Are you kidding? Newspapers are HURTING! They're hemorraging! The cost of printing is up, the cost of paper is up, and without a doubt, if you can only get one thing from this: the cost of postage is up.
The distribution of online news is a nickel compared to mailing paper. The post office is an evil place. They're REALLY hurting the small guys too. If aren't U.S. News with 2,000,000 subscribers, then screw you, you don't get the preferred 2nd class discount, you just get the normal 2nd class mail discount, which goes up 14% every other year!
Every time the stamp goes up, people get interviewed and say...yea no problem, it's been years since the stamp was increased. But they put "rider clauses" on it and tack on all kinds of other postage increases that the masses don't care about. Ooh, 1 penny for a stamp, but $1000's more for a small newspaper or magazine.
If new media isn't going to fail despite the hopeful predictions of old media, then will it succeed? And if so, will old media fail because of it?
Since we all seem to agree that old media starts the stories, and new media links or takes or talks about the story (and in a better way, since we can post about it, link to better sources about it, and simply discuss it), that it has to begin somewhere, old media may still have 2 legs to stand on. Obviously they'd rather have their finger in the pie of new media too. But why have they failed so miserably in that aspect? Are their standards of success too high? They're not getting a billion dollars online like they do on TV, so it's a failure? Must be, if they're directly relating it to hits and banner ad hits.
One thing I did like about these Old Media's web sites were the video clips. Now that's something that the new media guys can't do well. Takes bandwidth, space, etc. Plus, the old media owns these clips! And lots of them. Copyright-able too I'd imagine. New media might steal the story, but probably can't steal the broadcast clip of it.
Do you reallllly think that people just wake up and want to trash talk your articles for fun?
--Does anybody here actually have any specific comments about the article--
Yea! Your article was a waste of our time. Why don't you post this crap to a main-media source? Oh.. because they'd reject it? I see. Well, we're rejecting it here. It's a little different, see, because you get a 100% chance of the editors posting your crap. They say, "ooh, Jon Katz, we have to publish some 'mainstream' artist to look professional". This article is proof. So if the editors won't reject your trash, then we have to. I hate troll responses in articles I care about, but today, I'd rather read all the responses about your article than the article itself.
If you really really really want some good responses, post something intelligent. You article is so noncommital that there's no chance of a discussion.
Hmm, I'll probably have to browse this in the bookstore first. I can't imagine what could fill a whole book about mp3's. At least at an interesting level...
As far as good or different players, rippers, etc,... couldn't that information be found online?
Oh well. It's better than hearing about another Britney Spears release.
It's because we only read the good articles. And don't forget that 10,000 words of drivel is hardly a reason to continue on. I think the first 5 paragraphs would be sufficient for anyone to realize what a waste of time it would be to read on.
In fact, let me save everyone the trouble. I worked all the way through it, don't bother.
It's hard to post an intelligent response to such an unintelligent article.
--When you hear news on ABC, CNN, etc. you tend to believe that it is true, --
While I agree with what you say, I'd like to point out one important, opposite idea. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that the NBC news company (and others) are owned by corporations, and damn well know that certain stories either end up on the cutting floor, or possibly tamed down.
I'm not going to blame them or anything. Back in the days when I was printing, and started a magazine, do you think that i'd have a breaking news story that damned my best advertiser?
I read Slashdot, TomsHardware, Anandtech, and Sharky Extreme, because I can get the REAL dirt. Want to read some extreme stories on why Intel and Rambus are evil? Go to TomsHardware for a step by step technical review! Open up a fucking magazine owned by Ziff Davis (Oh wait, what else is there?) and you'll reading stories talking about how awesome RAMBUS is, and we should all buy this Intel matchup crap! See that is mainstream influenced by big bucks. (Wait, not that example... that is mainstream influenced by Intel hype.)
So, although there are trolls on slashdot, and Jon Krapz posts here once in a while, and ABC can spend the bucks to investigate some evil lawyer or something, I still know that on certain subjects I can get an unbiased opinion ONLINE instead. Whew!
Hey, I love it when my mom sends me clippings from Newsweek. The last one was a huge one on Napster. Of course, I already knew every word in there long ago, but I like to see how main stream media tries to cover the computer world (and quite slowly too).
The reason I like it is because I know that the sheep are reading, and just might learn something, or atleast become aware of it.
But why does this crap have to be published here? Go publish this crap in the old media world, where you might have a chance. We're not sheep, we're already a part of what's happening. We already know about it. I want a techie's perspective on it!! Know why? Because I'm one too, and there's a good chance that they'll explain something that I don't know about. And not only that, but they'll talk about the points that interest me too.
---These and other new media "setbacks" prompted some gleeful, almost poignant predictions that old media might return from the grave. Don't put any money on it-- --What's the future of media? What are all the rumblings about struggling online media? --
What a waste. Let's write 10 pages of nothing, hype it up with *big* words, and then ask rhetorical or meaningless questions. In fact, this whole style reminds me of the local newscasters here in Indiana that did their own pre-show for the Indiana Pacers in the NBA Finals:
Idiot #1: Well Harv, what do we have to do to win this next big game?
Idiot #2: First off, we have to score more in the first half, and then we should pump up our defense throughout the game.
Idiot #1: Great idea. What about Shaq, well he be a factor today?
Idiot #2: That's right Merv, the Pacers will really have to stop his game if they're going to have a change to bring it back to Los Angeles.
We used 10baseT at work, and we have our mp3's on our local drives shared up. Even with normal working traffic occuring, there are no problems with 10basteT handling this traffic.
A typical MP3 is 1M in size for each 1 minute of music. That's only 16K a second. Even if you don't get 10 megabits a second, you still are JUST FINE.
Latency on hard drives is hardly a problem too! When I skip around on my CD-R's... sometimes I get latency. But only sometimes. Hard drives are much faster. I'm actually surprised all of this came up as a question. Just pushing NEXT on a cd-player will take longer than practically getting the first 20 seconds of an mp3 song from a hard drive and over the network connection.
People must REALLLY like the idea of a stereo component that simply says "plays mp3's".
When I started doing MP3's a couple years ago, I decided to get a really nice sound card and really nice computer speakers. The benefit to me was that I could also improve my computer game experience (especially now with the A3D surround sound in games) So I have my own happy computer stereo solution.
However, I do understand that some people have extremely expensive stereo equipment, probably hooked up with the TV enjoyment, so I do understand the need to maybe move the music from the computer to the 10' tall speakers in the living room!
But there is a cheaper solution, and it's been out for a year now: x10.com's MP3 Anywhere. It will broadcast your MP3's from your PC wirelessly to your stereo. I can't vouch which technology they're using since their web site has changed since last year, but probably a radio frequency since walls are not a problem. I suggested this to a friend of mine who needed to get music from his bedroom's computer to the living room (60 feet away, down some steps - obviously wiring wasn't a solution)
So, maybe it's X10's fault for not being a market figurehead like Dell. So let's look at Dell's black box. What the hell does it DO??? From their zero specs, It looks like it contains a network connection, buttons on the front, and a in-out port to push ALL the data straight to the Aux Input of the stereo.
I'm curious who is PLAYING the Mp3. Is it the computer? Or this black box? Hopefully it's the black box, then they could add usefull features like a CD-R tray in front, and make it a stand alone player. Truly... to make this component shine, it should be just like the diskman. PLAYS mp3's. Heck, options could be to include hard drive space, CD-R, or even DVD-R. You can fit a lot of music on a 5.4GB DVD. And THEN and only then have this "added" value of being able to access your computer's mp3 storage.
It's just seems WAY too pricey for something that won't work alone. I'll say it one last time: accessing your computer mp3's would be the killer feature for a stereo component that already played MP3's.
Have you ever seens the Aliens in shows/movies, they seem to be light colored, large head, small arms, legs, etc. It seems as if the body has shrunk/atrophied and the head got bigger & bigger. And hairless too.
See, this is the evolution that will happen if we continue to get smarter & smarter, become less & less active. We no longer have to chase down zebras with a spear just to get breakfast. We're not as active. We've lost almost all our hair, since we no longer have to be wooly mammoths to keep warm. heck, just turn the Heater on! And we're losing the hair we have anyways just because of baseball caps (ok, just a theory of mine about hats) Aliens are white, because they don't just program all-nighters, but all-monthers. They don't see the sun months at a time.
See, just because we don't HAVE to survive Nature's environment doesn't mean evolution has stopped. We now have to survive our Technology environment we created. We'll be flying in spaceships soon, and nature is slowly disappearing anyways due to Yet-Another-Suburb(tm). We're already slowly turning into a society where brains can get you ahead. And even starting to get more and more a MUST. For instance... it used to be a big deal to finish your High School, then it was college. Now everyone goes to college. Soon, it'll be triple PHD, and we've already seen the small small rift in Computer-ese vs. NonComputer users.
Evolution is happening! Even if we're sociologically morally allowing People with disabilites to live and procreate, and as another poster said, "all the poor people are having 20 kids, so there'll be all these genes with dumb people spreading", blah blah. Yes, see.. that is evolution. Maybe just not in the direction you're thinking of.
Ok, here's an anology. Let's say that the government made it really cool and easy to get Welfare. Infact, they make it desirable to. (wait, that sounds familiar) Get to watch all the day time crap TV you want! And get payed! So more and more trailer park trash (another poster's words) start to procreate and join welfare. Pretty soon we've got GENERATIONS of Welfare people. See, that's evolution!
Then! All the money dries up because there were only like 10 of us going to work, and 95% of our money went to taxes. So now all of a sudden there's no longer any Welfare cheese to survive on, and they all start to die because they have the "I-dont-know-how-to-work" gene. Another step in Evolution!
This actually happened with a certain type of moth in England. All the trees in this region were birch or something (white bark, being the key here). All these moths were white, and could survive because they blended into the white. Well, once in a while, genetics would make a freak, and a black moth was born. Usually he got eaten by the birds, and no more black moths in that family.
Well, the industrial revolution came for a visit, and spewed forth black soot in the air (and haven't stopped since, i'd wager) Anyway, the trees started to get this darker and darker and darker color to them from the polution. All of a sudden, the freaks of nature that were dark colored moths continued to live and pass their "freaky" gene on, as their white bretheren started to become easy to find on the black trees.
So the point is, we're all slowly turning into non-action related brainy people. If a catastrophe happened, and we'd all have to haul our fat asses after the zebra to eat, instead of driving to the grocery store, yea, we're screwed. But if this catastrophe doesn't happen, then its ok, because we're creating an environment where it's cool to be an out of shape, porphyric, attrophied, possibly fat, computer geek. Yea
I thought Apple pulled the plug on the hard ware clones. Now although this isn't a full blown Mac Clone, isn't it getting close to that "thin line"? Maybe someone here with more Mac-ese than me will remember the latest rules Apple has on their own downfall, oops, I mean policies.
When did the iMac come out? I thought it was just last year, but then again, I have this 10 year old running around the house calling himself my son! Where the hell did that come from??
If it was just a year ago, it seems awfully fast for it to be *so slow*. However maybe if it's 2 years ago, it's about time. Goes to show that the release of the iMac was all show & style (not necessarily a bad thing, i guess) but not much ooomph.
I'm glad to have a cheaper PC solution, and allowed to buy any component I need to play the upgrade game. Certainly beats higher Mac prices, and mostly purchases that must include the whole kabang. It's certainly the deciding factor on my choice of platforms. Not only that, but if someone was willing to spend more, we can build & buy PC's that are server status and for business solutions... We've got SCSI solutions, RAID, multiple CPU's, GB of RAM, and more cache solutions. However, without a doubt, I could make arguments that IBM's miniframes could eat PC's for lunch...
If I was a large, color, glossy, magazine where matching color was that important, I don't think I'd be running Photoshop. Maybe I'm wrong.
I know that Photoshop works for someone as low as me up to atleast a daily newspaper of a town of 75,000. But I would think that anyone that prints every and all pages of a magazine in color would be using some high tech hardware & presses, where the color separations are done right at the printer, bypassing paper, negatives, and even traditional plates now adays.
You don't think the people printing WIRED are reading??
I'd be afraid that the earth would lose too much weight! I mean, we are talking about billions and billions of Cd's. Fly them all off, and it's a veritable Mountain of ore we shipped off the planet!!
Oh shit! I just game AOL an idea: AOL-MOON! Just think how shiny a moon of Cd's would be!
(original kudus to fight club on 'planet starbucks')
I've used Photoshop for years. The newspaper my parents own bought it many many years ago, and thus I've had my "free" copy to use since then. I continue to buy the latest upgrade for them, to get the key features we need.
However, this last "upgrade" was only 5.5 from 5.0 and had nothing new to offer (at least for us) In fact, the only really new thing to offer was another product they're "Kind-of" integrating, and won't actually be fully integrated till 6.0
With the recent story Slashdot ran about the Insider Mac web site running "secret" information about the new 6.0 release, there were a LOT of posts saying that 6.0 wouldn't have many new features either. Even saying that the only reason Adobe was so upset about the leak was that people would find out how featureless (and waste of money) the next release would be.
And with Adobe's marketing buzzwords like "Best Release Ever".... wait... I'm sorry. I just can't be as corny as them, so I won't list any more. --But they were good!!!!
So with Adobe running out of steam for interesting ideas... When will GIMP catch up? Can Gimp catch up? How many people are working on this thing. Is it just the original creator??? Will they have to hire a larger team when they hit the "releasable" 2.0?
I hear a lot of people saying the Photoshop will rule because of CMYK. However, I hear more and more people saying that the RGB is all they need. And it's true, if all you need is WEB-output!! And obviously web graphics are important now compared to the 80's when there was no such thing.
One last thing to point out. I'm amazed at what these graphic tools can do. But what is more amazing is that it takes 15,000 apes at Microsoft to release maggot feces (read: buggy shit), but yet it only takes Adobe an extremely small workforce. Adobe is practically at the TOP of the "Net-Income-Per-Number-Of-Employees" list.
So... If Adobe can push this kind of software with their "small" gropu, I'm sure Gimp can too. I can tell you what... that Adobe will never make a Linux version! If they had their way, it'd be MAC only. It still comes out Mac-platform first. (Not as bad as it used to be, though)
Ok, so I have a hacked IOpener, and Websurfer Pro. That's about the extent of time I have anymore...(till the next one!). However, finding out that I could program for the DreamCast didn't really perk my interest as much as of the other stories I've heard.
And I'm wondering why.
I guess I need to ask all of you... what is the extent of the hack for the DC? Which direction does it go ?? Does it go from the PC to the DC, and then to the tv? Or from the CD placed inside the DC, to the PC or TV?
From what I saw from Hitmen's web site, they could do 2 basic things... They could access many of the settings from their host. And they could run a demo CD inside the DC without a host. I'm assuming that the demo would also have access to the settings. Is making demo graphics on the DC the only goal here?
I guess what I'm wondering is, due to the Hitmen, how close are we booting up a Linux Cd, or better yet, hooking storage to the DC to run an O/S. Would we want to work on I/O for DC such as Keyboard and Mouse, or would we be happy with typing via the host (your PC)
Would using the Graphic capabilities of the DC be what many hackers would want to do this hack for?
Reason is because the record industry is sad they didn't charge more way back when, when they first set the radio-station's pay-per-play set (or as you mentioned, the gross percentage amount) So, what happened, is it was a new pricing idea, and they were afraid to ask too much, and then not have the radio stations go along with it (I don't know what other options there were back then...) Years later, they found out how great it worked, how new stations lined up to pay, and they wish they'd have charged more to begin with. So it'll be more online, because they have a chance to now
-- mp3.com's contention is that they TRIED to do this from the start and the record companies refused to even discuss it. That's why they went ahead and did it without them...in order to force their hand. --
That's just wrong. When mp3.com first went ahead and bought and ripped and stored 40,000 CD's (at the time), they refused the Big 5's request to pay up! The big 5 wanted royalties on each play of each song. (And wouldn't that add up quick! - I Bet it wouldn't be a free service!)
Mp3.com thought it was rediculous to pay-per-play fees that the radio stations must do. They contended that this was JUST a way for users to listen to their music any way that they want. (anywhere any time). If they can play their music in their car via tape/CD, or listen at work on CD-ROM drives, why not simply allow them to play their music at any computer.
The problem though, is that Mp3.com (through advertising) would be benefiting financially by providing this service. And the problem is, the Big 5 believe that ONLY they should benefit from music copyrights. And since they own the copyright, there's not much you can do unless you get permission. (ala Radio station fees, and now mp3.com's new fees)
It's too bad. I fully agree that mp3.com had many great points. (I read Michael's messages and the message boards that followed since it all started) But when this came out, you could just tell that this time, they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. (Hard to do, when even the artists are slowly losing more rights to their own music to the big 5!!)
Rader --- Out of Hard drive space again. 114GB of Mp3's.
That's certainly an idea I'd support too. On a smaller scale, I saw it work succesfully 2 years ago when the IT department emailed everyone and said where to download the LOCAL version of the new Star Wars trailer. Probably same reason to promote LAN Quake2 games, large game Demo's, etc.
Completely saved the WAN. Afterall, everyone wanted it.
However, unless the school archives USENET for a period of time, I don't see how getting the new one-hit wonders would work. Most of the alt.bin.mp3 groups I atleast use are full albums. (great for me, just bad for them?)
How long would a person have to wait to get that one song by that one guy in that new commercial on USENET, versus the almost the instant succes and gratification of Napster.
I was pretty excited reading the title of this story off of the main page of slashdot, but then I saw that Katz wrote it, and was about as moved as the RIAA's first biased survey. (Where they only surveyed students near record stores, and then passed the information off as average national consumer trend that all record sales dropped off at record stores)
What I want to see is hard proof of Napster helping record sales. Not some fuzzy logic from some posters say..."uh, it must be true because I bought a cd yesterday". Not only that, but a lot of people mention an increase in non-mainstream artists. Myself included, I would never have found out names of various Punk & Blues bands if it hadn't been for Napster/newsgroups. However, the RIAA isn't interested in some mythical increase in fringe markets, they're interested in their money bands.
Also, the big record companies might be making more money (in our minds) with this new, open, uncontrolled distribution method, but they're losing something important: A guaranteed stranglehold of their cash cow. Open it up to anyone else, and suddenly they have competition (which they probably don't know how to deal with since they've agreed to a cartel for so long)
So either they continue to make a guaranteed 20 billion a year, or open it up to potential trillions a year? I don't know, but I see that the richer people get, the greedier they get.
Personally I think they should be worried about their artists. And actually I think that is exactly what they're thinking about. Not if some kid spends his allowance on a CD, but that they control the upper-level big-name bands. If only there was an acceptable alternative to "making it big", we'd see more 'big name artists' move away from the big labels. As it is though...you see these nationally no-name bands who work hard for years and years, get a huge city/state following, then get blinded by the big $$$ and move to the dark side. (i'm not blaming them or anything). Unfortuantely mp3.com failed in that regard. I mean to get one 'big star' (if you call a.morrisette a star) they had to give them huge percentage of stock?
I dunno, My grandfather wasn't in the trenches like the French were. He was high in the sky dropping bombs from B52's and the like.
Face it, we entered the war because of Pearl [Perl] Harbor. Entering the European front was our way of getting a seat at the table in the end with Russia. A finger in every pie, you know?
Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers are HURTING! They're hemorraging! The cost of printing is up, the cost of paper is up, and without a doubt, if you can only get one thing from this: the cost of postage is up.
The distribution of online news is a nickel compared to mailing paper. The post office is an evil place. They're REALLY hurting the small guys too. If aren't U.S. News with 2,000,000 subscribers, then screw you, you don't get the preferred 2nd class discount, you just get the normal 2nd class mail discount, which goes up 14% every other year!
Every time the stamp goes up, people get interviewed and say...yea no problem, it's been years since the stamp was increased. But they put "rider clauses" on it and tack on all kinds of other postage increases that the masses don't care about. Ooh, 1 penny for a stamp, but $1000's more for a small newspaper or magazine.
Rader
If new media isn't going to fail despite the hopeful predictions of old media, then will it succeed? And if so, will old media fail because of it?
Since we all seem to agree that old media starts the stories, and new media links or takes or talks about the story (and in a better way, since we can post about it, link to better sources about it, and simply discuss it), that it has to begin somewhere, old media may still have 2 legs to stand on. Obviously they'd rather have their finger in the pie of new media too. But why have they failed so miserably in that aspect? Are their standards of success too high? They're not getting a billion dollars online like they do on TV, so it's a failure? Must be, if they're directly relating it to hits and banner ad hits.
One thing I did like about these Old Media's web sites were the video clips. Now that's something that the new media guys can't do well. Takes bandwidth, space, etc. Plus, the old media owns these clips! And lots of them. Copyright-able too I'd imagine. New media might steal the story, but probably can't steal the broadcast clip of it.
Rader
--Does anybody here actually have any specific comments about the article--
Yea! Your article was a waste of our time. Why don't you post this crap to a main-media source? Oh.. because they'd reject it? I see. Well, we're rejecting it here. It's a little different, see, because you get a 100% chance of the editors posting your crap. They say, "ooh, Jon Katz, we have to publish some 'mainstream' artist to look professional". This article is proof. So if the editors won't reject your trash, then we have to. I hate troll responses in articles I care about, but today, I'd rather read all the responses about your article than the article itself.
If you really really really want some good responses, post something intelligent. You article is so noncommital that there's no chance of a discussion.
Rader
As far as good or different players, rippers, etc,... couldn't that information be found online?
Oh well. It's better than hearing about another Britney Spears release.
Rader
In fact, let me save everyone the trouble. I worked all the way through it, don't bother.
It's hard to post an intelligent response to such an unintelligent article.
Rader
While I agree with what you say, I'd like to point out one important, opposite idea. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that the NBC news company (and others) are owned by corporations, and damn well know that certain stories either end up on the cutting floor, or possibly tamed down.
I'm not going to blame them or anything. Back in the days when I was printing, and started a magazine, do you think that i'd have a breaking news story that damned my best advertiser?
I read Slashdot, TomsHardware, Anandtech, and Sharky Extreme, because I can get the REAL dirt. Want to read some extreme stories on why Intel and Rambus are evil? Go to TomsHardware for a step by step technical review! Open up a fucking magazine owned by Ziff Davis (Oh wait, what else is there?) and you'll reading stories talking about how awesome RAMBUS is, and we should all buy this Intel matchup crap! See that is mainstream influenced by big bucks. (Wait, not that example... that is mainstream influenced by Intel hype.)
So, although there are trolls on slashdot, and Jon Krapz posts here once in a while, and ABC can spend the bucks to investigate some evil lawyer or something, I still know that on certain subjects I can get an unbiased opinion ONLINE instead. Whew!
Rader
The reason I like it is because I know that the sheep are reading, and just might learn something, or atleast become aware of it.
But why does this crap have to be published here? Go publish this crap in the old media world, where you might have a chance. We're not sheep, we're already a part of what's happening. We already know about it. I want a techie's perspective on it!! Know why? Because I'm one too, and there's a good chance that they'll explain something that I don't know about. And not only that, but they'll talk about the points that interest me too.
---These and other new media "setbacks" prompted some gleeful, almost poignant predictions that old media might return from the grave. Don't put any money on it--
--What's the future of media? What are all the rumblings about struggling online media? --
What a waste. Let's write 10 pages of nothing, hype it up with *big* words, and then ask rhetorical or meaningless questions. In fact, this whole style reminds me of the local newscasters here in Indiana that did their own pre-show for the Indiana Pacers in the NBA Finals:
Idiot #1: Well Harv, what do we have to do to win this next big game?
Idiot #2: First off, we have to score more in the first half, and then we should pump up our defense throughout the game.
Idiot #1: Great idea. What about Shaq, well he be a factor today?
Idiot #2: That's right Merv, the Pacers will really have to stop his game if they're going to have a change to bring it back to Los Angeles.
(Continue on for another hour--ack!)
Rader
A typical MP3 is 1M in size for each 1 minute of music. That's only 16K a second. Even if you don't get 10 megabits a second, you still are JUST FINE.
Latency on hard drives is hardly a problem too! When I skip around on my CD-R's... sometimes I get latency. But only sometimes. Hard drives are much faster. I'm actually surprised all of this came up as a question. Just pushing NEXT on a cd-player will take longer than practically getting the first 20 seconds of an mp3 song from a hard drive and over the network connection.
Rader
When I started doing MP3's a couple years ago, I decided to get a really nice sound card and really nice computer speakers. The benefit to me was that I could also improve my computer game experience (especially now with the A3D surround sound in games) So I have my own happy computer stereo solution.
However, I do understand that some people have extremely expensive stereo equipment, probably hooked up with the TV enjoyment, so I do understand the need to maybe move the music from the computer to the 10' tall speakers in the living room!
But there is a cheaper solution, and it's been out for a year now: x10.com's MP3 Anywhere. It will broadcast your MP3's from your PC wirelessly to your stereo. I can't vouch which technology they're using since their web site has changed since last year, but probably a radio frequency since walls are not a problem. I suggested this to a friend of mine who needed to get music from his bedroom's computer to the living room (60 feet away, down some steps - obviously wiring wasn't a solution)
So, maybe it's X10's fault for not being a market figurehead like Dell. So let's look at Dell's black box. What the hell does it DO??? From their zero specs, It looks like it contains a network connection, buttons on the front, and a in-out port to push ALL the data straight to the Aux Input of the stereo.
I'm curious who is PLAYING the Mp3. Is it the computer? Or this black box? Hopefully it's the black box, then they could add usefull features like a CD-R tray in front, and make it a stand alone player. Truly... to make this component shine, it should be just like the diskman. PLAYS mp3's. Heck, options could be to include hard drive space, CD-R, or even DVD-R. You can fit a lot of music on a 5.4GB DVD. And THEN and only then have this "added" value of being able to access your computer's mp3 storage.
It's just seems WAY too pricey for something that won't work alone. I'll say it one last time: accessing your computer mp3's would be the killer feature for a stereo component that already played MP3's.
Rader
See, this is the evolution that will happen if we continue to get smarter & smarter, become less & less active. We no longer have to chase down zebras with a spear just to get breakfast. We're not as active. We've lost almost all our hair, since we no longer have to be wooly mammoths to keep warm. heck, just turn the Heater on! And we're losing the hair we have anyways just because of baseball caps (ok, just a theory of mine about hats) Aliens are white, because they don't just program all-nighters, but all-monthers. They don't see the sun months at a time.
See, just because we don't HAVE to survive Nature's environment doesn't mean evolution has stopped. We now have to survive our Technology environment we created. We'll be flying in spaceships soon, and nature is slowly disappearing anyways due to Yet-Another-Suburb(tm). We're already slowly turning into a society where brains can get you ahead. And even starting to get more and more a MUST. For instance... it used to be a big deal to finish your High School, then it was college. Now everyone goes to college. Soon, it'll be triple PHD, and we've already seen the small small rift in Computer-ese vs. NonComputer users.
Evolution is happening! Even if we're sociologically morally allowing People with disabilites to live and procreate, and as another poster said, "all the poor people are having 20 kids, so there'll be all these genes with dumb people spreading", blah blah. Yes, see.. that is evolution. Maybe just not in the direction you're thinking of.
Ok, here's an anology. Let's say that the government made it really cool and easy to get Welfare. Infact, they make it desirable to. (wait, that sounds familiar) Get to watch all the day time crap TV you want! And get payed! So more and more trailer park trash (another poster's words) start to procreate and join welfare. Pretty soon we've got GENERATIONS of Welfare people. See, that's evolution!
Then! All the money dries up because there were only like 10 of us going to work, and 95% of our money went to taxes. So now all of a sudden there's no longer any Welfare cheese to survive on, and they all start to die because they have the "I-dont-know-how-to-work" gene. Another step in Evolution!
This actually happened with a certain type of moth in England. All the trees in this region were birch or something (white bark, being the key here). All these moths were white, and could survive because they blended into the white. Well, once in a while, genetics would make a freak, and a black moth was born. Usually he got eaten by the birds, and no more black moths in that family.
Well, the industrial revolution came for a visit, and spewed forth black soot in the air (and haven't stopped since, i'd wager) Anyway, the trees started to get this darker and darker and darker color to them from the polution. All of a sudden, the freaks of nature that were dark colored moths continued to live and pass their "freaky" gene on, as their white bretheren started to become easy to find on the black trees.
So the point is, we're all slowly turning into non-action related brainy people. If a catastrophe happened, and we'd all have to haul our fat asses after the zebra to eat, instead of driving to the grocery store, yea, we're screwed. But if this catastrophe doesn't happen, then its ok, because we're creating an environment where it's cool to be an out of shape, porphyric, attrophied, possibly fat, computer geek. Yea
Rader
When did the iMac come out? I thought it was just last year, but then again, I have this 10 year old running around the house calling himself my son! Where the hell did that come from??
If it was just a year ago, it seems awfully fast for it to be *so slow*. However maybe if it's 2 years ago, it's about time. Goes to show that the release of the iMac was all show & style (not necessarily a bad thing, i guess) but not much ooomph.
I'm glad to have a cheaper PC solution, and allowed to buy any component I need to play the upgrade game. Certainly beats higher Mac prices, and mostly purchases that must include the whole kabang. It's certainly the deciding factor on my choice of platforms. Not only that, but if someone was willing to spend more, we can build & buy PC's that are server status and for business solutions... We've got SCSI solutions, RAID, multiple CPU's, GB of RAM, and more cache solutions. However, without a doubt, I could make arguments that IBM's miniframes could eat PC's for lunch...
Rader
I know that Photoshop works for someone as low as me up to atleast a daily newspaper of a town of 75,000. But I would think that anyone that prints every and all pages of a magazine in color would be using some high tech hardware & presses, where the color separations are done right at the printer, bypassing paper, negatives, and even traditional plates now adays.
You don't think the people printing WIRED are reading??
Rader
Oh shit! I just game AOL an idea: AOL-MOON! Just think how shiny a moon of Cd's would be!
(original kudus to fight club on 'planet starbucks')
Rader
I need more hard drive space! 120GB MP3's!
However, this last "upgrade" was only 5.5 from 5.0 and had nothing new to offer (at least for us) In fact, the only really new thing to offer was another product they're "Kind-of" integrating, and won't actually be fully integrated till 6.0
With the recent story Slashdot ran about the Insider Mac web site running "secret" information about the new 6.0 release, there were a LOT of posts saying that 6.0 wouldn't have many new features either. Even saying that the only reason Adobe was so upset about the leak was that people would find out how featureless (and waste of money) the next release would be.
And with Adobe's marketing buzzwords like "Best Release Ever".... wait... I'm sorry. I just can't be as corny as them, so I won't list any more. --But they were good!!!!
So with Adobe running out of steam for interesting ideas... When will GIMP catch up? Can Gimp catch up? How many people are working on this thing. Is it just the original creator??? Will they have to hire a larger team when they hit the "releasable" 2.0?
I hear a lot of people saying the Photoshop will rule because of CMYK. However, I hear more and more people saying that the RGB is all they need. And it's true, if all you need is WEB-output!! And obviously web graphics are important now compared to the 80's when there was no such thing.
One last thing to point out. I'm amazed at what these graphic tools can do. But what is more amazing is that it takes 15,000 apes at Microsoft to release maggot feces (read: buggy shit), but yet it only takes Adobe an extremely small workforce. Adobe is practically at the TOP of the "Net-Income-Per-Number-Of-Employees" list.
So... If Adobe can push this kind of software with their "small" gropu, I'm sure Gimp can too. I can tell you what... that Adobe will never make a Linux version! If they had their way, it'd be MAC only. It still comes out Mac-platform first. (Not as bad as it used to be, though)
Rader
And I'm wondering why.
I guess I need to ask all of you... what is the extent of the hack for the DC? Which direction does it go ?? Does it go from the PC to the DC, and then to the tv? Or from the CD placed inside the DC, to the PC or TV?
From what I saw from Hitmen's web site, they could do 2 basic things... They could access many of the settings from their host. And they could run a demo CD inside the DC without a host. I'm assuming that the demo would also have access to the settings. Is making demo graphics on the DC the only goal here?
I guess what I'm wondering is, due to the Hitmen, how close are we booting up a Linux Cd, or better yet, hooking storage to the DC to run an O/S. Would we want to work on I/O for DC such as Keyboard and Mouse, or would we be happy with typing via the host (your PC)
Would using the Graphic capabilities of the DC be what many hackers would want to do this hack for?
Rader
Reason is because the record industry is sad they didn't charge more way back when, when they first set the radio-station's pay-per-play set (or as you mentioned, the gross percentage amount) So, what happened, is it was a new pricing idea, and they were afraid to ask too much, and then not have the radio stations go along with it (I don't know what other options there were back then...) Years later, they found out how great it worked, how new stations lined up to pay, and they wish they'd have charged more to begin with. So it'll be more online, because they have a chance to now
That's just wrong. When mp3.com first went ahead and bought and ripped and stored 40,000 CD's (at the time), they refused the Big 5's request to pay up! The big 5 wanted royalties on each play of each song. (And wouldn't that add up quick! - I Bet it wouldn't be a free service!)
Mp3.com thought it was rediculous to pay-per-play fees that the radio stations must do. They contended that this was JUST a way for users to listen to their music any way that they want. (anywhere any time). If they can play their music in their car via tape/CD, or listen at work on CD-ROM drives, why not simply allow them to play their music at any computer.
The problem though, is that Mp3.com (through advertising) would be benefiting financially by providing this service. And the problem is, the Big 5 believe that ONLY they should benefit from music copyrights. And since they own the copyright, there's not much you can do unless you get permission. (ala Radio station fees, and now mp3.com's new fees)
It's too bad. I fully agree that mp3.com had many great points. (I read Michael's messages and the message boards that followed since it all started) But when this came out, you could just tell that this time, they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. (Hard to do, when even the artists are slowly losing more rights to their own music to the big 5!!)
Rader
--- Out of Hard drive space again. 114GB of Mp3's.
Napster begged for an electronic copy. (Can you imagine the work otherwise?) They also mentioned that the 60,000 pages were an obvious photo op.
Err... I actually edited that part out :)
Only 46 Gig? How about 162 CD-R's... That comes to 106 GB, give or take a gig.
RAMBUS is also a flop. The latency is terrible, and the speeds that Intel hoped would rock the world are now almost to the scrap table.
However, unless the school archives USENET for a period of time, I don't see how getting the new one-hit wonders would work. Most of the alt.bin.mp3 groups I atleast use are full albums. (great for me, just bad for them?)
How long would a person have to wait to get that one song by that one guy in that new commercial on USENET, versus the almost the instant succes and gratification of Napster.
Rader
What I want to see is hard proof of Napster helping record sales. Not some fuzzy logic from some posters say..."uh, it must be true because I bought a cd yesterday". Not only that, but a lot of people mention an increase in non-mainstream artists. Myself included, I would never have found out names of various Punk & Blues bands if it hadn't been for Napster/newsgroups. However, the RIAA isn't interested in some mythical increase in fringe markets, they're interested in their money bands.
Also, the big record companies might be making more money (in our minds) with this new, open, uncontrolled distribution method, but they're losing something important: A guaranteed stranglehold of their cash cow. Open it up to anyone else, and suddenly they have competition (which they probably don't know how to deal with since they've agreed to a cartel for so long)
So either they continue to make a guaranteed 20 billion a year, or open it up to potential trillions a year? I don't know, but I see that the richer people get, the greedier they get.
Personally I think they should be worried about their artists. And actually I think that is exactly what they're thinking about. Not if some kid spends his allowance on a CD, but that they control the upper-level big-name bands. If only there was an acceptable alternative to "making it big", we'd see more 'big name artists' move away from the big labels. As it is though...you see these nationally no-name bands who work hard for years and years, get a huge city/state following, then get blinded by the big $$$ and move to the dark side. (i'm not blaming them or anything). Unfortuantely mp3.com failed in that regard. I mean to get one 'big star' (if you call a.morrisette a star) they had to give them huge percentage of stock?
(/RAMBLE)
Rader
I thought the IBM finding of "copper in chips" was actually being able to get silicon and copper to mix together - which hasn't been possible before.
Face it, we entered the war because of Pearl [Perl] Harbor. Entering the European front was our way of getting a seat at the table in the end with Russia. A finger in every pie, you know?
Dustin