As I said elsewhere in this topic, 128kbps sucks big time. I download at 192 and for many songs 128 is almost unlistenable to me. If eMusic.com offers 192 in addition to 128 I'll sign up. As for mp3.com, I don't have the time to look through bands I've never heard. These days I hear a song I like on the radio or someones computer, find out the title, and grab that song plus the most popular files from the band on Kazaa. Oh, and yes I still buy cds, used, from bands I already love.
People could listen to the entire album five or ten times because a DRM enabled format allows them to. After five to ten listen-throughs (I'm assuming five to ten is reasonable, and that RIAA will be reasonable. I know, fat chance) the album will no longer play. For an additional the fee the album will be unlocked another 5-10 times, or the user could just buy the desired songs.
While I think it would be nice to have the uncompressed version, the market will eventually move away from CDs to a more secure format. I hate Dataplay, but it or another physical medium will come along eventually. It is hard to find tapes these days of new music. Several months after an album drops out of the top 200 I have to scan endless columns of tapes because the record store won't organize them anymore. Sure in the future I can still buy CDs and make someone else sort them in a warehouse. I'm getting offtopic, however. It is only a matter of time before the Labels successfully move music to a secure digital format, as I see it. Allowing uncompressed.wav files simply won't do. Even if Kazaa is increasing record sales because people are discovering new music and buying the album, I believe record sales could increase further if a DRM format let people listen to any album a set number of times, then they had to buy it. Finally, I think a 512kbps quality file, with superior quality for the bitrate compared to.mp3, would sound better than a cd quality.wav if the source was better than.wav.
Unless of course this is all a ruse by RIAA to get many many sales of this one file. Then RIAA can turn to Congress and declare it is going to offer single music tracks for sale online so there is no need to pass legislation forcing RIAA to. No I don't really think this is what RIAA is up to. I just like the conspiracy theorist angle.
Okay, I have a brilliant idea. I'm hoping the master copies of all CDs are today recorded at better-than-cd quality, such as DVD-A. Also recognizing the limitations of CDs, and considering that DRM formats exist offering better sound quality per megabyte. So why not offer songs for download at different qualities? Songs that have been compressed down to 512kbps from a 96K samples per second master. Offer a 225kbps and a 128kbps version as well, all compressed so well that the 128kbps sounds like a 192kbps mp3.
Once one version is bought, allow the customer to buy another quality version of it for an additional fifty cents. Of course this format will only allow one, but preferrably two copies made, for both the laptop and portable player. If the customer wants to transfer a copy to another device, establish a connection between the portable and the computer. Securely delete the file from the portable and a copy is freed for use in another device. Sadly this format will only allow analog copies so making a CD will be tough, and because of special keys/licenses needed to play the file, it won't be simple to play a file sent over Kazaa. Yes I know all security systems are broken eventually, but that's why good security adapts and changes, preferrably automatically. In the interest of fairness and profitability to the artists and labels I do propose a non-mp3 audio format is a neccessity for this to succeed.
One dollar is perfectly reasonable considering if you like an entire album you pay $13 to download it. If you only like 8 songs pay 8 dollars. The music industry needs a fair price to justify pushing people away from CDs that sold for 15 bucks. I think paying by the song will result in more sales overall, as I'll now buy songs I'd never buy the album its from. RIAA isn't convinced though. If the big labels eventually try and charge two bucks a song, I won't pay, however, as that's just as bad as the CD prices now but I don't get a CD or cover art/notes.
What if I could download the whole album in a "locked" format, or stream it over my DSL and listen 5 or 10 times after which I could only buy it, or perhaps unlock another 5-10 listen-throughs?
Then the solution lies in a non-mp3 audio format where I can download the whole album, listen five times, and buy the songs I like. Yes I've have albums where it took more than 5 listen-throughs to like a song, but that's life.
nope. legal immigrants could not be held for two years before 9/11. part of the laws rushed through congress post attack did something like that. the FBI had its panties in a twist because they might have to follow the law and release "suspects" they had nothing to charge them with after a week or two. that was the law for any citizen, immigrant or not. we all know if you're suspected of being a terrorist the government has the right to throw you in county jail for a year *cough Wen Ho Lee cough* and never bring any real damning evidence against you. meanwhile you lose your job, relationships, money, health both physical and mental. maybe you get ass raped a couple times, but its okay, because the government doesn't fuck up and its more important to trample everybody's rights on the road to justice.
in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government, I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.
I hear the guy in charge of Uzbekistan is just about as bad as Sadam, but since he helped agreed to let us do our thing in Afghanistan, and there's very little oil in his country, we don't give a rats ass. Our priorities are absolutely fucked. We haven't done shit for african countries either, except step in once things are almost beyond repain.
This is real simple. When 34,000,000 users start using a non-IE browser, all the big commerical webpages will have to support non-IE browsers perfectly.
What are the article writer's credentials? I say bull. Here's what I wrote elsewhere in this topic:
But they're wrong. The point of having billions on hand to lose means that MS can keep cutting the price of the system to remain competitive. If MS keeps the price competitive so people buy the box, and offers software lisences for less than Sony or Nintendo, developers will support xbox. Good games will be made for the console, and it will sell well. Then when xbox2 comes out, people WILL want it because so many have and like the original xbox. People will know MS is going to support their console and make sure developers make good games for it.
For proof, look at the Dreamcast. Sega was loosing money for years prior to DC because of the Sega CD/32X and Saturn debacle. Sega couldn't afford to drop the price of a DC any more often than the did. The DC failed to sell 5 million units by January 2001 and Sega pulled the plug. For Christmas 2000 the DC was $199 and PS2 was $299. If the DC had been $150 I'm almost certain 5 million units would have sold. Sega didn't have the deep pockets like MS. If MS were in Sega's position, they would have just cut the price $50 and that would be that.
I'll add this: Many people say there aren't any good games out for xbox right now, but I'm confident they're on their way. MS can't afford to not have any.
Haven't you seen Matrox's new Parhelia? Look at http://gamespot.com/gshw/stories/flat/0,12880,28 65 404,00.html If Parhelia technology is adopted by nVidia and ATI, then polygon models will become more complicated as the user gets closer it. So what if xbox doens't support them. Models are created using Maya, or 3D Studio Max. The developer just takes the model and includes support for the new graphics cards. BOOM, instant graphics update. The xbox nVidia chip already supports everything in DirectX 8. PC games supporting DX9 won't even be out for another two years because graphics cards fully supporting DX9 won't be out until summer or perhaps fall of this year. Look ahead about three years before a significant number of games take advantage of DX9 features. So I concede that in four to five years developers will have to code in DX9 eye candy for their xbox games, big whoop. That just isn't going to be that hard in the grand scheme of producing a game or port. At least it won't have to be totally rewritten like a PS2 port to PC will.
Except you forget that MS can afford to never make a profit on xbox so long as they do profit on the xbox2. Sure shareholders won't be happy now, but they will in five years with the successful xbox2.
Is the 8GB HD in xbox 1 platter or several? If it has several, in a year or two expect MS to replace the HD with a single platter of higher density. This is how MS will save money on the HD. One platter means fewer heads and moving parts.
But they're wrong. The point of having billions on hand to lose means that MS can keep cutting the price of the system to remain competitive. If MS keeps the price competitive so people buy the box, and offers software lisences for less than Sony or Nintendo, developers will support xbox. Good games will be made for the console, and it will sell well. Then when xbox2 comes out, people WILL want it because so many have and like the original xbox. People will know MS is going to support their console and make sure developers make good games for it.
For proof, look at the Dreamcast. Sega was loosing money for years prior to DC because of the Sega CD/32X and Saturn debacle. Sega couldn't afford to drop the price of a DC any more often than the did. The DC failed to sell 5 million units by January 2001 and Sega pulled the plug. For Christmas 2000 the DC was $199 and PS2 was $299. If the DC had been $150 I'm almost certain 5 million units would have sold. Sega didn't have the deep pockets like MS. If MS were in Sega's position, they would have just cut the price $50 and that would be that.
It was suggested that the lone gunmen aren't dead because they appeared in a teaser for the next episode. That's not a spoiler, unless people refuse to watch the teaser. Trasporting ourselves back in time, to say, 1982. How many Star Wars fanatics refused to watch the trailer for Return of the Jedi because it might show some spoilers? What's that you say? Three people? Well those three people apparently post to/. and I don't care about them, and neither do most others.
Can anyone tell me the "operatic" music heard in The Matrix (1) trailer? The music playing while clips of the lobby scene are shown? It isn't in the soundtrack, nor is it in the movie. Thanks in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you had a D average? Maybe you mean tenths of a point.
As I said elsewhere in this topic, 128kbps sucks big time. I download at 192 and for many songs 128 is almost unlistenable to me. If eMusic.com offers 192 in addition to 128 I'll sign up. As for mp3.com, I don't have the time to look through bands I've never heard. These days I hear a song I like on the radio or someones computer, find out the title, and grab that song plus the most popular files from the band on Kazaa. Oh, and yes I still buy cds, used, from bands I already love.
People could listen to the entire album five or ten times because a DRM enabled format allows them to. After five to ten listen-throughs (I'm assuming five to ten is reasonable, and that RIAA will be reasonable. I know, fat chance) the album will no longer play. For an additional the fee the album will be unlocked another 5-10 times, or the user could just buy the desired songs.
While I think it would be nice to have the uncompressed version, the market will eventually move away from CDs to a more secure format. I hate Dataplay, but it or another physical medium will come along eventually. It is hard to find tapes these days of new music. Several months after an album drops out of the top 200 I have to scan endless columns of tapes because the record store won't organize them anymore. Sure in the future I can still buy CDs and make someone else sort them in a warehouse. I'm getting offtopic, however. It is only a matter of time before the Labels successfully move music to a secure digital format, as I see it. Allowing uncompressed .wav files simply won't do. Even if Kazaa is increasing record sales because people are discovering new music and buying the album, I believe record sales could increase further if a DRM format let people listen to any album a set number of times, then they had to buy it. Finally, I think a 512kbps quality file, with superior quality for the bitrate compared to .mp3, would sound better than a cd quality .wav if the source was better than .wav.
Please people, ITS A JOKE!. Ya know, humor. This is funny stuff. Now most of the complaints can be marked redundant.
I gotta agree with Salsaman. At 128kbps the smearing and distortion in the artifacts are just wretched. I download at 192, 192vbs when I rip CDs.
Unless of course this is all a ruse by RIAA to get many many sales of this one file. Then RIAA can turn to Congress and declare it is going to offer single music tracks for sale online so there is no need to pass legislation forcing RIAA to. No I don't really think this is what RIAA is up to. I just like the conspiracy theorist angle.
Okay, I have a brilliant idea. I'm hoping the master copies of all CDs are today recorded at better-than-cd quality, such as DVD-A. Also recognizing the limitations of CDs, and considering that DRM formats exist offering better sound quality per megabyte. So why not offer songs for download at different qualities? Songs that have been compressed down to 512kbps from a 96K samples per second master. Offer a 225kbps and a 128kbps version as well, all compressed so well that the 128kbps sounds like a 192kbps mp3.
Once one version is bought, allow the customer to buy another quality version of it for an additional fifty cents. Of course this format will only allow one, but preferrably two copies made, for both the laptop and portable player. If the customer wants to transfer a copy to another device, establish a connection between the portable and the computer. Securely delete the file from the portable and a copy is freed for use in another device. Sadly this format will only allow analog copies so making a CD will be tough, and because of special keys/licenses needed to play the file, it won't be simple to play a file sent over Kazaa. Yes I know all security systems are broken eventually, but that's why good security adapts and changes, preferrably automatically. In the interest of fairness and profitability to the artists and labels I do propose a non-mp3 audio format is a neccessity for this to succeed.
One dollar is perfectly reasonable considering if you like an entire album you pay $13 to download it. If you only like 8 songs pay 8 dollars. The music industry needs a fair price to justify pushing people away from CDs that sold for 15 bucks. I think paying by the song will result in more sales overall, as I'll now buy songs I'd never buy the album its from. RIAA isn't convinced though. If the big labels eventually try and charge two bucks a song, I won't pay, however, as that's just as bad as the CD prices now but I don't get a CD or cover art/notes.
Don't feel bad if you aren't modded up for this insightful post. Most CDs aren't $20 either. I can find almost any CD new or used for $15 or less.
What if I could download the whole album in a "locked" format, or stream it over my DSL and listen 5 or 10 times after which I could only buy it, or perhaps unlock another 5-10 listen-throughs?
Then the solution lies in a non-mp3 audio format where I can download the whole album, listen five times, and buy the songs I like. Yes I've have albums where it took more than 5 listen-throughs to like a song, but that's life.
nope. legal immigrants could not be held for two years before 9/11. part of the laws rushed through congress post attack did something like that. the FBI had its panties in a twist because they might have to follow the law and release "suspects" they had nothing to charge them with after a week or two. that was the law for any citizen, immigrant or not. we all know if you're suspected of being a terrorist the government has the right to throw you in county jail for a year *cough Wen Ho Lee cough* and never bring any real damning evidence against you. meanwhile you lose your job, relationships, money, health both physical and mental. maybe you get ass raped a couple times, but its okay, because the government doesn't fuck up and its more important to trample everybody's rights on the road to justice.
in our haste to get in a war with afghanistan, we pretty much skipped ultimatums and diplomacy with the taliban. we didn't bother talking to them as much as we could have to try to work out a peaceful solution, because bush wanted war. as for freedom to criticize the government, I firmly believe those who criticize me for criticizing the government are within their right. I don't want them to make my speech sound criminal when it is constitutional, however.
I hear the guy in charge of Uzbekistan is just about as bad as Sadam, but since he helped agreed to let us do our thing in Afghanistan, and there's very little oil in his country, we don't give a rats ass. Our priorities are absolutely fucked. We haven't done shit for african countries either, except step in once things are almost beyond repain.
This is real simple. When 34,000,000 users start using a non-IE browser, all the big commerical webpages will have to support non-IE browsers perfectly.
duh, but the two cars won't hit the front car as fast or as hard.
What are the article writer's credentials? I say bull. Here's what I wrote elsewhere in this topic:
But they're wrong. The point of having billions on hand to lose means that MS can keep cutting the price of the system to remain competitive. If MS keeps the price competitive so people buy the box, and offers software lisences for less than Sony or Nintendo, developers will support xbox. Good games will be made for the console, and it will sell well. Then when xbox2 comes out, people WILL want it because so many have and like the original xbox. People will know MS is going to support their console and make sure developers make good games for it.
For proof, look at the Dreamcast. Sega was loosing money for years prior to DC because of the Sega CD/32X and Saturn debacle. Sega couldn't afford to drop the price of a DC any more often than the did. The DC failed to sell 5 million units by January 2001 and Sega pulled the plug. For Christmas 2000 the DC was $199 and PS2 was $299. If the DC had been $150 I'm almost certain 5 million units would have sold. Sega didn't have the deep pockets like MS. If MS were in Sega's position, they would have just cut the price $50 and that would be that.
I'll add this: Many people say there aren't any good games out for xbox right now, but I'm confident they're on their way. MS can't afford to not have any.
Hey Wakko, what if the comment isn't a troll or a flame, but merely doesn't deserve the score it has?
Haven't you seen Matrox's new Parhelia? Look at8 65 404,00.html
http://gamespot.com/gshw/stories/flat/0,12880,2
If Parhelia technology is adopted by nVidia and ATI, then polygon models will become more complicated as the user gets closer it. So what if xbox doens't support them. Models are created using Maya, or 3D Studio Max. The developer just takes the model and includes support for the new graphics cards. BOOM, instant graphics update. The xbox nVidia chip already supports everything in DirectX 8. PC games supporting DX9 won't even be out for another two years because graphics cards fully supporting DX9 won't be out until summer or perhaps fall of this year. Look ahead about three years before a significant number of games take advantage of DX9 features. So I concede that in four to five years developers will have to code in DX9 eye candy for their xbox games, big whoop. That just isn't going to be that hard in the grand scheme of producing a game or port. At least it won't have to be totally rewritten like a PS2 port to PC will.
Except you forget that MS can afford to never make a profit on xbox so long as they do profit on the xbox2. Sure shareholders won't be happy now, but they will in five years with the successful xbox2.
Is the 8GB HD in xbox 1 platter or several? If it has several, in a year or two expect MS to replace the HD with a single platter of higher density. This is how MS will save money on the HD. One platter means fewer heads and moving parts.
But they're wrong. The point of having billions on hand to lose means that MS can keep cutting the price of the system to remain competitive. If MS keeps the price competitive so people buy the box, and offers software lisences for less than Sony or Nintendo, developers will support xbox. Good games will be made for the console, and it will sell well. Then when xbox2 comes out, people WILL want it because so many have and like the original xbox. People will know MS is going to support their console and make sure developers make good games for it.
For proof, look at the Dreamcast. Sega was loosing money for years prior to DC because of the Sega CD/32X and Saturn debacle. Sega couldn't afford to drop the price of a DC any more often than the did. The DC failed to sell 5 million units by January 2001 and Sega pulled the plug. For Christmas 2000 the DC was $199 and PS2 was $299. If the DC had been $150 I'm almost certain 5 million units would have sold. Sega didn't have the deep pockets like MS. If MS were in Sega's position, they would have just cut the price $50 and that would be that.
It was suggested that the lone gunmen aren't dead because they appeared in a teaser for the next episode. That's not a spoiler, unless people refuse to watch the teaser. Trasporting ourselves back in time, to say, 1982. How many Star Wars fanatics refused to watch the trailer for Return of the Jedi because it might show some spoilers? What's that you say? Three people? Well those three people apparently post to /. and I don't care about them, and neither do most others.
Can anyone tell me the "operatic" music heard in The Matrix (1) trailer? The music playing while clips of the lobby scene are shown? It isn't in the soundtrack, nor is it in the movie. Thanks in advance.