Here we go again- "The conference was organized by the fledgling Future of Music Coalition, a D.C.-based nonprofit group that lobbies and agitates for the heaps of musicians ignored by MTV, radio, the majors and any other entity that could market a band to fame and a large paycheck. The FMC is filling a big niche, since the number of struggling musicians far exceeds the number of Linkin Parks. Its heart is in the right place." (This neglects to point out that majors PAY MONEY to place tracks on MTV and the radio... they are not ignored- they are bedfellows!)
Does anyone think it is a COINCIDENCE that there has NEVER been a grassroots groundswell that has propelled a truly indie (or self-released) artist into anything close to selling a half-million units (the threshold the major claim to require before THEY break even) ?
If you really stop and think about it, labels distribute "image" as much as they distribute the actual music. Look at the landfill at mp3.com. Many of those artists have self-released CDs (actual CDs- not those mp3.com fake CDs) available at their band sites or they are on a niche indy label. Somehow it seems that a major label is still required if an artist wants a stamp of legitimacy (ie. Linkin Park sounds like a ton of other indie bands, and are no better or worse- but Linkin Park is what people buy- not the others).
I personally am partial to UK d-n-b... especially the Bristol sound. Unfortunately, major labels have been unable to market the sound/image in the US. Like most electronic music, it is about the music- not the personalities involved... so we get stuck with bozos like "Fatboy Slim" who has been able to market his image on MTV.
The bottom line- the point I'm trying to make: CONSUMERS themselves have created this situation by DEMANDING the N-syncs, the mass-marketed MTV top-ten, the manipulated Total Request Live acts... we can criticize the pre-fab cookie cutter bands, but we can't argue with their success. This "type" of music has been around since at least the 50s, so there is nothing new about it.
Artists are to be blamed as well for seeking major labels and signing contracts. It blows my mind when artists claim to be raped by their labels when they "consented" to their contracts. Nobody forced them to sign their contracts.
Finally, the "history of the intenet" seems to indicate people's reluctance to pay for digital content. Quality/compression issues aside, I listen to most of my music in my car... kinda difficult to stream.
Ah, no.
Maybe it is just that instead of Red Book CD, we now have Crimson Book- a new format that is "like" red book, but with "copy protection"- and we call it something other than a "compact disc"- how many people look to see if there is the compact disc logo on a CD anyway?? Most people "assume" it is a CD if it is sold with CDs and sold "as" a CD... it isn't a big deal. Sony and the others can do what they want. It's like the urban legend that McDs doesn't sell "hamburgers" but rather burgers, because they don't contain enough beef.
Seriously, if you go to any of the digital audio musicians' newsgroups you'll understand immediately what I'm saying here.
Why would someone invest several hundred dollars into DAW software, an equal amount on plug-ins, and often again as much if not far more on hardware (instruments, keyboards, samplers, etc...) only to have everything go through a $100-200 card?
Add that most SBs were locked at 48K when standard CD audio is 44.1. Add that for years there were never ASIO drivers for SB cards (there may or may not be ASIO currently) so people were stuck with huge latency.
I was responding to people talking it up as a musician's card. Sure, it is the best card you can find at a Best Buy, but lets get real folks! Even on a budget- you don't want to cut corners on your audio card.
first of all- WHY is this on slashdot? : "Well, it looks like creative has done it again." Done WHAT again?
As a musician I wouldn't be caught dead with a Soundblaster. I still can't believe any musician uses Creative cards- On all the "trouble boards"- there are tons of topics from SB users.
If you MAKE music, buy a real AUDIO card- listen back with whatever you want, I don't care...
All the "connectivity" (I hate that word....) would included ADAT, but I'm just being picky. Creative products have historically not played well with other products. I wonder what SAMPLE RATE this card operates at? That was huge issue with previous offering- what kind of latency and with what buffers will that card work?
In addition it was impossible to find decent drivers (like ASIO) for SB products. I doubt this has improved.
The article is absurd: a usb HDD, usb cd-rw, and usb audio card? That is just asking for trouble!
For me, the compelling reason for my DSL is that the "normal" internet experience is faster- and for me that is reason enough to have it. There just isn't enough bandwidth YET for movies, etc... audio mp3 is fine if you can deal with higher compression (I hate 128- and I would never pay money for a song at that rate).
The problem with the opinion piece is that even with top-end consumer level broadband, it is cheaper and faster to drive to the video store to rent a movie than to download it (for a fee- on top of the broadband "fee" of using the connection).
Who wants to watch a movie on their PC anyway?
A 5 meg mp3 is a manageable download even on a dial-up (not in my opinion, but I know plenty of people who can live with that).
That's crap- mp3's codec is crippled solely so MS doesn't have to PAY a licensing fee. ALL the FREEBIE ENCODERS are crippled in this way. They decode at any quality. It has been this way for YEARS. Your post is either flamebait or ignorant of facts.
The bottom line is that I'd like to own a DVD where ALL the codecs are user upgradeable- that will play anything- MS or not. I don't want a compatibility war. I want it to be compatible with everything, now and for years to come.
I'm no MS apologist. This move is more about allowing Joe Blow who lives next door to be able to burn a DVD that will playback on his cousin's DVD player. It is no big deal.
FYI- last I checked mp3 was proprietary. Think about the economics of this (even if you were taught by Marxists): if you have a multimedia codec that you wish to profit from, how do you market it? If you want it to spread like wildfire, you give it away for players, but charge money for encoding (the mp3 model). Last I checked MS was even giving away the encoder (at least for a command line version- maybe not all that user friendly, but it works).
I use a Roland SP808ex for live PA shows... it is proprietary and never crashes. I convert everthing to zip disks on the PC, so there are no extra D/A conversions.
I can't imagine "trusting" a live show to any computer environment... can you imagine the wait while you reboot because your audio driver hung...?
For anyone that is interested, there is a huge (noticeable) difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. Also, any "card" that has the convertors OUTSIDE your box will make a huge difference... but for live, I don't think fidelity is all that noticeable (I've never played anywhere that is even remotely accoustically "tuned).
The upside to going with a dedicated system, like the Roland, is that you would have to pay extra cash for your "lunchbox" anyway. A rack alone costs at least $200 extra if you go that route instead. For some odd reason, music gear seems to depreciate slower than computer gear. I assume by your original post that you are looking for a solution ONLY for live performance- and not for your regular DAW (which is how I use mine). Also, I think there is a bit more credibility by NOT having a PC "on stage"- although certainly the end result is the same.
Unless USB audio has changed remarkably in the last few years, I wouldn't trust it. One hiccup and its all over.
I don't know what apps you use for audio, but Cubase, etc. all are prone to crashing when the CPU is overtaxed (which doesn't take all that much when you are running a ton of tracks with insert plugins on each channel).
Also, you will likely have to contend with latency- even with an ASIO2 driver. You'd likely want a big buffer to protect your audio from dropouts while you play (sure you can go to tiny buffers/low latency- but would you risk it?).
Regarding flamebait: I use a computer as a DAW- it is used for recording, mixdown, and mastering. All the input is "real instruments" (if you consider a drum machine, sampler, synthesizers, etc. "real"). The PC and software replaces tens of thousands of dollars of hardware recording equipment. I can't believe the ignorance of some people... a/.er who doesn't know you can do such things with PCs? The PC doesn't make the music... that's like milk comes from the grocery store!
Comet cursor is an enigma to me too... I ended up with it myself on my "pristine box"- my audio workstation that I go out of my way to keep very "clean: (ie. no games, no nothing...).
It is possible it is bundled with something else under a different name- but I definitely did not give permission for it.
The Free Speech metaphor IS a joke... I can own my own house, but I need PERMISSION (a building permit) from the city to add a shed for my mower, or to enlarge the living room, I can't park my car in the yard, I need to keep the lawn mown, sidewalks shoveled, etc... even if I OWN it, I can't do whatever I want with it (in the city)!
People are NOT gererally OUTRAGED at zoning issues as infringing on Constitutional rights... I sure as hell couldn't raise livestock in the backyard (or basement) or build an outhouse to save on my water bill! I can't burn a pile of tires in my firepit... I probably can't even HAVE a firepit.
We tend to look at ISP's use agreements (which typically forbid spamming) as the zoning issues, but there may be more at stake here. Your ISP's use conditions are more likened to forcing you to use only terra cotta planters and having white blinds in your townhome... and keep that garage door closed. They are not "laws" per se, but they are the rules you need to follow if you choose to live there. Using mauve planters won't be a blight to the neighborhood, but it might cause problems with the association.
On the other hand, violating certain zoning issues are viewed as holding the potential to lower property values for the neighborhood. Is spam just a flock of plastic pink flamingos and a menagerie of lawn ornaments, or is it a mountanous, stinking, putrified trash heap in the front yard?
Just because something has "words" it need not be considered free speech! I haven't seen a cigarette ad on TV for quite some time, and I don't think anyone is barking about it being a free speech issue... we don't have bill boards all over the freeways in certain scenic areas (so some jokers just paint the side a a semi trailer and park in near the road... hey, it's a truck, not a sign). We don't have hardcore porn on network TV... is that a free speech issue?
"Opt-out"?!... most of these lists are one-hit wonders/fly-by night outfits (or are arguably so).... you know the type of spam- buy cigarettes at a discount, a porn site, get rich quick... it isn't like amazon.com's newsletter. I fail to see how opting out- even if followed to the letter of the law, would ever work. One spammer might argue he ran 100 different "companies" (though I doubt many are even incorporated as such). Does anyone trust using an opt-out?
"Valid return address?" - I'm thinking this through, and there is no solution... I was pondering the possibility of establishing an email "handshake" to verify a valid return address, but those can be faked... using a trusted third party or a certificate, but those can be obtained just as easily be a spammer as anyone else. The bottom line is spammers don't respect "common decency" and decorum.
Out of curiosity I'll click on some URLs in spam, but a high percentage are ALREADY shut down. Those sites that are up and in business typically show almost NO contact information, never show an email address or street address, and all business is done through forms, so there is no way to voice one's displeasure at receiving spam (short of cutting and pasting a TON of gibberish [like opening a jpeg with a text editor] into the form fields... ). An alarming amount of spam consists of an 800 number that is usually SHUT DOWN by the time I've called (to complain).
On a humorous note, if you read the court info:
"However, Ferguson contends that he could allege sufficient facts to support this claim if given the opportunity to amend his complaint. Ferguson maintains that receiving an e-mail has a physical effect on computer hardware and that downloading e-mail and then deleting it by a process called "fragmentation" causes actual physical damage to a computer system. Respondents dispute the factual underpinnings of this argument. "
I always laughed at "speculating"- like anyone was getting rich buying those stupid names being auctioned off on ebay.... like www.iwzx.com (hey! it's only four easy letters to remember!)
I use qwest for a DSL line and had received ISP service through them prior to this impending MSN disaster (where they are assimilation the Qwest ISP customers).
I switched to a local ISP rather than using MSN, although I was billed by Qwest ISP for a few extra months. Afraid the lackeys would disconnect my DSL line rather than the ISP services, I waited awhile before mustering the courage. I actually finally spoke with someone (after being transferred to numerous people) who was able to cancel the ISP charges AND credit me for several months of unnecessary charges.
I was content with the fact that nothing was screwed up after dealing with a company that insisted a needed a new email/user name when I simply moved a few blocks away a few years ago, and left me without DSL for over a month (I eventually "got my good name back"- with considerable hassle and grief).
However, Qwest charged me $30 for simply making a change to my service. I called them yesterday out of principle. They stated any change to DSL service results in the charge. This makes no sense to me whatsoever since the actual DSL change occurred months ago (with no charge) and at this point I was cancelling ISP service (which SHOULD have occurred months ago, but I digress).
Of course if you *migrate* to MSN, there is no charge... now I could care less about the $30, and frankly I'd gladly pay it to NOT be a MSN customer, but it is the principle of the matter that bothers me the most. As it relates to the article here, it is yet another "unfair" business practice that favors vendors and subsidiaries with a special relationship to Qwest.
I tried to explain to the phone rep. that it made no sense to charge me $30 to change ISPs when they would have changed me for free anyway... or that my ORIGINAL service with Qwest's ISP will no longer exist- that if I had wanted to be an MSN customer I would have done so years ago, that their material disclosed that migration to MSN would occur automatically if I took no action to switch ISPs, that I NEVER agreed to be an MSN customer in the first place, blah, blah, blah...
I still cannot find any info regarding a fee for a change in service, and I am under no contract. The amount of ignorance EVERYONE I've spoken to at Qwest about switching ISPs is remarkable (barring the one exception).
Qwest basically is a monopoly, and they use their position somewhat exploitively. I guess if a business practice does not relate DIRECTLY to phone service, the public utility commission has no jurisdiction?
Norway? Huh?
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Last I checked Norway was NOT on the list (and proud of it)- they didn't join the EU- probably because they can do whatever they want with just a few million people to share all that North Sea oil (they have several thousand "dollars" of oil per person sitting in reserve). The rest of the Scandanavian countries are also conspicously missing (no one actually considers Finland to be Scandanavian).
Just for giggles I did a search for the variations of CNN and came up with:
"Read the Latest News
See the day's top stories at MSNBC." (listed as an *actual* search result?- I will give them some credit- it came in #2 rather than #1)
huh... those geniuses must have figured out that I was REALLY wanting to visit msnbc.com! Absolutely brilliant!
I have several apps (like Wavelab) that are capable of burning red-book spec CDs (unlike Nero, Roxio, Adaptec)- ie. able to adjust PQ codes, etc... These same apps can also extract audio. I am very curious how this software (vs. a freebie ripper) would handle a "protected CD"- (unfortunately there isn't any protected music worth buying).
I realize Universal has implied that this is a hardware issue, but I have a hard time with that "line"- my guess is that anyone could write software "error detection" that emulates that of an audio CD player capable of playing a "protected CD". My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is that a PC's CD drive uses a more exacting form of error detection (since they spin faster, and let's face it- one bit of error sneaking by in your walkman's CD playing in real time can be interpolated with less impact than on a data CD for a PC).
I also find it difficult to believe that all of the glass mastering facilities have been retooled to accept masters with "errors." Obviously there is a great difference between "pressing a CD" and burning one- and the error tolerances are very different.
The actual digital data of a CDDA file is identical to that of a.wav file at 44.1 sample rate, 16 bits... no format conversion occurs. The only issue is the layout on the CD- but the raw data is identical. I seriously cannot believe that this cannot be extracted intact through software.
Labels need to realize that a compressed format such as mp3 poses a legitimate compromise to fidelity. It is not unlike making a mix tape on(cassette). Granted many people also are copying entire CDs with the wave audio intact, but if the labels wanted to show a gesture of good faith, they would INCLUDE mp3s at a decent audio quality (above 128!). This would at least make purchasing the CD "valuable" (since it is higher quality than mp3).
But keep in mind that we will soon see high resolution audio on DVD, and the labels will try to resell you your entire collection with audio at least at 24 bits, and likely twice the sample rates... likely with surround sound mixes, etc. This of course if overkill considering most people's listening environments. Again, this could be viewed as a value added service worth paying a premium (and I consider the cost of a new CD at that price point, considering what little you get for your money). An mp3 will look like a very inferior medium to those with discerning ears.
To address another point someone raised, it will be VERY EASY to fill a DVD audio CD- the audio files themselves could easily double if not triple, and they will likely add alternate mixes of the same songs, and dump a bunch of other multi-media crap on them... and probably add "commercials" promoting other artists or products .
They CANNOT mandate copy protection for PCs. Hardware has historically been ahead of media (think VCR if you must... or cassette tapes). Look what a flop the "pay-per-view" DVD players were... consumers voted with their wallets.
The DIRECT DIGITAL copy argument does not apply here if we consider that a blank DVD could cost more than a high-res audio DVD (which it could- for the time being). In the meantime, people need to use the technology to unseat the stranglehold that the centralized form of distribution places on content (FOUR major labels controlling everying, including the LAW?!- certainly promotes a grassroots "open source" movement for artists to distribute their wares directly- most consumers would arguably rather pay the artist than the label anyway, and arguably actual production costs are at an all-time low and are headed lower... as long as you don't need that top shelf producer).
Universal and others truly are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
OK, OK... it holds the *potential* to be a problem- big deal. They cited NO actual examples of theft other than the money laundering example, and there are many easier ways of laundering money if you use your imagination.
There have been several local stories about people stealing money order machines, or printing MOs on their PCs... this stuff actually happens all the time, but a nice "holiday piece" about gift cards without even anedotal "evidence" that this is a widespread problem? Gimme a break!
There are no named sources to the story, the internet site they reference is not given, and they only list retailers viewed as less problematic (and give us a nice caveat to explain why). Not only is the problem a "scenario"- the news story itself is a scenario. Boring journalism... might as well be an op-ed piece.
I'm more concerned about issues such as identity theft, etc... at least your gift card leaves no personal identification about you.
Wireless? They already act like your walkman or cellphone will bring the plane down...
This airborn broadband seems like an expensive gimmick. Last hotel I was in charged a fortune (per minute) for hookup... can't imagine what an airline will charge.
Finally, I've never been forced to listen to anyone sitting next to me on a plane. Skip a few showers before you board, if you must!
Windows are poor security in any setting- a house, a car, a PC. You can put as many locks as you want- but you can always easily break windows. Notice how bank vaults generally have no windows.
"Except that MSNBC is the most openly critical newssite, when it comes to MS. "-
Except that there really isn't any competition for most users- it is like being critical of the WEATHER
Also, notice the story breaks AFTER the patch is released... we can all hail those "innovators at Redmond" for saving the day- reminds me of all those cheesy movies where the arsonist is a fireman.
Most users never ever experience or are aware that they have experienced a "security breech" of their home system- most home users' PC problem solving skills are about following tech support's advise to insert their recovery CD and wipe out everything in their box because their modem doesn't work.
The public has so little understanding of the core issues... a co-worker I was speaking with today who just purchased an XP box asked me a bunch of questions about the issue after reading about it in the paper... his facination with the topic was akin to reading about local crime stories- with a weird thrill that "it could happen to him"- while here the discussion is about "the principle of the issue"- that the OS was even let out the door in the first place, and that this is one of many problems.
1. Last I checked, nobody forced anybody to use an MS OS or browser to surf the net... nor does MS OWN the internet. BUT- I think this inquiry is a BACKDOOR to the anti-trust issue... that maybe while NOT a monopoly, the user base is SO LARGE that a "widespread catastrophy" *could* occur.
2. Accountability? If I purchased a new boat that was full of leaks, and all my friends purchased boats from the same company that also all leaked, that company would have a serious PR issue, and would likely be out of business in no time- whether they "fixed" them or not, the expectation of the consumer is that they won't leak during their first launch. MS does NOT have a serious PR problem to most consumers.
Instead, we have "experts" as much as tell us that "all boats leak a little here and there"- and there is no real effort involved with patching these leaks (just use your "auto-update"). Then we add the fact that to the general rank and file consumer, the issue is so COMPLICATED and "gee-whiz" (meaning most consumers wouldn't recognize the leak, nor could they make their own boat "visibly" leak, etc... in essence they never NOTICE the leak, but rather they merely read about it, so it does not directly affect them- unless their boat actually sinks).
(as an aside): I would like to see someone actually try to return XP to MS as a defective product... just as a test case of sorts to see how MS handles the issue. Clearly they are selling leaky boats, and there must be at the very least an "implied warrantee."
The real question is whether XP "works as advertised." On the other hand, almost all software companies "expect" their users to be beta testers- MS is no different.
3. Internet as national infrastructure: We risk receiving anthrax through the mail, risk dying in a crash on the highways, risk a carjacking in a rough neighborhood... should we NOT assume some risk by connecting our computers to a world wide network that is accessable from all sorts of dark corners?
I know that I am speaking out the other side of my mouth here, and in essence NOT holding MS accountable, but car makers make all sorts of safety comprimises based on cost and convenience. We could have a "helmet law" while riding in a car, and five-point seatbelt harnesses if we were more concerned about safety than convenience. There are countless product recalls. Where do we draw the line?
I do think FBI involvement is a bit presumptuous. On one hand, for years they have banned encryption they couldn't easily crack, now they turn around and express concern for security? Where's the logic?
On a humorous note:
"
Outside experts cautioned that disabling the affected Windows XP features threatens to render unusable an entire category of high-tech devices about to go on the market, such as a new class of computer printers that are easier to set up. But they also acknowledged that disabling it could afford some protection against similar flaws discovered in the future. "
---yeah, there's nothing MORE DIFFICULT than "setting up a home printer"
If I were to build a PRIVATE road on private land, and allow you all to sign a waiver so you can drive as fast as you want, the police would have NO jurisdiction to give you a speeding ticket (but arguably it could not directly connect to a public road without a checkpoint, etc..). However if you committed murder on the road, it would definitely be in the police's jurisdiction (ever heard of a speedway?).
I don't understand this mixed message that the internet is public and private property at the same time. On one hand, nobody forces ANYBODY to have internet in their homes. You don't want your kids surfing porn, don't get the internet (there are obviously other means for accomplishing these ends).
"Illegal file transfer" ?! I PAY money for anything of value to me. I only have a finite amount to spend. I will spend a relatively fixed amount on my entertainment. The price of that entertainment determines how much I receive. I would never PAY money for any of the Napster crap I ever downloaded... I downloaded because I COULD. People who use warez are not people who would ever have purchased the software in the first place. No company is LOSING money.
If labels are worried about LOSING MONEY, maybe they need to ADD VALUE to what they sell. Remember when album artwork meant something? Nowdays I throw a CD in my 100 disc changer and never look at the booklet. The fact that you can purchase a DVD for about the same price as a music CD is pathetic. A DVD is a great example of adding value to something- something many people might even already own as a video cassette.
At best, an "illegal copy" should be of inferior enough quality to prompt the purchase of the original (ie. who wants a badly compressed mp3 or grainy video file of a song or movie they really like?). People have yet to trade full.wav files. The industry really needs to regard file trading as a street-level promotional tool.
...remember the suit where Amazon.com "patented" one-click checkout, or whatever it was and started suing competitors?
Xerox certainly waited a conspicuously long time to sue.
Why WinCe isn't mentioned in the suit...
I read the actual text of the patent, and I'm left feeling the only obvious implementation of stylus-based handwriting recognition would be to implement it exactly as outlined in the patent (digital sampling based on X-Y coordinates). At face value, it seems a definite infringement- assuming the patent itself is legitimate.
This truly makes me wonder if pen and paper were invented today, could someone patent the pen as a graphic input device? Or are patents best left to actually improving the design of the pen (the ball-point). This would lead me to believe that if some great algorythm vastly improved the recognition abilities of the device, IT could be patented, but not the concept itself.
One could also almost argue that individual "cursive" letter function as a unistroke style of writing (if you forget about dotting your "i"s and crossing your "t"s... and with a computer, it should be intuitive it "knows" it needs to dot or cross them).
Would Palm be able to skirt the issue by allowing each user to teach the input interface each letter he or she wants to use?
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go again- "The conference was organized by the fledgling Future of Music Coalition, a D.C.-based nonprofit group that lobbies and agitates for the heaps of musicians ignored by MTV, radio, the majors and any other entity that could market a band to fame and a large paycheck. The FMC is filling a big niche, since the number of struggling musicians far exceeds the number of Linkin Parks. Its heart is in the right place." (This neglects to point out that majors PAY MONEY to place tracks on MTV and the radio... they are not ignored- they are bedfellows!) Does anyone think it is a COINCIDENCE that there has NEVER been a grassroots groundswell that has propelled a truly indie (or self-released) artist into anything close to selling a half-million units (the threshold the major claim to require before THEY break even) ? If you really stop and think about it, labels distribute "image" as much as they distribute the actual music. Look at the landfill at mp3.com. Many of those artists have self-released CDs (actual CDs- not those mp3.com fake CDs) available at their band sites or they are on a niche indy label. Somehow it seems that a major label is still required if an artist wants a stamp of legitimacy (ie. Linkin Park sounds like a ton of other indie bands, and are no better or worse- but Linkin Park is what people buy- not the others). I personally am partial to UK d-n-b... especially the Bristol sound. Unfortunately, major labels have been unable to market the sound/image in the US. Like most electronic music, it is about the music- not the personalities involved... so we get stuck with bozos like "Fatboy Slim" who has been able to market his image on MTV. The bottom line- the point I'm trying to make: CONSUMERS themselves have created this situation by DEMANDING the N-syncs, the mass-marketed MTV top-ten, the manipulated Total Request Live acts... we can criticize the pre-fab cookie cutter bands, but we can't argue with their success. This "type" of music has been around since at least the 50s, so there is nothing new about it. Artists are to be blamed as well for seeking major labels and signing contracts. It blows my mind when artists claim to be raped by their labels when they "consented" to their contracts. Nobody forced them to sign their contracts. Finally, the "history of the intenet" seems to indicate people's reluctance to pay for digital content. Quality/compression issues aside, I listen to most of my music in my car... kinda difficult to stream.
Ah, no. Maybe it is just that instead of Red Book CD, we now have Crimson Book- a new format that is "like" red book, but with "copy protection"- and we call it something other than a "compact disc"- how many people look to see if there is the compact disc logo on a CD anyway?? Most people "assume" it is a CD if it is sold with CDs and sold "as" a CD... it isn't a big deal. Sony and the others can do what they want. It's like the urban legend that McDs doesn't sell "hamburgers" but rather burgers, because they don't contain enough beef.
Remember the compression challenge?
m l
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/24/0457247.sht
'nuff said
Flamebait?
Seriously, if you go to any of the digital audio musicians' newsgroups you'll understand immediately what I'm saying here.
Why would someone invest several hundred dollars into DAW software, an equal amount on plug-ins, and often again as much if not far more on hardware (instruments, keyboards, samplers, etc...) only to have everything go through a $100-200 card?
Add that most SBs were locked at 48K when standard CD audio is 44.1. Add that for years there were never ASIO drivers for SB cards (there may or may not be ASIO currently) so people were stuck with huge latency.
I was responding to people talking it up as a musician's card. Sure, it is the best card you can find at a Best Buy, but lets get real folks! Even on a budget- you don't want to cut corners on your audio card.
first of all- WHY is this on slashdot? : "Well, it looks like creative has done it again." Done WHAT again?
As a musician I wouldn't be caught dead with a Soundblaster. I still can't believe any musician uses Creative cards- On all the "trouble boards"- there are tons of topics from SB users.
If you MAKE music, buy a real AUDIO card- listen back with whatever you want, I don't care...
All the "connectivity" (I hate that word....) would included ADAT, but I'm just being picky. Creative products have historically not played well with other products. I wonder what SAMPLE RATE this card operates at? That was huge issue with previous offering- what kind of latency and with what buffers will that card work?
In addition it was impossible to find decent drivers (like ASIO) for SB products. I doubt this has improved.
The article is absurd: a usb HDD, usb cd-rw, and usb audio card? That is just asking for trouble!
For me, the compelling reason for my DSL is that the "normal" internet experience is faster- and for me that is reason enough to have it. There just isn't enough bandwidth YET for movies, etc... audio mp3 is fine if you can deal with higher compression (I hate 128- and I would never pay money for a song at that rate).
The problem with the opinion piece is that even with top-end consumer level broadband, it is cheaper and faster to drive to the video store to rent a movie than to download it (for a fee- on top of the broadband "fee" of using the connection).
Who wants to watch a movie on their PC anyway?
A 5 meg mp3 is a manageable download even on a dial-up (not in my opinion, but I know plenty of people who can live with that).
That's crap- mp3's codec is crippled solely so MS doesn't have to PAY a licensing fee. ALL the FREEBIE ENCODERS are crippled in this way. They decode at any quality. It has been this way for YEARS. Your post is either flamebait or ignorant of facts.
The bottom line is that I'd like to own a DVD where ALL the codecs are user upgradeable- that will play anything- MS or not. I don't want a compatibility war. I want it to be compatible with everything, now and for years to come.
I'm no MS apologist. This move is more about allowing Joe Blow who lives next door to be able to burn a DVD that will playback on his cousin's DVD player. It is no big deal.
FYI- last I checked mp3 was proprietary. Think about the economics of this (even if you were taught by Marxists): if you have a multimedia codec that you wish to profit from, how do you market it? If you want it to spread like wildfire, you give it away for players, but charge money for encoding (the mp3 model). Last I checked MS was even giving away the encoder (at least for a command line version- maybe not all that user friendly, but it works).
I use a Roland SP808ex for live PA shows... it is proprietary and never crashes. I convert everthing to zip disks on the PC, so there are no extra D/A conversions.
/.er who doesn't know you can do such things with PCs? The PC doesn't make the music... that's like milk comes from the grocery store!
I can't imagine "trusting" a live show to any computer environment... can you imagine the wait while you reboot because your audio driver hung...?
For anyone that is interested, there is a huge (noticeable) difference between 16 bits and 24 bits. Also, any "card" that has the convertors OUTSIDE your box will make a huge difference... but for live, I don't think fidelity is all that noticeable (I've never played anywhere that is even remotely accoustically "tuned).
The upside to going with a dedicated system, like the Roland, is that you would have to pay extra cash for your "lunchbox" anyway. A rack alone costs at least $200 extra if you go that route instead. For some odd reason, music gear seems to depreciate slower than computer gear. I assume by your original post that you are looking for a solution ONLY for live performance- and not for your regular DAW (which is how I use mine). Also, I think there is a bit more credibility by NOT having a PC "on stage"- although certainly the end result is the same.
Unless USB audio has changed remarkably in the last few years, I wouldn't trust it. One hiccup and its all over.
I don't know what apps you use for audio, but Cubase, etc. all are prone to crashing when the CPU is overtaxed (which doesn't take all that much when you are running a ton of tracks with insert plugins on each channel).
Also, you will likely have to contend with latency- even with an ASIO2 driver. You'd likely want a big buffer to protect your audio from dropouts while you play (sure you can go to tiny buffers/low latency- but would you risk it?).
Regarding flamebait: I use a computer as a DAW- it is used for recording, mixdown, and mastering. All the input is "real instruments" (if you consider a drum machine, sampler, synthesizers, etc. "real"). The PC and software replaces tens of thousands of dollars of hardware recording equipment. I can't believe the ignorance of some people... a
Comet cursor is an enigma to me too... I ended up with it myself on my "pristine box"- my audio workstation that I go out of my way to keep very "clean: (ie. no games, no nothing...).
It is possible it is bundled with something else under a different name- but I definitely did not give permission for it.
The Free Speech metaphor IS a joke... I can own my own house, but I need PERMISSION (a building permit) from the city to add a shed for my mower, or to enlarge the living room, I can't park my car in the yard, I need to keep the lawn mown, sidewalks shoveled, etc... even if I OWN it, I can't do whatever I want with it (in the city)!
People are NOT gererally OUTRAGED at zoning issues as infringing on Constitutional rights... I sure as hell couldn't raise livestock in the backyard (or basement) or build an outhouse to save on my water bill! I can't burn a pile of tires in my firepit... I probably can't even HAVE a firepit.
We tend to look at ISP's use agreements (which typically forbid spamming) as the zoning issues, but there may be more at stake here. Your ISP's use conditions are more likened to forcing you to use only terra cotta planters and having white blinds in your townhome... and keep that garage door closed. They are not "laws" per se, but they are the rules you need to follow if you choose to live there. Using mauve planters won't be a blight to the neighborhood, but it might cause problems with the association.
On the other hand, violating certain zoning issues are viewed as holding the potential to lower property values for the neighborhood. Is spam just a flock of plastic pink flamingos and a menagerie of lawn ornaments, or is it a mountanous, stinking, putrified trash heap in the front yard?
Just because something has "words" it need not be considered free speech! I haven't seen a cigarette ad on TV for quite some time, and I don't think anyone is barking about it being a free speech issue... we don't have bill boards all over the freeways in certain scenic areas (so some jokers just paint the side a a semi trailer and park in near the road... hey, it's a truck, not a sign). We don't have hardcore porn on network TV... is that a free speech issue?
"Opt-out"?!... most of these lists are one-hit wonders/fly-by night outfits (or are arguably so).... you know the type of spam- buy cigarettes at a discount, a porn site, get rich quick... it isn't like amazon.com's newsletter. I fail to see how opting out- even if followed to the letter of the law, would ever work. One spammer might argue he ran 100 different "companies" (though I doubt many are even incorporated as such). Does anyone trust using an opt-out?
"Valid return address?" - I'm thinking this through, and there is no solution... I was pondering the possibility of establishing an email "handshake" to verify a valid return address, but those can be faked... using a trusted third party or a certificate, but those can be obtained just as easily be a spammer as anyone else. The bottom line is spammers don't respect "common decency" and decorum.
Out of curiosity I'll click on some URLs in spam, but a high percentage are ALREADY shut down. Those sites that are up and in business typically show almost NO contact information, never show an email address or street address, and all business is done through forms, so there is no way to voice one's displeasure at receiving spam (short of cutting and pasting a TON of gibberish [like opening a jpeg with a text editor] into the form fields... ). An alarming amount of spam consists of an 800 number that is usually SHUT DOWN by the time I've called (to complain).
On a humorous note, if you read the court info:
"However, Ferguson contends that he could allege sufficient facts to support this claim if given the opportunity to amend his complaint. Ferguson maintains that receiving an e-mail has a physical effect on computer hardware and that downloading e-mail and then deleting it by a process called "fragmentation" causes actual physical damage to a computer system. Respondents dispute the factual underpinnings of this argument. "
I always laughed at "speculating"- like anyone was getting rich buying those stupid names being auctioned off on ebay.... like www.iwzx.com (hey! it's only four easy letters to remember!)
I use qwest for a DSL line and had received ISP service through them prior to this impending MSN disaster (where they are assimilation the Qwest ISP customers).
I switched to a local ISP rather than using MSN, although I was billed by Qwest ISP for a few extra months. Afraid the lackeys would disconnect my DSL line rather than the ISP services, I waited awhile before mustering the courage. I actually finally spoke with someone (after being transferred to numerous people) who was able to cancel the ISP charges AND credit me for several months of unnecessary charges.
I was content with the fact that nothing was screwed up after dealing with a company that insisted a needed a new email/user name when I simply moved a few blocks away a few years ago, and left me without DSL for over a month (I eventually "got my good name back"- with considerable hassle and grief).
However, Qwest charged me $30 for simply making a change to my service. I called them yesterday out of principle. They stated any change to DSL service results in the charge. This makes no sense to me whatsoever since the actual DSL change occurred months ago (with no charge) and at this point I was cancelling ISP service (which SHOULD have occurred months ago, but I digress).
Of course if you *migrate* to MSN, there is no charge... now I could care less about the $30, and frankly I'd gladly pay it to NOT be a MSN customer, but it is the principle of the matter that bothers me the most. As it relates to the article here, it is yet another "unfair" business practice that favors vendors and subsidiaries with a special relationship to Qwest.
I tried to explain to the phone rep. that it made no sense to charge me $30 to change ISPs when they would have changed me for free anyway... or that my ORIGINAL service with Qwest's ISP will no longer exist- that if I had wanted to be an MSN customer I would have done so years ago, that their material disclosed that migration to MSN would occur automatically if I took no action to switch ISPs, that I NEVER agreed to be an MSN customer in the first place, blah, blah, blah...
I still cannot find any info regarding a fee for a change in service, and I am under no contract. The amount of ignorance EVERYONE I've spoken to at Qwest about switching ISPs is remarkable (barring the one exception).
Qwest basically is a monopoly, and they use their position somewhat exploitively. I guess if a business practice does not relate DIRECTLY to phone service, the public utility commission has no jurisdiction?
Last I checked Norway was NOT on the list (and proud of it)- they didn't join the EU- probably because they can do whatever they want with just a few million people to share all that North Sea oil (they have several thousand "dollars" of oil per person sitting in reserve). The rest of the Scandanavian countries are also conspicously missing (no one actually considers Finland to be Scandanavian).
Just for giggles I did a search for the variations of CNN and came up with:
"Read the Latest News
See the day's top stories at MSNBC." (listed as an *actual* search result?- I will give them some credit- it came in #2 rather than #1)
huh... those geniuses must have figured out that I was REALLY wanting to visit msnbc.com! Absolutely brilliant!
I have several apps (like Wavelab) that are capable of burning red-book spec CDs (unlike Nero, Roxio, Adaptec)- ie. able to adjust PQ codes, etc... These same apps can also extract audio. I am very curious how this software (vs. a freebie ripper) would handle a "protected CD"- (unfortunately there isn't any protected music worth buying).
.wav file at 44.1 sample rate, 16 bits... no format conversion occurs. The only issue is the layout on the CD- but the raw data is identical. I seriously cannot believe that this cannot be extracted intact through software.
I realize Universal has implied that this is a hardware issue, but I have a hard time with that "line"- my guess is that anyone could write software "error detection" that emulates that of an audio CD player capable of playing a "protected CD". My understanding, and I may be wrong here, is that a PC's CD drive uses a more exacting form of error detection (since they spin faster, and let's face it- one bit of error sneaking by in your walkman's CD playing in real time can be interpolated with less impact than on a data CD for a PC).
I also find it difficult to believe that all of the glass mastering facilities have been retooled to accept masters with "errors." Obviously there is a great difference between "pressing a CD" and burning one- and the error tolerances are very different.
The actual digital data of a CDDA file is identical to that of a
Labels need to realize that a compressed format such as mp3 poses a legitimate compromise to fidelity. It is not unlike making a mix tape on(cassette). Granted many people also are copying entire CDs with the wave audio intact, but if the labels wanted to show a gesture of good faith, they would INCLUDE mp3s at a decent audio quality (above 128!). This would at least make purchasing the CD "valuable" (since it is higher quality than mp3).
But keep in mind that we will soon see high resolution audio on DVD, and the labels will try to resell you your entire collection with audio at least at 24 bits, and likely twice the sample rates... likely with surround sound mixes, etc. This of course if overkill considering most people's listening environments. Again, this could be viewed as a value added service worth paying a premium (and I consider the cost of a new CD at that price point, considering what little you get for your money). An mp3 will look like a very inferior medium to those with discerning ears.
To address another point someone raised, it will be VERY EASY to fill a DVD audio CD- the audio files themselves could easily double if not triple, and they will likely add alternate mixes of the same songs, and dump a bunch of other multi-media crap on them... and probably add "commercials" promoting other artists or products .
They CANNOT mandate copy protection for PCs. Hardware has historically been ahead of media (think VCR if you must... or cassette tapes). Look what a flop the "pay-per-view" DVD players were... consumers voted with their wallets.
The DIRECT DIGITAL copy argument does not apply here if we consider that a blank DVD could cost more than a high-res audio DVD (which it could- for the time being). In the meantime, people need to use the technology to unseat the stranglehold that the centralized form of distribution places on content (FOUR major labels controlling everying, including the LAW?!- certainly promotes a grassroots "open source" movement for artists to distribute their wares directly- most consumers would arguably rather pay the artist than the label anyway, and arguably actual production costs are at an all-time low and are headed lower... as long as you don't need that top shelf producer).
Universal and others truly are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
I guess the next step would be to outlaw digital outs on all components!
S/PDIF often suffers from jitter, which degrades the audio... it is not a perfect solution. It also lacks convenience.
...maybe four?
OK, OK... it holds the *potential* to be a problem- big deal. They cited NO actual examples of theft other than the money laundering example, and there are many easier ways of laundering money if you use your imagination.
There have been several local stories about people stealing money order machines, or printing MOs on their PCs... this stuff actually happens all the time, but a nice "holiday piece" about gift cards without even anedotal "evidence" that this is a widespread problem? Gimme a break!
There are no named sources to the story, the internet site they reference is not given, and they only list retailers viewed as less problematic (and give us a nice caveat to explain why). Not only is the problem a "scenario"- the news story itself is a scenario. Boring journalism... might as well be an op-ed piece.
I'm more concerned about issues such as identity theft, etc... at least your gift card leaves no personal identification about you.
Wireless? They already act like your walkman or cellphone will bring the plane down...
This airborn broadband seems like an expensive gimmick. Last hotel I was in charged a fortune (per minute) for hookup... can't imagine what an airline will charge.
Finally, I've never been forced to listen to anyone sitting next to me on a plane. Skip a few showers before you board, if you must!
After reading a million analogies here:
Windows are poor security in any setting- a house, a car, a PC. You can put as many locks as you want- but you can always easily break windows. Notice how bank vaults generally have no windows.
"Except that MSNBC is the most openly critical newssite, when it comes to MS. "-
Except that there really isn't any competition for most users- it is like being critical of the WEATHER
Also, notice the story breaks AFTER the patch is released... we can all hail those "innovators at Redmond" for saving the day- reminds me of all those cheesy movies where the arsonist is a fireman.
Most users never ever experience or are aware that they have experienced a "security breech" of their home system- most home users' PC problem solving skills are about following tech support's advise to insert their recovery CD and wipe out everything in their box because their modem doesn't work.
The public has so little understanding of the core issues... a co-worker I was speaking with today who just purchased an XP box asked me a bunch of questions about the issue after reading about it in the paper... his facination with the topic was akin to reading about local crime stories- with a weird thrill that "it could happen to him"- while here the discussion is about "the principle of the issue"- that the OS was even let out the door in the first place, and that this is one of many problems.
A few thoughts:
1. Last I checked, nobody forced anybody to use an MS OS or browser to surf the net... nor does MS OWN the internet. BUT- I think this inquiry is a BACKDOOR to the anti-trust issue... that maybe while NOT a monopoly, the user base is SO LARGE that a "widespread catastrophy" *could* occur.
2. Accountability? If I purchased a new boat that was full of leaks, and all my friends purchased boats from the same company that also all leaked, that company would have a serious PR issue, and would likely be out of business in no time- whether they "fixed" them or not, the expectation of the consumer is that they won't leak during their first launch. MS does NOT have a serious PR problem to most consumers.
Instead, we have "experts" as much as tell us that "all boats leak a little here and there"- and there is no real effort involved with patching these leaks (just use your "auto-update"). Then we add the fact that to the general rank and file consumer, the issue is so COMPLICATED and "gee-whiz" (meaning most consumers wouldn't recognize the leak, nor could they make their own boat "visibly" leak, etc... in essence they never NOTICE the leak, but rather they merely read about it, so it does not directly affect them- unless their boat actually sinks).
(as an aside): I would like to see someone actually try to return XP to MS as a defective product... just as a test case of sorts to see how MS handles the issue. Clearly they are selling leaky boats, and there must be at the very least an "implied warrantee."
The real question is whether XP "works as advertised." On the other hand, almost all software companies "expect" their users to be beta testers- MS is no different.
3. Internet as national infrastructure: We risk receiving anthrax through the mail, risk dying in a crash on the highways, risk a carjacking in a rough neighborhood... should we NOT assume some risk by connecting our computers to a world wide network that is accessable from all sorts of dark corners?
I know that I am speaking out the other side of my mouth here, and in essence NOT holding MS accountable, but car makers make all sorts of safety comprimises based on cost and convenience. We could have a "helmet law" while riding in a car, and five-point seatbelt harnesses if we were more concerned about safety than convenience. There are countless product recalls. Where do we draw the line?
I do think FBI involvement is a bit presumptuous. On one hand, for years they have banned encryption they couldn't easily crack, now they turn around and express concern for security? Where's the logic?
On a humorous note:
"
Outside experts cautioned that disabling the affected Windows XP features threatens to render unusable an entire category of high-tech devices about to go on the market, such as a new class of computer printers that are easier to set up. But they also acknowledged that disabling it could afford some protection against similar flaws discovered in the future. "
---yeah, there's nothing MORE DIFFICULT than "setting up a home printer"
No way-
.wav files. The industry really needs to regard file trading as a street-level promotional tool.
If I were to build a PRIVATE road on private land, and allow you all to sign a waiver so you can drive as fast as you want, the police would have NO jurisdiction to give you a speeding ticket (but arguably it could not directly connect to a public road without a checkpoint, etc..). However if you committed murder on the road, it would definitely be in the police's jurisdiction (ever heard of a speedway?).
I don't understand this mixed message that the internet is public and private property at the same time. On one hand, nobody forces ANYBODY to have internet in their homes. You don't want your kids surfing porn, don't get the internet (there are obviously other means for accomplishing these ends).
"Illegal file transfer" ?! I PAY money for anything of value to me. I only have a finite amount to spend. I will spend a relatively fixed amount on my entertainment. The price of that entertainment determines how much I receive. I would never PAY money for any of the Napster crap I ever downloaded... I downloaded because I COULD. People who use warez are not people who would ever have purchased the software in the first place. No company is LOSING money.
If labels are worried about LOSING MONEY, maybe they need to ADD VALUE to what they sell. Remember when album artwork meant something? Nowdays I throw a CD in my 100 disc changer and never look at the booklet. The fact that you can purchase a DVD for about the same price as a music CD is pathetic. A DVD is a great example of adding value to something- something many people might even already own as a video cassette.
At best, an "illegal copy" should be of inferior enough quality to prompt the purchase of the original (ie. who wants a badly compressed mp3 or grainy video file of a song or movie they really like?). People have yet to trade full
...remember the suit where Amazon.com "patented" one-click checkout, or whatever it was and started suing competitors?
Xerox certainly waited a conspicuously long time to sue.
Why WinCe isn't mentioned in the suit...
I read the actual text of the patent, and I'm left feeling the only obvious implementation of stylus-based handwriting recognition would be to implement it exactly as outlined in the patent (digital sampling based on X-Y coordinates). At face value, it seems a definite infringement- assuming the patent itself is legitimate.
This truly makes me wonder if pen and paper were invented today, could someone patent the pen as a graphic input device? Or are patents best left to actually improving the design of the pen (the ball-point). This would lead me to believe that if some great algorythm vastly improved the recognition abilities of the device, IT could be patented, but not the concept itself.
One could also almost argue that individual "cursive" letter function as a unistroke style of writing (if you forget about dotting your "i"s and crossing your "t"s... and with a computer, it should be intuitive it "knows" it needs to dot or cross them).
Would Palm be able to skirt the issue by allowing each user to teach the input interface each letter he or she wants to use?