Since the gist of this post seem to be that the RIAA allready feels it has the right to hack at peoples box's, might this be a sign that they are allready useing spyware to collect information about the number of MP3's out there?
Once they have a large enough set of data on hand to prove that we all just a bunch of dirty music pirates that don't even deserve the music they force upon us via control of the media and record labels, they will be able to mount a campaign that will make it acceptable for them to wipe our hard drives.
One of the Net's great strengths lies in its ability to be diverse.
America's mainstream media (Or any other countries for that matter.) is controlled by corporations who's interests do not always lie in reporting the full truth of issues. I won't say that what those who you read/hear/see are lying to you, but were to come across and editors desk that would compromise the natural money/power flow, it will not be aired/printed. Worse yet, sometimes stories that are the exact opposite of what is really happening are aired/printed instead of the reality.
Before anyone gets all excited and starts yelling, "That's censorship!" Take a deep breath and relax. Censorship is the act of the government (or some other power) that if that theoretical story crosses the desk of an editor, and he *wanted* to air/print it, would not be able to. It's a relatively simple distinction, yet many seem to want to use the C word when "the media" decides to alter it's format. (See Bill Mather.)
The key issue is to have enough outlets of media such that if a story comes across one editors desk, who determines that it would be harmful to the corporation that sponsors him and thus circular files it. That there is another editor out there that does not have the same corporate backing and can print that story based on it's newsworthiness.
In what as known as the "mainstream media", this is often not true. Witness how many of the print and even internet sites kowtow to Microsoft and other corporate sponsors. To take this to the extreme, witness the glowing reviews given by many so called "experts" on Windows ME, when in reality that OS blew more chunks than a frat boy on a Friday night.
Each media has it's nitch in life. I enjoy watching TV's reports of sporting events, listening to radio's shock jocks, and reading in all it's forms: newspapers, magazines, and the Inet. However, the amount of creditability I give them is based on a great deal of factors and more often than not, I reserve my final opinion until I see another viewpoint that counters the original one to get a full sense of what really happened.
There are those that are happy watching FOX and or reading the AP Reports and believing every word of what they see/hear. They just better be careful when they step into my world, for "It's true because Dan Rather said so," just don't cut it in my book.
I agree with your all but one of your points 100%.
The only thing I have an issue with is your comment about AOL. AOL uses the same TCP/IP stack that is provided with Windows. What it does do, is require you to use their own poprietary Dial-Up Adaptor.
I once knew a girl in collage who often repeated a saying that still makes me shudder when I think of the ramifications it entails. "You have to be in the system to change it."
In our current republic, the vast majority of those in politics are professional politicians. Thus, the majority of our elected representatives have learned at an early age the act of double speak.
We elect our officials to represent our views, and on a local level I believe this can work. However, on a national level it is hard for a single representative to hold true to a belief when the latest polls are showing that the majority of Americans favor x over y.
This is not just due to the fear of "looking soft" on the topic de-jur, but moreover the fact that taking a stand on an unpopular pulpit could lead to being voted out of office.
As with most things in life, it is politically safer to go along with the crowd, than to make stand-alone.
While astute computer users know that raw MHz does not automatically translate to application/game speed, not so in the case of the typical user.
When AMD broke ahead of Intel in the MHz race, their marketing department was quick capitalize on this with a media blitz that even included some TV commercials.
However, now that Intel once again taken the lead in the MHz race, astutely AMD has once again retreated its marketing tactics to the knowledgeable and computer savvy.
Every unbiased hardware review page has said pretty much the same thing, clock cycle for clock cycle the AMD is still faster. However, the average computer buyer is still tied down to the more is better idea.
And honestly, that is something that is hard to refute. More RAM is better, bigger HDs are better, bigger monitors/screens are better, faster modems are better...why don't CPU's follow the same rule?
The answer is a pretty complicated one and to explain that would require some basic knowledge that you just can't squeeze into a 30 second commercial. AMD has made noise about a marketing campaign that will educate the public, however so far it has been just that, noise.
Last time I checked I still was having to pay my ISP. And the ISP I work for was having to pay another provider for access to their backbone. And that provider had some complicated deal worked out with other major providers that allowed them so share data on their networks, ensuring that they would get paid.
And now some suits are crying because the net is not making them any money? They want to change the way the net works to better allow for big businesses to provide me with data?
People tend to forget that the entity that is the net is ultimately paid for by the consumer of the net. The government and educational institutions might have foot the bill in the early days but it's been a while since that has been the case. Right now we the internet consumer pay for it's upkeep.
However, if you invest a truckload of money putting something on the inet, and then lose it due to poor management, flawed business model, script kiddies, etc, you have just experienced nothing more than anyone who has ever opened up a business before. It might fail.
I'm afraid I've got a newsflash for everyone: Life isn't fair.
As an avid online game player I understand the frustration that can be caused by a cheater. After a humiliating defeat there are the lingering doubts, was your opponent was simply more skillful than you or cheating their asses off.
However, this article almost seems as if they think a solution to cheating must be found or online gaming will suffer drastically. Since online gaming has done nothing but grow and grow I seriously doubt it.
While cheating is an annoying side affect of online gaming, it's part of life in general. People have a natural tendency to not want to work hard to achieve top results. (Look at Microsoft, why build a better product when FUD is so much cheaper?)
It would only be natural for Microsoft to be yanking AOL's chain right about now. They have just spent I believe $20 million in a campaign to steal AOL's customers. Why should they put AOL on their desktop?
And as someone who has done support for ISP customers, I've personally experienced the pain of trying to remove both AOL and MSN from a users system. And the sad truth is that removing AOL is like cutting butter with a warm knife compared to removing MSN.
Once you have MSN on your system it floods your registry with all sorts of keys and don't even get me started on the DLL's it installs. Personally, as much as I don't care for AOL, I hope they are able to keep themselves bundled with Windows and keep MSN a minor player in the ISP field.
During many product upgrades there are obvious benefits for the end user. More features, faster execution, and (hopefully) less bugs. The user is then allowed to choose weather to stay with an older revision of software or pay for the upgrade. Granted, it is within the software manufactures pervue to decide when support for a particular product, but most companies are limited as to how quickly they can end that support based on number of clients still using older software.
Microsoft's tactic is quite different. As a monopolistic company that can force consumers and businesses alike to upgrade they need not worry about providing any true innovation in their products. Other than expanding their bloatware, thus aiding their partners in selling newer computers, and creating new and more revenue intensive licensing agreements Microsoft has not really innovated much lately. (.NET not withstanding.)
Having used Word and Excel since they were released for 3.1, I can say with some authority that since Office 97 there has been precious little reasons to upgrade. Everything you really needed to work with was there and worked relatively well. Office 2000 added a few more components and clipart, but really, is that innovation?
Office XP, from what I have seen/read, has a few new features but really nothing that wonderful. The workhorses of Office, Word, Excel, and Access, have already been polished to a high glow. All that Microsoft is doing now is rubbing down to the primer to show it's true color. A new license that extorts money from users on a regular basis regardless of any new upgrades to their product.
The computer world has moved into a new phase. Except for hardcore gamers who constantly require more power for games, today's average $1000-$2000 PC has more than enough power to run everything a user might need. That reality, along with Linux and all that it represents, has Microsoft quite scared. Their revenue model is in for some serious trouble and they are hoping that their new line of XP software, and it's new "innovative" form of licensing will save the day. I truly hope and believe that they will be proven wrong.
Back when I was a kid, not all that long ago (the 70's), there was an disturbing game that was sweeping the nation. Many young children, myself included, were participating in this particular form of "mind altering" recreation and the "moral majority" was quick to point out it's evils.
The game: Dungeons & Dragons.
For those of you who don't know or remember what D&D was, it was a role playing game that allowed players to assume the role of an imaginary alter-ego. This alter-ego would then have adventures which consisted of, but not limited to, fighting monsters, going on quests, and of course, slaying dragons. To play D&D one needed only a few friends, a handful of dice, and some books that provided a rough outline of how to play the game. It was free form, open ended game that required the player to use quite a bit of imagination, not to mention a good deal of intelligence, and it was quite successful.
D&D was popular throughout the 70's and on into the 80's. It is not uncommon to find people still playing D&D but it has long since faded into the background against such other games as Pokiemon and Might and Magic.
During it's heyday critics of D&D cited quite a few evils that playing D&D caused. Just to name a few: it encouraged violence, it was blasphemous, it was degrading to women (much of the artwork done showed topless women), it was too time consuming, and it encouraged gambling.
I was too young to remember if any particular bills were sponsored relating to D&D, but I do remember the media's portrayal of D&D players as bloodthirsty teens. If a person was ever involved in an incident that made the news and the media was able to find out that they played D&D, it was sure to report that in true sensationalistic fashion.
I'm sure as we progress throughout the ages there will be new "evils" that the "moral majority" will attempt to pin society's shortcomings upon. Prior to D&D I believe many thought that Rock and Roll music was quite evil. Before that I'm not sure, but you can be sure that there was something, SOMETHING, that was causing all that violence.
Because man is certainly not violent in nature. Certainly.
Don't forget about Intel's marketing power as well. They will continue to play on the publics perception of "more is better" with the release of higher clock rates with a chip that cycle for cycle can't compete with AMD.
I feel sorry for the Intel engineers who are obviously being told to cater to the publics perception rather than build a better product. Just another example of what happens when big business doesn't listen to people who actually build the product.
It's almost akin to the 70s-80s car market situation. Detroit was king and nobody was going to tell them how to build a car. They kept cranking out big iron while their market shares fell with the idea that, we know what the American public wants. Sadly for Detroit they learned that the American consumer (and pretty much all others as well) will buy what works best for them and not what big business dictates
And TV isn't free to begin with. We all pay for cable. It is amazing how many of us forget that.
It's easy to think that in this day and age but the simple truth is that while cable TV (And it's kissing cousin satellite TV.) require you to pay, TV still is a broadcast medium.
Check your local TV Guide and you'll find local ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, UPN, WB, etc. affiliates that could be picked up with nothing more than a pair of rabbit ears.
Cable TV is just another way of transmitting a signal. When you pay for cable TV your really paying for the networks that do not want to set up broadcast towers: CNN, ESPN, A&E, DSC, etc. Also notice that these network do air commercials. You have to pay additional money to receive channels that do not support themselves w/o advertising: HBO, ShowTime, Starz.
I agree with you that, "It is this kind of old thinking (referring to the article) that shows how new and primitive the current web is. Not even the smartest guys have figured anything out." However the revenue modal for TV is a very different animal entirely so that last comparison is simply not true.
Does anyone else think that Intel recognizes that they might be finally in real danger of loseing serious ground to AMD?
Like much of Microsofts monolopy power, Intel relys on large manufactors to sell their product in bulk. However unlike the situation with Microsoft, consumers really don't care about the tech end of their computer. Granted, there will always be the rabid "Intel RUlEZ!!#@!" people, but for the majority of consumers it comes down to price and power.
Intel pulled a neat trick putting out their 1.5ghz CPU ahead of AMD, but benchmark after benchmark has shown that unless the SSE2 are used that it's just not as fast as the current Athlons.
I doubt anything as simple as a single failed chip will spell doom for Intel, but I think that they are pulling out all the stops in an effort to salvage a chip that just can't compeat against the current AMD counterpart.
If I remember correctly, radio stations do not even use Nielsen for their ratings. They use Arbatron and even those numbers are circumspect. The method used is similar to a poll rather than an actual sampling of data.
Either way, it seems that yet another industry has decided that rather than adapt to the new media, shut it.
The new restrictions in Windows XP won't prevent other vendors' software applications from recording MP3 music at a higher fidelity...
Yes, the article says that. However in the same sentence there is this:
...but early testers of beta versions of Windows XP already complain that the most popular MP3 recording applications -- which compete with Microsoft's format -- don't seem to function properly, apparently because of changes Microsoft made to how data are written on CD-ROMs under Windows XP.
Here here...I have long since wondered about the decision to land in China. Was it a sound decision, imho not at all. Many would point to to the safety of the crew being paramount but I find this argument incorrect.
Being in the military is not the same as other jobs where you can expound upon safety as the end all be all of concerns. Rather your job is to go into harms way and do the best you can about it.
This whole situation seems very orchestrated to me and even though as a US citizen I know sure and true that 99% of the time our government tells us only what they want us to hear, Chinas track record for honesty leaves a lot to be desired.
Until our crew gets home it will be impossible to say what happened up there and even then the real story would most likely never see any press. Bottom line, we screwed up and China is now milking this for all it's worth.
When Diablo originally came out I spent many an hour hacking and slashing away. It was frustrating at times having to run all over that stupid little town but the overall fun factor was there.
With the introduction of Diablo II, the hack and slash fun I remember in the original was back but it seemed that it was just more of the same. Granted, longer and with more characters and game play options but still I felt as if I could have reinstalled Diablo and gotten the same feeling.
The main and most glaring reason for this was Blizzards decision to leave the screen size at 640x480. While they did introduce some new graphical options with their 3d support,
Blizzard has always been about eye candy and quality game play. While they at least hit for par in the game play area they sliced hard and lost their balls in the rough when it came to the eye candy.
To rant some more, I'm not sure what demographics they were studying when they picked out 640x480 as being the ONLY resolution for one of their hallmark games. The web has been standard at 800x600 (if not already at 1024x768) for a few years now. Some users might still run 640x480, but I doubt that if that was the case that they could even meet the min system requirements for DII let alone run it at enjoyably.
Bottom line, I played DII a bit, but after a while I just felt like I was back in the late 90's and better games were calling. Unless Blizzard fixes that my opinion will remain the same.
p.s. And for you hardcore linux geeks. Get over the fact that some ppl run Winbloz to play games.
It seems to me that Doug, while answering the questions as well as could be expected for a corporate suit, seems to hide behind the "customer".
When was the last time you got a marketing survey from MS? When was the last time that you were asked if you wanted a product cycle every 1-2 years? When was the last time you were asked if you needed 100 more features for MS Office even though it's already got enough to choke a horse? How about them even asking if you wanted a browser with your OS?
I try to participate in surveys as much as I can. It's the only way you can get corporate America to understand what you want, however I've never seen or heard of such from the likes of MS.
Bottom line, MS is a virtual monopoly. They can do what they want with what they produce and if you don't like it, tough. Ask them why they did x instead of y, spin spin spin.
"But if piracy continues to spiral out of control, [copy-protecting CDs] will become more and more attractive an option -- even if it has some negative impact on some listeners." (This comes from the Salon artical.)
I love it when recording execs get on their high horse about piracy. While Joe User still is paying 10-15 bucks a CD but can't play it in their Wall-Mart CD player well that is just too bad. But perish the thought of any of the suits not getting that extra million-dollar bonus each year.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that artists should be compensated for their work, however until they can prove to me beyond a doubt that they going broke because of MP3's they can look forward to users like me cracking each and every protection scheme they can think up.
I remember reading on Toms Hardware that in about a year Intel is going to release a chipset for it's PIV that does not require RAMBUS RAM.
Of course by that time RAMBUS will have become entrenched enough in the marketplace to have a foothold and with Intel backing them that is all you really need.
The solution to this problem, like many, is to not support company's that engage in these types of business practices.
However it seems entrenched in the minds of the masses, and sadly it seems the majority of IT professionals, that if Intel is not Inside, the product must be inferior. While I'm not bashing Intel, they make a good product, they would love to become the only CPU chipmakers for desktop PCs.
Always keep in mind that like anything if you allow big business to narrow your selection to one product it becomes very hard to change that. The only option then is have the gov step in and I hope you all know what kind of mess that can result
That brings up a good point, how much did AOL contest this ruleing? Since they have merged with Time/Warner I'm sure they would love to see our packets sniffed to vaildate their content.
Another point, I'm not sure how much it plays into this, but AOL has said time and time again that they are NOT an ISP. They are an "online service" that provides access to the "internet". Their actual "internet" is allready filtered and so to go another step would not be that big of a deal.
I would expect real ISPs to fight tooth and nail over an issue such as this but AOL...
Slashdot Mirror
Since the gist of this post seem to be that the RIAA allready feels it has the right to hack at peoples box's, might this be a sign that they are allready useing spyware to collect information about the number of MP3's out there?
Once they have a large enough set of data on hand to prove that we all just a bunch of dirty music pirates that don't even deserve the music they force upon us via control of the media and record labels, they will be able to mount a campaign that will make it acceptable for them to wipe our hard drives.
One of the Net's great strengths lies in its ability to be diverse.
America's mainstream media (Or any other countries for that matter.) is controlled by corporations who's interests do not always lie in reporting the full truth of issues. I won't say that what those who you read/hear/see are lying to you, but were to come across and editors desk that would compromise the natural money/power flow, it will not be aired/printed. Worse yet, sometimes stories that are the exact opposite of what is really happening are aired/printed instead of the reality.
Before anyone gets all excited and starts yelling, "That's censorship!" Take a deep breath and relax. Censorship is the act of the government (or some other power) that if that theoretical story crosses the desk of an editor, and he *wanted* to air/print it, would not be able to. It's a relatively simple distinction, yet many seem to want to use the C word when "the media" decides to alter it's format. (See Bill Mather.)
The key issue is to have enough outlets of media such that if a story comes across one editors desk, who determines that it would be harmful to the corporation that sponsors him and thus circular files it. That there is another editor out there that does not have the same corporate backing and can print that story based on it's newsworthiness.
In what as known as the "mainstream media", this is often not true. Witness how many of the print and even internet sites kowtow to Microsoft and other corporate sponsors. To take this to the extreme, witness the glowing reviews given by many so called "experts" on Windows ME, when in reality that OS blew more chunks than a frat boy on a Friday night.
Each media has it's nitch in life. I enjoy watching TV's reports of sporting events, listening to radio's shock jocks, and reading in all it's forms: newspapers, magazines, and the Inet. However, the amount of creditability I give them is based on a great deal of factors and more often than not, I reserve my final opinion until I see another viewpoint that counters the original one to get a full sense of what really happened.
There are those that are happy watching FOX and or reading the AP Reports and believing every word of what they see/hear. They just better be careful when they step into my world, for "It's true because Dan Rather said so," just don't cut it in my book.
I agree with your all but one of your points 100%.
The only thing I have an issue with is your comment about AOL. AOL uses the same TCP/IP stack that is provided with Windows. What it does do, is require you to use their own poprietary Dial-Up Adaptor.
I once knew a girl in collage who often repeated a saying that still makes me shudder when I think of the ramifications it entails. "You have to be in the system to change it."
In our current republic, the vast majority of those in politics are professional politicians. Thus, the majority of our elected representatives have learned at an early age the act of double speak.
We elect our officials to represent our views, and on a local level I believe this can work. However, on a national level it is hard for a single representative to hold true to a belief when the latest polls are showing that the majority of Americans favor x over y.
This is not just due to the fear of "looking soft" on the topic de-jur, but moreover the fact that taking a stand on an unpopular pulpit could lead to being voted out of office.
As with most things in life, it is politically safer to go along with the crowd, than to make stand-alone.
If it's not too advanced, Robocode, by IBM's Alphaworks is a real cool way to get into programming Java.
While the robots can take damage and blow up, idea behind it requires a lot of actual thinking and codeing.
For more info, there is a thread over on K5 about it.
While astute computer users know that raw MHz does not automatically translate to application/game speed, not so in the case of the typical user.
When AMD broke ahead of Intel in the MHz race, their marketing department was quick capitalize on this with a media blitz that even included some TV commercials.
However, now that Intel once again taken the lead in the MHz race, astutely AMD has once again retreated its marketing tactics to the knowledgeable and computer savvy.
Every unbiased hardware review page has said pretty much the same thing, clock cycle for clock cycle the AMD is still faster. However, the average computer buyer is still tied down to the more is better idea.
And honestly, that is something that is hard to refute. More RAM is better, bigger HDs are better, bigger monitors/screens are better, faster modems are better...why don't CPU's follow the same rule?
The answer is a pretty complicated one and to explain that would require some basic knowledge that you just can't squeeze into a 30 second commercial. AMD has made noise about a marketing campaign that will educate the public, however so far it has been just that, noise.
Last time I checked I still was having to pay my ISP. And the ISP I work for was having to pay another provider for access to their backbone. And that provider had some complicated deal worked out with other major providers that allowed them so share data on their networks, ensuring that they would get paid.
And now some suits are crying because the net is not making them any money? They want to change the way the net works to better allow for big businesses to provide me with data?
People tend to forget that the entity that is the net is ultimately paid for by the consumer of the net. The government and educational institutions might have foot the bill in the early days but it's been a while since that has been the case. Right now we the internet consumer pay for it's upkeep.
However, if you invest a truckload of money putting something on the inet, and then lose it due to poor management, flawed business model, script kiddies, etc, you have just experienced nothing more than anyone who has ever opened up a business before. It might fail.
I'm afraid I've got a newsflash for everyone: Life isn't fair.
As an avid online game player I understand the frustration that can be caused by a cheater. After a humiliating defeat there are the lingering doubts, was your opponent was simply more skillful than you or cheating their asses off.
However, this article almost seems as if they think a solution to cheating must be found or online gaming will suffer drastically. Since online gaming has done nothing but grow and grow I seriously doubt it.
While cheating is an annoying side affect of online gaming, it's part of life in general. People have a natural tendency to not want to work hard to achieve top results. (Look at Microsoft, why build a better product when FUD is so much cheaper?)
It would only be natural for Microsoft to be yanking AOL's chain right about now. They have just spent I believe $20 million in a campaign to steal AOL's customers. Why should they put AOL on their desktop?
And as someone who has done support for ISP customers, I've personally experienced the pain of trying to remove both AOL and MSN from a users system. And the sad truth is that removing AOL is like cutting butter with a warm knife compared to removing MSN.
Once you have MSN on your system it floods your registry with all sorts of keys and don't even get me started on the DLL's it installs. Personally, as much as I don't care for AOL, I hope they are able to keep themselves bundled with Windows and keep MSN a minor player in the ISP field.
During many product upgrades there are obvious benefits for the end user. More features, faster execution, and (hopefully) less bugs. The user is then allowed to choose weather to stay with an older revision of software or pay for the upgrade. Granted, it is within the software manufactures pervue to decide when support for a particular product, but most companies are limited as to how quickly they can end that support based on number of clients still using older software.
Microsoft's tactic is quite different. As a monopolistic company that can force consumers and businesses alike to upgrade they need not worry about providing any true innovation in their products. Other than expanding their bloatware, thus aiding their partners in selling newer computers, and creating new and more revenue intensive licensing agreements Microsoft has not really innovated much lately. (.NET not withstanding.)
Having used Word and Excel since they were released for 3.1, I can say with some authority that since Office 97 there has been precious little reasons to upgrade. Everything you really needed to work with was there and worked relatively well. Office 2000 added a few more components and clipart, but really, is that innovation?
Office XP, from what I have seen/read, has a few new features but really nothing that wonderful. The workhorses of Office, Word, Excel, and Access, have already been polished to a high glow. All that Microsoft is doing now is rubbing down to the primer to show it's true color. A new license that extorts money from users on a regular basis regardless of any new upgrades to their product.
The computer world has moved into a new phase. Except for hardcore gamers who constantly require more power for games, today's average $1000-$2000 PC has more than enough power to run everything a user might need. That reality, along with Linux and all that it represents, has Microsoft quite scared. Their revenue model is in for some serious trouble and they are hoping that their new line of XP software, and it's new "innovative" form of licensing will save the day. I truly hope and believe that they will be proven wrong.
Back when I was a kid, not all that long ago (the 70's), there was an disturbing game that was sweeping the nation. Many young children, myself included, were participating in this particular form of "mind altering" recreation and the "moral majority" was quick to point out it's evils.
The game: Dungeons & Dragons.
For those of you who don't know or remember what D&D was, it was a role playing game that allowed players to assume the role of an imaginary alter-ego. This alter-ego would then have adventures which consisted of, but not limited to, fighting monsters, going on quests, and of course, slaying dragons. To play D&D one needed only a few friends, a handful of dice, and some books that provided a rough outline of how to play the game. It was free form, open ended game that required the player to use quite a bit of imagination, not to mention a good deal of intelligence, and it was quite successful.
D&D was popular throughout the 70's and on into the 80's. It is not uncommon to find people still playing D&D but it has long since faded into the background against such other games as Pokiemon and Might and Magic.
During it's heyday critics of D&D cited quite a few evils that playing D&D caused. Just to name a few: it encouraged violence, it was blasphemous, it was degrading to women (much of the artwork done showed topless women), it was too time consuming, and it encouraged gambling.
I was too young to remember if any particular bills were sponsored relating to D&D, but I do remember the media's portrayal of D&D players as bloodthirsty teens. If a person was ever involved in an incident that made the news and the media was able to find out that they played D&D, it was sure to report that in true sensationalistic fashion.
I'm sure as we progress throughout the ages there will be new "evils" that the "moral majority" will attempt to pin society's shortcomings upon. Prior to D&D I believe many thought that Rock and Roll music was quite evil. Before that I'm not sure, but you can be sure that there was something, SOMETHING, that was causing all that violence.
Because man is certainly not violent in nature. Certainly.
Don't forget about Intel's marketing power as well. They will continue to play on the publics perception of "more is better" with the release of higher clock rates with a chip that cycle for cycle can't compete with AMD.
I feel sorry for the Intel engineers who are obviously being told to cater to the publics perception rather than build a better product. Just another example of what happens when big business doesn't listen to people who actually build the product.
It's almost akin to the 70s-80s car market situation. Detroit was king and nobody was going to tell them how to build a car. They kept cranking out big iron while their market shares fell with the idea that, we know what the American public wants. Sadly for Detroit they learned that the American consumer (and pretty much all others as well) will buy what works best for them and not what big business dictates
And TV isn't free to begin with. We all pay for cable. It is amazing how many of us forget that.
It's easy to think that in this day and age but the simple truth is that while cable TV (And it's kissing cousin satellite TV.) require you to pay, TV still is a broadcast medium.
Check your local TV Guide and you'll find local ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, UPN, WB, etc. affiliates that could be picked up with nothing more than a pair of rabbit ears.
Cable TV is just another way of transmitting a signal. When you pay for cable TV your really paying for the networks that do not want to set up broadcast towers: CNN, ESPN, A&E, DSC, etc. Also notice that these network do air commercials. You have to pay additional money to receive channels that do not support themselves w/o advertising: HBO, ShowTime, Starz.
I agree with you that, "It is this kind of old thinking (referring to the article) that shows how new and primitive the current web is. Not even the smartest guys have figured anything out." However the revenue modal for TV is a very different animal entirely so that last comparison is simply not true.
Does anyone else think that Intel recognizes that they might be finally in real danger of loseing serious ground to AMD?
Like much of Microsofts monolopy power, Intel relys on large manufactors to sell their product in bulk. However unlike the situation with Microsoft, consumers really don't care about the tech end of their computer. Granted, there will always be the rabid "Intel RUlEZ!!#@!" people, but for the majority of consumers it comes down to price and power.
Intel pulled a neat trick putting out their 1.5ghz CPU ahead of AMD, but benchmark after benchmark has shown that unless the SSE2 are used that it's just not as fast as the current Athlons.
I doubt anything as simple as a single failed chip will spell doom for Intel, but I think that they are pulling out all the stops in an effort to salvage a chip that just can't compeat against the current AMD counterpart.
Dosen't Microsoft allready do this?
Clean install on a box w/32megs of RAM. Upon boot your swap file is:
Win95a --- No swap file.
Win95b --- 4 meg swap file.
Win95c --- 8 meg swap file.
Win98 ---- 10 meg swap file.
Win98SE -- 16 meg swap file.
WinME ---- 20 meg swap file.
Hmmmmm...
If I remember correctly, radio stations do not even use Nielsen for their ratings. They use Arbatron and even those numbers are circumspect. The method used is similar to a poll rather than an actual sampling of data.
Either way, it seems that yet another industry has decided that rather than adapt to the new media, shut it.
The new restrictions in Windows XP won't prevent other vendors' software applications from recording MP3 music at a higher fidelity...
...but early testers of beta versions of Windows XP already complain that the most popular MP3 recording applications -- which compete with Microsoft's format -- don't seem to function properly, apparently because of changes Microsoft made to how data are written on CD-ROMs under Windows XP.
Yes, the article says that. However in the same sentence there is this:
Learn to read.
> Maybe you missed it, but this is peacetime.
And how many men and women gave their lives during the so called "peacetime" of the cold war?
If you start to think that everything in the world is safe just we have not declared a formal act of war you are sadly mistaken.
Here here...I have long since wondered about the decision to land in China. Was it a sound decision, imho not at all. Many would point to to the safety of the crew being paramount but I find this argument incorrect.
Being in the military is not the same as other jobs where you can expound upon safety as the end all be all of concerns. Rather your job is to go into harms way and do the best you can about it.
This whole situation seems very orchestrated to me and even though as a US citizen I know sure and true that 99% of the time our government tells us only what they want us to hear, Chinas track record for honesty leaves a lot to be desired.
Until our crew gets home it will be impossible to say what happened up there and even then the real story would most likely never see any press. Bottom line, we screwed up and China is now milking this for all it's worth.
When Diablo originally came out I spent many an hour hacking and slashing away. It was frustrating at times having to run all over that stupid little town but the overall fun factor was there.
With the introduction of Diablo II, the hack and slash fun I remember in the original was back but it seemed that it was just more of the same. Granted, longer and with more characters and game play options but still I felt as if I could have reinstalled Diablo and gotten the same feeling.
The main and most glaring reason for this was Blizzards decision to leave the screen size at 640x480. While they did introduce some new graphical options with their 3d support, Blizzard has always been about eye candy and quality game play. While they at least hit for par in the game play area they sliced hard and lost their balls in the rough when it came to the eye candy.
To rant some more, I'm not sure what demographics they were studying when they picked out 640x480 as being the ONLY resolution for one of their hallmark games. The web has been standard at 800x600 (if not already at 1024x768) for a few years now. Some users might still run 640x480, but I doubt that if that was the case that they could even meet the min system requirements for DII let alone run it at enjoyably.
Bottom line, I played DII a bit, but after a while I just felt like I was back in the late 90's and better games were calling. Unless Blizzard fixes that my opinion will remain the same.
p.s. And for you hardcore linux geeks. Get over the fact that some ppl run Winbloz to play games.
It seems to me that Doug, while answering the questions as well as could be expected for a corporate suit, seems to hide behind the "customer".
When was the last time you got a marketing survey from MS? When was the last time that you were asked if you wanted a product cycle every 1-2 years? When was the last time you were asked if you needed 100 more features for MS Office even though it's already got enough to choke a horse? How about them even asking if you wanted a browser with your OS?
I try to participate in surveys as much as I can. It's the only way you can get corporate America to understand what you want, however I've never seen or heard of such from the likes of MS.
Bottom line, MS is a virtual monopoly. They can do what they want with what they produce and if you don't like it, tough. Ask them why they did x instead of y, spin spin spin.
"But if piracy continues to spiral out of control, [copy-protecting CDs] will become more and more attractive an option -- even if it has some negative impact on some listeners." (This comes from the Salon artical.)
I love it when recording execs get on their high horse about piracy. While Joe User still is paying 10-15 bucks a CD but can't play it in their Wall-Mart CD player well that is just too bad. But perish the thought of any of the suits not getting that extra million-dollar bonus each year.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that artists should be compensated for their work, however until they can prove to me beyond a doubt that they going broke because of MP3's they can look forward to users like me cracking each and every protection scheme they can think up.
I remember reading on Toms Hardware that in about a year Intel is going to release a chipset for it's PIV that does not require RAMBUS RAM.
Of course by that time RAMBUS will have become entrenched enough in the marketplace to have a foothold and with Intel backing them that is all you really need.
The solution to this problem, like many, is to not support company's that engage in these types of business practices.
However it seems entrenched in the minds of the masses, and sadly it seems the majority of IT professionals, that if Intel is not Inside, the product must be inferior. While I'm not bashing Intel, they make a good product, they would love to become the only CPU chipmakers for desktop PCs.
Always keep in mind that like anything if you allow big business to narrow your selection to one product it becomes very hard to change that. The only option then is have the gov step in and I hope you all know what kind of mess that can result
all your fortunes are belong to us
That brings up a good point, how much did AOL contest this ruleing? Since they have merged with Time/Warner I'm sure they would love to see our packets sniffed to vaildate their content.
Another point, I'm not sure how much it plays into this, but AOL has said time and time again that they are NOT an ISP. They are an "online service" that provides access to the "internet". Their actual "internet" is allready filtered and so to go another step would not be that big of a deal.
I would expect real ISPs to fight tooth and nail over an issue such as this but AOL...