The broadcast license was sold. Not the station. WOXY.com is still the same great station that you could pick up in Indiana. They're just online now instead of on FM. Whatever the hell is now broadcasting on 97.7 FM is no longer "97X, (Bam!) The future of rock and roll."
WOXY.com, still has the same DJs and the same focus on exposing new music.
They are truly the future of rock and roll, having shed the restrictions of the FM band.
When I'm in the states, I am indeed sad that I can not get it on the dial anymore. (You might want to try 92.3 in Indiana, also good programming, but not the same as WOXY.com)
This is true. I'm listening from the Netherlands with not even a skip. The quality is great, too. Not to mention that its the best damn radio station in existence. I've subscribed. I encourage anyone reading this comment to at least check it out.
WOXY.com does offer podcasts where licensing allows. The contract that artists sign when they come preform live sessions, and the one agreed to by unsigned artists when they submit work to the Unsigned@woxy.com show gives WOXY.com the legal right right to redistribute those particular works in the form of podcasts.
The people at WOXY.com are very savvy about such things, but for regular programming it won't work because of licensing restrictions and ultimately copyright. See my other post for more of my opinion on this incredible station. It's also a reply to the OP.
I don't work for WOXY.com... I just love the station.
This is by far the best station I've ever had the pleasure of listening to. I had already subscribed before the on-air announcement was over.
I highly encourage anyone with an interest in good music (especially of the modern rock variety) do themselves a favor and have a listen on the currently free stream.
The people are really what make the station. The DJs know everything about the music they play and add a very personal element to the station. They are also a huge force in discovering new interesting music and they somewhat frequently have "Lounge Acts" now where rising bands will come play a live set. Additionally they have a show called Unsigned@WOXY.com which features unsigned artists. Both of these are available as podcasts. WOXY.com also has full independence in what they play, unlike corporate stations which are payed for spinning certain tunes at certain times to increase ratings.
The problem is that radio has never been free, and now the people who used to pay (advertisers) do not know what to do with the new WOXY.com (BAM! The Future of Rock and Roll!). Is it a radio station? They don't broadcast on the dial! Is it a webcast? Well, its still very much a radio format! There is incredible value, but marketroids do not understand yet.
As other people have suggested here another major impetus is that most people don't have EVDO or EDGE in their cars. My hope is that subscriptions can carry the station over to a time when the rest of the world has caught up with the amazing things WOXY.com is doing; a time when we'll once again have The Future of Rock and Roll in our cars, except this time without geographic boundaries.
Overall, Woxy.com is the paragon of artistic integrity. This makes them very unique in what they have to offer, and I would highly suggest that you go to the web site, read their appeal, and have a listen. If you like what you hear, I HIGHLY urge you to support what 20 years from now will still be the preeminent independent music station with your assistance.
And no, I do not work for WOXY.com, I just really love the station for the knowledgable staff who provide a great service in providing music I would never have otherwise heard.
Best Regards, Paul
Re:Increasing net losses???
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 1
It depends on who "they" are. Meaning the current management, I think the whole process will go very well for them.
Some investment bank(s) will underwrite the whole deal, guaranteeing that Vonage will raise funds. The investment bank will assume all of the risk of selling the issue, but given how irrational market participants can be, I assume that the underwriters will also make out with a good profit*.
The only people for whom this will not go well are the people who actually buy the shares at the end of the day. Eventually everything will calm down, and demand for the shares will plummet. As you suggested, who really wants to pay for a company with no proven ability to provide returns on capital?
I suspect that the founders & management will get rich, as will the investment bankers, and the shareholders will suffer, at least in the short term.
Best,
Paul
*If as you suggested people have shed the proclivity for irrational exuberance that we saw in 1999, the underwriters, too would lose.
If you have the wherewithal to stand the huge upside risk (if they do have a cure), this would be a prime target for shorting once it gets absurdly high.
Not my game, as I don't speculate, but it looks like it could be a money-maker for someone other than the scammers operating it.
You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.
You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.
This sounds like a severe case of security theater (or budding fascism depending on how you see it).
I somewhat agree. If the DHS has to even be there in the first place, plain-clothes officers would make much more sense.
I think that you're right, too that this is how an Orwellian nightmare begins at least. It begins when it makes people feel secure. And cozy. And it ends when... well, I don't know if it ends.
The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.
It's not new to/., but I suspect that to most web users it is.
Most people on/. I think never ascribed* sinister motives to the people at Google.
However, the situation is now ripe for abuse: we have a government that is more cavalier with using its powers, and we have a citizenry who care less and less.
Best, Paul
*Most -- quite reasonably in my opinion -- still do not think of google as evil.
Okay, so we all thought to some degree that the guy behind GoogleWatch was a nut. I suppose right now is when he can say: I TOLD YOU SO regarding the ability to compile search histories thanks to the never-expiring cookie.
However I think it is safe to say that this certain precedent can be generalized to any porn. What is at issue is the meaning of the word 'make' in a legal context.
Although this won't legally set a binding precedent for cases dealing with different matters of fact, it may be called upon in future judgments as an example of a similar case for so-called "persuasive precedent."
Cue the "make: *** No rule to make target `porn'. Stop." jokes.
To date, the fourth amendment has not stopped agents of the state from searching my belongings and my person each time before I step onto a commercial jet.
The fact is, America is increasingly saying "so what" about the framework of law that was meant to protect each of us individually from encroachment on our liberty by others... the Constitution.
The article mentions blocks being closures and the fact that Perl 6 -- much like the new regex system -- is itself really a programmable grammar. It sounds like we now have real macros.
The question is: is Perl becoming a LISP implementation?
No. I am pretty sure he was trying to compare a governmental system with anarchy or minarchy.
This is a very fair practice and a useful thought experiment that will help one decide what elements of government may be desirable and which elements may be desirable only at first glance*. I highly recommend reading the GPs response to the parent. I think it is insightful if slightly incendiary.
This is one of the most succinctly insightful comments I've seen here on slashdot. For the love of all that is good in this world, mods please make parent "+5 insightful."
To be fair, I don't think I've ever used the word FUD* here on slashdot, nor have I condemned the use of FUD by corporations here on slashdot or elsewhere. In my mind, this is a proper simplification for people who don't want to understand the underlying technical aspects of DRM & rootkits.
Espousing fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding certain issues where such emotions are warranted and wholly rational is perhaps admirable. If my FUD piques the interest of the friend with whom I share it, I'm happy to share the technical details of why they should be afraid of the use of the technology, and why they should be uncertain about and doubt the companies that foist this on them.
This was someone else's idea here on slashdot, and it works.
"Sony intentionally infected that CD with DRM. It is infected with DRM. It will take over your computer." I just told this to a friend of mine who is a huge fan of Imogen Heap and was about to buy her recent US release of Speak for Yourself through Sony.
Sony infected this CD with DRM for the Mac, and maybe Windows, too.
My friend has spoken with Immi before and is writing her to tell her why, although he supports her and goes to her shows when possible (the hotel/cafe tour for example), he will not be buying the album.
He will not be buying it because It is INFECTED with DRM.
Whomever came up with this brilliant strategy, please feel free to take credit in a reply here. I can't find the original comment.
Slashdot Mirror
The broadcast license was sold. Not the station. WOXY.com is still the same great station that you could pick up in Indiana. They're just online now instead of on FM. Whatever the hell is now broadcasting on 97.7 FM is no longer "97X, (Bam!) The future of rock and roll."
WOXY.com, still has the same DJs and the same focus on exposing new music.
They are truly the future of rock and roll, having shed the restrictions of the FM band.
When I'm in the states, I am indeed sad that I can not get it on the dial anymore. (You might want to try 92.3 in Indiana, also good programming, but not the same as WOXY.com)
Best,
Paul
This is true. I'm listening from the Netherlands with not even a skip. The quality is great, too. Not to mention that its the best damn radio station in existence. I've subscribed. I encourage anyone reading this comment to at least check it out.
WOXY.com does offer podcasts where licensing allows. The contract that artists sign when they come preform live sessions, and the one agreed to by unsigned artists when they submit work to the Unsigned@woxy.com show gives WOXY.com the legal right right to redistribute those particular works in the form of podcasts.
The people at WOXY.com are very savvy about such things, but for regular programming it won't work because of licensing restrictions and ultimately copyright. See my other post for more of my opinion on this incredible station. It's also a reply to the OP.
I don't work for WOXY.com... I just love the station.
Best,
Paul
This is by far the best station I've ever had the pleasure of listening to. I had already subscribed before the on-air announcement was over.
I highly encourage anyone with an interest in good music (especially of the modern rock variety) do themselves a favor and have a listen on the currently free stream.
The people are really what make the station. The DJs know everything about the music they play and add a very personal element to the station. They are also a huge force in discovering new interesting music and they somewhat frequently have "Lounge Acts" now where rising bands will come play a live set. Additionally they have a show called Unsigned@WOXY.com which features unsigned artists. Both of these are available as podcasts. WOXY.com also has full independence in what they play, unlike corporate stations which are payed for spinning certain tunes at certain times to increase ratings.
The problem is that radio has never been free, and now the people who used to pay (advertisers) do not know what to do with the new WOXY.com (BAM! The Future of Rock and Roll!). Is it a radio station? They don't broadcast on the dial! Is it a webcast? Well, its still very much a radio format! There is incredible value, but marketroids do not understand yet.
As other people have suggested here another major impetus is that most people don't have EVDO or EDGE in their cars. My hope is that subscriptions can carry the station over to a time when the rest of the world has caught up with the amazing things WOXY.com is doing; a time when we'll once again have The Future of Rock and Roll in our cars, except this time without geographic boundaries.
Overall, Woxy.com is the paragon of artistic integrity. This makes them very unique in what they have to offer, and I would highly suggest that you go to the web site, read their appeal, and have a listen. If you like what you hear, I HIGHLY urge you to support what 20 years from now will still be the preeminent independent music station with your assistance.
And no, I do not work for WOXY.com, I just really love the station for the knowledgable staff who provide a great service in providing music I would never have otherwise heard.
Best Regards,
Paul
It depends on who "they" are. Meaning the current management, I think the whole process will go very well for them.
Some investment bank(s) will underwrite the whole deal, guaranteeing that Vonage will raise funds. The investment bank will assume all of the risk of selling the issue, but given how irrational market participants can be, I assume that the underwriters will also make out with a good profit*.
The only people for whom this will not go well are the people who actually buy the shares at the end of the day. Eventually everything will calm down, and demand for the shares will plummet. As you suggested, who really wants to pay for a company with no proven ability to provide returns on capital?
I suspect that the founders & management will get rich, as will the investment bankers, and the shareholders will suffer, at least in the short term.
Best,
Paul
*If as you suggested people have shed the proclivity for irrational exuberance that we saw in 1999, the underwriters, too would lose.
If you have the wherewithal to stand the huge upside risk (if they do have a cure), this would be a prime target for shorting once it gets absurdly high.
Not my game, as I don't speculate, but it looks like it could be a money-maker for someone other than the scammers operating it.
Best,
Paul
IMNSHO, too.
.. Not So ..
Best, Paul
*
You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.
You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.
This sounds like a severe case of security theater (or budding fascism depending on how you see it).
I somewhat agree. If the DHS has to even be there in the first place, plain-clothes officers would make much more sense.
I think that you're right, too that this is how an Orwellian nightmare begins at least. It begins when it makes people feel secure. And cozy. And it ends when... well, I don't know if it ends.
The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.
Best
Paul
I think this is a really good use of funds. Well, at least I would if I too were feeding at the trough.
Best,
Paul
Well, I think I speak for all of us when I say on behalf of the internet community: Thank Ford for the Department of Homeland Security.
We're a step ahead of blizzard. UNITE!
Will those bastards at Google tell my wife about my chronic pr0n addiction? /. might.
No, but
Love,
Your Wife
It's not new to /., but I suspect that to most web users it is.
/. I think never ascribed* sinister motives to the people at Google.
Most people on
However, the situation is now ripe for abuse: we have a government that is more cavalier with using its powers, and we have a citizenry who care less and less.
Best,
Paul
*Most -- quite reasonably in my opinion -- still do not think of google as evil.
Okay, so we all thought to some degree that the guy behind GoogleWatch was a nut. I suppose right now is when he can say: I TOLD YOU SO regarding the ability to compile search histories thanks to the never-expiring cookie.
Best,
Paul
Google used to sell boxers with the text "I'm Feeling Lucky" tiled on the bias. This was before the IPO I think.
They used to be sold through the Google Store, but they've toned down the apparel a little.
This is surely true.
However I think it is safe to say that this certain precedent can be generalized to any porn. What is at issue is the meaning of the word 'make' in a legal context.
Although this won't legally set a binding precedent for cases dealing with different matters of fact, it may be called upon in future judgments as an example of a similar case for so-called "persuasive precedent."
Cue the "make: *** No rule to make target `porn'. Stop." jokes.
To date, the fourth amendment has not stopped agents of the state from searching my belongings and my person each time before I step onto a commercial jet.
The fact is, America is increasingly saying "so what" about the framework of law that was meant to protect each of us individually from encroachment on our liberty by others... the Constitution.
-Paul
Not even a tripe. Tripe. Full Stop.
Even the first time the article hit the front page, my first & lasting impression was that this research amounted to plain common sense.
The article mentions blocks being closures and the fact that Perl 6 -- much like the new regex system -- is itself really a programmable grammar. It sounds like we now have real macros.
The question is: is Perl becoming a LISP implementation?
No. I am pretty sure he was trying to compare a governmental system with anarchy or minarchy.
This is a very fair practice and a useful thought experiment that will help one decide what elements of government may be desirable and which elements may be desirable only at first glance*. I highly recommend reading the GPs response to the parent. I think it is insightful if slightly incendiary.
*See Bastiat's What is Seen and What is Not Seen
This is one of the most succinctly insightful comments I've seen here on slashdot. For the love of all that is good in this world, mods please make parent "+5 insightful."
To be fair, I don't think I've ever used the word FUD* here on slashdot, nor have I condemned the use of FUD by corporations here on slashdot or elsewhere. In my mind, this is a proper simplification for people who don't want to understand the underlying technical aspects of DRM & rootkits.
Espousing fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding certain issues where such emotions are warranted and wholly rational is perhaps admirable. If my FUD piques the interest of the friend with whom I share it, I'm happy to share the technical details of why they should be afraid of the use of the technology, and why they should be uncertain about and doubt the companies that foist this on them.
*until now.
This was someone else's idea here on slashdot, and it works.
"Sony intentionally infected that CD with DRM. It is infected with DRM. It will take over your computer." I just told this to a friend of mine who is a huge fan of Imogen Heap and was about to buy her recent US release of Speak for Yourself through Sony.
Sony infected this CD with DRM for the Mac, and maybe Windows, too.
My friend has spoken with Immi before and is writing her to tell her why, although he supports her and goes to her shows when possible (the hotel/cafe tour for example), he will not be buying the album.
He will not be buying it because It is INFECTED with DRM.
Whomever came up with this brilliant strategy, please feel free to take credit in a reply here. I can't find the original comment.