That is a good point. I don't know why that never occured to me. I have always been dumbfounded when a bill like this comes in, that might have an adverse effect on a handful of people (all of whom are the victims of an actual orchestrated ATTACK, where information is gleaned off their local network, not just some guy parked in your driveway browsing the news). I would love to talk to this schmoe and find out where the idea for this bill came from (not that I'd expect to get a straight answer).
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and put on a WEP key. I for one believe in sharing my connection (with the proper safety precautions in place of course). The problem with this law is that it assumes that if you access an OPEN network, you are nreaking a law. A law that makes more sense is one that states if you actively seek to break into an ENCRYPTED network, you are commiting a crime. Which is, as I understand, the way the law is already written. I don't think the guy who wrote this bill really has much of a technical background. More likely he is trying to make a name for himself by introducing new technical legislation, which is all the rage right now. It's an unfortunate state of current events. Most technical legislation is introduced by people who are either acting on behalf of lobbyists, or news blurbs on CNN/Fox. There are only a handful of lawmakers that have demonstrated that they have even a remote clue what they are talking about. It bothers me that these people are left to decide the fate of things they have no real grasp of. I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.
I don't think that's what he means. Using your scenario, let's say you got caught stealing $100. The punishment would not be a fine less than the amount you stole. That's just ridiculous. A milder punishment would START with making you give back the money you stole, but that's not really a punishment, since you're giving back what you took, and to leave it at that would make it as though it never happened. The actual punishment would depend on how you stole the money. If you mugged a 10 year old at the end of a shotgun, the punishment might be a little different from if you took a Benjamin from your own till at your night job at 7/11.
It might be a higher resolution, but most laptops I use (I don't really consider the "desktop replacement", 15 lb monster as a "LAPtop" here) have integrated graphics and a processor that is designed for low power consumption. So, it's not just the resolution that is a factor here. There is also the software/video translation in realtime, not to mention HD sound coming through 2 tinny speakers or a pair of earbuds. I'm sure you might be able to tell the difference, but for all the negative factors, I think you're going to be just as well off either buying a standard DVD, or converting it down to a smaller encoded format that you can realistically store on the HD. I'm definitely down for buying a blu-ray player (once the price comes down) for my home theater setup, but spending the extra money for one in my laptop is just corporate driven consumer gullibility. You must buy the latest and greatest stuff! Even if it has no noticeable upgrades from the previous technology (in this particular application)! Sorry.
I concur. I gather they have their own on-staff lawyer, who is reported to be one of the best in the country. I want to help out, but they don't appear to want any help. I could see how this might conceivably be a viable argument when they are defending themselves against the charge of making money off of copyrighted material. I have donated to the people that do the "Steal This Film" videos, but if there were a more direct way to help, I'd be all over it. I just got paid, so if anyone has a (legitimate) way of donating to their cause, let me know before I spend my paycheck on hookers and blow.
You're forgetting this is a government funded project. I can't wait to see the RFP sheet for hookers in space. Of course, it doesn't make me want to be an astronaut when you know the project manager is going to ultimately take the lowest bidder.
I'm not really sure either. I had about a 2-hour long heated discussion about Obama vs. Clinton. I cited numerous reasons why I thought Obama was the better of the two, and why I'm terrified of Clinton, mostly because I think she's batsh*t insane. After what I thought was a reasonably well thought out list of reasons, my girlfriend conjured the idea out of nowhere that I wasn't voting for Clinton because she is a woman. I think the fact that she's a woman is taking more spotlight than it really should. I'm sure Obama is getting a little extra time because he's black, but I don't think it is nearly as big a deal to his supporters as being a woman is to Clinton's. The first thing I think about when I think about Clinton is her singing along with Jack Thompson over video game violence. I can appreciate that you don't want kids to have these games, even if I think your arguments are craptastic works of fallacy. But when you move to ban these games, that's censorship. Period. Given the way things have been going in this country up till now, I'll be damned if I'm going to support someone for president that already has a record supporting censorship. Instead, I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of reversing the current trend of rights erosion. And, as far as I can tell, that would be Obama by a landslide.
While I am generally fixed on the idea of voting for Barak, I wanted to bring up a point here about Hillary that I think needs some consideration. In an ideal democracy, decisions are not left up to one person, but decided by the public. When our country was being conceptualized, we decided that the best way to govern was a compromise on pure democracy, where an elected official makes up their own mind and votes according to their beliefs/conscience. The idea being that he is a representative of the majority of the public that voted for him. If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century, I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy. While still complicated logistically (cost, fraud, etc.), it is now possible to put out a referendum on any given topic, so that a governing body can respond directly to the will of the people. It would be refreshing to find a presidential candidate the promised record numbers of referendums for this reason. It potentially represents a truer form of democracy, (assuming he/she votes accordingly).
So, getting back to the point, if someone says that Hillary will pander to voters, it's spun negatively. However, I'd like to at least suggest that if she completely flips her stance on an issue, (or any candidate for that matter), and it is a result of voter appeal, that democracy has worked, and that she is voting the way her constituents would want. I could care less about her personal ideals. If she were there solely as a puppet, acting on the whims of the public, that would be ideal to me. I have yet to hear an elected official say something to the effect of, "Personally, I hate the idea of X. I find it to be the worst idea in the world. But, my constituents think it's a good idea, so I'm going to vote for it." when that day comes, I'll feel better about living in this country. Until then, I'm still hoping that Canada annexes Mexico, so I can move some place warm.
I think you're missing the point here. In the music scenario, it is entirely possible to throw a few grand into a recording and make it work on a professional level. This is simply not the case with TV. For one, there are 10 times as many people involved, just at the production level, leaving out the rest of the industry (casting, agents, promotion, distribution, etc.). Where you have a rock band with, let's say 5 people in it, a median TV show cast probably has 5 leads, but also maybe a dozen supporting cast members. The production crew includes camera guys, sound guys, stage production, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, and a lot more. Then we get into post production. In the music scenario, this generally includes the 5 band members, the producer, and the engineer. In the TV scenario, it generally does not include the actors, but it will include the producer, director, editing staff, foley, special effects team, CGI, etc. All these people expect a check at the end of the day. Also, there is a whole extra stage of production in non-principal photography, where reshoots are done, stills and establishing shots, on location shots, etc.
I could go on, but you get the idea. To take a typical network TV show (not a reality show) and produce it on an indie level, for an indie budget, and come out with even a comparable level of quality is going to be pretty much impossible.
If this idea comes to pass, I think it would be possible to see a lot of well-written shows come to light, but there will not be any "Terminator" or "24" type shows. Something like "The Office", where there are little to no special effects, and is character driven will be doable, but even then will require a fair amount of capital in order to attain the production value we expect, let alone support the mammoth paychecks of A-List actors. Unfortunately, someone trying to produce a hot internet TV show for $10,000 a season isn't going to be able to pull in Steve Carrell or Kiefer Sutherland. Not that this won't give rise to smaller actors filling their shoes, but it's another point to consider.
I agree. I stopped getting cable a few years ago because of this. All I wanted was the basic ~70 channel plan, and Comcast, et al, has priced it completely above the point where I would pay for it. For ~70 channels of ad-supported TV, I should be paying half that, at most. Someone needs to show these guys the internet, where ad-supported sights usually offer their wares for free, or next to free for the end consumer. I'm not going to pay to watch 6 minutes of commercials per every 30 minutes.
I know it's a small step, but take a stand against this crap when you have the opportunity. I wrote a nice polished (with the help of one of the lawyers I work with((admin at a law firm)) )letter and submitted it as a comment in the FCC investigation into Comcast's shady practices. If you have any bad dealings with Comcast, this is a good opportunity to make yourself heard at a top level. Your suggesting that there is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. I suggest that we as a community ought to at least make an effort to stop this from happening, now, before the policy comes into being. Go donate to a lobbying group that fights against this crap. Write some letters. Do something besides comment in a forum where no one who has any authority is likely to see it.
*Didn't mean to sound like a jerk. And yes, I've already done all of the above, before you ask. I'm big on getting in my congressman/senator/etc's face. Personal meeting>phone call>mailed letter>email. (I'm still working on the personal meeting one, but I've done the others in the name of digital rights.
I hear you, but the consumer has some pretty good lobbying groups going for him these days too. Check out savetheinternet.com. You have these guys largely to thank for the fight for net neutrality thus far. I'm not one for protests or taking part in debates, so I show support by donating. I give these guys and stealthisfilm.com a little $$ now and then, because they speak in a voice that can be heard better than mine. It's a lot more effective than online petitions, but should also be used in conjunction with regular letters to your congressman, senator, etc.. See my sig, as it's actually appropriate to this discussion. Worrying about this problem in here does almost nothing.
That is a fantastic idea. The only problem is that the "bad guys" would have equal access to that DB, and would be able to manipulate it, rendering it useless. The Man would be able to listen in just as before, just having to go through one extra step to do it.
I wouldn't sweat it. If this sort of policy comes to pass, I'm sure it will take all of about a month for Azureus or whoever to write a modification to the BitTorrent concept, allowing for VPN style connections between peers. Yes, I imagine this would be complicated to set up from a programming stance, but releasing a patch with most largely available BT clients would immediately transform BT as we know it, and would send all these pro-DRM groups back to the drawing board for a while. IANAP, but in concept this seems to be the next logical step anyway. This is the nature of the internet. The people that innovate in this field are problem solvers, often with a penchant for resiting authority and control. Whenever something like this happens, no matter how detailed or iron-clad the barrier is, someone eventually (or rapidly, more often than not) finds a way to overcome it. Bad code on CDs cause PCs to be unable to read them? Take a felt tip pen and mark the last 1/8" of the disk. DRM protection on DVDs? Here's about 2 MB of code that will overcome any known keys. It's all a matter of time.
Looks like the Pirate Bay ship is going to Antigua.
Kind of fitting, isn't it? A pirate ship going to the Caribbean...
I, for one, will be happy to donate $$ to help ship servers and personnel from Sweden to Antigua (as long as it can't be traced. Now it's a multinational effort with Swiss bank accounts!:)). I know it's not necessarily (depending on the application) morally righteous, but I root for these guys because they put a proverbial flaming bag of poo on the MAFIAA's doorstep and generally get away with it. Now they have a place where they can do it with immunity guaranteed in writing.
Agreed. The reviews I've read for the Kindle are spot on, saying "wait for the 2nd generation". If Amazon will redesign the thing, so it doesn't look like it was made in the 80's, drop the need to email non proprietary file formats to Amazon so they can be converted, and add in support for hyperlinked files, I will be first in line. I have a pretty good size collection of books sitting on my computer that are in HTML help files, which allow for hyperlinking directly to footnotes, appendices, references in other parts of the book, etc. Build a device that can take these things natively (support for the occasional picture would be nice, too), and I will be on board.
Oh, and for some reason, the idea of being able to just plug in a thumb drive to the side of these things has escaped both of these companies. I can understand Sony's argument, since they make a whole line of flash media, but SD cards and the like are for cameras, not for storing books.
Meh. I'm not terribly impressed. I'm guessing all the guy did was show up, ran a copy of DBan charged him $300 (because it's a government job), then left. Not that he did anything wrong. At least he knew the difference between formatting a drive and securely wiping it.
You could be right. I'm not a regular satellite subscriber, but I thought maybe the medium was heading in the right direction when I rented a car last month with built-in Xm, and got to hear some honest to god Descendants on the radio...
A lot. You'd be amazed at what is done with computers in the studio. Rackmount components can do all sorts of nifty things that were unheard of 10 years ago. There is a component you can buy that will automatically correct pitch in real time. If you think Ashley Simpson is really hitting those complicated jazzy glissandos on the CD, well... There is always innovation to be had in music recording. I'm sure that when reel to reel recording first came about, someone like you thought that was all there was to it. Then came multitrack recording. Then came digital recording. Then came computerized recording, all done straight to a hard drive. The manufacturers of studio equipment are constantly coming up with awesome stuff and amazing new technology in every new iteration of their product. Automated faders (try to imagine what it would be like to try and mix 128 individual tracks at the same time by hand) used to be obscenely expensive, but are now industry standard, thanks to early adopters who brought the technology to a point where it could be mass produced. I don;t know what is going to be next, but I can tell you there is PLENTY of room for innovation. Better mics. New kinds of interfaces, ways around historically complex processes (analog patching is a giant pain in the ass). Plenty of stuff.
Yes and No. I guess I should qualify that the larger studios would be hit hard. The ones near you are built to cater to exactly the clients you describe. But whereas they are charging ~$100 an hour, the high profile studios charge much more than that. Of course, these are also the kinds of places that the record industry actually pays the studio time for while the artists write the album in the studio!. What a complete waste of money. Also, larger (usually label funded) projects spend MUCH more time in the studio perfecting an album. Most indie projects aim for maybe 40 hours of studio time for an album. Mid level projects maybe 2 or 3 times that much. A-List artists can spend months in the studio, logging thousands of billable hours. The point I'm driving at is that the high-end studios that attract all the (current) A-list clients also drive the technological innovation for studio equipment. Mics. Mixers. Sound isolation. Software. Media (as in DAT, etc.). While that innovation wouldn't go away, it wouldn't see the same level of development that these studios enable through Creating A Need, and early adoption of new technologies (because they can afford the latest and greatest).
I was at a White Wedding, watching a Stray Cat Strut, when I said Come On Eileen, but she was doing the Safety Dance, so I decided to wear My Sunglasses At Night. What can you do? Girls Just Want To Have Fun. Your only option is to Whip It and tell yourself It's Hip To Be Square.//sorry. Couldn't help myself.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a good point. I don't know why that never occured to me. I have always been dumbfounded when a bill like this comes in, that might have an adverse effect on a handful of people (all of whom are the victims of an actual orchestrated ATTACK, where information is gleaned off their local network, not just some guy parked in your driveway browsing the news). I would love to talk to this schmoe and find out where the idea for this bill came from (not that I'd expect to get a straight answer).
Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and put on a WEP key. I for one believe in sharing my connection (with the proper safety precautions in place of course). The problem with this law is that it assumes that if you access an OPEN network, you are nreaking a law. A law that makes more sense is one that states if you actively seek to break into an ENCRYPTED network, you are commiting a crime. Which is, as I understand, the way the law is already written. I don't think the guy who wrote this bill really has much of a technical background. More likely he is trying to make a name for himself by introducing new technical legislation, which is all the rage right now. It's an unfortunate state of current events. Most technical legislation is introduced by people who are either acting on behalf of lobbyists, or news blurbs on CNN/Fox. There are only a handful of lawmakers that have demonstrated that they have even a remote clue what they are talking about. It bothers me that these people are left to decide the fate of things they have no real grasp of.
I try to write letters to my elected officials any time something like this comes up for a vote. I've even made some phone calls when it's either highly technical or highly important.
I don't think that's what he means. Using your scenario, let's say you got caught stealing $100. The punishment would not be a fine less than the amount you stole. That's just ridiculous. A milder punishment would START with making you give back the money you stole, but that's not really a punishment, since you're giving back what you took, and to leave it at that would make it as though it never happened. The actual punishment would depend on how you stole the money. If you mugged a 10 year old at the end of a shotgun, the punishment might be a little different from if you took a Benjamin from your own till at your night job at 7/11.
It might be a higher resolution, but most laptops I use (I don't really consider the "desktop replacement", 15 lb monster as a "LAPtop" here) have integrated graphics and a processor that is designed for low power consumption. So, it's not just the resolution that is a factor here. There is also the software/video translation in realtime, not to mention HD sound coming through 2 tinny speakers or a pair of earbuds. I'm sure you might be able to tell the difference, but for all the negative factors, I think you're going to be just as well off either buying a standard DVD, or converting it down to a smaller encoded format that you can realistically store on the HD. I'm definitely down for buying a blu-ray player (once the price comes down) for my home theater setup, but spending the extra money for one in my laptop is just corporate driven consumer gullibility. You must buy the latest and greatest stuff! Even if it has no noticeable upgrades from the previous technology (in this particular application)! Sorry.
Just one question... Why the hell do you need to watch a movie in HD on a 15 inch screen?
I concur. I gather they have their own on-staff lawyer, who is reported to be one of the best in the country. I want to help out, but they don't appear to want any help. I could see how this might conceivably be a viable argument when they are defending themselves against the charge of making money off of copyrighted material. I have donated to the people that do the "Steal This Film" videos, but if there were a more direct way to help, I'd be all over it. I just got paid, so if anyone has a (legitimate) way of donating to their cause, let me know before I spend my paycheck on hookers and blow.
You're forgetting this is a government funded project. I can't wait to see the RFP sheet for hookers in space. Of course, it doesn't make me want to be an astronaut when you know the project manager is going to ultimately take the lowest bidder.
I'm not really sure either. I had about a 2-hour long heated discussion about Obama vs. Clinton. I cited numerous reasons why I thought Obama was the better of the two, and why I'm terrified of Clinton, mostly because I think she's batsh*t insane. After what I thought was a reasonably well thought out list of reasons, my girlfriend conjured the idea out of nowhere that I wasn't voting for Clinton because she is a woman. I think the fact that she's a woman is taking more spotlight than it really should. I'm sure Obama is getting a little extra time because he's black, but I don't think it is nearly as big a deal to his supporters as being a woman is to Clinton's.
The first thing I think about when I think about Clinton is her singing along with Jack Thompson over video game violence. I can appreciate that you don't want kids to have these games, even if I think your arguments are craptastic works of fallacy. But when you move to ban these games, that's censorship. Period. Given the way things have been going in this country up till now, I'll be damned if I'm going to support someone for president that already has a record supporting censorship. Instead, I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of reversing the current trend of rights erosion. And, as far as I can tell, that would be Obama by a landslide.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Douglas Adams
While I am generally fixed on the idea of voting for Barak, I wanted to bring up a point here about Hillary that I think needs some consideration.
In an ideal democracy, decisions are not left up to one person, but decided by the public. When our country was being conceptualized, we decided that the best way to govern was a compromise on pure democracy, where an elected official makes up their own mind and votes according to their beliefs/conscience. The idea being that he is a representative of the majority of the public that voted for him.
If the technology that we have now had been available in the 16th century, I believe that we might have sought a more pure version of democracy. While still complicated logistically (cost, fraud, etc.), it is now possible to put out a referendum on any given topic, so that a governing body can respond directly to the will of the people. It would be refreshing to find a presidential candidate the promised record numbers of referendums for this reason. It potentially represents a truer form of democracy, (assuming he/she votes accordingly).
So, getting back to the point, if someone says that Hillary will pander to voters, it's spun negatively. However, I'd like to at least suggest that if she completely flips her stance on an issue, (or any candidate for that matter), and it is a result of voter appeal, that democracy has worked, and that she is voting the way her constituents would want. I could care less about her personal ideals. If she were there solely as a puppet, acting on the whims of the public, that would be ideal to me. I have yet to hear an elected official say something to the effect of, "Personally, I hate the idea of X. I find it to be the worst idea in the world. But, my constituents think it's a good idea, so I'm going to vote for it." when that day comes, I'll feel better about living in this country. Until then, I'm still hoping that Canada annexes Mexico, so I can move some place warm.
I think you're missing the point here. In the music scenario, it is entirely possible to throw a few grand into a recording and make it work on a professional level. This is simply not the case with TV. For one, there are 10 times as many people involved, just at the production level, leaving out the rest of the industry (casting, agents, promotion, distribution, etc.). Where you have a rock band with, let's say 5 people in it, a median TV show cast probably has 5 leads, but also maybe a dozen supporting cast members. The production crew includes camera guys, sound guys, stage production, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, and a lot more. Then we get into post production. In the music scenario, this generally includes the 5 band members, the producer, and the engineer. In the TV scenario, it generally does not include the actors, but it will include the producer, director, editing staff, foley, special effects team, CGI, etc. All these people expect a check at the end of the day. Also, there is a whole extra stage of production in non-principal photography, where reshoots are done, stills and establishing shots, on location shots, etc.
I could go on, but you get the idea. To take a typical network TV show (not a reality show) and produce it on an indie level, for an indie budget, and come out with even a comparable level of quality is going to be pretty much impossible.
If this idea comes to pass, I think it would be possible to see a lot of well-written shows come to light, but there will not be any "Terminator" or "24" type shows. Something like "The Office", where there are little to no special effects, and is character driven will be doable, but even then will require a fair amount of capital in order to attain the production value we expect, let alone support the mammoth paychecks of A-List actors. Unfortunately, someone trying to produce a hot internet TV show for $10,000 a season isn't going to be able to pull in Steve Carrell or Kiefer Sutherland. Not that this won't give rise to smaller actors filling their shoes, but it's another point to consider.
I agree. I stopped getting cable a few years ago because of this. All I wanted was the basic ~70 channel plan, and Comcast, et al, has priced it completely above the point where I would pay for it. For ~70 channels of ad-supported TV, I should be paying half that, at most. Someone needs to show these guys the internet, where ad-supported sights usually offer their wares for free, or next to free for the end consumer. I'm not going to pay to watch 6 minutes of commercials per every 30 minutes.
I know it's a small step, but take a stand against this crap when you have the opportunity. I wrote a nice polished (with the help of one of the lawyers I work with((admin at a law firm)) )letter and submitted it as a comment in the FCC investigation into Comcast's shady practices. If you have any bad dealings with Comcast, this is a good opportunity to make yourself heard at a top level. Your suggesting that there is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening. I suggest that we as a community ought to at least make an effort to stop this from happening, now, before the policy comes into being. Go donate to a lobbying group that fights against this crap. Write some letters. Do something besides comment in a forum where no one who has any authority is likely to see it.
*Didn't mean to sound like a jerk. And yes, I've already done all of the above, before you ask. I'm big on getting in my congressman/senator/etc's face. Personal meeting>phone call>mailed letter>email. (I'm still working on the personal meeting one, but I've done the others in the name of digital rights.
I hear you, but the consumer has some pretty good lobbying groups going for him these days too. Check out savetheinternet.com. You have these guys largely to thank for the fight for net neutrality thus far.
I'm not one for protests or taking part in debates, so I show support by donating. I give these guys and stealthisfilm.com a little $$ now and then, because they speak in a voice that can be heard better than mine. It's a lot more effective than online petitions, but should also be used in conjunction with regular letters to your congressman, senator, etc.. See my sig, as it's actually appropriate to this discussion. Worrying about this problem in here does almost nothing.
You know, one of their main buildings is right next to my office. Maybe I could walk over there with a sword and...
Nah, maybe not. I've seen how those "guy walks into office wielding sword" news stories usually go. Don't tase me bro.
That is a fantastic idea. The only problem is that the "bad guys" would have equal access to that DB, and would be able to manipulate it, rendering it useless. The Man would be able to listen in just as before, just having to go through one extra step to do it.
I wouldn't sweat it. If this sort of policy comes to pass, I'm sure it will take all of about a month for Azureus or whoever to write a modification to the BitTorrent concept, allowing for VPN style connections between peers. Yes, I imagine this would be complicated to set up from a programming stance, but releasing a patch with most largely available BT clients would immediately transform BT as we know it, and would send all these pro-DRM groups back to the drawing board for a while. IANAP, but in concept this seems to be the next logical step anyway.
This is the nature of the internet. The people that innovate in this field are problem solvers, often with a penchant for resiting authority and control. Whenever something like this happens, no matter how detailed or iron-clad the barrier is, someone eventually (or rapidly, more often than not) finds a way to overcome it. Bad code on CDs cause PCs to be unable to read them? Take a felt tip pen and mark the last 1/8" of the disk. DRM protection on DVDs? Here's about 2 MB of code that will overcome any known keys. It's all a matter of time.
Looks like the Pirate Bay ship is going to Antigua.
:)). I know it's not necessarily (depending on the application) morally righteous, but I root for these guys because they put a proverbial flaming bag of poo on the MAFIAA's doorstep and generally get away with it. Now they have a place where they can do it with immunity guaranteed in writing.
Kind of fitting, isn't it? A pirate ship going to the Caribbean...
I, for one, will be happy to donate $$ to help ship servers and personnel from Sweden to Antigua (as long as it can't be traced. Now it's a multinational effort with Swiss bank accounts!
Agreed. The reviews I've read for the Kindle are spot on, saying "wait for the 2nd generation". If Amazon will redesign the thing, so it doesn't look like it was made in the 80's, drop the need to email non proprietary file formats to Amazon so they can be converted, and add in support for hyperlinked files, I will be first in line. I have a pretty good size collection of books sitting on my computer that are in HTML help files, which allow for hyperlinking directly to footnotes, appendices, references in other parts of the book, etc. Build a device that can take these things natively (support for the occasional picture would be nice, too), and I will be on board.
Oh, and for some reason, the idea of being able to just plug in a thumb drive to the side of these things has escaped both of these companies. I can understand Sony's argument, since they make a whole line of flash media, but SD cards and the like are for cameras, not for storing books.
Meh. I'm not terribly impressed. I'm guessing all the guy did was show up, ran a copy of DBan charged him $300 (because it's a government job), then left. Not that he did anything wrong. At least he knew the difference between formatting a drive and securely wiping it.
You could be right. I'm not a regular satellite subscriber, but I thought maybe the medium was heading in the right direction when I rented a car last month with built-in Xm, and got to hear some honest to god Descendants on the radio...
3 words, my new music discussion friend: Pandora dot com.
A lot. You'd be amazed at what is done with computers in the studio. Rackmount components can do all sorts of nifty things that were unheard of 10 years ago. There is a component you can buy that will automatically correct pitch in real time. If you think Ashley Simpson is really hitting those complicated jazzy glissandos on the CD, well...
There is always innovation to be had in music recording. I'm sure that when reel to reel recording first came about, someone like you thought that was all there was to it. Then came multitrack recording. Then came digital recording. Then came computerized recording, all done straight to a hard drive. The manufacturers of studio equipment are constantly coming up with awesome stuff and amazing new technology in every new iteration of their product. Automated faders (try to imagine what it would be like to try and mix 128 individual tracks at the same time by hand) used to be obscenely expensive, but are now industry standard, thanks to early adopters who brought the technology to a point where it could be mass produced. I don;t know what is going to be next, but I can tell you there is PLENTY of room for innovation. Better mics. New kinds of interfaces, ways around historically complex processes (analog patching is a giant pain in the ass). Plenty of stuff.
Yes and No. I guess I should qualify that the larger studios would be hit hard. The ones near you are built to cater to exactly the clients you describe. But whereas they are charging ~$100 an hour, the high profile studios charge much more than that. Of course, these are also the kinds of places that the record industry actually pays the studio time for while the artists write the album in the studio!. What a complete waste of money. Also, larger (usually label funded) projects spend MUCH more time in the studio perfecting an album. Most indie projects aim for maybe 40 hours of studio time for an album. Mid level projects maybe 2 or 3 times that much. A-List artists can spend months in the studio, logging thousands of billable hours.
The point I'm driving at is that the high-end studios that attract all the (current) A-list clients also drive the technological innovation for studio equipment. Mics. Mixers. Sound isolation. Software. Media (as in DAT, etc.). While that innovation wouldn't go away, it wouldn't see the same level of development that these studios enable through Creating A Need, and early adoption of new technologies (because they can afford the latest and greatest).
I was at a White Wedding, watching a Stray Cat Strut, when I said Come On Eileen, but she was doing the Safety Dance, so I decided to wear My Sunglasses At Night. What can you do? Girls Just Want To Have Fun. Your only option is to Whip It and tell yourself It's Hip To Be Square. //sorry. Couldn't help myself.