It's interesting that as the cost of distribution is rapidly going down to 0, the price per song keeps going up. In an age where you needed a large industrial plant to form and press vinyl, then ship to local stores, and then pay for rent and workers to sell the things, I would understand the current music prices. On the other hand, when it costs <$5000 for a session at a luxuriously-equipped studio, maybe another $20'000-50'000 for the services of a good sound engineer to master then thing, and then virtually nothing to upload the song to a website, you'd think the price would be different. But no, this is breaking one of the key laws of consumer marketing - once prices go up, they will not come down, regardless of the expenses.
In an ideal world, I would wonder why artists need a middleman any longer at all. After all, why couldn't they just negotiate with iTMS directly. But then I remember that radiowaves and music television are monopolized, and artists who do not sign with the big names will receive no exposure in the mainstream media./sigh
They hope to indicate to the consumers that they are fully in control. The idea is for everyone to understand that they WILL buy RIAAs music or else. In the meantime, they'd like to recoup their legal fees and maybe even make some extra money by taking the kids' lunch money.
Well that's the point, isn't it. How much of a failure do you call it, when in a commodity market you create a movement of customers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods?
The costs of this endeavor would be enormous, in terms of the need to obtain the various materials needed for this, assemble them, then manufacture and set up both the finished equipment, as well as the infrastructure for distributing this energy. Couple that with the fact that transmitting electricity is a very lossy process over distance, and you wind up with a very difficult task indeed.
Rather than try to concentrate solar energy production, I think we're much better off distributing it. If every roof in the U.S. was covered with solar panels, we'd have a large part of the solution already figured out. Plus, we'd be largely immune to isolated grid problems, resulting in less power outages.
I don't know what's "unstable". I've set up Beryl on 3 computers in the past few months, on Ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04... and all the installations are "stable".
In my experience, Linux with Beryl is so vastly superior in terms of looks, productivity tools, and usability, to anything other operating systems offer, that having no programming or Linux experience, it took me 1 week to stop booting into my Windows installation.... and just to think that I installed Linux as a gag.
I am hoping that those with the IQ to think about doing that, and the know-how to use Skype, will also be coincidentally courteous enough not to do it.
This raises an important question - who's more important to whom?
1. Is Windows essential to Dell's business model of building and selling PCs? 2. Is Dell essential to Microsoft's business model of establishing a monopoly and locking in customers?
In an ideal world, it's obvious that #2 would be more true than #1, given the huge percentage of the PC market that Dell occupies. However, customers still demand Windows, and while Microsoft has the power to raise the wholesale prices for Dell, and render the latter unable to compete in the low-margin world of hardware sales, Dell is still quite dependent on directives from Redmond.
This latest trend just serves to underline the inherent instability in this partnership. In this context, it is not surprising that Dell is looking into Linux, since proliferation of the latter will benefit Dell in that it will limit the extent to which Dell depends on Microsoft in the long run; in the short run it'll give Dell more bargaining power with regards to wholesale Windows price negotiations.
There's 2 types of combat on the modern battlefield - the close-quarters 100m max range, and the defensive long range. In close quarters, the M16s accuracy is rather irrelevant, and during more long range engagements the goal isn't to kill your enemy, but rather to suppress their fire until you can bring in heavy weapons large-caliber machineguns, artillery, or aircraft (actually that's often the goal in short-range engagements as well).
Having spoken to quite a few people in the Israeli army who've used the M4 extensively, I can say that I am less than impressed with the reliability record of this assault rifle.
The AK-1XX series weapons seem to be very good guns, and they even come in versions that are chambered for the 5.56 NATO.
Exactly. People tend to think of evolution as having some sort of a goal, an endpoint of a "perfect" being.
In reality, there is no "evolution" in the way that people understand it. There is natural selection, which results in changes that create animals that are more adapted to their environment. In this sense, it doesn't matter that chimps' genes have changed more than ours, because by developing a sophisticated brain capable of reasoning we have sidestepped the need for much of the adaptations chimps may have had to undergo. Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, rather than change ourselves, the game was over.
Doubleclick ads were going to be there, regardless of who owned it. Google wanted the user data that Doubleclick had collected over the years, and they didn't want Microsoft to be able to buy it. Therefore they overpaid by billions of dollars.
The outcome was binary - either Microsoft was going to own Doubleclick, or Google was. Given the choice, I would much rather see Google do it. After all - the worst case scenario is that Doubleclick ads persist as they are... with a decent chance that Google is going to do something productive with Doubleclick's business model.
I am using an M-Audio 24/96 card to output 24bit/44.1kHz via spdif into an MSB LinkIII DAC that I got for ~$300 on audiogon.com.... the signal then goes to an Aragon 28K preamp ($450 on audiogon.com) out of the preamp the signal goes to the Outlaw ICBM crossover ($150 on outlawaudio.com) which uses a 36dB crossover to separate 80Hz and above to the B&K reference 200.2 amp ($450 on audiogon.com) and 80Hz and below to my sub (Dayton Titanic MkIII 15" 1000W sealed sub kit; $700 at partsexpress.com).
Well - the industry has realized that marketing expensive HD-DVD players is a nightmare, when an Xbox can do that and so much more at a much lower price. Making HD-DVD content unplayable on the Xbox is just another logical step (they have they own special logic). So the question is this - is it a bug, or a feature?
Every time I read articles like this, and get to hear the inevitable mudslinging that ensues, I don't know who I want to beat over the head with a biology textbook - the writers of the article, or the readers.
These sheep are not 15% human, there is no such thing - they're 15% antigenically identical. There is no percentage at which they will become human, because their basic structure is still of a sheep!
Really? Cause 5 minutes on Google is what it took me to fix EVERY major issue with Ubuntu I've had thus far, and I have no Linux geek to turn to for help...
1. Get somebody to make an offensive attack ad 2. Get it noticed by the press 3. Enjoy seeing your attack ad on the air FOR FREE for a dozen news cycles or more. 4. Offset the blame, since you never "approved" the ad.... 5. Profit!
I prefer the K44 AKGs to the Sennheisers... don't know why. I've got a Samson headphone amp running them, so I don't think that I am running out of juice.
Anyway... I just can't get into headphones. I have them, but simply don't like listening through them. I prefer a good speaker setup (I'm not talking about promedias).
Before I realized that the hobby was taking up too much of my money, I set up a stereo system consisting of an MSB DAC, Aragon preamp, B&K amp, Outlaw crossover, and a pair of Klipsch Ref speakers, and a Dayton Titanic sub. I drive it with SPDIF (44.1 only) from an M-Audio card.
I tried creative... and the last creative card I owned (original audigy) I literally tossed out the window.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that as the cost of distribution is rapidly going down to 0, the price per song keeps going up. In an age where you needed a large industrial plant to form and press vinyl, then ship to local stores, and then pay for rent and workers to sell the things, I would understand the current music prices. On the other hand, when it costs <$5000 for a session at a luxuriously-equipped studio, maybe another $20'000-50'000 for the services of a good sound engineer to master then thing, and then virtually nothing to upload the song to a website, you'd think the price would be different. But no, this is breaking one of the key laws of consumer marketing - once prices go up, they will not come down, regardless of the expenses.
/sigh
In an ideal world, I would wonder why artists need a middleman any longer at all. After all, why couldn't they just negotiate with iTMS directly. But then I remember that radiowaves and music television are monopolized, and artists who do not sign with the big names will receive no exposure in the mainstream media.
They hope to indicate to the consumers that they are fully in control. The idea is for everyone to understand that they WILL buy RIAAs music or else. In the meantime, they'd like to recoup their legal fees and maybe even make some extra money by taking the kids' lunch money.
Well that's the point, isn't it. How much of a failure do you call it, when in a commodity market you create a movement of customers who specifically try to avoid your brand of goods?
The costs of this endeavor would be enormous, in terms of the need to obtain the various materials needed for this, assemble them, then manufacture and set up both the finished equipment, as well as the infrastructure for distributing this energy. Couple that with the fact that transmitting electricity is a very lossy process over distance, and you wind up with a very difficult task indeed.
Rather than try to concentrate solar energy production, I think we're much better off distributing it. If every roof in the U.S. was covered with solar panels, we'd have a large part of the solution already figured out. Plus, we'd be largely immune to isolated grid problems, resulting in less power outages.
Maybe my definition of "stable" is different, given that I'm coming from Windows.
I don't know what's "unstable". I've set up Beryl on 3 computers in the past few months, on Ubuntu 6.10 and 7.04... and all the installations are "stable".
... and just to think that I installed Linux as a gag.
In my experience, Linux with Beryl is so vastly superior in terms of looks, productivity tools, and usability, to anything other operating systems offer, that having no programming or Linux experience, it took me 1 week to stop booting into my Windows installation.
I am hoping that those with the IQ to think about doing that, and the know-how to use Skype, will also be coincidentally courteous enough not to do it.
How do you think he came up with his username?
This raises an important question - who's more important to whom?
1. Is Windows essential to Dell's business model of building and selling PCs?
2. Is Dell essential to Microsoft's business model of establishing a monopoly and locking in customers?
In an ideal world, it's obvious that #2 would be more true than #1, given the huge percentage of the PC market that Dell occupies. However, customers still demand Windows, and while Microsoft has the power to raise the wholesale prices for Dell, and render the latter unable to compete in the low-margin world of hardware sales, Dell is still quite dependent on directives from Redmond.
This latest trend just serves to underline the inherent instability in this partnership. In this context, it is not surprising that Dell is looking into Linux, since proliferation of the latter will benefit Dell in that it will limit the extent to which Dell depends on Microsoft in the long run; in the short run it'll give Dell more bargaining power with regards to wholesale Windows price negotiations.
Since it's a business model, HP will patent it. Competition problem solved.
If that were true, wouldn't somebody patent selling coffee... or fixing a sink?
Thats true. Still, the M16 is more accurate.
There's 2 types of combat on the modern battlefield - the close-quarters 100m max range, and the defensive long range. In close quarters, the M16s accuracy is rather irrelevant, and during more long range engagements the goal isn't to kill your enemy, but rather to suppress their fire until you can bring in heavy weapons large-caliber machineguns, artillery, or aircraft (actually that's often the goal in short-range engagements as well).
Having spoken to quite a few people in the Israeli army who've used the M4 extensively, I can say that I am less than impressed with the reliability record of this assault rifle.
The AK-1XX series weapons seem to be very good guns, and they even come in versions that are chambered for the 5.56 NATO.
Exactly. People tend to think of evolution as having some sort of a goal, an endpoint of a "perfect" being.
In reality, there is no "evolution" in the way that people understand it. There is natural selection, which results in changes that create animals that are more adapted to their environment. In this sense, it doesn't matter that chimps' genes have changed more than ours, because by developing a sophisticated brain capable of reasoning we have sidestepped the need for much of the adaptations chimps may have had to undergo. Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, rather than change ourselves, the game was over.
Doubleclick ads were going to be there, regardless of who owned it. Google wanted the user data that Doubleclick had collected over the years, and they didn't want Microsoft to be able to buy it. Therefore they overpaid by billions of dollars.
The outcome was binary - either Microsoft was going to own Doubleclick, or Google was. Given the choice, I would much rather see Google do it. After all - the worst case scenario is that Doubleclick ads persist as they are... with a decent chance that Google is going to do something productive with Doubleclick's business model.
Go used!
I am using an M-Audio 24/96 card to output 24bit/44.1kHz via spdif into an MSB LinkIII DAC that I got for ~$300 on audiogon.com.... the signal then goes to an Aragon 28K preamp ($450 on audiogon.com) out of the preamp the signal goes to the Outlaw ICBM crossover ($150 on outlawaudio.com) which uses a 36dB crossover to separate 80Hz and above to the B&K reference 200.2 amp ($450 on audiogon.com) and 80Hz and below to my sub (Dayton Titanic MkIII 15" 1000W sealed sub kit; $700 at partsexpress.com).
Well - the industry has realized that marketing expensive HD-DVD players is a nightmare, when an Xbox can do that and so much more at a much lower price. Making HD-DVD content unplayable on the Xbox is just another logical step (they have they own special logic). So the question is this - is it a bug, or a feature?
I smell a "Diebold sues California" /. headline coming.
Every time I read articles like this, and get to hear the inevitable mudslinging that ensues, I don't know who I want to beat over the head with a biology textbook - the writers of the article, or the readers.
These sheep are not 15% human, there is no such thing - they're 15% antigenically identical. There is no percentage at which they will become human, because their basic structure is still of a sheep!
Really? Cause 5 minutes on Google is what it took me to fix EVERY major issue with Ubuntu I've had thus far, and I have no Linux geek to turn to for help...
It seems that having a 4-digit UID does nothing for one's ability to reason.
Why in the world would I possibly support either of these political whores? They're totally unpredictable in who they're going to sell out to next.
This is a very old, and very nasty strategy:
...
1. Get somebody to make an offensive attack ad
2. Get it noticed by the press
3. Enjoy seeing your attack ad on the air FOR FREE for a dozen news cycles or more.
4. Offset the blame, since you never "approved" the ad.
5. Profit!
I don't get it either. I have a friend at Ropes & Gray - I'll ask him how such a situation is normally handled.
I prefer the K44 AKGs to the Sennheisers... don't know why. I've got a Samson headphone amp running them, so I don't think that I am running out of juice.
Anyway... I just can't get into headphones. I have them, but simply don't like listening through them. I prefer a good speaker setup (I'm not talking about promedias).
Before I realized that the hobby was taking up too much of my money, I set up a stereo system consisting of an MSB DAC, Aragon preamp, B&K amp, Outlaw crossover, and a pair of Klipsch Ref speakers, and a Dayton Titanic sub. I drive it with SPDIF (44.1 only) from an M-Audio card.
I tried creative... and the last creative card I owned (original audigy) I literally tossed out the window.
Please... a pair of $150 Klipsch ProMedia 2.1s will quite capably reveal the difference between a crap sound card and a decent one.