First, give us non-proprietary batteries. Not only to keep it from becoming a paper weight after a couple years, but also to be able to toss in some other batteries if you forget to recharge it.
Second, give us an easily to use intuitive interface. In other words, TEST IT WITH REAL PEOPLE BEFORE YOU EVEN ATTEMPT TO SELL IT!!!
Third, allow us to sort and organize our music without any proprietary software crap. Simply let me transfer my MP3s by artist/cd name folders. If you want proprietary crap for newbies, let that be an option, not a mandate.
The article didn't mention the fact that cars (and trucks) are a heck of a lot larger in the US versus Japan and Europe. Thus, automboile accidents here are much more serious.
Getting hit with a Fiat would be nothing compared to a Hemi equipped Dodge 2500 truck.
The ability to turn Flash crap on/off with the PreBar add-on is a great feature. I cannot understand why it isn't implemented in the brower. Does anyone have any insight into this why such a usefull feature is not included by default?
For a hundred bucks I'll gladly toss an ethernet card into my ancient Packard Bell Legend with the 133MHz Pentium "screamer" chip!!! Heck, it has a whopping 32 megs of RAM!!!
What?! You wanted a system you could actually use?! In that case, nope!
Congress has sole authority over copyright. Thus, Congress could simply mandate that all e-voting software be in the public domain if used by any state government for elections.
You're forgetting two things: First the DVD could only be played
on PCs AND second, the PC had to be very high end
to play it.
Sticking a file on a DVD and getting it to play on a high
end system is hardly demonstrating anything. Getting it to work on a cheap appliance is
yet another.
You don't know your history. In the early days of FM radio, DJs played whatever they wanted. That's how bands such as the Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead, etc, got played. AM was all about hits and more hits. No one at AM had time to innovate with alternative music. It was even MORE formatted than any ClearChannel operating today! People flocked to FM to listen to music.
Overtime FM became as corporate oriented as AM, classic rock became Styx, Journey, and Kiss. Now most people I know avoid radio by taking their music collection with them or by listening to XM.
BTW, the free market can still choose in a system where DJs pick music. You simply fire the DJs people tend not to listen to.
"My impression of you is that your a money grubbing contemptible person who's okay with screwing over anyone so long as there's minuscule gain... such an honorable person to be!"
Merely because I believe in property rights?! Heck, I'd love to have a music station nearby which played truly alternative and independent music. A station where the DJs got to pick what they wanted, not some corporate suits who's idea about music is what brings in the most profits.
But I'd also love a bigger house. A 4x4 truck for my wife to drive in the winter. And a big screen HDTV monitor to play Doom3 through.
But merely because I want something does not give someone else the duty to provide it. You and I have every right to buy radio stations and play any music we want. I simply cannot afford to do so. No one is hindering me other than myself.
I too was having a serious discussion, until you came up with the theory that radio is not about the money. I'm not saying that every station in the US is about profits. But the vast majority of stations exist solely to make profits.
You may feel its about the music, but when AM found it could sell more ad space with far-right political talk, it dropped music like a hot potato.
As long as you hold your view, and I hold mine, it's impossible for us to have a rational discussion. Our views are simply too different.
There's your BIG mistake. People and corporations own radio stations to make money. Some may be run like charities, e.g., WRKP, but other than fiction, I've never heard of one.
If you want to live in some la-la land where radio is about the music, that's fine. I'll be here in the real world if you ever want to have a serious discussion.
Second, how is it bribary?! A station can play 24 hours of music per day. Why can't it sell that time for songs?! Should infomericals be illegal too?! Should TV shows "brought to you by" some product be banned too?! Heck, are advertisements themselves bribes?!
You seem to be forgetting that music is an industry. The sole reason the music industry wants songs played on the radio is to sell CDs. The radio station own air-time and the music industry wants to buy it. Exactly where is the bribe?!
"But what about the inde bands who's music fits the mainstream, are you saying that they shouldn't have an equal opportunity to be heard?"
Imagine if I'm selling my house. Many people make offers, but one offers me more money, so I sell to that person. Every single one had an opportunity to be heard, but I picked the one who was willing to pay more. What is the difference between my house/land and radio?
You seem to be under the impression that musicians have a right to be heard on the radio. They don't.
"Therefore they should except or reject based on the quality of the music, not on who has to most money."
Can you give me an objective standard for "quality" music?! I'd love to hear it.
And should I only be allowed to sell my land to those willing to build the most quality house?!
"There's a difference between thousdands of resturants and car dealerships making a deal with only one business AND one company with a stanglehold on 70% of the market excluding all but the big 5.?
Where is the difference?!
"They are simply there to help the little guy."
I'll say it again, after three decades (heck, it's actually been FOUR decades) how has the little guy been helped? And secondly, why does he deserve help?! No one has the right to be played on the radio.
"Because it does not target there intended audience."
Thanks for proving my point. The vast majority of mainstream radio stations do not play independent music because it is not their target audience.
"You still have the right to do what you want with your property, but you don't have a right to use that property as an incentive for someone else to not do business with me."
That makes NO sense. You seem to imply that a property owner has to accept contracts with EVERYONE. Restaurants makes deals with specific soda bottlers to the exclusion of others. That's legal. Car dealerships makes deals with specific automobile manufacturers at the exclusion of others. Heck, when you sell your house, you sell it at the exclusion of others!!!
"There is a plethora of inde bands that create mainstream style music..."
You're right. There IS much more music available in the world that could possibly be played on the radio. Thus, as I've asked before: Who gets to decide? The owner of the station or the government?
As I've said before, the question is who should decide what gets played on the radio?
So I'll ask you, who do YOU think should decide? The government or the market?
Let's face it, if there really was a demand for independent music, don't you think radio stations would spring up playing it and raking in massive ad dollars?!
And after three decades of anti-payola laws, where are these stations?!
And if your answer is that these laws are being ignored by everyone, then that is reason in itself to take them off the books. Laws without victims that are ignored by everyone only breeds disrespect for the laws with victims.
You know, I'm wrong. We should set up a bureaucracy to decide what gets played. I'd hate for unfairness to interfere with any property rights. (BTW, holding a licensee IS holding a property right!)
Exactly! The airwaves ARE limited. Thus, radio cannot play everything. Thus, the question is: Who decides what gets played?
You seem to be under the impression that the government should start a new bureaucracy to make that decision.
I happen to think the owner of the radio station should.
BTW, EVERYTHING is limited. If limited resources is the critera for government control, then we might as well throw out the entire concept of property rights right now!
How is a station not playing independent music unfair? It is unfair for jazz stations not to play hard Rock? Is it unfair for television not to play my home movies?!
We used to live in a country we owned what we owned and had the right to make contracts regarding our property, obviously those days are gone.
And after decades of anti-payola laws on the books, exactly where are all these profitable stations playing independent music?!
The point of anti-payola laws were an attempt to kill rock and roll.
The music industry has always paid to get air play. The states and the feds thought that if rock and roll radio stations were forbidden to take payola, through laws selectively enforced against those stations, they'd be forced to stop playing rock and roll. It didn't work.
Why those laws are still on the books are beyond me.
Thanks for the info. I wonder why such a useful feature isn't advertised more. With all the damn phone advertisments I see on a daily basis, I can't believe I haven't seen GPS functionality mentioned even once!
Slashdot Mirror
First, give us non-proprietary batteries. Not only to keep it from becoming a paper weight after a couple years, but also to be able to toss in some other batteries if you forget to recharge it.
Second, give us an easily to use intuitive interface. In other words, TEST IT WITH REAL PEOPLE BEFORE YOU EVEN ATTEMPT TO SELL IT!!!
Third, allow us to sort and organize our music without any proprietary software crap. Simply let me transfer my MP3s by artist/cd name folders. If you want proprietary crap for newbies, let that be an option, not a mandate.
And yet another guy who has never been to Michigan!
The article didn't mention the fact that cars (and trucks) are a heck of a lot larger in the US versus Japan and Europe. Thus, automboile accidents here are much more serious.
Getting hit with a Fiat would be nothing compared to a Hemi equipped Dodge 2500 truck.
The ability to turn Flash crap on/off with the PreBar add-on is a great feature. I cannot understand why it isn't implemented in the brower. Does anyone have any insight into this why such a usefull feature is not included by default?
For that 45 year old son living in your basement.
For a hundred bucks I'll gladly toss an ethernet card into my ancient Packard Bell Legend with the 133MHz Pentium "screamer" chip!!! Heck, it has a whopping 32 megs of RAM!!!
What?! You wanted a system you could actually use?! In that case, nope!
Can I assume that your grandma is also your aunt?
Congress has sole authority over copyright. Thus, Congress could simply mandate that all e-voting software be in the public domain if used by any state government for elections.
You're forgetting two things: First the DVD could only be played on PCs AND second, the PC had to be very high end to play it.
Sticking a file on a DVD and getting it to play on a high end system is hardly demonstrating anything. Getting it to work on a cheap appliance is yet another.
I couldn't understand why Shatner wanted to bring back STNG.
You don't know your history. In the early days of FM radio, DJs played whatever they wanted. That's how bands such as the Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead, etc, got played. AM was all about hits and more hits. No one at AM had time to innovate with alternative music. It was even MORE formatted than any ClearChannel operating today! People flocked to FM to listen to music.
Overtime FM became as corporate oriented as AM, classic rock became Styx, Journey, and Kiss. Now most people I know avoid radio by taking their music collection with them or by listening to XM.
BTW, the free market can still choose in a system where DJs pick music. You simply fire the DJs people tend not to listen to.
"My impression of you is that your a money grubbing contemptible person who's okay with screwing over anyone so long as there's minuscule gain... such an honorable person to be!"
Merely because I believe in property rights?! Heck, I'd love to have a music station nearby which played truly alternative and independent music. A station where the DJs got to pick what they wanted, not some corporate suits who's idea about music is what brings in the most profits.
But I'd also love a bigger house. A 4x4 truck for my wife to drive in the winter. And a big screen HDTV monitor to play Doom3 through.
But merely because I want something does not give someone else the duty to provide it. You and I have every right to buy radio stations and play any music we want. I simply cannot afford to do so. No one is hindering me other than myself.
I too was having a serious discussion, until you came up with the theory that radio is not about the money. I'm not saying that every station in the US is about profits. But the vast majority of stations exist solely to make profits.
You may feel its about the music, but when AM found it could sell more ad space with far-right political talk, it dropped music like a hot potato.
As long as you hold your view, and I hold mine, it's impossible for us to have a rational discussion. Our views are simply too different.
Ooops, that's supposed to be WKRP. Mmm... Bailey!!!!
"A radio station exists to play music."
There's your BIG mistake. People and corporations own radio stations to make money. Some may be run like charities, e.g., WRKP, but other than fiction, I've never heard of one.
If you want to live in some la-la land where radio is about the music, that's fine. I'll be here in the real world if you ever want to have a serious discussion.
First, tax evasion is NOT a victimless crime.
Second, how is it bribary?! A station can play 24 hours of music per day. Why can't it sell that time for songs?! Should infomericals be illegal too?! Should TV shows "brought to you by" some product be banned too?! Heck, are advertisements themselves bribes?!
You seem to be forgetting that music is an industry. The sole reason the music industry wants songs played on the radio is to sell CDs. The radio station own air-time and the music industry wants to buy it. Exactly where is the bribe?!
"But what about the inde bands who's music fits the mainstream, are you saying that they shouldn't have an equal opportunity to be heard?"
Imagine if I'm selling my house. Many people make offers, but one offers me more money, so I sell to that person. Every single one had an opportunity to be heard, but I picked the one who was willing to pay more. What is the difference between my house/land and radio?
You seem to be under the impression that musicians have a right to be heard on the radio. They don't.
"Therefore they should except or reject based on the quality of the music, not on who has to most money."
Can you give me an objective standard for "quality" music?! I'd love to hear it.
And should I only be allowed to sell my land to those willing to build the most quality house?!
"There's a difference between thousdands of resturants and car dealerships making a deal with only one business AND one company with a stanglehold on 70% of the market excluding all but the big 5.?
Where is the difference?!
"They are simply there to help the little guy."
I'll say it again, after three decades (heck, it's actually been FOUR decades) how has the little guy been helped? And secondly, why does he deserve help?! No one has the right to be played on the radio.
"Because it does not target there intended audience."
Thanks for proving my point. The vast majority of mainstream radio stations do not play independent music because it is not their target audience.
"You still have the right to do what you want with your property, but you don't have a right to use that property as an incentive for someone else to not do business with me."
That makes NO sense. You seem to imply that a property owner has to accept contracts with EVERYONE. Restaurants makes deals with specific soda bottlers to the exclusion of others. That's legal. Car dealerships makes deals with specific automobile manufacturers at the exclusion of others. Heck, when you sell your house, you sell it at the exclusion of others!!!
"There is a plethora of inde bands that create mainstream style music..."
You're right. There IS much more music available in the world that could possibly be played on the radio. Thus, as I've asked before: Who gets to decide? The owner of the station or the government?
As I've said before, the question is who should decide what gets played on the radio?
So I'll ask you, who do YOU think should decide? The government or the market?
Let's face it, if there really was a demand for independent music, don't you think radio stations would spring up playing it and raking in massive ad dollars?!
And after three decades of anti-payola laws, where are these stations?!
And if your answer is that these laws are being ignored by everyone, then that is reason in itself to take them off the books. Laws without victims that are ignored by everyone only breeds disrespect for the laws with victims.
You know, I'm wrong. We should set up a bureaucracy to decide what gets played. I'd hate for unfairness to interfere with any property rights. (BTW, holding a licensee IS holding a property right!)
Exactly! The airwaves ARE limited. Thus, radio cannot play everything. Thus, the question is: Who decides what gets played?
You seem to be under the impression that the government should start a new bureaucracy to make that decision.
I happen to think the owner of the radio station should.
BTW, EVERYTHING is limited. If limited resources is the critera for government control, then we might as well throw out the entire concept of property rights right now!
How is a station not playing independent music unfair? It is unfair for jazz stations not to play hard Rock? Is it unfair for television not to play my home movies?!
We used to live in a country we owned what we owned and had the right to make contracts regarding our property, obviously those days are gone.
And after decades of anti-payola laws on the books, exactly where are all these profitable stations playing independent music?!
The point of anti-payola laws were an attempt to kill rock and roll.
The music industry has always paid to get air play. The states and the feds thought that if rock and roll radio stations were forbidden to take payola, through laws selectively enforced against those stations, they'd be forced to stop playing rock and roll. It didn't work.
Why those laws are still on the books are beyond me.
Thanks for the info. I wonder why such a useful feature isn't advertised more. With all the damn phone advertisments I see on a daily basis, I can't believe I haven't seen GPS functionality mentioned even once!
Mod this up, this guy's a genius!