Hey. I'm going to post the same response I make to all of your completely idiotic pleas for a world based on tips:
You're an idiot.
Expanded:
If you have ever lived as a waiter, delivery boy or member of any other profession where your income was largely based on tips, you'd know that tips are encouragement to suck up to people and treat them nice. This does not necessarily mean doing what you want to do, or acting in such a way that expresses your individuality. In short, tips encourage compliance and supplication.
Music, on the other hand, is best when it is expressive, original and strong willed. Hence jazz, blues, rock and hip-hop. Art is about expression. It cannot exist in the realm of "pay-what-you-like."
You want music to be tip based because you're greedy and don't feel like you should pay what things are worth. You think that by making music payrates scalable, that somebody else will pay off your favorite musicians so you can enjoy them on the cheap.
Musicians with a popular sound are best served by record labels who can spread their music over a large area of listeners for a smaller return. Musicians with a more targetted sound are best served by labels that can allow them to self promote and return a much larger percentage of profits. The only musicians who are best served by a tip based system are street beggars.
I used the Microsoft Desktop voice commander system in college (mostly to bother my roommate...i had no difficulty clicking on things). It had no problem opening Lotus WordPro, Netscape Communicator, Metrowerks CodeWarrior or Harvard Graphics, which were my big use programs at the time.
As I recall, voice recognition still ain't quite 100% yet...
Dude, human voice recognition isn't 100% either. How many times a day do you say "excuse me," or "what?" because your ears missed something, or somebody mubled?
Voice recognition will never be "100%" because speech isn't perfect. At least not until voice recognition software designers realize how flawed speech is, and program software to say "Can you repeat the part about the...stuff?"
Dude -- anybody still using Internet Explorer (a program which NEVER worked all that well, hasn't been updated since 10.1 and which is now officially unsupported by MS) is asking for trouble. Especially when Firebird and Safari are so much better.
Old programs are like old cars...without good support they slowly rust away. Using slow ass IE on a mac is like driving a gremlin when you've got a free maserati and free Yukon just sitting in your driveway...
Agreed. For example: when testing for primeness, you don't have to test any even number. You don't have to test any number ending in 5. You don't have to test any number whose digits add up a number evenly divisible by 3 (meaning number is divisible by three as well). Combine these three rules and you've trivially whittled your number from testing 2^512 keys to testing fewer than a third of them, and you can whittle it much smaller if you're better at math than dasmb.
Unfortunatly, huge classes of suitable elliptic curves got patented.
Unfortunate? For whom? For the people who spent long hours doing the extensive research which led to the development of advanced encyption systems? Or for the people who read the papers and attended the conferences and say "Great idea...think I'll make the same thing for free in the name of Openness!"
Encryption is not like a 1-click pattent or library compression. It's hard, expensive and risky to devote your time to coming up with the next great encryption algorithm. And I am glad that we have agencies like the NSA to help offset this cost. It means there might be jobs somewhere for some of us to sit around and think about stuff rather than have to sell our talents like consultant whores.
Free Software is all well and good, but some things are worth paying for. Right?
Uh huh. And the game box will continue to better-game-crush the PC. Developers LIKE the game box because there are good sales of even the shittiest games while a shitty game on a PC might not recoup enough to pay one or two developers.
But it's easier to make a game for PC. Shit, games for other consoles are WRITTEN on the PC. So the pressure is on to find a way to make PC gaming profitable.
Hence, X-box. And ain't no way MS is giving that up to this idiot and his glow-box.
Yes. And I'm sure that many of the sociopaths who pickpocket and jack people on the street feel that they own what they take, because as far as they're concerned once they have something it's *theirs*.
I know, reactive argument. I apologize. But ownership makes no SENSE in a digital world...how can you OWN something that has no substance? And why would you SELL something that has no value? Restrictions are there so you don't burn the album a thousand times because is is *yours*. Smart labels will always place restrictions, because the dumb ones will quickly go out of business. And don't tell me "it won't happen"...it happens all the time among the smaller hip hop labels. Death by dub.
Oh, and Magnatune is complete shit. They did not have one song I would listen to there, so it's about as much of an option as a wax tube. There's more to life than ambient...there's GOOD music, too.
I'm sorry, I just don't have the stamina to not buy records. I enjoy music too much to blame the record industry for trying to protect their ability to make CDs, no matter how callous their methods may seem.
After all, we don't boycott businesses that prosecute shoplifters. We even respect it...after all, shoplifters drive up the price for everybody else. And since copyright "theft" is really just infringment, which is a civil matter, all the RIAA can possibly do is sue people.
The other option is to ignore copyright violations in file sharing, cd copying, mix making, etc...and that is the same as saying it's okay. If there is any truth at all to the claim that this kind of infringing activity, then even if no real cash comes out of this round of lawsuits, the RIAA has posted a BIG "Shoplifters Will Be Prosecuted" sign on digital audio. Which is good for me, because it's this desire to punish downloaders that led to the AWESOME iTune music store. Which is my new addiction.
Right, but when you buy a CD you have the ability to rip to AAC, WMA, MP3, OGG, FLAC, etc. That's a lot of flexibility for $15. AAC at 128 is good, but you can hear the difference at AAC 192, and I'd rather err on the side of my ears. Plus I can use the tracks I rip in as many of my monthly mix cds as I like. This is assuming that you aren't buying some "copyright protected" pop CD. But of course, if you make that assumption you kind of also assume that more than 2 tracks will be good.
Numbers to prove this last statement (generated by checking the track count of an automatic playlist made by adding anything with a 3 star rating that was purchased in 2003 or 2002): Of the cds I've bought in the past year, 87% of the tracks have been well worth it. Then again, only a few of these albums were really popular...the big three were the last Queens of the Stone Age record (at 100% because i am such a Mark Lanegan fan), Audioslave (which offsets the average with only 6 tracks marked as three star or better) and the new Radiohead (100%).
So anyway, assuming 13 tracks, a CD costs about $1.50 per good track. That is 50% more than the files at 128 kbit AAC...so you make the call, flexibility or value?
Oh, and if you're one of these cats who goes online to find JUST the radio song and never even really listens to the rest of the album...maybe you should step back and ask yourself what you're really looking for out of music. There's more to sound than just pop hooks and clever choruses, you know, and if there weren't we would still be playing Bluegrass.
Young wiseass! One need not spend every waking moment in the wallow to know that it is MUD for PIGS. I say to you, do you need even FIVE MINUTES in a Wal-mart to figure out that their business plan is selling shitty goods for less money to people who don't care about quality?
It is the exact opposite situation with Apple. And if you think a person can't see that by SHOPPING AT THEIR STORE, you are what the Belgians call a "fucking idiot."
I am in one of the neighbourhoods where Apple has one of their stores. Speaking solely from the experience of spending way too much time hanging out at said store and drooling over the keypads, you're dead wrong about it being a first-time buyer's solution. The most common thing overheard when people are using the GUI is "that's so much better than Windows." Not "that's so easily done, this is my only frame of reference."
And you're dead right about the digital hub being part of the allure. They have each type of device you can use for sale on a freaking pedestal. I have definitely seen a lot of Camedias and Palms and iPods sold as accessories alongside PCs. But few of the purchasers are computer virgins.
The book you describe would be very nice for doing crap work...internet, word processing, etc...but would be completely insufficient for what I use my laptop(s) for: managing digital photos, collecting and jukeboxing mp3s, photoshop, and a bit of light programming (shell and java). My g3 600 barely makes it.
A g4 933, WITH a radeon moving complex GUI functions off the main chip and a faster hard disc for the inevitable swapping, would seem infinitely faster than your book.
This is too little, too late for Apple. They're dying, and everyone sees it except the Mac users themselves.
This is a funny statement. I'm not entirely sure why. It's something like a Roman Centurion around 200 AD saying "Christianity is dying. I mean, why shell out for one god when you can have a whole pantheon, and with significantly fewer commandments to follow!"
Uh, i think you're right but your perception of Apple's segment is all wrong. First time users are NOT apple's market anymore. First time users have been buying "whatever's cheapest" for the past few years.
Apple's market is now experienced computer users who find that the Windows world has failed them and the Linux world still takes too much effort. It is people who want to USE computers and are tired of FIXING them. This includes many students and artists and lawyers and writers and scientists whose first priority is not securing and optimizing their computer's environment.
No. But "it is a waste of resources better spent on ideas that already work, and have not been shown to be problematic" is a great reason to abandon a new idea. And it is too rarely used. Instead, people like to present every single foolish idea and strike it out like it was a gold rush.
As much as science and exploration are about trying what's new, they are also about contemplating hypothesis and possibility. Contemplation does not mean glazing over obvious problems. In fact, true contemplation should be as callous and forthright as reality itself, otherwise it's useless. Have we learned nothing from the bust?
I have presented what I feel are several very reasonable blocks to a science channel, as well as the basic fact that I probably wouldn't watch it. The problem of making science complete and yet exciting is one which is paramount to the issue here. It can be overcome, I know, I've seen Cosmos. But I also know that if there was a channel running Cosmos 24 hours a day interspersed with commercials for cooking sprays and deodorant and high milage oil, I wouldn't watch it. I also don't watch G4, Tech TV, MTV or Sci-Fi, channels which seem to pander to my interests and yet remain completely uninteresting to me. That's not cynicism. That's not sarcasm. It's realism...arguments extrapolated from a sarcastic, cynical reality where to most people science is boring and ignorance is bliss.
Because CSPAN, and CSPAN2, are in the regulation law for the cable networks. They HAVE to carry them, and as basic cable ($20/mo), too. That was one of the few restrictions that survived deregulation.
Good thing it's in there, too. Because regardless of whether anybody watches them (and I know I don't...and I AM interested in government and the arts), CSPAN and CSPAN2 do not make any money for the cable companies, and that's bandwidth that could be used for a couple more home shopping networks.
Well, one of the nice things about the magazine this article was in -- Scientific American -- is that it is easy for a layperson to understand what's going on. Even still, it is not a magazine most people would read for fun. Because no matter how much you explain topics like quantum mechanics or general relativity -- which, at their heart, are neither difficult to understand nor math intensive -- they will always SEEM like they are hard to understand, for the very reason that they require so much explanation.
It's not the jargon that does it. It's not the complexity. It's the completeness that is overwhelming. And completeness does not make for good television. It's just hard to keep people interested while at the same time giving them all of the facts, because after a while the brain just shuts down. It's why all the best physics courses I've taken have supplemented a decent professor with a strong textbook...you need to take things at your own pace, something you can do with a book, or a magazine article, or a website, but that you can't do with a cable channel.
And what happens if you come into the show late, just as the Braves game ends, and discover that you can't understand anything about it because you missed the 15 minutes of primer material?
I love Sci-Am. I love Nature. But I wouldn't watch this channel Shermer perscribes...because I know it would either talk down to me, talk above me, or be way too long to avoid doing either. In any case, it probably wouldn't be as entertaining, nor as educational, as 45 minutes on a treadmill with a nice magazine.
Plus, what product could you possibly advertise on a pure science channel without looking a little foolish? Baking Soda?
I mean, who controls the nameservers is less important than who tells users to contact those systems, right?
We, the IT and OSS community, route users to those systems. We set up the BIND and DJBDNS instances that make those queries. We're the guys who tell these software packages to check with *.GTLD-SERVERS.NET or *.ROOTSERVERS.COM when they don't know. Telling them to look elsewhere should be trivial.
I mean, the whole point of using a centralized domain name service is that we can trust the rootservers, and if we can't, we can use a different set of rootservers. "Commercialization" of the rootservers implies preferrential treatment based on finances. Do you trust that? If we don't like the way Verisign handles things, then we have the power to fix it. After all, what's in a nameserver?
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
Why does it matter? The processor overhead caused by NTFS over Win32 is negligible when reading mp3s off of a disk. The maximum speed you can read data off the disk is 100 million bytes per second, while your average processor performs around 2000 to 3000 million operations per second. You're talking about a difference of a few (certainly less than 100) operations per second of overhead...something you will never see, except in extended throughput. It is certainly nothing compared to the overhead of playing an mp3 or even copying a file.
In fact, the only reason I can thing of to use Fat32 is if you need to support Windows 98, or some other system that can't read Fat32 (eg your mp3 player). Metadata knowledgable storage systems will be VERY handy in multimedia systems and what you mention about ID3 tags is exactly why it'll be useful...instead of having to read a bit out of each file (with all the IO that entains) before you can search on these fields, you can read out of a single area. We use ID3 tags because storage is currently ignorant of content. We use databases because each ID3 is ignorant of all the others, and they are therefore ungrouped. This new file system may have more "overhead," but it'll get recouped fast and you will never, ever notice it. Your hard drive isn't a racecar, man. Err on the side of convenienve.
Oh, and you can easily format >32 GB using the command line format. I just did it. I am not against MS preventing users from doing something the easy way if they have another way of doing it...especially when it promotes
Slashdot Mirror
ad hominem ... you sayin' I'm gay?
Hey. I'm going to post the same response I make to all of your completely idiotic pleas for a world based on tips:
You're an idiot.
Expanded:
If you have ever lived as a waiter, delivery boy or member of any other profession where your income was largely based on tips, you'd know that tips are encouragement to suck up to people and treat them nice. This does not necessarily mean doing what you want to do, or acting in such a way that expresses your individuality. In short, tips encourage compliance and supplication.
Music, on the other hand, is best when it is expressive, original and strong willed. Hence jazz, blues, rock and hip-hop. Art is about expression. It cannot exist in the realm of "pay-what-you-like."
You want music to be tip based because you're greedy and don't feel like you should pay what things are worth. You think that by making music payrates scalable, that somebody else will pay off your favorite musicians so you can enjoy them on the cheap.
Musicians with a popular sound are best served by record labels who can spread their music over a large area of listeners for a smaller return. Musicians with a more targetted sound are best served by labels that can allow them to self promote and return a much larger percentage of profits. The only musicians who are best served by a tip based system are street beggars.
-1, Inaccurate
I used the Microsoft Desktop voice commander system in college (mostly to bother my roommate...i had no difficulty clicking on things). It had no problem opening Lotus WordPro, Netscape Communicator, Metrowerks CodeWarrior or Harvard Graphics, which were my big use programs at the time.
And this was well before the antitrust suit.
As I recall, voice recognition still ain't quite 100% yet...
Dude, human voice recognition isn't 100% either. How many times a day do you say "excuse me," or "what?" because your ears missed something, or somebody mubled?
Voice recognition will never be "100%" because speech isn't perfect. At least not until voice recognition software designers realize how flawed speech is, and program software to say "Can you repeat the part about the...stuff?"
I was hoping for a +5, ironic. After all, this is America, and irony's the only humor we got.
Dude -- anybody still using Internet Explorer (a program which NEVER worked all that well, hasn't been updated since 10.1 and which is now officially unsupported by MS) is asking for trouble. Especially when Firebird and Safari are so much better.
Old programs are like old cars...without good support they slowly rust away. Using slow ass IE on a mac is like driving a gremlin when you've got a free maserati and free Yukon just sitting in your driveway...
Autopr0n, your sig is an especially insipid sort of inline advert, because your website is so terrible.
I would never think of advertising my ventures in a slashdot post.
Agreed. For example: when testing for primeness, you don't have to test any even number. You don't have to test any number ending in 5. You don't have to test any number whose digits add up a number evenly divisible by 3 (meaning number is divisible by three as well). Combine these three rules and you've trivially whittled your number from testing 2^512 keys to testing fewer than a third of them, and you can whittle it much smaller if you're better at math than dasmb.
Unfortunatly, huge classes of suitable elliptic curves got patented.
Unfortunate? For whom? For the people who spent long hours doing the extensive research which led to the development of advanced encyption systems? Or for the people who read the papers and attended the conferences and say "Great idea...think I'll make the same thing for free in the name of Openness!"
Encryption is not like a 1-click pattent or library compression. It's hard, expensive and risky to devote your time to coming up with the next great encryption algorithm. And I am glad that we have agencies like the NSA to help offset this cost. It means there might be jobs somewhere for some of us to sit around and think about stuff rather than have to sell our talents like consultant whores.
Free Software is all well and good, but some things are worth paying for. Right?
Uh huh. And the game box will continue to better-game-crush the PC. Developers LIKE the game box because there are good sales of even the shittiest games while a shitty game on a PC might not recoup enough to pay one or two developers.
But it's easier to make a game for PC. Shit, games for other consoles are WRITTEN on the PC. So the pressure is on to find a way to make PC gaming profitable.
Hence, X-box. And ain't no way MS is giving that up to this idiot and his glow-box.
Uh, no. The Segway exists and works and innovates. It's just dumb.
The Phantom is also dumb. But it doesn't exist, doesn't work and even if it did it doesn't innovate. It imprisons. It is mail order only.
This reeks of that Mel Brooks classic, The Producers.
My compleat Monty Python box was $99 on Amazon too. Ah, the boom...
Yes. And I'm sure that many of the sociopaths who pickpocket and jack people on the street feel that they own what they take, because as far as they're concerned once they have something it's *theirs*.
I know, reactive argument. I apologize. But ownership makes no SENSE in a digital world...how can you OWN something that has no substance? And why would you SELL something that has no value? Restrictions are there so you don't burn the album a thousand times because is is *yours*. Smart labels will always place restrictions, because the dumb ones will quickly go out of business. And don't tell me "it won't happen"...it happens all the time among the smaller hip hop labels. Death by dub.
Oh, and Magnatune is complete shit. They did not have one song I would listen to there, so it's about as much of an option as a wax tube. There's more to life than ambient...there's GOOD music, too.
I'm sorry, I just don't have the stamina to not buy records. I enjoy music too much to blame the record industry for trying to protect their ability to make CDs, no matter how callous their methods may seem.
After all, we don't boycott businesses that prosecute shoplifters. We even respect it...after all, shoplifters drive up the price for everybody else. And since copyright "theft" is really just infringment, which is a civil matter, all the RIAA can possibly do is sue people.
The other option is to ignore copyright violations in file sharing, cd copying, mix making, etc...and that is the same as saying it's okay. If there is any truth at all to the claim that this kind of infringing activity, then even if no real cash comes out of this round of lawsuits, the RIAA has posted a BIG "Shoplifters Will Be Prosecuted" sign on digital audio. Which is good for me, because it's this desire to punish downloaders that led to the AWESOME iTune music store. Which is my new addiction.
Right, but when you buy a CD you have the ability to rip to AAC, WMA, MP3, OGG, FLAC, etc. That's a lot of flexibility for $15. AAC at 128 is good, but you can hear the difference at AAC 192, and I'd rather err on the side of my ears. Plus I can use the tracks I rip in as many of my monthly mix cds as I like. This is assuming that you aren't buying some "copyright protected" pop CD. But of course, if you make that assumption you kind of also assume that more than 2 tracks will be good.
Numbers to prove this last statement (generated by checking the track count of an automatic playlist made by adding anything with a 3 star rating that was purchased in 2003 or 2002):
Of the cds I've bought in the past year, 87% of the tracks have been well worth it. Then again, only a few of these albums were really popular...the big three were the last Queens of the Stone Age record (at 100% because i am such a Mark Lanegan fan), Audioslave (which offsets the average with only 6 tracks marked as three star or better) and the new Radiohead (100%).
So anyway, assuming 13 tracks, a CD costs about $1.50 per good track. That is 50% more than the files at 128 kbit AAC...so you make the call, flexibility or value?
Oh, and if you're one of these cats who goes online to find JUST the radio song and never even really listens to the rest of the album...maybe you should step back and ask yourself what you're really looking for out of music. There's more to sound than just pop hooks and clever choruses, you know, and if there weren't we would still be playing Bluegrass.
Young wiseass! One need not spend every waking moment in the wallow to know that it is MUD for PIGS. I say to you, do you need even FIVE MINUTES in a Wal-mart to figure out that their business plan is selling shitty goods for less money to people who don't care about quality?
It is the exact opposite situation with Apple. And if you think a person can't see that by SHOPPING AT THEIR STORE, you are what the Belgians call a "fucking idiot."
I am in one of the neighbourhoods where Apple has one of their stores. Speaking solely from the experience of spending way too much time hanging out at said store and drooling over the keypads, you're dead wrong about it being a first-time buyer's solution. The most common thing overheard when people are using the GUI is "that's so much better than Windows." Not "that's so easily done, this is my only frame of reference."
And you're dead right about the digital hub being part of the allure. They have each type of device you can use for sale on a freaking pedestal. I have definitely seen a lot of Camedias and Palms and iPods sold as accessories alongside PCs. But few of the purchasers are computer virgins.
The book you describe would be very nice for doing crap work...internet, word processing, etc...but would be completely insufficient for what I use my laptop(s) for: managing digital photos, collecting and jukeboxing mp3s, photoshop, and a bit of light programming (shell and java). My g3 600 barely makes it.
A g4 933, WITH a radeon moving complex GUI functions off the main chip and a faster hard disc for the inevitable swapping, would seem infinitely faster than your book.
This is too little, too late for Apple. They're dying, and everyone sees it except the Mac users themselves.
This is a funny statement. I'm not entirely sure why. It's something like a Roman Centurion around 200 AD saying "Christianity is dying. I mean, why shell out for one god when you can have a whole pantheon, and with significantly fewer commandments to follow!"
Uh, i think you're right but your perception of Apple's segment is all wrong. First time users are NOT apple's market anymore. First time users have been buying "whatever's cheapest" for the past few years.
Apple's market is now experienced computer users who find that the Windows world has failed them and the Linux world still takes too much effort. It is people who want to USE computers and are tired of FIXING them. This includes many students and artists and lawyers and writers and scientists whose first priority is not securing and optimizing their computer's environment.
No. But "it is a waste of resources better spent on ideas that already work, and have not been shown to be problematic" is a great reason to abandon a new idea. And it is too rarely used. Instead, people like to present every single foolish idea and strike it out like it was a gold rush.
As much as science and exploration are about trying what's new, they are also about contemplating hypothesis and possibility. Contemplation does not mean glazing over obvious problems. In fact, true contemplation should be as callous and forthright as reality itself, otherwise it's useless. Have we learned nothing from the bust?
I have presented what I feel are several very reasonable blocks to a science channel, as well as the basic fact that I probably wouldn't watch it. The problem of making science complete and yet exciting is one which is paramount to the issue here. It can be overcome, I know, I've seen Cosmos. But I also know that if there was a channel running Cosmos 24 hours a day interspersed with commercials for cooking sprays and deodorant and high milage oil, I wouldn't watch it. I also don't watch G4, Tech TV, MTV or Sci-Fi, channels which seem to pander to my interests and yet remain completely uninteresting to me. That's not cynicism. That's not sarcasm. It's realism...arguments extrapolated from a sarcastic, cynical reality where to most people science is boring and ignorance is bliss.
Because CSPAN, and CSPAN2, are in the regulation law for the cable networks. They HAVE to carry them, and as basic cable ($20/mo), too. That was one of the few restrictions that survived deregulation.
Good thing it's in there, too. Because regardless of whether anybody watches them (and I know I don't...and I AM interested in government and the arts), CSPAN and CSPAN2 do not make any money for the cable companies, and that's bandwidth that could be used for a couple more home shopping networks.
Well, one of the nice things about the magazine this article was in -- Scientific American -- is that it is easy for a layperson to understand what's going on. Even still, it is not a magazine most people would read for fun. Because no matter how much you explain topics like quantum mechanics or general relativity -- which, at their heart, are neither difficult to understand nor math intensive -- they will always SEEM like they are hard to understand, for the very reason that they require so much explanation.
It's not the jargon that does it. It's not the complexity. It's the completeness that is overwhelming. And completeness does not make for good television. It's just hard to keep people interested while at the same time giving them all of the facts, because after a while the brain just shuts down. It's why all the best physics courses I've taken have supplemented a decent professor with a strong textbook...you need to take things at your own pace, something you can do with a book, or a magazine article, or a website, but that you can't do with a cable channel.
And what happens if you come into the show late, just as the Braves game ends, and discover that you can't understand anything about it because you missed the 15 minutes of primer material?
I love Sci-Am. I love Nature. But I wouldn't watch this channel Shermer perscribes...because I know it would either talk down to me, talk above me, or be way too long to avoid doing either. In any case, it probably wouldn't be as entertaining, nor as educational, as 45 minutes on a treadmill with a nice magazine.
Plus, what product could you possibly advertise on a pure science channel without looking a little foolish? Baking Soda?
I mean, who controls the nameservers is less important than who tells users to contact those systems, right?
We, the IT and OSS community, route users to those systems. We set up the BIND and DJBDNS instances that make those queries. We're the guys who tell these software packages to check with *.GTLD-SERVERS.NET or *.ROOTSERVERS.COM when they don't know. Telling them to look elsewhere should be trivial.
I mean, the whole point of using a centralized domain name service is that we can trust the rootservers, and if we can't, we can use a different set of rootservers. "Commercialization" of the rootservers implies preferrential treatment based on finances. Do you trust that? If we don't like the way Verisign handles things, then we have the power to fix it. After all, what's in a nameserver?
Why does it matter? The processor overhead caused by NTFS over Win32 is negligible when reading mp3s off of a disk. The maximum speed you can read data off the disk is 100 million bytes per second, while your average processor performs around 2000 to 3000 million operations per second. You're talking about a difference of a few (certainly less than 100) operations per second of overhead...something you will never see, except in extended throughput. It is certainly nothing compared to the overhead of playing an mp3 or even copying a file.
In fact, the only reason I can thing of to use Fat32 is if you need to support Windows 98, or some other system that can't read Fat32 (eg your mp3 player). Metadata knowledgable storage systems will be VERY handy in multimedia systems and what you mention about ID3 tags is exactly why it'll be useful...instead of having to read a bit out of each file (with all the IO that entains) before you can search on these fields, you can read out of a single area. We use ID3 tags because storage is currently ignorant of content. We use databases because each ID3 is ignorant of all the others, and they are therefore ungrouped. This new file system may have more "overhead," but it'll get recouped fast and you will never, ever notice it. Your hard drive isn't a racecar, man. Err on the side of convenienve.
Oh, and you can easily format >32 GB using the command line format. I just did it. I am not against MS preventing users from doing something the easy way if they have another way of doing it...especially when it promotes