And even among millenials (of which two of my children are), I am seriously doubtful about that 90% figure.
I don't think I have ever heard my kids or their friends listen to the radio, ever. They do listen to a lot of music, but it is 100% online -- mostly either Spotify or YouTube.
Of course, the kids I know are not a representative sample, but if the figure is really 90%, I'd think that I'd have seen at least one of them doing it at least a couple of times.
Yes, if someone doesn't want to be exposed to new stuff, they can accomplish that equally well on radio or online.
However, if they do, it's so much easier online that on the radio. First, there's a much wider variety of music available online than there ever was on the radio. Second, there are many services (both streaming and not) that are designed specifically to help you discover new music. Using those, your chances of serendipity are way beyond what was possible with radio.
In a sense the difference is that online, there is far more easily available and discoverable content than is physically possible with radio. And with good agent software, you can have a personalized "virtual dj" that is better at finding music that both you haven't heard and that you're likely to at least not hate. And that agent isn't worrying about things like pleasing sponsors or trying to push some particular artist.
When stations do this (or switch to news or sports programming), it is almost always because they either went out of business and their license was sold off, or they were about to go out of business.
So they probably didn't ruin by the format change. It was probably already ruined, and that's what caused the format change.
However, the Newton worked much better for me when taking notes without looking at the screen.
But my overall favorite PDA of the era wasn't either of those. It was the Sharp Zaurus. More powerful and smaller that the Newton, an excellent slide-out physical keyboard, nicer screen, and faster.
It had also been on the market for longer than Palm or Newton, so it was more mature and polished.
Radio has never been a great way to discover music. It's just that until relatively recently, there hasn't really been any better alternative. Once radio programming started to get centralized, it became even worse.
At least in the old days there was some sort of connection to the local community. Most radio doesn't even have that much going for it anymore.
I don't care about a more expensive and inconvenient thing if I have to do it every three years or so.
That's fair. I do care about it if it's unnecessary, no matter how rare it is.
The purpose of the external battery is to plug in and continue operation, not to sit there and charge the battery.
Personally, I think that's even worse. It is effectively tripling the size of the phone, and adding a cable on top of it. Just changing the battery seems so much easier to me.
Except most people buy online to AVOID the "retail experience".
Yes, this is me. The thing that makes online shopping very appealing to me is specifically that I don't have to deal with salespeople. It wasn't always this way, but 99% of the time I encounter them these days, they're a useless waste of my time and they're doing their best to get me to buy stuff that I clearly am not interested in and have no need for.
It's no secret. You get a phone that you can unlock the bootloader on and install your own OS with strong security measures.
Yes, the binary blobs are still a security hole, but it's the same security hole you have with feature phones, so if that's more risk than you're willing to tolerate then you shouldn't carry any cell phone at all.
If an app is asking for permissions that it clearly doesn't need to accomplish its stated purpose, I just assume that it's a trojan or spyware and don't install it.
The problem with the existing permissions functionality is that they are still too course-grained, and they cannot be easily applied on a per-use basis.
However the restrictions are easy to get around by the app saying "this application cannot work unless you grant Uber Spy permissions, press here to somnambulantly do this now".
This doesn't actually bother me much. If an app refuses to work under the restrictions I want, then I just don't use it. It gave me fair warning, after all, and I have yet to find an app that is actually indispensible. The worse situation is if they circumvent the permissions behind the scenes.
In the day, I was developing software for both the Palm and the Newton. I still have boxes stuffed with both!
The Palm was more useful and practical day-to-day, so I always carried one. The Newton, though, was far, far more capable. I took it on trips instead of a laptop.
The Newton was also an absolute joy to develop for. I really liked both of those devices a lot, but for different reasons.
Kasperky almost certainly would have won. The reason that they took the money instead of fighting was probably because they would have spent a lot of time and treasure on the path to their victory.
Software patents should be disallowed because they fall into two categories that were never intended to be patentable: math and algorithms.
Allowing software patents is bad socially because they have the opposite effect of what patents are supposed to do. Patents are supposed to benefit society as a whole by giving an incentive for inventors to publicly reveal their inventions so others can build on them.
Software patents don't do this.
The appropriate IP protection for software is copyright.
Personally, I think that 100% of software patents should be invalid, both for technical and legal reasons and because software patents cause a huge amount of harm to society.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
And even among millenials (of which two of my children are), I am seriously doubtful about that 90% figure.
I don't think I have ever heard my kids or their friends listen to the radio, ever. They do listen to a lot of music, but it is 100% online -- mostly either Spotify or YouTube.
Of course, the kids I know are not a representative sample, but if the figure is really 90%, I'd think that I'd have seen at least one of them doing it at least a couple of times.
Yes, if someone doesn't want to be exposed to new stuff, they can accomplish that equally well on radio or online.
However, if they do, it's so much easier online that on the radio. First, there's a much wider variety of music available online than there ever was on the radio. Second, there are many services (both streaming and not) that are designed specifically to help you discover new music. Using those, your chances of serendipity are way beyond what was possible with radio.
In a sense the difference is that online, there is far more easily available and discoverable content than is physically possible with radio. And with good agent software, you can have a personalized "virtual dj" that is better at finding music that both you haven't heard and that you're likely to at least not hate. And that agent isn't worrying about things like pleasing sponsors or trying to push some particular artist.
That's not even remotely possible on the radio.
When stations do this (or switch to news or sports programming), it is almost always because they either went out of business and their license was sold off, or they were about to go out of business.
So they probably didn't ruin by the format change. It was probably already ruined, and that's what caused the format change.
Have you read NAB's response to this?
http://variety.com/2017/music/...
It is so delusional that I almost feel sad for them.
Yes, in retrospect, the ClearChannel takeover really did mark a definite point when radio took a dive.
Yes, they had different strengths and weaknesses.
However, the Newton worked much better for me when taking notes without looking at the screen.
But my overall favorite PDA of the era wasn't either of those. It was the Sharp Zaurus. More powerful and smaller that the Newton, an excellent slide-out physical keyboard, nicer screen, and faster.
It had also been on the market for longer than Palm or Newton, so it was more mature and polished.
Radio has never been a great way to discover music. It's just that until relatively recently, there hasn't really been any better alternative. Once radio programming started to get centralized, it became even worse.
At least in the old days there was some sort of connection to the local community. Most radio doesn't even have that much going for it anymore.
I don't care about a more expensive and inconvenient thing if I have to do it every three years or so.
That's fair. I do care about it if it's unnecessary, no matter how rare it is.
The purpose of the external battery is to plug in and continue operation, not to sit there and charge the battery.
Personally, I think that's even worse. It is effectively tripling the size of the phone, and adding a cable on top of it. Just changing the battery seems so much easier to me.
Maybe don't wear a trenchcoat?
Except most people buy online to AVOID the "retail experience".
Yes, this is me. The thing that makes online shopping very appealing to me is specifically that I don't have to deal with salespeople. It wasn't always this way, but 99% of the time I encounter them these days, they're a useless waste of my time and they're doing their best to get me to buy stuff that I clearly am not interested in and have no need for.
It's no secret. You get a phone that you can unlock the bootloader on and install your own OS with strong security measures.
Yes, the binary blobs are still a security hole, but it's the same security hole you have with feature phones, so if that's more risk than you're willing to tolerate then you shouldn't carry any cell phone at all.
Uber thinks everyone who isn't Uber is an idiot.
But the CEO is not the "very top". The board is.
If an app is asking for permissions that it clearly doesn't need to accomplish its stated purpose, I just assume that it's a trojan or spyware and don't install it.
I assume that by "developer", he meant "software company" rather than the people actually writing the code, specifically.
That's exactly why I use a firewall and prevent all apps from communicating by default.
The problem with the existing permissions functionality is that they are still too course-grained, and they cannot be easily applied on a per-use basis.
This doesn't actually bother me much. If an app refuses to work under the restrictions I want, then I just don't use it. It gave me fair warning, after all, and I have yet to find an app that is actually indispensible. The worse situation is if they circumvent the permissions behind the scenes.
In the day, I was developing software for both the Palm and the Newton. I still have boxes stuffed with both!
The Palm was more useful and practical day-to-day, so I always carried one. The Newton, though, was far, far more capable. I took it on trips instead of a laptop.
The Newton was also an absolute joy to develop for. I really liked both of those devices a lot, but for different reasons.
The only people who will benefit from the wall will be the ones who are paid to build and operate the wall.
I rather suspect that if the train is running in a low-pressure, sealed tunnel, then the noise is a much more manageable problem.
Kasperky almost certainly would have won. The reason that they took the money instead of fighting was probably because they would have spent a lot of time and treasure on the path to their victory.
Except nobody's ass got whooped. The troll had to pay an amount that is essentially chump change. They certainly didn't get hurt.
Taking the case to court -- that would have resulted in an ass-whooping.
I disagree. Not only is this not game-changing, this is actively maintaining the status quo.
Software patents should be disallowed because they fall into two categories that were never intended to be patentable: math and algorithms.
Allowing software patents is bad socially because they have the opposite effect of what patents are supposed to do. Patents are supposed to benefit society as a whole by giving an incentive for inventors to publicly reveal their inventions so others can build on them.
Software patents don't do this.
The appropriate IP protection for software is copyright.
Personally, I think that 100% of software patents should be invalid, both for technical and legal reasons and because software patents cause a huge amount of harm to society.