" World standards day is today, the 14th. Posted on.....the 15th."
Remember, the IEC, ISO, and ITU were all in on this. No doubt someone proposed this date back in January or February and it took them until today to agree on it.
"I've got a box of old RAM lying around. 16MB, most of its 32MB and 64MB (I believe) all PC100 and 133. Not sure how many modules I've got. Probably a dozen total. All 72pin. I think I've even got a couple 128MB 30 pin. No idea the speed. Completely useless to me at this point."
72 pin PC133? Okay, maybe. There were a few Slot One motherboards with SIMM sockets.
30 pin 128 MegaByte sticks? You must have had them custom made by hand for almost as much as they would have cost back in the 386 days if it had been possible to make chips with that much capacity back then.
Way back in the day high fidelity audio components that had a button or switch marked "loudness" used that to engage a circuit that boosted lows and highs at lower volume levels to compensate for the apparent (google Fletcher-Munson curves) loss of them at lower volume levels.
God only knows what it means after the computer industry latches on to it.
"...and even in the presence of cut throat competition a strong brand would never risk the damage to itself by cutting costs in rigorous monitoring the safety-critical areas of their food or drug production chain."
Until some corporate executive decides to do so to boost the quarterly results in order to goose the share price so as to pick up a bonus and some stock options before invoking his golden parachute.
"This new legislation to give the FCC the power to adopt the broadcast flag will likely be attached to the digital television (DTV) bill. The Commerce Committee is where all of this will go down in the Senate. Any Senate flag language would be attached to a DTV policy bill, and likely be done behind closed doors: without so much as a public hearing or debate. Similar language could be made as an amendment to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's version of the DTV bill. That's why voicing your opinion now with your Representative and Senators is vital."
"I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment..."
I think it is of paramount importance that I point out that the word you wanted there is "tantamount":-) (now watch someone point out that I misspelled it)
I have to say I agree. Although money is a big part of why politics stinks, I firmly believe that the First Ammendment either means what it says or we have surrendered it. My confliction is over disclosure. I wanna know which candidate is being bought by which mega-corporation, but anonymous broadsides were an important part of the revolution that got us that ammendment, and the Constitution to which it was appended.
Perhaps you were down-modded because of a perception of vulgar language, but it's much more likely that someone was just sniping at your +1 good karma bonus. I've noticed some of what looks like that during meta-modding recently.
A few years ago I used to go out of my way to avoid posting with the extra point and found that it made it more likely that I would attract what appeared to be "grudge mods" so I went back to starting off at +2. Don't know if you're hated by different mods or if things have just changed.
I would have posted this in reply to your journal comment about this comment (where my comment truly belongs) but you don't seem to have commenting enabled on your journal.
"John Cage has done an adaptation of his "Four Minutes, Thirty-Three Seconds" to the Hip-Hop scene."
Years before hip-hop I used to drop samples from Cage's piece into the mix between records on the air, but the program director was so "nekulturny" that he couldn't tell the difference between that and dead air while I scrambled to get the next 45 cue'd up, so I had to stop.:-)
"It is a form of distortion though...so it's arguable why you would want that happening in your stereo."
It's not a matter of wanting it, it's choosing your poison. All amps add some distortion, tube or solid state, and you can have low or high (relatively speaking) distortion in either type, depending on quality. Some people find the distortion of tube-type re-producing equipment less objectionable than that of solid state type.
What the distortion caused by clipping sounds like may be important in guitar amps, but for audio re-production it's the sound of the amplification of below clipping level signals (normal operating range) by which the equipment is judged.
All audio amps add some distortion. Solid state devices tend to produce odd-number harmonics, and tubes produce even number (double the frequency, 4 times, etc.) harmonics. Since doubling or quadrupling the frequency is the same thing as producing the original note, only an octave or two higher, tube distortion is more "in tune" with the original signal.
" WIPO has confused the issue, and Boyle does little to clear it up."
No kidding. I think I understand it less after reading the article than I did previously and previously I was unaware of the issue.
Does this mean that (if this had been in force in the US) a TV station in New York could put on their own production of one of Shakespeare's works or Beethoven's symphonies, and then forbid any other station in the US from doing the same for 20 years? 'Cause that's what it sounds like, and I can't see how anyone could possibly come up with any kind of believable justification for it.
I welcome any clarification from anyone actually familiar with this particular provision of whatever that treaty was.
"I question those credit card rates. I work for a much smaller company than Apple and we get better per-transaction rates than that."
Do you mean better than 25 cents per transaction, or better than 25 cents per transaction *and* 3 cents out of every dollar? Are all of your transactions in the $10 and under range?
As to the accuracy of the figures, they're allegedly from a Wall Street Journal story, and the 2 to 3 per cent figure is one I've heard before about credit card merchant charges, but I've never been in that kind of relationship with credit card companies myself and can't personally vouch for their accuracy.
That man simply does not know the word "iTunes" and was substituting "iPod" for "iTunes Music Store."
I fear you are both correct and mistaken. From the article:
Mr. Bronfman said the music industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of digital music devices for Apple or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits. "We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue," he said. "We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.
When he said that they were selling their songs through iPod he should have said iTunes but he didn't mean iTunes, he meant iPod. He thinks that the record industry is helping Apple sell hardware and that they should get a share of the profits on the hardware.
Here's something that I stole from a site that stole it from the Wall Street Journal:
Consider the economics of the iTunes store. Apple charges 99 cents per song that is downloaded by a consumer. Of that 99 cents, Apple pays the record label about 65 cents for licensing rights to the song, estimates Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co. Other analysts come up with similar figures. In addition, Apple incurs costs such as credit-card fees, which typically amount to 25 cents a transaction (which can include several songs), plus 2% to 3% of the amount charged. The result: On average, Apple earns less than a dime for each song it sells from the store.
So here's what's going on. If you buy one song and use your credit card (assuming that your credit card company and Apple will let you use your credit card for a 99 cent purchase) the credit card company gets 25 cents plus another 2 or 3 cents and the record company gets about 65 cents. That leaves Apple with 6 or 7 cents. If you buy more than one song at a time the credit card company doesn't get the 25 cents on the second through infinity dollars but they get that 2 or 3 cents on every dollar and that 25 cents on every customer. So the best Apple can do is 32 cents per song minus 25 cents per customer, and that money has to cover all of their expenses--bandwidth, advertising, payroll, electric bill, water bill, telephone bill, building maintenance, lawyers to keep the record companies from getting any more than they already do, and anything else that they wouldn't have to pay if they weren't running iTunes.
The record companies, who don't have to pay much of anything they didn't already cover getting those songs ready to go onto a phonograph record, cassette, 8-track, or CD (except for the lawyers to try to screw Apple), know that Apple's not about to give them a bigger cut out of that 99 cents, so the only way they are going to get even more "money for nothing" is to either convince Apple that the record companies deserve a cut of the profits on the hardware (which would go over about as well as Microsoft saying they deserve a cut of Mac sales because Office for the Mac drives Mac sales) or getting the price per song above 99 cents.
You'll notice that although he said that the market should decide the price and not a single retailer, he didn't say anything about any songs selling for less than 99 cents, so before long that will be the "fair market price" for songs so low in demand that no one will pay more, and everything else will be higher in price and before long you'll be paying as much for downloads as for a physical CD, at which point they will no doubt declare physical CDs underpriced.
Remember, Apple is doing almost all of the work and paying almost all of the expenses on iTunes while the record companies get 65 per cent not of the net or the profit, but 65 per cent of the gross and the record companies think that they're doing Apple a big favor and that they should get a cut out of each iPod sale as well. Tell me again who the pirates are?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, the IEC, ISO, and ITU were all in on this. No doubt someone proposed this date back in January or February and it took them until today to agree on it.
72 pin PC133? Okay, maybe. There were a few Slot One motherboards with SIMM sockets.
30 pin 128 MegaByte sticks? You must have had them custom made by hand for almost as much as they would have cost back in the 386 days if it had been possible to make chips with that much capacity back then.
Not exactly novel, unique, or groundbreaking, but you could sell to me cheap. :-)
72 pin or 30 pin?
You can email me at coastalnet.com
Which reminds me of Lessig's assertion that the RIAA is concerned about artists the way that ranchers are concerned about their cattle.
God only knows what it means after the computer industry latches on to it.
I knew I should have held on to one of those mod points! (would have given you a "+1, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor")
Until some corporate executive decides to do so to boost the quarterly results in order to goose the share price so as to pick up a bonus and some stock options before invoking his golden parachute.
A vote for the lesser of two weasels is still having to vote for a weasel.
Hey, the first time through "Preview" there were 3 'm's right after the 'A' :-)
From the article:
From the second paragraph of the article:
I think it is of paramount importance that I point out that the word you wanted there is "tantamount" :-) (now watch someone point out that I misspelled it)
I have to say I agree. Although money is a big part of why politics stinks, I firmly believe that the First Ammendment either means what it says or we have surrendered it. My confliction is over disclosure. I wanna know which candidate is being bought by which mega-corporation, but anonymous broadsides were an important part of the revolution that got us that ammendment, and the Constitution to which it was appended.
A few years ago I used to go out of my way to avoid posting with the extra point and found that it made it more likely that I would attract what appeared to be "grudge mods" so I went back to starting off at +2. Don't know if you're hated by different mods or if things have just changed.
I would have posted this in reply to your journal comment about this comment (where my comment truly belongs) but you don't seem to have commenting enabled on your journal.
A boop boop diddum daddum waddum chu, a boop boop diddum daddum waddum chu...
Years before hip-hop I used to drop samples from Cage's piece into the mix between records on the air, but the program director was so "nekulturny" that he couldn't tell the difference between that and dead air while I scrambled to get the next 45 cue'd up, so I had to stop. :-)
C'mon. Japan outsourced all that stuff years ago.
It's not a matter of wanting it, it's choosing your poison. All amps add some distortion, tube or solid state, and you can have low or high (relatively speaking) distortion in either type, depending on quality. Some people find the distortion of tube-type re-producing equipment less objectionable than that of solid state type.
All audio amps add some distortion. Solid state devices tend to produce odd-number harmonics, and tubes produce even number (double the frequency, 4 times, etc.) harmonics. Since doubling or quadrupling the frequency is the same thing as producing the original note, only an octave or two higher, tube distortion is more "in tune" with the original signal.
Maybe they're good enough to have realised that they should be working somewhere, anywhere else.
No kidding. I think I understand it less after reading the article than I did previously and previously I was unaware of the issue.
Does this mean that (if this had been in force in the US) a TV station in New York could put on their own production of one of Shakespeare's works or Beethoven's symphonies, and then forbid any other station in the US from doing the same for 20 years? 'Cause that's what it sounds like, and I can't see how anyone could possibly come up with any kind of believable justification for it.
I welcome any clarification from anyone actually familiar with this particular provision of whatever that treaty was.
Well that's what you get for trying to lisen to more than one colour at a time!
Do you mean better than 25 cents per transaction, or better than 25 cents per transaction *and* 3 cents out of every dollar? Are all of your transactions in the $10 and under range?
As to the accuracy of the figures, they're allegedly from a Wall Street Journal story, and the 2 to 3 per cent figure is one I've heard before about credit card merchant charges, but I've never been in that kind of relationship with credit card companies myself and can't personally vouch for their accuracy.
I fear you are both correct and mistaken. From the article:
Mr. Bronfman said the music industry should not have to use its content to promote the sale of digital music devices for Apple or anyone else, and not truly share in the profits. "We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue," he said. "We want to share in those revenue streams. We have to get out of the mindset that our content has promotional value only.
When he said that they were selling their songs through iPod he should have said iTunes but he didn't mean iTunes, he meant iPod. He thinks that the record industry is helping Apple sell hardware and that they should get a share of the profits on the hardware.
Here's something that I stole from a site that stole it from the Wall Street Journal:
Consider the economics of the iTunes store. Apple charges 99 cents per song that is downloaded by a consumer. Of that 99 cents, Apple pays the record label about 65 cents for licensing rights to the song, estimates Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co. Other analysts come up with similar figures. In addition, Apple incurs costs such as credit-card fees, which typically amount to 25 cents a transaction (which can include several songs), plus 2% to 3% of the amount charged. The result: On average, Apple earns less than a dime for each song it sells from the store.
So here's what's going on. If you buy one song and use your credit card (assuming that your credit card company and Apple will let you use your credit card for a 99 cent purchase) the credit card company gets 25 cents plus another 2 or 3 cents and the record company gets about 65 cents. That leaves Apple with 6 or 7 cents. If you buy more than one song at a time the credit card company doesn't get the 25 cents on the second through infinity dollars but they get that 2 or 3 cents on every dollar and that 25 cents on every customer. So the best Apple can do is 32 cents per song minus 25 cents per customer, and that money has to cover all of their expenses--bandwidth, advertising, payroll, electric bill, water bill, telephone bill, building maintenance, lawyers to keep the record companies from getting any more than they already do, and anything else that they wouldn't have to pay if they weren't running iTunes.
The record companies, who don't have to pay much of anything they didn't already cover getting those songs ready to go onto a phonograph record, cassette, 8-track, or CD (except for the lawyers to try to screw Apple), know that Apple's not about to give them a bigger cut out of that 99 cents, so the only way they are going to get even more "money for nothing" is to either convince Apple that the record companies deserve a cut of the profits on the hardware (which would go over about as well as Microsoft saying they deserve a cut of Mac sales because Office for the Mac drives Mac sales) or getting the price per song above 99 cents.
You'll notice that although he said that the market should decide the price and not a single retailer, he didn't say anything about any songs selling for less than 99 cents, so before long that will be the "fair market price" for songs so low in demand that no one will pay more, and everything else will be higher in price and before long you'll be paying as much for downloads as for a physical CD, at which point they will no doubt declare physical CDs underpriced.
Remember, Apple is doing almost all of the work and paying almost all of the expenses on iTunes while the record companies get 65 per cent not of the net or the profit, but 65 per cent of the gross and the record companies think that they're doing Apple a big favor and that they should get a cut out of each iPod sale as well. Tell me again who the pirates are?