I would recommend that artist negotiate a seperate contract for digital sales. My band is unsigned, but we get 91 percent of the iTunes cash (after Apple takes their cut). What band could be against that deal?
If I had a band - I'd be dead set against that deal. 91% of zip is still zip. Labels do more than just take money - the also provide acess to talent (producers, managers, songwriters), acess to distribution channels, acess to advertising and marketing channels, etc... etc..
iTunes is a potential cash cow for forward-thinking bands.
If you are focused on the short-term bottom line, yah. But when a company does that, few people consider them 'forward looking'.
Second, at this time, we have to rebuild our launch capacity. That means that we need to be able to launch what we had back in the 60s.
The launch capacity we had in the 60's (the Saturn V) was as expensive as the Shuttle - we don't need expensive shipping, we need cheap shipping.
Nixon killed that capability. W. is restoring it.
No, Congress killed it back during the Johnson administration. Nixon inherited a fait accompli - a Congress that wasn't interested in funding NASA's ever more grandiose and expensive dreams.
While I know that many folks hate the CEV (and some hate even the launchers), we will have the same launch capacity that Kennedy got us 40 years ago.
The CEV has nothing to do with launch capability - launchers do. And President Bush is indeed getting right back we were in the 60's with regards to launch capacity: launchers that are too expensive to use but rarely.
The whole scheme as outlined as President Bush is an utter disaster for space exploration. The contracts are going to the Usual Suspects doing Business as usual.
According the Wikipedia entry, NASA spends $5 billion annually on the ISS. I guess I hope to hear more news of discoveries from ISS and scientific advancements once it nears completion but I have not seen much in the news as of late.
Why do you expect any science/discovery from any facility or instrument that isn't completed?
I worked at Dell for six years, and the one thing you, as a consumer, have to know about Dell (and possibly companies like it) is that there are two forces that drive their decisions: money and litigation.
No news there - it's the same at pretty much any other corporation.
If there are problems with the equipment, those problems are weighed against the overall cost they contain. If Dell determined that their notebooks blew up, they'd have to weigh the odds, the cost of litigation, and the cost of bad press versus the cost of fixing the problem.
Again, the same as at virtually every other manufacturer, from baby food to SUV's.
I would disagree with the assertion in the article that current routing protocols are insufficient to handle MANETs. MANET routing protocols are slightly different (most are adaptations of traditional protocols), but if implemented correctly, they can support networks with very high rates of topology change... this has been supported by the literature for years now.
My impression is that this project is intended to move from MANET being supported in the literature to being supported by tech support.
And your evidence and study showing the researchers are wrong is... what?
Yes, when you search for something, you get the most popular results. But not everyone uses the same search terms,
Actually, if you've ever watched those 'live search' services (I.E. showing in realtime search terms users are entering), you'll see the same terms pop up again and again. Equally, for most search items - there simply are not that many (properly spelled) variants. (I.E. for the Seattle Mariners - there's pretty much only one way to type that.)
and even if you only go for the first three pages of results, you've still got 20 - 30 different sources of information, each different but similar query returning a slightly different set.
Many studies have found that the first page is what it's all about - what's on page 4 might as well not even exist. (There's a reason why SEO's exist you know.)
In essence - your claim that the researchers in TFA are wrong is based on smoke and mirrors.
If a Web application can do 100% of the 5% of functionality of Excel or Photoshop that most users use, and the intermediary software is free and cross-platform, what do you think is going to happen to revenue for these products?
The problem is that 100% of the users don't use the same 5% of the feature set. Another problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley raises security barriers that a web application is unlikely to able to meet. Another problem is that real-world companies tend more and more to stick with versions a while rather than riding the upgrade treadmill, which save on training costs... etc... etc...
I know it's a beloved geek meme that Google is fixing to displace Microsoft via web applications - but in reality there are some very steep hurdles to overcome.
Personally, I don't know what features Yahoo has (besides being able to view unread emails) that's not in GMail.
I've mentioned at least two in this discussion so far.
Does it integrate with a calender? Does it integrate with chat? Does it do anything like that? No - it just immitates a stand-alone program.
A fascinating change from your earlier claim that you liked 'simple uncluttered' solutions. Now you claim that being cluttered is a feature.
Well here's a thought - if you want a stand along email program why don't you actually use a stand alone email program?
I never claimed I wanted a standalone program - that's a strawman of your creation. You have a real problem with reading comprehension.
So if you want the actual features of a fully-integrated PIM, then I think GMail is leaps and bounds ahead of Yahoo.
You'd have a point if a fully inegrated PIM was the item under discussion. It isn't.
I think in addition to the facts I've already mentioned you have to realize that GMail's offerings are changing and growing much more rapidly than Yahoo.
Of course Gmail's offerings are doing that - because, as an email program, they are vastly behind the power curve.
But having to view new emails? They're at the top of my list in bold - how hard is that?
I didn't say view new I said view unread. (And new ones aren't bolded anyhow - at least not for me.)
I also just like the simplicity. Others have said Yahoo mimics a standalone program. I agree - and that's why I don't like it.
Yahoo mimics a fully functional email client - that's why its more powerful and fully featured than GMail. There are folks who want that power - you are a decided minority.
These analysts miss the point. The big win for Google is to replace Micro$oft as the default platform. As Google tools, google desktop and of course Google search as the homepage become the default start point for users, the operating system becomes less relevant.
No, the analysts do get that point. But you miss theirs - Google is losing the battle to replace Microsoft/Yahoo/etc..., their services routinely come in a distant second. To hit the big win, they've got to gain eyeballs and marketshare - and they aren't.
Yahoo! couldn't be popular because it is the default homepage of millions of SBC/AT&T customers who don't know any better? Nah that's silly. Yahoo! has some nice services and some are indeed better than Google's offerings but for the most part people simply stick with their ISP's default homepage.
Yahoo! (and other sites) remain more popular because of Google badly broken release cycle.
Typically it goes like this: Google releases a new service into Beta that's not feature complete, or has a broken UI. [1] Tons of people flock to the new release and go 'meh, what a waste of time', and go back to their old services. Six months to a year later when the service is feature complete and ready for public beta - Google has already dissipated what goodwill and momentum they had.
This worked when they were a tiny little operation run out of a spare bedroom - but now they are going up against the big boys, and losing because of it.
[1] Maps launched without a scale, Mail launched with the Delete button hidden and a PITA to acess. Homepage launched with virtually no content for users to add to their homepage. The new Blogger beta lacks the ability to publish a blog other than to Blogspot and lacks the ability to edit HTML.
No, the GMail UI is decidely less powerful. You can't have multiple emails at once open for example. (By right clicking and opening in a new tab or new window.) You can't view unread mail with a single click. (To do *anything* other than plow through the main mail list requires using Search - which is decidely less powerful than the View: function used by Yahoo.)
BusinessWeek has just such an article ("So much fanfare, so few hits") but others argue that success relative to the size of Google's bread-and-butter (search) ultimately doesn't matter because it doesn't cost Google much extra to keep these secondary services -- like Gmail -- operational:
This shows about as deep a misunderstanding of Google as it's possible to have. (The article itself also shows signs of the same fallacy.)
Google is an advertising company - period. Each and every service they provide on the web exists for one purpose: to get eyeballs on the ads. The fact that they are dominant in search, and that search is their largest revenue generator, doesn't change this.
Unfortunately kids aren't as stupid (or gullible?) sometimes as we'd hope. A phone like the Firefly is essentially an electronic wireless dog-leash for the parents, and the kids won't be very fond of it. They would likely "accidentally" leave it at Timmy's house, or "forget" to turn it on, etc.
Which would result (if I had kids) in them being unable to visit Tommy's house, or turn on the TV (or their console) for a week or two.
IMHO such a device, good idea as it is, has to offer something to the kids.
Only if you intend to raise your kids as spoiled little rat bastard brats who won't do anything unless they are rewarded.
An incentive for them to keep it on themselves and have it on.
Being able to play video games, watch cartoons, and leave the house would seem to me to incentive enough.
Ok...Every time I read an article like this, and I see sites like Google and Yahoo referenced as "portals", I go a little crazy. A true portal to me is a domain squatter buying a name like, googles.com or ytahoo.com and putting a crapload of ads and "related" searches on it.
Why shouldn't you go a little crazy? After all, the rest of the world is behind the times in dropping the definition that's been in use for years now, and adopting yours as the standard!
I think of sites like, http://weed.com/ as a true portal. I know the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal is a little broad, saying that they are, "sites on the World Wide Web that typically provide personalized capabilities to their visitors," but c'mon here...just because you can customize your Google or Yahoo homepage doesn't make it a Portal IMHO. I really think there needs to be a clear distinction between the two types of sites, instead of a branching term for any site that offfers custom content. Seriously...that would mean http://www.amazon.com/ is a portal because I can customize my User Account screen.
I think your confusion arises because you changed definitions in midstream - from 'personalized' to 'custom' - the two are not quite the same thing. What makes Yahoo! a portal (and to some extent Google), and Amazon not a portal, is that your homepage on the service serves up content from the rest of the site, arranged in a personalized way. It's the 'content from the rest of the site' thats the key - portals allow you to acess a broad range of services and content in a single stop, with a single login. For the same reason http://weed.com/isn't a portal - as it's a site with narrow focus on a single topic, it doesn't offer personalized content.
(As a side comment - the Wikipedia article is utter crap.)
2 out of every 3 people online visited a social networking site I don't get it. Maybe I'm just too old, but they hold practically zero interest for me. Too old or just too busy (but not to busy for/.)?
Or maybe, just maybe - You aren't their target demographic, or it's not just something you are interested in!
I the quoted comment everytime MySpace is mentioned on Slashdot - where did the idea arise that every site is for everyone?
Being that I am currently writing a book on the topic, I feel qualified to say this 1 acre of hemp will produce up to 3 times as much paper pulp as 1 acre of timber. So lets do the math Lets say 1 acre produces 100 sheets of paper for timber, over 7 years that is 14.2 sheets of paper per acre per year on timber 1 acre of hemp will produce 300 sheets of paper, 4 times a year which is 1200 sheets of peper per acre per year timber=14.2 hemp=1200 which one would you decide to grow?
The problem is - your math and your claims are at odds. 14.2x3 != 1200.
I don't follow the X-prize forums, but I've seen interviews with no less than 3 people who've had successful projects,
Considering that there has only been *one* person with a sucessful X-prize project (Rutan), that's flat-out impossible.
and all were extremely critical of NASA and their approach. It isn't about the material of the shuttle, but the concept of the shuttle and how it is launched.
You need to understand the alt.spacer mindset - part and parcel of it is the rock solid belief that Evil NASA has, with malice aforethought, held back the development of space in the same way oil companies do gas mileage enhancers. They (the alt.spacers) are the Brave and Plucky Lone Heros fighting against great odds to Save Humanity - just like in the Heinlein juveniles they read back in fifth grade. (I'm sympathetic with their goals, but that doesn't blind me.) Worse yet, it's largely rote noise - very few in the alt.space movement actually understand the complex web of politics, technology, and sociology that lead first to Apollo, and then to the Shuttle. (Building a small rocket doesn't make you an expert on all rockets any more than building a bridge of Lego bricks qualifies you to build one of steel and concrete.)
We are using the same shuttles, theories and propulsions systems we were using 40 years ago. Considering the exponential rate that this technology rate has evolved, that is plain silly.
Here in the real world not all technologies have evolved at an exponential rate - and some simply can't. Take liquid rocket engines for example - by the 60's they were already near their maximum theoretical efficiency, and have made only modest incremental gains since then - they can't do any better without repealing the laws of physics and chemistry. We can make 'em a bit lighter now a days, and bit better in some other areas, but that's about it. In other cases, there simply isn't enough to be worth sinking massive amounts of R&D dollars into research.
But NASA was a huge money-sink, with the promise to Congress that the money involved would last decades and decades. To start over on any level would be unacceptable to those writing the checks.
I've parsed this about three different ways - and it makes no sense. NASA never promised Congress anything with regards as to how long money would last.
Freeking politicians are screwing the whole thing up and NASA is a massive beuracracy maintaining jobs for the "less than creatives". Long live Burt Rutan, Richard Branson and their crews - poke the crap out of NASA's eye!
Oh, yes... replicating something that NASA did 45+ years ago is really a poke in their eye. (And NASA did it time, after time, after time - for nearly a decade. Branson & Rutan haven't flown in over two years - after only flying a handful of times.)
Seriously, how much would it cost just to get the Russians to fork over some of their old-school-but-reliable technology.
You can't buy from the Russians what the Russians don't have.
We may have "won" the cold war, but they definitely won the "spacecraft that aren't overly-engineered death traps" war.
That would be why the difference in failure rates between the US and Russia are statistically insensible. That would be why the latest mark of Soyuz (the TMA) has had serious problems on six out of eight flights to date.
I'm no expert but two of my best friends are a physicist and a mechanical engineer. Both follow the space program and both say that money and politics have firmly grounded NASA in 1960's science with little to no possibility to explore new options.
They aren't experts either seemingly. NASA isn't ground in 1960's 'science' (whatever that means) at all. You'll note the use of composites in the structures of the new vehicles. You'll note modern computers (modern by aerospace standards - ancient by geek standards) in use aboard them too... etc... etc... In other things, the state of the art simply hasn't evolved that much. In yet others, decades old solutions are more than adequate and quite well proven. (In the real world with real money and real lives at stake - progress is slow and measured.)
Plenty of guys in the X Prize world are saying the same thing.
You mean in the X-prize forums? They are bunch of regular joes like you. The guys at the level of Musk/Branson/etc... (I.E. those flying actual performing hardware - everyone else is a wannabee) are largely silent on the issue. (The exception is Rutan - but Rutan hates NASA with a passion. His word on anything about NASA should be taken with a largish grain of salt.)
Nowdays just about everything is computerized in this process. THere's never a plastic sheet or tape or paper stage-- the bit images go directly form the design mprogram to the foundry.
But they still say "The design got "taped out"."
It's no unusual at all for for 'heritage' terminology to survive past the technology or system that inspired it - because the understanding of the term is still widely held.
For example - the 'Christmas Tree', the section of a submarines ballast control panel that displays the status of the hatches and various important valves. It was originally called that because it used red (to indicate open) and green (to indicate shut) lights. That evolved into a system that used red circles (open) and red bars (shut) - but it's still called a Christmas tree. (And probably still will be when the BCP communicates its status to the control party via AI brain implants.)
Not just a "tie-in", but a forced migration, similar to flickr moving to using yahoo accounts:
Blogger moves to Google Accounts, so your account will be more secure and you don't have to remember extra credentials.
Am I the only one really disliking this? I don't want to tie all the pieces of information about me together. I want to keep them separate, running on different domains, having nothing to do with each other!
What? You didn't see this coming? One of the earliest (and loudest) criticisms of Google as it started down this 'portal site-but-not-really' path as the lack of a single log in. Equally, other people pointed to the one-login system that Yahoo! uses as the reason they hadn't switched. Google heard - and obeyed.
Google's mission is to get as many eyes on their ads as possible - and one of the shortest paths to that goal is one-login. The easier it is to use their services (either as a consumer of, or generator of content), the more people that will do so. The more people that do so, the more eyes that follow - 4) profit!
Granted it's been a while since I left the back end of the target demographic, but CNN? I somehow doubt CNN is the hip, happening, with-it, groovy brand name the cool kids are into these days.
CNN is chasing after 'the long tail' here I suspect. Not all users of the 'net or the web are 'cool kids', or interesting in becoming or hanging out with the same.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had a band - I'd be dead set against that deal. 91% of zip is still zip. Labels do more than just take money - the also provide acess to talent (producers, managers, songwriters), acess to distribution channels, acess to advertising and marketing channels, etc... etc..
If you are focused on the short-term bottom line, yah. But when a company does that, few people consider them 'forward looking'.
The launch capacity we had in the 60's (the Saturn V) was as expensive as the Shuttle - we don't need expensive shipping, we need cheap shipping.
No, Congress killed it back during the Johnson administration. Nixon inherited a fait accompli - a Congress that wasn't interested in funding NASA's ever more grandiose and expensive dreams.
The CEV has nothing to do with launch capability - launchers do. And President Bush is indeed getting right back we were in the 60's with regards to launch capacity: launchers that are too expensive to use but rarely.
The whole scheme as outlined as President Bush is an utter disaster for space exploration. The contracts are going to the Usual Suspects doing Business as usual.
Why do you expect any science/discovery from any facility or instrument that isn't completed?
No news there - it's the same at pretty much any other corporation.
Again, the same as at virtually every other manufacturer, from baby food to SUV's.
My impression is that this project is intended to move from MANET being supported in the literature to being supported by tech support.
And your evidence and study showing the researchers are wrong is... what?
Actually, if you've ever watched those 'live search' services (I.E. showing in realtime search terms users are entering), you'll see the same terms pop up again and again. Equally, for most search items - there simply are not that many (properly spelled) variants. (I.E. for the Seattle Mariners - there's pretty much only one way to type that.)
Many studies have found that the first page is what it's all about - what's on page 4 might as well not even exist. (There's a reason why SEO's exist you know.)
In essence - your claim that the researchers in TFA are wrong is based on smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that 100% of the users don't use the same 5% of the feature set. Another problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley raises security barriers that a web application is unlikely to able to meet. Another problem is that real-world companies tend more and more to stick with versions a while rather than riding the upgrade treadmill, which save on training costs... etc... etc...
I know it's a beloved geek meme that Google is fixing to displace Microsoft via web applications - but in reality there are some very steep hurdles to overcome.
I've mentioned at least two in this discussion so far.
A fascinating change from your earlier claim that you liked 'simple uncluttered' solutions. Now you claim that being cluttered is a feature.
I never claimed I wanted a standalone program - that's a strawman of your creation. You have a real problem with reading comprehension.
You'd have a point if a fully inegrated PIM was the item under discussion. It isn't.
Of course Gmail's offerings are doing that - because, as an email program, they are vastly behind the power curve.
I didn't say view new I said view unread. (And new ones aren't bolded anyhow - at least not for me.)
Yahoo mimics a fully functional email client - that's why its more powerful and fully featured than GMail. There are folks who want that power - you are a decided minority.
No, the analysts do get that point. But you miss theirs - Google is losing the battle to replace Microsoft/Yahoo/etc..., their services routinely come in a distant second. To hit the big win, they've got to gain eyeballs and marketshare - and they aren't.
Yahoo! (and other sites) remain more popular because of Google badly broken release cycle.
Typically it goes like this: Google releases a new service into Beta that's not feature complete, or has a broken UI. [1] Tons of people flock to the new release and go 'meh, what a waste of time', and go back to their old services. Six months to a year later when the service is feature complete and ready for public beta - Google has already dissipated what goodwill and momentum they had.
This worked when they were a tiny little operation run out of a spare bedroom - but now they are going up against the big boys, and losing because of it.
[1] Maps launched without a scale, Mail launched with the Delete button hidden and a PITA to acess. Homepage launched with virtually no content for users to add to their homepage. The new Blogger beta lacks the ability to publish a blog other than to Blogspot and lacks the ability to edit HTML.
No, the GMail UI is decidely less powerful. You can't have multiple emails at once open for example. (By right clicking and opening in a new tab or new window.) You can't view unread mail with a single click. (To do *anything* other than plow through the main mail list requires using Search - which is decidely less powerful than the View: function used by Yahoo.)
This shows about as deep a misunderstanding of Google as it's possible to have. (The article itself also shows signs of the same fallacy.)
Google is an advertising company - period. Each and every service they provide on the web exists for one purpose: to get eyeballs on the ads. The fact that they are dominant in search, and that search is their largest revenue generator, doesn't change this.
Which would result (if I had kids) in them being unable to visit Tommy's house, or turn on the TV (or their console) for a week or two.
Only if you intend to raise your kids as spoiled little rat bastard brats who won't do anything unless they are rewarded.
Being able to play video games, watch cartoons, and leave the house would seem to me to incentive enough.
Why shouldn't you go a little crazy? After all, the rest of the world is behind the times in dropping the definition that's been in use for years now, and adopting yours as the standard!
I think your confusion arises because you changed definitions in midstream - from 'personalized' to 'custom' - the two are not quite the same thing. What makes Yahoo! a portal (and to some extent Google), and Amazon not a portal, is that your homepage on the service serves up content from the rest of the site, arranged in a personalized way. It's the 'content from the rest of the site' thats the key - portals allow you to acess a broad range of services and content in a single stop, with a single login. For the same reason http://weed.com/ isn't a portal - as it's a site with narrow focus on a single topic, it doesn't offer personalized content.
(As a side comment - the Wikipedia article is utter crap.)
Or maybe, just maybe - You aren't their target demographic, or it's not just something you are interested in!
I the quoted comment everytime MySpace is mentioned on Slashdot - where did the idea arise that every site is for everyone?
The problem is - your math and your claims are at odds. 14.2x3 != 1200.
Yes, yes - and hemp will cure the common cold, mend a broken heart and fix anything else that ails you.
Considering that there has only been *one* person with a sucessful X-prize project (Rutan), that's flat-out impossible.
You need to understand the alt.spacer mindset - part and parcel of it is the rock solid belief that Evil NASA has, with malice aforethought, held back the development of space in the same way oil companies do gas mileage enhancers. They (the alt.spacers) are the Brave and Plucky Lone Heros fighting against great odds to Save Humanity - just like in the Heinlein juveniles they read back in fifth grade. (I'm sympathetic with their goals, but that doesn't blind me.) Worse yet, it's largely rote noise - very few in the alt.space movement actually understand the complex web of politics, technology, and sociology that lead first to Apollo, and then to the Shuttle. (Building a small rocket doesn't make you an expert on all rockets any more than building a bridge of Lego bricks qualifies you to build one of steel and concrete.)
Here in the real world not all technologies have evolved at an exponential rate - and some simply can't. Take liquid rocket engines for example - by the 60's they were already near their maximum theoretical efficiency, and have made only modest incremental gains since then - they can't do any better without repealing the laws of physics and chemistry. We can make 'em a bit lighter now a days, and bit better in some other areas, but that's about it. In other cases, there simply isn't enough to be worth sinking massive amounts of R&D dollars into research.
I've parsed this about three different ways - and it makes no sense. NASA never promised Congress anything with regards as to how long money would last.
Oh, yes... replicating something that NASA did 45+ years ago is really a poke in their eye. (And NASA did it time, after time, after time - for nearly a decade. Branson & Rutan haven't flown in over two years - after only flying a handful of times.)
You can't buy from the Russians what the Russians don't have.
That would be why the difference in failure rates between the US and Russia are statistically insensible. That would be why the latest mark of Soyuz (the TMA) has had serious problems on six out of eight flights to date.
They aren't experts either seemingly. NASA isn't ground in 1960's 'science' (whatever that means) at all. You'll note the use of composites in the structures of the new vehicles. You'll note modern computers (modern by aerospace standards - ancient by geek standards) in use aboard them too... etc... etc... In other things, the state of the art simply hasn't evolved that much. In yet others, decades old solutions are more than adequate and quite well proven. (In the real world with real money and real lives at stake - progress is slow and measured.)
You mean in the X-prize forums? They are bunch of regular joes like you. The guys at the level of Musk/Branson/etc... (I.E. those flying actual performing hardware - everyone else is a wannabee) are largely silent on the issue. (The exception is Rutan - but Rutan hates NASA with a passion. His word on anything about NASA should be taken with a largish grain of salt.)
It's no unusual at all for for 'heritage' terminology to survive past the technology or system that inspired it - because the understanding of the term is still widely held.
For example - the 'Christmas Tree', the section of a submarines ballast control panel that displays the status of the hatches and various important valves. It was originally called that because it used red (to indicate open) and green (to indicate shut) lights. That evolved into a system that used red circles (open) and red bars (shut) - but it's still called a Christmas tree. (And probably still will be when the BCP communicates its status to the control party via AI brain implants.)
What? You didn't see this coming? One of the earliest (and loudest) criticisms of Google as it started down this 'portal site-but-not-really' path as the lack of a single log in. Equally, other people pointed to the one-login system that Yahoo! uses as the reason they hadn't switched. Google heard - and obeyed.
Google's mission is to get as many eyes on their ads as possible - and one of the shortest paths to that goal is one-login. The easier it is to use their services (either as a consumer of, or generator of content), the more people that will do so. The more people that do so, the more eyes that follow - 4) profit!
CNN is chasing after 'the long tail' here I suspect. Not all users of the 'net or the web are 'cool kids', or interesting in becoming or hanging out with the same.