Microsoft will offer extended support for Windows 98 until January 16th, 2004. This date have been available on Microsoft's website for some time now.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; [ln];LifeWin
My band just finished recording our first album. Looking at duplication, it's going to run close to $1,100 for a run of 500 CD's, but $1,700 for 1000. There's so much more cost savings at 1000 CD's than at 500. But to bring this back on topic, I'm curious if this new technology will make it cheaper to duplicate and distribute music. If so, then the indie musicians could very well put a huge dent in the Record Label's income.
But I can't stop wondering...Why does someone need all of that storage space for an album? I can understand it being used by consumers to compile playlists and such, but most bands put out 10-13 songs on an album, and I can't see how the file sizes could require GB's of space, unless they plan on placing each track on the album instead compiling them. I could then envision the label's encrypting each track so the consumer would have to go through great lengths to rip the songs. Imagine having to rip 23 tracks per song individually.
They could then even place the tracks in random locations on the memory card and create a program that instructs the device that reads the card what order to read the tracks in.
Sounds like a lot of trouble to prevent people from sharing music, which someone would figure out how to crack in weeks anyways.
I seriously doubt any of the money makes it to the musicians...why?
Money earned from record sales mostly goes to the record label anyway. Most artists are lucky to see $0.45 - $0.85 per album sold, and remember...that gets split usually at least 4-6 ways (depending on the number of members in the band.
As a musician myself, I don't really have an issue with downloading music because I understand that it barely impacts the artist's bottom line in a negative manner. In fact, it may even help some artists make more money.
Why? Artists make their money from the tours they do. Most people won't see a band they've never heard. If someone happens to hear an MP3 of a song playing and it catches their ear, they're likely to download more songs to see if they like the band. If they really like them, they are more often than not going to see them when they are in concert nearby (provided that the music listener is a concert-goer).
You may wonder why so many artist's speak out against it if it really doesn't impact them that much. Recently, my band has undergone discussions with one of the major labels on a record deal. We've opted to turn it down as we got extremely lowballed, but that's besides the point. The point I was trying to make is that there is a provision in the contract that we were offered that required us to report any activity of illegal distribution of copyrighted materials as well as speak out against such illegal distribution.
If the RIAA wants to secure their profits, they should really be spending more of their time figuring out an alternative means of acquiring said profits, or they need to figure out the best way to work with the existing technology to maintain their existing profit levels.
There is also a PCMCIA card that you can purchase from Sprint (not sure if it works with Linux) that works with the Vision service. A friend of mine at work reported speeds of around 112k. Not bad considering that is slightly slower than ISDN rates at a fraction of the cost.
Actually I would think this encourages more pirating of OS software. If I have a perfectly good Windows XP system that the software I need runs perfectly fine, but I can't access my banking web site because they require Windows 2005 (or whatever OS you want to place there), why would I be motivated to spend $150 for a new OS that only gives me access to one or a few sites? I'd be more likely to spend hours looking for a cracked version (and I will only believe that M$ can beat the piracy issue when they actually do it).
Now on the flip side...charge me $29.99 for a browser and you might just get my cash.
For me, and many consumers out there, the only reason we use Windows at all is because of the software apps that are only available on Windows (games, etc...) The minute those apps become available on a Linux platform at even 85% of the level of quality of their Windows counterparts is the minute I never have to have a Windows box on my network.
Also, does this mean that IE will no longer be available on a Macintosh platform? Seems to me that Apple would put some legal pressure on M$ if that were to happen.
If the goal of M$ is non-competition, then I think they are possibly just trying to see how far they can push the envelope before the government actuallly takes action. Unfortunately that is one of the drawbacks of a capitalist economy.
Yes, the telcos will milk you for everything they can, but what most people out there don't realize when it comes to the telco industry is that they are currently fighting for their lives. The cable industry is destroying them in high speed data revenue, and with the cable industry getting into VoIP, they are looking to take a huge chunk of the telco's market share on voice related services.
The telcos have to find a way to either increase their market share in high speed data to account for the market share of voice services they will lose to cable providers, or they will need to offer a comprehesive voice, data, and video package which is commonly referred to as the "triple-play" among both telcos and cable providers.
Sure, telco will always exist in part due to their business class services and internet backbone infrastructure, but the days of having to own a telco operated phone are possibly coming to a close...unless the telcos get off their tails and compete with the cable providers.
I'm amazed that more telcos have not gone after partnerships with the Satellite providers. I've heard of some deals that have fallen through, but you would think that it would be much cheaper to offer a telco-branded Satellite video service packaged with local, long-distance, and zDSL service all on one bill, rather than spend the money on developing what most see as a doomed-to-fail video over DSL technology.
Sorry to get off-topic for a bit, but to bring it back into perspective, the telcos have no choice but to innovate or die at this point. They will innovate...they will most likely do it slowly, and they will do it kicking and screaming...but they have to in order to servive.
MCI is also trying to find a way to dig itself out of the grave it dug. What I find ironic is that MCI was allowed to pull off this return to the sector with basically a "slap on the wrist" penalty from the SEC. Now they're coming back into the sector and trying once again to start the price war that effectively put the telecommunications companies where they are right now.
It would be much easier (not saying that they would necessarily do it, but it would be easier) for the telcos to be upgrading their networks if they didn't have to continually be concerned about competing with MCI. While the consumer may have suffered on long distance rates for the last decade, imagine the state of the telcos today if the Worldcomm disaster had never occured. I would venture to say that investment into WiFi technology and VoIP would be much greater. Unfortunately, the money the consumer saved on long distance rates has cost them some advanced technology down the road. It's just too risky right now for the telco's to be investing in comprehensive VoIP and WiFi technologies. Take the Sprint ION service for example. A comprehensive voice and data package that saw data rates up to 8Mb/s with multiple lines using VoIP technology flopped because they couldn't afford to take the hit on revenue during a time when the telco industry was at its lowest.
Only recently are we starting to see the telco get brave again in innovation. Sprint is trialing Voice over DSL and Verizon is putting WiFi hotspots in pay phone stations.
The cellphone could very well be the medium in which the goals you speak of are accomplished. Already there are reports that next generation CDMA technology will be able to far surpass the 3G data transfer speeds that we see today. Imagine a 1.5M connection to your cellphone that can also be transferable to any wireless device you have(provided you have the proper equipment installed). Now imagine that you can install a wireless hub of sorts in your home that turns all of your home phone lines into wireless lines that work off of the same phone number as your cell phone. The technology is available. It's just a matter of time before the telcos start to roll this out. I admit that I don't keep up much on the GSM technology, but it looks like in the US, Sprint and Verizon made the proper network infrastructure decisions when it came to deciding between GSM and CDMA.
Actually, most of the telcos today utilize a packet-switched technology for their long-distance networks. What Sprint is doing is extending that to the local networks to the switch level. Sure...from the local office to the customer is still copper and circuit-switched to a degree, but it creates more efficiencies in network management and paves the way to bigger and better things. Clarity is improved greatly.
It just seems to me that this method will only be effective for a short period of time. Eventually, as this technology becomes more prevelant, the spammers will develop a way to have their mailers expect this challenge/response, and be designed to respond appropriately.
Until something better can be devised, I will continue to use three email addresses (hotmail for signing up for various websites, my ISP account for any billing info that requires an email address, and my personal address for friends and family) - Funny how the only spam I get is from in my hotmail box.
Perhaps that may have had something to do with Allied Occupation that established governments after WWII that insured that Germany and Japan would never start another World War again? You could argue that thee U.S. would have been better justified in a liberation of Iraq during the first Gulf War as a preventive measure securing the country of Kuwait (and surrounding nations) from the threat of a known aggressive government. It would have been easier for the U.S. back then as well as they had U.N. backing.
I've played on Xbox Live since it went Beta. The options of available games during Beta lended itself to trash talking at worst. Most of the players were pretty civil, and I rarely had a game where someone had to be booted. There would be the occassional biker on Moto GP that would race backwards to piss people off, but for the most part I liked the voice communication aspect of Xbox Live. Then came November 15th. Unreal, Ghost Recon, and Mech Assualt went Live. Immediately I noticed the difference in player communication between games. Courtesy seemed to be non-existant in Unreal and Mech Assault. However, I found it rare to run into someone who was rude or childish on Ghost Recon. My theory is that this game involves more strategy, thought, and patience to play. In most scenarios, you don't see instant action, and you can often wander a map for 3 minutes before seeing anyone. Communication is key to victory so people spend more time calling out strategy or locations of the enemy than they do chatting or trash talking. This also seems to be the same in pretty much any gaming environment, whether it be console or PC.
In the entire time that Xbox is out, I have not seen one "illegal operation" error. It's always been my belief that Microsoft could put out a decent product as long as they controlled all aspects of it, which really only benefits a consumer in a gaming console market. It's kind of the same concept that Apple uses...Apple PC's tend to be more stable since you are using all of Apple's hardware. The only problems I've run into on an Apple system is running some third-party apps. On the same note, the only Xbox's I've seen fail are ones that have been modded out. I've had 4 friends mod their boxes out only to see them die after 2-6 months.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid M$-hater when it comes to the PC market, but out of all the gaming consoles right now, I think they have done the best job. (I own and play all three major systems (PS2, GameCube, and Xbox).
With that said, I'm not certain that putting Xbox's in arcades will help. As many have already stated, the Arcade market is dying. Prices are just way too high for the average kid to spend an afternoon in the arcade. It's not like it was when I was a kid and 10 bucks could last you an afternoon and I'm only 25 years old. I think if Arcades would mark down their prices a bit, they'd see more customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft will offer extended support for Windows 98 until January 16th, 2004. This date have been available on Microsoft's website for some time now. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh; [ln];LifeWin
My band just finished recording our first album. Looking at duplication, it's going to run close to $1,100 for a run of 500 CD's, but $1,700 for 1000. There's so much more cost savings at 1000 CD's than at 500. But to bring this back on topic, I'm curious if this new technology will make it cheaper to duplicate and distribute music. If so, then the indie musicians could very well put a huge dent in the Record Label's income. But I can't stop wondering...Why does someone need all of that storage space for an album? I can understand it being used by consumers to compile playlists and such, but most bands put out 10-13 songs on an album, and I can't see how the file sizes could require GB's of space, unless they plan on placing each track on the album instead compiling them. I could then envision the label's encrypting each track so the consumer would have to go through great lengths to rip the songs. Imagine having to rip 23 tracks per song individually. They could then even place the tracks in random locations on the memory card and create a program that instructs the device that reads the card what order to read the tracks in. Sounds like a lot of trouble to prevent people from sharing music, which someone would figure out how to crack in weeks anyways.
I seriously doubt any of the money makes it to the musicians...why? Money earned from record sales mostly goes to the record label anyway. Most artists are lucky to see $0.45 - $0.85 per album sold, and remember...that gets split usually at least 4-6 ways (depending on the number of members in the band. As a musician myself, I don't really have an issue with downloading music because I understand that it barely impacts the artist's bottom line in a negative manner. In fact, it may even help some artists make more money. Why? Artists make their money from the tours they do. Most people won't see a band they've never heard. If someone happens to hear an MP3 of a song playing and it catches their ear, they're likely to download more songs to see if they like the band. If they really like them, they are more often than not going to see them when they are in concert nearby (provided that the music listener is a concert-goer). You may wonder why so many artist's speak out against it if it really doesn't impact them that much. Recently, my band has undergone discussions with one of the major labels on a record deal. We've opted to turn it down as we got extremely lowballed, but that's besides the point. The point I was trying to make is that there is a provision in the contract that we were offered that required us to report any activity of illegal distribution of copyrighted materials as well as speak out against such illegal distribution. If the RIAA wants to secure their profits, they should really be spending more of their time figuring out an alternative means of acquiring said profits, or they need to figure out the best way to work with the existing technology to maintain their existing profit levels.
There is also a PCMCIA card that you can purchase from Sprint (not sure if it works with Linux) that works with the Vision service. A friend of mine at work reported speeds of around 112k. Not bad considering that is slightly slower than ISDN rates at a fraction of the cost.
Actually I would think this encourages more pirating of OS software. If I have a perfectly good Windows XP system that the software I need runs perfectly fine, but I can't access my banking web site because they require Windows 2005 (or whatever OS you want to place there), why would I be motivated to spend $150 for a new OS that only gives me access to one or a few sites? I'd be more likely to spend hours looking for a cracked version (and I will only believe that M$ can beat the piracy issue when they actually do it). Now on the flip side...charge me $29.99 for a browser and you might just get my cash. For me, and many consumers out there, the only reason we use Windows at all is because of the software apps that are only available on Windows (games, etc...) The minute those apps become available on a Linux platform at even 85% of the level of quality of their Windows counterparts is the minute I never have to have a Windows box on my network. Also, does this mean that IE will no longer be available on a Macintosh platform? Seems to me that Apple would put some legal pressure on M$ if that were to happen. If the goal of M$ is non-competition, then I think they are possibly just trying to see how far they can push the envelope before the government actuallly takes action. Unfortunately that is one of the drawbacks of a capitalist economy.
Yes, the telcos will milk you for everything they can, but what most people out there don't realize when it comes to the telco industry is that they are currently fighting for their lives. The cable industry is destroying them in high speed data revenue, and with the cable industry getting into VoIP, they are looking to take a huge chunk of the telco's market share on voice related services. The telcos have to find a way to either increase their market share in high speed data to account for the market share of voice services they will lose to cable providers, or they will need to offer a comprehesive voice, data, and video package which is commonly referred to as the "triple-play" among both telcos and cable providers. Sure, telco will always exist in part due to their business class services and internet backbone infrastructure, but the days of having to own a telco operated phone are possibly coming to a close...unless the telcos get off their tails and compete with the cable providers. I'm amazed that more telcos have not gone after partnerships with the Satellite providers. I've heard of some deals that have fallen through, but you would think that it would be much cheaper to offer a telco-branded Satellite video service packaged with local, long-distance, and zDSL service all on one bill, rather than spend the money on developing what most see as a doomed-to-fail video over DSL technology. Sorry to get off-topic for a bit, but to bring it back into perspective, the telcos have no choice but to innovate or die at this point. They will innovate...they will most likely do it slowly, and they will do it kicking and screaming...but they have to in order to servive.
MCI is also trying to find a way to dig itself out of the grave it dug. What I find ironic is that MCI was allowed to pull off this return to the sector with basically a "slap on the wrist" penalty from the SEC. Now they're coming back into the sector and trying once again to start the price war that effectively put the telecommunications companies where they are right now. It would be much easier (not saying that they would necessarily do it, but it would be easier) for the telcos to be upgrading their networks if they didn't have to continually be concerned about competing with MCI. While the consumer may have suffered on long distance rates for the last decade, imagine the state of the telcos today if the Worldcomm disaster had never occured. I would venture to say that investment into WiFi technology and VoIP would be much greater. Unfortunately, the money the consumer saved on long distance rates has cost them some advanced technology down the road. It's just too risky right now for the telco's to be investing in comprehensive VoIP and WiFi technologies. Take the Sprint ION service for example. A comprehensive voice and data package that saw data rates up to 8Mb/s with multiple lines using VoIP technology flopped because they couldn't afford to take the hit on revenue during a time when the telco industry was at its lowest. Only recently are we starting to see the telco get brave again in innovation. Sprint is trialing Voice over DSL and Verizon is putting WiFi hotspots in pay phone stations.
The cellphone could very well be the medium in which the goals you speak of are accomplished. Already there are reports that next generation CDMA technology will be able to far surpass the 3G data transfer speeds that we see today. Imagine a 1.5M connection to your cellphone that can also be transferable to any wireless device you have(provided you have the proper equipment installed). Now imagine that you can install a wireless hub of sorts in your home that turns all of your home phone lines into wireless lines that work off of the same phone number as your cell phone. The technology is available. It's just a matter of time before the telcos start to roll this out. I admit that I don't keep up much on the GSM technology, but it looks like in the US, Sprint and Verizon made the proper network infrastructure decisions when it came to deciding between GSM and CDMA.
NAT is the devil!
Actually, most of the telcos today utilize a packet-switched technology for their long-distance networks. What Sprint is doing is extending that to the local networks to the switch level. Sure...from the local office to the customer is still copper and circuit-switched to a degree, but it creates more efficiencies in network management and paves the way to bigger and better things. Clarity is improved greatly.
It just seems to me that this method will only be effective for a short period of time. Eventually, as this technology becomes more prevelant, the spammers will develop a way to have their mailers expect this challenge/response, and be designed to respond appropriately. Until something better can be devised, I will continue to use three email addresses (hotmail for signing up for various websites, my ISP account for any billing info that requires an email address, and my personal address for friends and family) - Funny how the only spam I get is from in my hotmail box.
Perhaps that may have had something to do with Allied Occupation that established governments after WWII that insured that Germany and Japan would never start another World War again? You could argue that thee U.S. would have been better justified in a liberation of Iraq during the first Gulf War as a preventive measure securing the country of Kuwait (and surrounding nations) from the threat of a known aggressive government. It would have been easier for the U.S. back then as well as they had U.N. backing.
I've played on Xbox Live since it went Beta. The options of available games during Beta lended itself to trash talking at worst. Most of the players were pretty civil, and I rarely had a game where someone had to be booted. There would be the occassional biker on Moto GP that would race backwards to piss people off, but for the most part I liked the voice communication aspect of Xbox Live. Then came November 15th. Unreal, Ghost Recon, and Mech Assualt went Live. Immediately I noticed the difference in player communication between games. Courtesy seemed to be non-existant in Unreal and Mech Assault. However, I found it rare to run into someone who was rude or childish on Ghost Recon. My theory is that this game involves more strategy, thought, and patience to play. In most scenarios, you don't see instant action, and you can often wander a map for 3 minutes before seeing anyone. Communication is key to victory so people spend more time calling out strategy or locations of the enemy than they do chatting or trash talking. This also seems to be the same in pretty much any gaming environment, whether it be console or PC.
In the entire time that Xbox is out, I have not seen one "illegal operation" error. It's always been my belief that Microsoft could put out a decent product as long as they controlled all aspects of it, which really only benefits a consumer in a gaming console market. It's kind of the same concept that Apple uses...Apple PC's tend to be more stable since you are using all of Apple's hardware. The only problems I've run into on an Apple system is running some third-party apps. On the same note, the only Xbox's I've seen fail are ones that have been modded out. I've had 4 friends mod their boxes out only to see them die after 2-6 months. Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid M$-hater when it comes to the PC market, but out of all the gaming consoles right now, I think they have done the best job. (I own and play all three major systems (PS2, GameCube, and Xbox). With that said, I'm not certain that putting Xbox's in arcades will help. As many have already stated, the Arcade market is dying. Prices are just way too high for the average kid to spend an afternoon in the arcade. It's not like it was when I was a kid and 10 bucks could last you an afternoon and I'm only 25 years old. I think if Arcades would mark down their prices a bit, they'd see more customers.