with Wordperfect vs. MS Word. WP was the innovator...but MS beat them at their game. How? They first made it possible to import WP files into Word...then they offered all the features of WP (except the codes window, which I miss). Then they added more frills, and tied it into an office suite. WP didn't do that until they realized they were behind the leader. By then, it was too late...people were switching to Word. MS knows the business...they're not idiots.
If you're working on anything, be it software, hardware, medicine, or ANYTHING, it all comes down to marketing and consumer perception. You're not catering to the technical savey. That only makes up a small percentage of the population. You're catering to the idiots that don't care about standards, they only care about how things end up. If it looks good, they're sold. Keep that in mind when it comes time to revise the standards. In the business world, standards are created for the consumer, not the other way around. Maybe the software industry should keep things like that in mind.
*NOTE: A Consumer is basically any idiot that you can convince to buy your product, whether or not they know if they need it. If they don't need it and they buy it, chances are they don't understand it.
Actually, the more I think about it, I guess I do see the relevance. Problem is, while it might be useful to get your hacking and other "tools" (as they are called") evaluated towards credits, is it a worthwhile battle? I, for one, tried to get Acadamia to accept my digital work accepted for project work, and didn't have much luck. I am, however, in Landscape Architecture, which is an oldskool field -- perhaps a bit behind the technology of today. Maybe the case is different in other fields (such as humanities, for example) where such digital media might be more acceptable as a form of research?
Still, Humanities Computing sounds like an interesting aspect of the field. It could be very useful in most corporations (like my Engineering company, for example).
Don't get into a fight if you got implants like that. For starters...you can only see 12 Frames per second, so you can't block. But supposing the guy rips the cables out? Obviously you wouldn't feel any pain (no pain sensors in the brain), but imagine the blood? You'd pass out rather quickly.
I just read this article, its from the September, 2002 issue. That in itself is kinda frustrating, as I'm reading the article online only a few days after reading it in my subscription. Oh well, subscription is cheap enough anyhow. Besides, the non-article content isn't always published on the web.
Ok, the small profile of the case is really cool. But attach it to something useful. A chair is hardly worth attaching a computer to. Why not stick the damn thing on a desk, and not sacrifice your ability to move around. So take the chair out of the picture.
Assuming you wanted a good computer on the road for your MP3s, something to do at rest-stops...etc. Slap AC/DC converter in there, and bolt the thing into your car. That is useful.
PC mods are cool, but when it gets to a point where its rediculous, or even more useless, than it's a pointless mod. Pointless mods lose points in my book. Make your case sound proof, make it clear, make it glow, make it project things on a wall...whatever -- those types of mods don't render the thing useless. This crossed the line, and it IS useless. I'm not impressed. You wish you had the time to do it? Aye...but I'd spend the time doing something else.
So, does anyone have any cache, mirrors or anything for the main story or this?
On the other hand, if they were to try to throw Dell under the bus, and change their licensing...not only would they loose a lot of respect from the consumers, but they'd loose the respect of Dell. I don't believe for a minute that Dell makes this move to spite MS. Dell is a business as well, and if their consumers aren't going to use Windows, they're more likely to buy a computer without it. Even if Dell were to offer said machines for cheaper than the windows-toting counter parts, Dell would surely make more money off of each computer, and not have to pay royalties to MS for that particular machine.
It's great that Dell found this loophole. If MS were to do anything, I'd bet that Dell would make a big stink, the consumers would make a big stink, and MS would look more evil than it already does. Dell is large enough of a company now that it can actually get away with things like this under the shadow of MS. MS is on touchy ground...this is the OS war they never thought they'd have to deal with, and they're fighting companies that offer their products for free. It's all about image now -- they have to listen to consumers, they have to listen to retailers, and they have to end up looking good to win.
On a side note, keep in mind the average linux user (who might potentially buy a machine without an OS). Chances are, if they buy from Dell, they're buying large quantities for a company that will run Linux. The minor difference in cost isn't always worth the extra trouble...so it doesn't impact a corporation nearly as much to buy a machine, rip the OS and start over. They practically do that anyhow. The typical consumer who uses linux is likely the same type of consumer who builds his own machines...so he's less likely to buy a Dell for his Linux box anyhow. Just an observation.
Hrmm...that could be why I stopped using it last may. I miss the program...but it did start acting wierd on me. I had to put it out of its misery.
Mozilla or Go!Zilla...which is more of an exploitation?
What about the component names: Seamonkey? Do they still sell those awful things? Will they try to sue Mozilla too? Or don't they have enough money to do so? Maybe we don't have to worry there.
But the Street Writer and Grafitti writer are very cool uses of automation. It kinda reminds me of those silly clocks with the swinging arm and 8 or so LEDS that turn on just when you need to. Of course...it also reminds of the Dot Matrix printers. Very cool reading...thanks.
I can't imagine the ratio of displays vs. clickthroughs to be very high. I also can't imagine that these companies would be doing such a thing without keeping some sort of statistics. From a marketing point of view...how low does such a ratio have to be before a company ultimately axes an advertising campaign? It's just a baffling concept to me.
You especially can't expect anywhere close to the S/N ratios or the Response curves that you get with professional quality sound cards. FYI, The SB Audigy, even though SB would like you to believe so, IS NOT professional quality.
Good for a hobiest or a gamer. But if you want to write music...the Shuttle small profile systems are not for you. For that matter, anything on the motherboard is often not good enough.