Pigeonhole principle. The very definition of the codec shows that it's not as good. Close, sure. 99.9 percent, sure.
But transparent? Sure, like an inch-thick piece of Plexiglas. You can see through it alright, but pass a laser through and you can easily detect the artifacts.
Good points. I guess the preference for CD's over MP3's is manifold:
It's physical. You have a piece of matter proving (more or less) that you support that group and paid money for it.
It's readable, now and in the future. There's not a hidden bug or worm in a CD that will render it unplayable when the band gets tired of it, or worse, when your subscription runs out.
It's untrackable. Once you buy it, they don't know what you're doing with it, barring some of the dimmer implementations of CDDB and Enhanced CD's. You could be copying it, listening to it, or scraping bong resin with shards of it. But it doesn't (shouldn't) matter, because you bought it.
Amazing how different posters can have different opinions, eh? Wow. Next thing you're going to tell me is that you're shocked that some/. users have Windows installed and like it. *rolls eyes*
And I didn't say anything regarding the quality of your phones. I hate listening to music on headphones, and think it sounds like ass; that was my point, good sir. I'm sure they're top-notch cans.
Yeah, and digital files can be destroyed with less than that.
And I can make backup copies of an MP3.
I can back up my CD's. So why should I pay the same amount and NOT get a CD?
because I don't want to lug CDs back and forth.
Well, I sure as HELL do. I'm not making six figures yet, so I can easily manage my 400 cd collection in a couple of binders. If I'm paying close to twenty dollars for = 74 minutes of music, damn fucking right I want something tangible! I want the cover art. I want the disc. I want the UPC. I wish artists would pay attention to the packaging, like they so carefully did back in the age of the 70's psychedelic jackets and lyric sheets. Now all they have is a picture of a butchered pig or a cleavage shot, depending on the artists' gender, and three pages of copyright and sample right information in 5-point Arial.
Other than that, your list vis a vis DRM-crippled digital audio files is spot on. I like it.
How do you know you like those songs, though? Sure, you've heard three songs per album on the radio; are you dumb enough to pay $1 each for something you can record off the radio?
Darwinism is right, but in a different sense. People will cease to put the weird tracks on their albums. Tool's _Sober_ sounded NOTHING like the rest of the album. I liked the rest of it much better than that.
If I had an option to buy just that song 7 years ago, I may have well done so, and missed the eye-opening experience that was the rest of the album. You're setting yourself on a quick trip to musical narrow-mindedness if you only listen to things that you know you already like.
I honestly can't tell the difference between a 192kbps file and a CD track of the same song (and I have a very nice pair of $150 headphones).
That's your problem. Get a good receiver, no, your 79 dollar Aiwa system with blinky lights galore doesn't count, and some respectable speakers. You can definitely tell the mp3 artifacts, especially in lower-midrange and extreme high end.
Offering an mp3 of a track is like selling photographs of a Picasso. Yes, technically it looks nearly identical, but once you get closer, you notice that it just doesn't have the appeal that the original does.
and *this* is the fucking problem with modern music.
Nobody takes the time to write an *album*.
Process is as such (pseudo-code)
eval gimmick
case "cover song"
add "metal guitars"
case "offensive lyrics"
add "whine"
case "no talent"
add "cleavage"
case "spoiled teen angst"
add "heartfelt lyrics"
case "big tits"
do nothing
Repeat between one and three times. Add ten tracks out of the void filler_song() function, run one iteration through the slick_video library, and compile with the -D_HAVE_HUGE_MARKETING_BUDGET options. You're done!
Seriously, though. I wish some artists would take the time and write one good album every three years a la Tool or others, instead of one shit album every nine months.
I disagree. That would mean that I could make a two minute mp3 of Richard Stallman taking a shit, and since it's 'crappy' (pardon the pun), I'm not risking any art. But, of course, tons of geeks will 'support' the concept by paying a dollar for this mp3. Proving my assumption that you can make a silk purse of a sow's ear.
1: People want to hear mainstream music. 2: People will prefer mp3 format over CD. 3: People are paying money for the "art" on a CD, and thus they're willing to pay for the 'song' in any format.
What their assumptions should be:
1: People think mainstream is pretty much shit. 2: People will pay money for GOOD music. 3: People will rather have a lossless copy of a song on a tangible media format than a file that can be deleted with one bad keystroke.
The problem isn't mp3's. It's horrible bottom-feeding mainstream music that they use as their benchmark for performance and profit.
Remember "Wild Night" by John Mellencamp? She was a guest singer/performer on that. And yes, that is her claim to fame, as far as I can tell. Well, that, and being a scary-looking bald lesbian.
Geek: I'll just pay a dollar for this song and never listen to it. That will support the concept!
Marketroid: Look at how many people paid a dollar for this shit track! Let's put more drivel on there! We'll make a killing! And we profit even more from this than we do on CD's!
I can promise you that the 9600 with a G3 card thrown in there is not as fast as a native G3 machine. Besides, you get a bunch of modern-day features that just weren't there on the 9600. I love the 96's, and think that they were some seriously hoss machines, but don't think that you can win one over by doing this.
Now they're going to breed billions and billions of mosquitoes to add to the planet. Wonderful.
Ya know, if they had actually added some desirable genetic (to other mosquitoes) mutations, it would work. Like giant mosquito dicks or fat mosquito wallets, or something like that.
Sure, but the differences in power consumption between the thriftiest and most greedy electricity customer isn't two orders of magnitude, like it is with Internet access.
Well, its got weirdo wiring. Trust me. You can get the converter boards for a FEW LCD's, but at $199-399 each, it removes any monetary advantage to using these.
Trust me, i wish it could be done, too. Pick up an old Thinkpad chassis for 30 bucks off eBay, a bit of soldering, and you'd have a monitor. In a perfect world.
That is an interesting point, to be sure. However, I think that it's geared more towards the home networkers as well as the sysadmins who have a fair extent of control over their systems. I'd love to do daily backups and whatnot, but for a medium-sized business, it would consist of backing up a bunch of Windows boxes that have 99 percent identical installs, with the main differences being in the bookmarks.htm file and the desktop shortcuts. If you're running development boxes or whatever, this may be a much more attractive option, though.
Generally in business, they get the bandwidth to support the usage habits, not develop usage habits to fill the bandwidth. Unless you're in the business of seeing what's on P2P networks (I'd take that for minimum wage.;))
Don't give me that "real computer" shit. I'm sitting in front of a fucking "real" computer, typing this post. That's a "real" computer. Just because an 8086 can't handle 100baseT doesn't make it any less 'real'.
The parent post was comparing the relative performance to this new SHORT RANGE wireless network. How many $25K workstations are going to have this wireless protocol standard out of the factory? NONE. OF COURSE GigE is going to do well in high-end 64-bit machines.
It's best to compare apples to apples here - the wireless protocol in its intended territory (the home and small-to-medium office) to gigabit in the same territory. At best, you're going to drop 600 dollars for an overpriced switch and pull out your fucking hair trying to get the CAT5 run right, for a resource that you'll take advantage of, oh, maybe once a week, tops.
1000baseT is a pain in the ass. I've never seen a card do more than 400mbps. And you're comparing a WIRELESS PROTOCOL to a WIRED one. You can't really do that fairly. Try to run Gig-E into your living room without having a cord to trip on.
Interesting. But do you think that perhaps instead of taking the extra hour to add in the code necessary to actually watch for and parse the packets, the designers just said,
"OK, look. If there are any voltage changes on the line, there's a 90 percent chance it's LAN activity. We'll have it wake up then. Hey, it's Wake On Lan, innit?"
It's kind of interesting how somebody who professes to support a cable modem network had to have an Ask Slashdot to realize that a traffic monitor and/or iptables (or another firewall) program could solve his problems in a matter of minutes.
I was going into this story to post this exact comment.:)
You're not going to get any GPL geek points by running Windows in an emulator versus running it in a native partition.
You're still using a Microsoft product, and giving them one more customer, even though you've got the warm fuzzy feeling that "Oh, it's not a REAL Windows installation - it's just emulated". You're no less guilty than any other user of "supporting" Microsoft - in fact, you're actually saying that Windows is SO IMPORTANT to you that you're willing to jump through hoops to use it, even to the extent of emulation to run it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mariah Carey's _Glitter_.
Was it mainstream? (y/n)
Was it popular? (y/n)
Not popular. But it was mainstream as shit.
And Britney's albums go platinum for two reasons: The left breast and the right one.
Pigeonhole principle. The very definition of the codec shows that it's not as good. Close, sure. 99.9 percent, sure.
But transparent? Sure, like an inch-thick piece of Plexiglas. You can see through it alright, but pass a laser through and you can easily detect the artifacts.
Good points. I guess the preference for CD's over MP3's is manifold:
It's physical. You have a piece of matter proving (more or less) that you support that group and paid money for it.
It's readable, now and in the future. There's not a hidden bug or worm in a CD that will render it unplayable when the band gets tired of it, or worse, when your subscription runs out.
It's untrackable. Once you buy it, they don't know what you're doing with it, barring some of the dimmer implementations of CDDB and Enhanced CD's. You could be copying it, listening to it, or scraping bong resin with shards of it. But it doesn't (shouldn't) matter, because you bought it.
I apologize. It was you in the collective tense, not you personally. I'm sure you're an alright chap. :)
Amazing how different posters can have different opinions, eh? Wow. Next thing you're going to tell me is that you're shocked that some /. users have Windows installed and like it. *rolls eyes*
And I didn't say anything regarding the quality of your phones. I hate listening to music on headphones, and think it sounds like ass; that was my point, good sir. I'm sure they're top-notch cans.
A CD can be destroyed with one bad scratch.
Yeah, and digital files can be destroyed with less than that.
And I can make backup copies of an MP3.
I can back up my CD's. So why should I pay the same amount and NOT get a CD?
because I don't want to lug CDs back and forth.
Well, I sure as HELL do. I'm not making six figures yet, so I can easily manage my 400 cd collection in a couple of binders. If I'm paying close to twenty dollars for = 74 minutes of music, damn fucking right I want something tangible! I want the cover art. I want the disc. I want the UPC. I wish artists would pay attention to the packaging, like they so carefully did back in the age of the 70's psychedelic jackets and lyric sheets. Now all they have is a picture of a butchered pig or a cleavage shot, depending on the artists' gender, and three pages of copyright and sample right information in 5-point Arial.
Other than that, your list vis a vis DRM-crippled digital audio files is spot on. I like it.
How do you know you like those songs, though? Sure, you've heard three songs per album on the radio; are you dumb enough to pay $1 each for something you can record off the radio?
Darwinism is right, but in a different sense. People will cease to put the weird tracks on their albums. Tool's _Sober_ sounded NOTHING like the rest of the album. I liked the rest of it much better than that.
If I had an option to buy just that song 7 years ago, I may have well done so, and missed the eye-opening experience that was the rest of the album. You're setting yourself on a quick trip to musical narrow-mindedness if you only listen to things that you know you already like.
I honestly can't tell the difference between a 192kbps file and a CD track of the same song (and I have a very nice pair of $150 headphones).
That's your problem. Get a good receiver, no, your 79 dollar Aiwa system with blinky lights galore doesn't count, and some respectable speakers. You can definitely tell the mp3 artifacts, especially in lower-midrange and extreme high end.
Offering an mp3 of a track is like selling photographs of a Picasso. Yes, technically it looks nearly identical, but once you get closer, you notice that it just doesn't have the appeal that the original does.
and *this* is the fucking problem with modern music.
Nobody takes the time to write an *album*.
Process is as such (pseudo-code)
eval gimmick
case "cover song"
add "metal guitars"
case "offensive lyrics"
add "whine"
case "no talent"
add "cleavage"
case "spoiled teen angst"
add "heartfelt lyrics"
case "big tits"
do nothing
Repeat between one and three times. Add ten tracks out of the void filler_song() function, run one iteration through the slick_video library, and compile with the -D_HAVE_HUGE_MARKETING_BUDGET options. You're done!
Seriously, though. I wish some artists would take the time and write one good album every three years a la Tool or others, instead of one shit album every nine months.
I disagree. That would mean that I could make a two minute mp3 of Richard Stallman taking a shit, and since it's 'crappy' (pardon the pun), I'm not risking any art. But, of course, tons of geeks will 'support' the concept by paying a dollar for this mp3. Proving my assumption that you can make a silk purse of a sow's ear.
Record companies are assuming two things:
1: People want to hear mainstream music.
2: People will prefer mp3 format over CD.
3: People are paying money for the "art" on a CD, and thus they're willing to pay for the 'song' in any format.
What their assumptions should be:
1: People think mainstream is pretty much shit.
2: People will pay money for GOOD music.
3: People will rather have a lossless copy of a song on a tangible media format than a file that can be deleted with one bad keystroke.
The problem isn't mp3's. It's horrible bottom-feeding mainstream music that they use as their benchmark for performance and profit.
Remember "Wild Night" by John Mellencamp? She was a guest singer/performer on that. And yes, that is her claim to fame, as far as I can tell. Well, that, and being a scary-looking bald lesbian.
Geek: I'll just pay a dollar for this song and never listen to it. That will support the concept!
Marketroid: Look at how many people paid a dollar for this shit track! Let's put more drivel on there! We'll make a killing! And we profit even more from this than we do on CD's!
Bout 98 cents too high for one of her tracks, no?
I can promise you that the 9600 with a G3 card thrown in there is not as fast as a native G3 machine. Besides, you get a bunch of modern-day features that just weren't there on the 9600. I love the 96's, and think that they were some seriously hoss machines, but don't think that you can win one over by doing this.
Because a good portion of telco wiring installations suck a fat one.
Lucky to get 10mbits over one, let alone 100.
Now they're going to breed billions and billions of mosquitoes to add to the planet. Wonderful.
Ya know, if they had actually added some desirable genetic (to other mosquitoes) mutations, it would work. Like giant mosquito dicks or fat mosquito wallets, or something like that.
Sure, but the differences in power consumption between the thriftiest and most greedy electricity customer isn't two orders of magnitude, like it is with Internet access.
Well, its got weirdo wiring. Trust me. You can get the converter boards for a FEW LCD's, but at $199-399 each, it removes any monetary advantage to using these.
Trust me, i wish it could be done, too. Pick up an old Thinkpad chassis for 30 bucks off eBay, a bit of soldering, and you'd have a monitor. In a perfect world.
That is an interesting point, to be sure. However, I think that it's geared more towards the home networkers as well as the sysadmins who have a fair extent of control over their systems. I'd love to do daily backups and whatnot, but for a medium-sized business, it would consist of backing up a bunch of Windows boxes that have 99 percent identical installs, with the main differences being in the bookmarks.htm file and the desktop shortcuts. If you're running development boxes or whatever, this may be a much more attractive option, though.
;))
Generally in business, they get the bandwidth to support the usage habits, not develop usage habits to fill the bandwidth. Unless you're in the business of seeing what's on P2P networks (I'd take that for minimum wage.
Don't give me that "real computer" shit. I'm sitting in front of a fucking "real" computer, typing this post. That's a "real" computer. Just because an 8086 can't handle 100baseT doesn't make it any less 'real'.
The parent post was comparing the relative performance to this new SHORT RANGE wireless network. How many $25K workstations are going to have this wireless protocol standard out of the factory? NONE. OF COURSE GigE is going to do well in high-end 64-bit machines.
It's best to compare apples to apples here - the wireless protocol in its intended territory (the home and small-to-medium office) to gigabit in the same territory. At best, you're going to drop 600 dollars for an overpriced switch and pull out your fucking hair trying to get the CAT5 run right, for a resource that you'll take advantage of, oh, maybe once a week, tops.
1000baseT is a pain in the ass. I've never seen a card do more than 400mbps. And you're comparing a WIRELESS PROTOCOL to a WIRED one. You can't really do that fairly. Try to run Gig-E into your living room without having a cord to trip on.
Interesting. But do you think that perhaps instead of taking the extra hour to add in the code necessary to actually watch for and parse the packets, the designers just said,
"OK, look. If there are any voltage changes on the line, there's a 90 percent chance it's LAN activity. We'll have it wake up then. Hey, it's Wake On Lan, innit?"
It's kind of interesting how somebody who professes to support a cable modem network had to have an Ask Slashdot to realize that a traffic monitor and/or iptables (or another firewall) program could solve his problems in a matter of minutes.
You *do* have a firewall, right, Network Admin?
I was going into this story to post this exact comment. :)
You're not going to get any GPL geek points by running Windows in an emulator versus running it in a native partition.
You're still using a Microsoft product, and giving them one more customer, even though you've got the warm fuzzy feeling that "Oh, it's not a REAL Windows installation - it's just emulated". You're no less guilty than any other user of "supporting" Microsoft - in fact, you're actually saying that Windows is SO IMPORTANT to you that you're willing to jump through hoops to use it, even to the extent of emulation to run it.