Let's see, the modern connected household needs to cough up:
$30 a month for phone $30+ a month for cable or dish $30+ a month for a cellphone and $30 a month for DSL or cable internet... expensive hobby, this "connected" stuff.
I have hi-speed access at work, so I can do any big downloads there, and the 56k at home is just fine for email, browsing or modest downloads of under 5 MB.
The price needs to drop before high-bandwidth is a no-brainer for the average person.
I appreciate your taking a stand, particularly a controversial one, which has helped bring more attention to the issue of music distribution.
My question is about the relationship of the "superstar" or the "big hit", to the whole music industry. The RIAA seem to claim that it's the big stars and/or mega-hits which "subsidize" the cost of discovering, producing and distributing less popular artists. (I am more convinced that the RIAA aims to make the most cash from the least possible number of acts, hence the creation of pop superstars)
You've been on both sides I believe - you've been a good artist with a big single ("seventeen")... and now you're... a good artist... without a current hit. Can you envision a feasible music industry without Britneys and N'Syncs? Would the music industry still be viable with alot more "small" acts and the Celine's only selling 30 to 50% of the CDs they currently may sell?
(Unlike the RIAA, I believe the music industry is broader than just the retailing of polycarbonate discs, but a viable alternative hasn't been totally explored yet)
... think they're better drivers, and more knowledgeable about cars, too.
I'm not quite in that tax bracket (yet), so I drive a new Civic, and I use a new PC. Both do the job effectively at about half the price of their esoteric counterparts.
The capacitors in disposable cameras are great for use in tube audio circuits, which have DC voltages in excess of 100v. The capacitors usually sell for $1, $2 or more through parts outlets otherwise. A basic circuit can have several capacitors, so the savings are substantial.
It's very easy to modify the flash unit to be triggered by anything, for instance a motion detector or alarm switch, so you can add a pseudo-camera to an alarm system, for added scare-off factor.
You can create flash panels or bars that will slave off your camera's own flash.
Combine with LEGO Mindstorm to create a papparozzibot, for taking remote pix of dangerous celebrities.
This will no doubt come off as cynical, but if I was running M$, I would adopt most of the benefits of open-source - style development while maintaining the ownership/licencing boundaries that keep the revenue flowing.
Consider this scenario: by buying a licence for some MS product... eg IIS you become part of a real user community - something more than just a tech-support level. Your bugs, critiques and suggestions are handled in an open and responsive way (like a member-accessible forum and a feature/suggestion list), rather than either being ignored or handled quietly by some faceless tech-support hack. When a user displays sufficient interest and proficiency, and maybe has the clout of managing many licences at a large installation, they gain access to an inner development circle where they can communicate directly with the MS developers, participate in early beta's and maybe even gain some limited access to source code.
I believe the majority of problems with M$ products stem from not engaging more sincerely with their users, from responding more to internal corporate goals than user requirements, and just plain ole arrogance that they think they know better than their users. This is the mindset that causes them to miss all the security holes and ignore the common-sense provided by real users.
Besides the real improvements in development, if they were to be seen as "embracing" open source at some level they would also gain a lot of PR and take the air out of much of the open-source vs MS arguments.
The best approach may be to have the max G-Force of each rollercoaster measured as part of the inspection process.
Each 'coaster would have to display its G-force rating, together with some guidelines for what means what, so that the consumer can then choose for themselves ("... the 8-G coaster made me puke so I won't ride anything higher than 5-G")
Flash presents unknown security risks. Sometimes Flash and other Macromedia products have been the point of entry of trojans and viruses, as mentioned in this documentation of a very serious bug, Macromedia Flash Activex Buffer overflow [eeye.com].
So, ok, _ONE_ security notice. No known exploits of this hole. Company acknowledgement and fix in less than a day.
What other risks? WHat other holes or past vulnerables? Any known exploits? Name them. I think the case can be made that Macromedia is more diligent with security than many in this business, and more worthy of trust.
Maybe the problem is with using a browser that requires Activex?
Flash on a website advertises Flash. There must always be some notice that says "Download Flash if you don't have it", and a link to Macromedia, so that web site viewers can get the latest version. This forced added content distracts from the intended content.
The Flash plug-in is just about default on most browser installs, so few see that download message. The plug-in's truly free, and not nagware like QuickTime or Real. And most people aren't developers, so not a very targeted campaign, is it? The real ad value is that the plugin works well for the majority of users.
Flash is nearly always used to provide images that are irrelevant to the content. Except for those who care about bright, shiny things more than content, Flash gets in the way. Flash authors are seldom qualified to provide moving picture content, and, even if they were, Flash is a very limited cinematic tool.
Those comments are more often applied to television.
So should Flash have a taste filter to prohibit the creation of tacky content?
Flash is just a tool, not an artistic movement.
Flash often causes long load times. Long load times communicate that the website viewer's time is less important than the website creator's love of movement. Flash often causes Website viewers to wait for "Loading..." messages.
Flash is currently one of the most eficient and reliable formats for delivering dynamic interactive content. It's success comes from the fact that there's not really any other interactive animated format that competes with it yet.
Download time is a contract between author and viewer; if the content is good, they'll accept the delay. With broadband, the majority of Flash pieces download in a few seconds.
For website viewers who do not want to run Flash and other Macromedia software, or cannot, web sites using it are broken.
Sites are broken because the author didn't care enough to put in detection for the plug-in, and didn't include alternate non-Flash content. By the way, the Flash plugin (presence and version) is VERY easy to detect via javascript or other means (unlike Quicktime)
By using Flash, authors of Flash content may cause the URL of their customers to be transmitted to Macromedia. If some disloyal Macromedia employee, or Macromedia itself, thought of some profitable reason to approach those customers directly, Flash content authors could lose business.
Uh huh.... right. Big software company secretly wants to run tiny boutique webshop in converted factory loft making way kewl Flash pieces.
Flash content is proprietary content.
No more or less than ANY content.
It is the money-making scheme of one company. This tends to undermine web standards like HTML. The Internet is a public utility for all of us to use. Proprietary methods go against that spirit.
The Flash movie format SWF is an open format. Write your own authoring tool. Others have.
(HAND UP) Yeah I've become adept at closing the blinds in the afternoon, but my 18th floor view of the Toronto harbour is definitely a perq of the job.
Hands up those who enjoy working in a sea of putty-coloured cubicles in some windowless IT veal pen. Ewwwww.
The real question (which you're avoiding) is whether GPL'd software can be a successful component of a profit-oriented system, and the answer is hell yes. Not only for Red Hat, Mandrake, et al, but for a very large number of companies who use it, and countless programmers like me who use it (together with proprietary stuff) as part of the solutions we deliver.
Everybody's already mentioned the obvious flaws, including spreading content across more pages.
I spend most of my online time either looking at non-commercial web pages, or usenet.
Another problem with page-based: it's page based... and the Internet is sort of moving away from that, and content is delivered in different ways to different devices and purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
The main reason is price.
... expensive hobby, this "connected" stuff.
Let's see, the modern connected household needs to cough up:
$30 a month for phone
$30+ a month for cable or dish
$30+ a month for a cellphone
and $30 a month for DSL or cable internet
I have hi-speed access at work, so I can do any big downloads there, and the 56k at home is just fine for email, browsing or modest downloads of under 5 MB.
The price needs to drop before high-bandwidth is a no-brainer for the average person.
but winmodems that used the CPU were a bloody disaster. I never saw one that worked right.
Please, whoever makes these new things, leave the CPU alone.
Hi Ms Ian,
I appreciate your taking a stand, particularly a controversial one, which has helped bring more attention to the issue of music distribution.
My question is about the relationship of the "superstar" or the "big hit", to the whole music industry. The RIAA seem to claim that it's the big stars and/or mega-hits which "subsidize" the cost of discovering, producing and distributing less popular artists. (I am more convinced that the RIAA aims to make the most cash from the least possible number of acts, hence the creation of pop superstars)
You've been on both sides I believe - you've been a good artist with a big single ("seventeen")... and now you're... a good artist... without a current hit. Can you envision a feasible music industry without Britneys and N'Syncs? Would the music industry still be viable with alot more "small" acts and the Celine's only selling 30 to 50% of the CDs they currently may sell?
(Unlike the RIAA, I believe the music industry is broader than just the retailing of polycarbonate discs, but a viable alternative hasn't been totally explored yet)
Thanks,
... think they're better drivers, and more knowledgeable about cars, too.
I'm not quite in that tax bracket (yet), so I drive a new Civic, and I use a new PC. Both do the job effectively at about half the price of their esoteric counterparts.
The capacitors in disposable cameras are great for use in tube audio circuits, which have DC voltages in excess of 100v. The capacitors usually sell for $1, $2 or more through parts outlets otherwise. A basic circuit can have several capacitors, so the savings are substantial.
It's very easy to modify the flash unit to be triggered by anything, for instance a motion detector or alarm switch, so you can add a pseudo-camera to an alarm system, for added scare-off factor.
You can create flash panels or bars that will slave off your camera's own flash.
Combine with LEGO Mindstorm to create a papparozzibot, for taking remote pix of dangerous celebrities.
This will no doubt come off as cynical, but if I was running M$, I would adopt most of the benefits of open-source - style development while maintaining the ownership/licencing boundaries that keep the revenue flowing.
Consider this scenario: by buying a licence for some MS product... eg IIS you become part of a real user community - something more than just a tech-support level. Your bugs, critiques and suggestions are handled in an open and responsive way (like a member-accessible forum and a feature/suggestion list), rather than either being ignored or handled quietly by some faceless tech-support hack. When a user displays sufficient interest and proficiency, and maybe has the clout of managing many licences at a large installation, they gain access to an inner development circle where they can communicate directly with the MS developers, participate in early beta's and maybe even gain some limited access to source code.
I believe the majority of problems with M$ products stem from not engaging more sincerely with their users, from responding more to internal corporate goals than user requirements, and just plain ole arrogance that they think they know better than their users. This is the mindset that causes them to miss all the security holes and ignore the common-sense provided by real users.
Besides the real improvements in development, if they were to be seen as "embracing" open source at some level they would also gain a lot of PR and take the air out of much of the open-source vs MS arguments.
The best approach may be to have the max G-Force of each rollercoaster measured as part of the inspection process.
... the 8-G coaster made me puke so I won't ride anything higher than 5-G")
Each 'coaster would have to display its G-force rating, together with some guidelines for what means what, so that the consumer can then choose for themselves ("
Can we discuss this?
Reasons not to run Flash:
Flash presents unknown security risks. Sometimes Flash and other Macromedia products have been the point of entry of trojans and viruses, as mentioned in this documentation of a very serious bug, Macromedia Flash Activex Buffer overflow [eeye.com].
So, ok, _ONE_ security notice. No known exploits of this hole. Company acknowledgement and fix in less than a day.
What other risks? WHat other holes or past vulnerables? Any known exploits? Name them. I think the case can be made that Macromedia is more diligent with security than many in this business, and more worthy of trust.
Maybe the problem is with using a browser that requires Activex?
Flash on a website advertises Flash. There must always be some notice that says "Download Flash if you don't have it", and a link to Macromedia, so that web site viewers can get the latest version. This forced added content distracts from the intended content.
The Flash plug-in is just about default on most browser installs, so few see that download message. The plug-in's truly free, and not nagware like QuickTime or Real. And most people aren't developers, so not a very targeted campaign, is it? The real ad value is that the plugin works well for the majority of users.
Flash is nearly always used to provide images that are irrelevant to the content. Except for those who care about bright, shiny things more than content, Flash gets in the way. Flash authors are seldom qualified to provide moving picture content, and, even if they were, Flash is a very limited cinematic tool.
Those comments are more often applied to television.
So should Flash have a taste filter to prohibit the creation of tacky content?
Flash is just a tool, not an artistic movement.
Flash often causes long load times. Long load times communicate that the website viewer's time is less important than the website creator's love of movement. Flash often causes Website viewers to wait for "Loading..." messages.
Flash is currently one of the most eficient and reliable formats for delivering dynamic interactive content. It's success comes from the fact that there's not really any other interactive animated format that competes with it yet.
Download time is a contract between author and viewer; if the content is good, they'll accept the delay. With broadband, the majority of Flash pieces download in a few seconds.
For website viewers who do not want to run Flash and other Macromedia software, or cannot, web sites using it are broken.
Sites are broken because the author didn't care enough to put in detection for the plug-in, and didn't include alternate non-Flash content. By the way, the Flash plugin (presence and version) is VERY easy to detect via javascript or other means (unlike Quicktime)
By using Flash, authors of Flash content may cause the URL of their customers to be transmitted to Macromedia. If some disloyal Macromedia employee, or Macromedia itself, thought of some profitable reason to approach those customers directly, Flash content authors could lose business.
Uh huh.... right. Big software company secretly wants to run tiny boutique webshop in converted factory loft making way kewl Flash pieces.
Flash content is proprietary content.
No more or less than ANY content.
It is the money-making scheme of one company. This tends to undermine web standards like HTML. The Internet is a public utility for all of us to use. Proprietary methods go against that spirit.
The Flash movie format SWF is an open format. Write your own authoring tool. Others have.
>Hands up everyone sitting in a beautiful office
(HAND UP) Yeah I've become adept at closing the blinds in the afternoon, but my 18th floor view of the Toronto harbour is definitely a perq of the job.
Hands up those who enjoy working in a sea of putty-coloured cubicles in some windowless IT veal pen. Ewwwww.
The real question (which you're avoiding) is whether GPL'd software can be a successful component of a profit-oriented system, and the answer is hell yes. Not only for Red Hat, Mandrake, et al, but for a very large number of companies who use it, and countless programmers like me who use it (together with proprietary stuff) as part of the solutions we deliver.
... no
Everybody's already mentioned the obvious flaws, including spreading content across more pages.
I spend most of my online time either looking at non-commercial web pages, or usenet.
Another problem with page-based: it's page based... and the Internet is sort of moving away from that, and content is delivered in different ways to different devices and purposes.