Is there anyplace your music can be listened to online presently?
Yes, currently my music is being played on several pure internet streaming stations, as well as one terrestrial FM radio stations' streaming broadcasts (as well as their on-air Sunday blues program). I won't be any more specific, as I decided not to use/. to promote myself or my bands' music specifically, as I find it distasteful when others use/. to promote completely unrelated businesses, websites, etc here. I've stated as much in past postings. That's what artist/music forums and sites are for.
Also, since most/.ers will read an article summary and REJECT its value without reading the whole article, I can see a judge reading the opening part of a motion, seeing that it has no merit and rejecting it.
IANAL (or judge), but in my limited experience, the first page is nothing more than a 'cover' page, describing the case number, date(s), names of the parties, jurisdiction, presiding judge, etc.
It contains no factual evidence as to the facts, evidence, or validity or lack thereof of the motion. So, his 'boobytrap' *does* mean that the motion was not read, other than the basic information as to what case it pertains to.
Basically, the judges are looking at the cover page and saying; "I'm not wasting my time with this, regardless of the facts or any duty of mine as a judge to actually rule on the law. The legislatures' decision to create this law and the constitutional rights of the victims of the lawbreakers to redress can go hang!".
No. It's possible to have music on internet radio IF you as a webcaster have negotiated directly with the copyright owner for every piece of music you play. Otherwise, you're paying a license to SoundExchange, period. They administer the statutory license.
Wait...*I* am in an indie blues band, and we have no agreements with Soundexchange, the RIAA, any label, or anyone else. We give our CDs away all the time, and we're happy to let anyone broadcast us at no charge. Are you telling me these asshats want to try to charge internet radio stations in *my* name for playing *my* original music that I freely give to them to play unless I make some legal arrangements with Soundexchange!?!? How can they usurp *my* rights to let anyone I want play *my* music?
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds like Soundexchange collects by default, that it's necessary to 'opt-out' somehow. If that's the case, I'm gonna find a nice free country to move to where I can give my music to whomever I choose for free if I like. I wonder what the weather is like in Beijing...
Also: since 9/11, most of the cockpit doors are very strong, which means lots of metal, which means lots of shielding for the instruments up front
Most of the electronics on an aircraft are located either in compartments in the nose or tail, or in bays below central fuselage areas (depending on specific aircraft).
What you see in the panels in the cockpit are 'control and indicator' heads, which house only display and switching to conserve precious cockpit panel space. They are linked by cabling to the actual devices they control or display the output of. Add to that, the cabling required to link sensors back to the devices in the bays from wings, nose, tail, control surfaces, antennas, etc etc.
Even if that cabling is shielded, shielding breaks down with age and mechanical vibration and friction caused by vibration between the cable and the guides through which they are run on their twisting path through the aircraft.
A particular aircrafts' resistance to radio/EMF interference to its' avionics degrades in a non-linear and hard-to-predict manner. Cabling may wear or be damged in areas where it's impossible to inspect without major airframe dissassembly.
I worked for over 25 years as a Rockwell/Collins Avionics-trained and FAA-certified senior avionics technician on a wide range of aircraft, so I'm not talking out of my ass here. I've actually seen with my own eyes this cabling degradation and wear, and had it cause weird, unpredictable, intermittent, and hard-to-isolate problems *without* any nearby interference to make things worse. Adding strong local RF fields to this scenario, especially to aircraft that have been in service for years, is asking for trouble.
To be fair, Clear Channel is a corporate entity, and it's RIAA backing and conservative morals can be flipped in a second if consumers push for it. In the Madison, WI market a clear channel station (92.1) picked up Air America/The Mic and a number of left wing talk shows. After 3 years, Clear Channel was about to pull the plug on it. As soon as word got out though, consumer pressure on the advertisers drove a number of advertisers to go to clear channel and threaten to pull their adds if the station format changed. The end result, we still have a left wing radio station in Madison.
-Rick
Huzzah! A major victory for both of Air Americas' listeners!
This is a "we don't tell you how much but we cut you off anyhow" issue.
Which can equate to "we can cut you off whenever we feel like it". Which could well be rather dodgy if you have already paid them and they don't refund your money PDQ.
Hate to tell you both, but nearly every ISPs' TOS/AUP states quite clearly that they reserve the right to cut you off at their discretion, change the rules without notice to you, and absolve themselves of any responsibility for your connections' speed or bandwidth performance, or amount of downtime (YMMV). Granted, they don't usually get too nasty if you're not annoying them in some way, but they, by your service agreement/TOS/AUP, have the power to do pretty much whatever they want. Or nothing at all.
If you're not in the U.S., you have a pretty fair chance in many countries of having a friendly consumer law and a friendly court on your side. If you're in the U.S., however, you may be in for a lengthy and expensive litigation, with no assurance you'd win.
Actually, not Korean soviets as such, but those of the USSR type were not unknown during the Korean war (or 'police action'). Many UN/Allied aircraft were lost during the Korean war to Soviet fighter pilots. See here for some info: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html
I recall from my youth, I had opportunity to listen to one of my fathers' buddies that had flown an F86 Sabre in combat during the war. I remember him saying that they could quickly tell if the enemy pilot they faced were Soviet or Korean by the way the more inexperienced and poorly-trained Korean pilots handled their aircraft, as opposed to the highly-trained, experienced, and confident Soviet pilots.
He said they knew that if the pilots they faced were Soviet, chances were very good that he or one of his buddies was about to die, so determining which they faced as soon as possible was a high priority.
Of course, since you're just making up statistics (Clear Channel has never controlled close to 75% of the US radio market or "something like" it), it's hard to take your comment seriously at all. I heard that currently 99% of US radio stations only play NPR news and indy rock. It's true because I said so.
True, Clear Channel doesn't and never did own close to 75% of the market. However, corporate owned radio networks do own a huge percentage of radio stations in the United States. I think his point about corporate ownership of large numbers of stations creating fairly homogeneous, industry-driven music playlists across large areas and markets rings true. Not saying anything about the DRM angle, just the point about corporate station ownership and the vanilla mainstream playlists.
Further info is available on corporate radio station ownership and it's effects, etc., with a Google search. One of the top results I found was the Future Of Music Coalition http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRradiostudy.cfm.
With such large percentages of stations in the largest markets having their playlists determined by far-away corporate execs, the results are fairly predictable. Little chance there for some crazy DJ to "discover" some band or musician and give them airplay based solely on their musical merits.
"....I might just have to forgo the Vista Experience."
That bit seems to have the same feel as; "I might just have to forgo the Spanish Inquisition experience", or the ever-popular; "I might just have to forgo the amoebic dysentery experience".
Just a random observation from a slightly warped mind.
I tinkered with electronics & "Radio-Shack" projects back in the late 1970s & early '80s and I still like to go into the local electronics stores to look around (note: NOT Radio Shack anymore). You used to be able to feel like you were doing something close to useful when you breadboarded that 555 IC alarm system, 2N222 transistor amp or got a simple 74xxx "ALU" to work, but nowadays in the 100MHz+ world (yes, I come from the days when computers ran at 5Mhz=0.005Ghz!) it is tough to tinker with anything that has any power. The Basic Stamp kits look good. You seem to need a pretty hefty Oscilliscope nowadays also. I would suggest taking the training for a Amature ("HAM") radio license since that involves all the basic electronics stuff, then move into more digital stuff.
TDz.
I also got my start at the Radio Shack at the local mall, early-'70s, as a kid. I was first hooked by the quite nice shortwave receiver on display, and actually hooked up to a decent antenna. I would spend nearly the entire time at the mall there tuning around as my parents shopped. I then started looking at the kits...which back then were much more extensive than the offerings at R.S. nowadays.
My parents were struggling...we had little money. The store manager saw my interest, and after talking to both I and my parents over a number of weekend mall visits, started offering to let me take kits home to build for store display, in exchange for basic tools, soldering iron, small volt-ohm meter, etc.
From there, I went into amateur radio. The ARRL books, especially the ARRL Handbook, are a treasure-trove of electronic knowledge and information. Many may scoff, but for learning basic electronics skills, especially analog, vacuum tube circuit projects have quite a few advantages over starting with I.C.s and transistors.
The size of components and pins allow for nascent soldering skills to develop without frying delicate solid-state parts. The same with wiring a circuit correctly, (although connecting a polarized high-voltage electrolytic capacitor in reverse can be quite spectacular..KA-BOOM!) most mistakes result in either a blown fuse or simply a non-functioning circuit with little damage, possibly a fried resistor. Solid state components are not nearly so forgiving.
The higher voltages also train one in proper safe live-circuit handling and testing, in a painful but usually harmless and quite memorable way. Naturally, that applies to small-signal type circuits like preamps and such, where voltages and currents encountered are minimal (although painful). Power amps and similar circuits have lethal currents and voltages and should be handled with extreme caution, and with another person present in the case of novice electronics hobbyists.
The knowledge and skills I gained in learning vacuum tube circuit basics helped tremendously when transitioning to solid state analog circuitry. There are still applications in which vacuum tubes are superior to their solid state brethren, most notably in hgh-end audiophile sound systems and guitar and bass amplifiers. I currently build custom vacuum tube guitar and bass amplifiers part-time, and hope to expand to a full-time buisiness.
I wish allofmp3 had set up a fund to pay the artiste via a VOLUNTARY donation equivalent to whatever pittance they normally get from a track.
I doubt that the RIAA-affiliate labels would allow the arists they "own" to receive any such payments, even if they were purely voluntary. The RIAA and the labels already had the option to be paid by the Russian copyrights organisation that collected those fees, and refused.
It's not about being payed for the RIAA/labels, it's about being in _total control_ of the distribution, including setting retail prices and in which formats and in what media the content is available, as well as how and by whom the artists may be paid. That ability to control is what is being threatened in the digital/internet age, and is why you see the RIAA (and MPAA) reacting in the ways they do.
I would argue that even if the RIAA got _more_ money from the Russian copyrights agency than they get from the western equivalents, they still would refuse it, if it didn't allow at least equal controls over distribution and artist compensation that they enjoy in the west.
If any RIAA-affiliated artist attempted to collect any of the money due them from the Russian copyrights agency, I'm certain they'd be litigated straight into the poorhouse. It wouldn't even surprise me if the RIAA lawyers went after any *NON*-RIAA affiliated artist that attempted to collect from the Russian copyrights agency, just to make an example of them, even if they knew they'd lose in court. Which, given the state of the U.S. legal system, is not a given.
It's all about maintaining control at any cost, as changing times and technologies make their current business model obsolete.
I can't have some hacked together stuff that that may or may not interact well.
If this is the case, then you're definitely using the wrong solution. MS only interacts well with MS (if even then..interoperability in MS solutions isn't universal or without its' own problems), with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions are usually a result of the work of people outside of MS, reverse engineering things with, at the very least, no help from MS...that is, if MS doesn't actively work through multiple means to impede or halt any such efforts outright.
One of F/OSSs' main strengths is the ability to interoperate without artificial barriers for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits, lock-in, and marketshare.
There are F/OSS alternatives available already to accomplish everything you've cited. I know, I've done it. A few minutes' googling will usually result in multiple F/OSS apps/systems/OSs, etc to accomplish a given task. That you chose the MS solution is just that; *your* choice.
However, saying that you have no choice in order to stay in business and/or avoid firing employees is disengenuous. There *are* choices, you just *chose* not to avail yourself of them. Citing "peace of mind" and "interoperability" as reasons is facetious, as it has been widely acknowledged that both qualities are present in spades with current non-MS approved/certified F/OSS solutions.
If you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, perhaps the money you could save using F/OSS solutions could be used to hire more employees or increase benefits/pay rates of current workers.
Apple need to collaborate with Microsoft, and make the Apple Genuine Advantage. As a leader in the field of pissing off customers, Microsoft can proudly show Apple how to protect its interests against those nasty hackers.
And you know how they're gonna fix it? By passing a law that allows business method patents except in cases where it method involves the use of a law.
Or, they could set up a huge organization to rival the IRS to send forms out to every citizen, corp, organization, etc for them to fill out annually to determine how many laws you've obeyed, and how much you owe for NOT going to jail.
But wait..I could pay less by not obeying the law, therefor obeying the law about not using a patented method of obeying the law....:-|
I gotta stop here. If I continue down this path of logic, I'll burn my wetware out like the "Norman" android model from the old original Star Trek episode where Mudd finds an ancient planet of androids and they escape them by inducing a logic loop breakdown!
I can't say one way or another about youtube URL blocking, but I can say from long experience that yahoo chat servers (not clients) block photobucket.com URLs. I'm in a band, and I have band photos on photobucket, and every time I try to post a link to them in chat, the URLs (along with any accompanying text in the post) get eaten. I can post links to everything else I've tried with no problem, but not anything with photbucket.com.
I've tried with multiple clients across at least 4 different OSs, and every attempt is blocked. Even placing a space between the 'h' and 'ttp' in 'http' to break the link doesn't help. Only if I either misspell 'photobucket' or place a space in the name does it get through. I'm thinking Yahoo is blocking photobucket URLs because they have a competing photo sharing/hosting service (Yahoo Photos).
I find it to be quite petty, and convinces me to never ever use Yahoos' photo service, or any other Yahoo services besides IM/chat. If they are willing to go to these lengths over something so small, how do I know what else they might do to any of my data that I might send or be sent (possibly even including e-mail) with any of their other services?
There's simply too many alternatives to put up with that.
Funny you should say that, because you won't be able to buy PS3 games used anyway.
Yeah, really. I have a first-gen PS2 (the old thicker-styled one with seperate networking module add-on) that I bought a few years ago for $20, and that will almost certainly be my last game console ever, precisely beacause of all this type of B.S.. They've convinced me they really don't want to sell me anything, so I'll take them at their word.
..for me never buying another new game console or new game. If they want to treat the equipment they *sold* me as still under their control, then they will pay and/or perform all maintenance on said equipment, and the same for the games. If the games they *sold* me are their property, then they will replace the media when it gets scratched/damaged for a minor, nominal fee to cover handling/shipping. Otherwise, I have better things to spend my money on, thank you very much.
For that matter, if the consoles and games become any more consumer unfriendly, I won't even buy a *used* console or game, even at a garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
So, let me get this straight. I'm an independant artist with a published and distributed CD, on which it's stated: "Please feel free to copy and use this music however you see fit, share it with friends, put it on P2P, make a mix, or include it into other works. Do not include, encode with, or wrap this work in any anti-copying system or use any technological protection measures upon this work. If you value this work, feel free to contribute. Donation details can be found at (website addresses). Enjoy!".
So, by one of my fans simply playing my content with WMP11, their DRM will be imposed on my copyrighted content without my knowledge or consent, my rights as a copyright holder, content creator/artist are trumped/destroyed, as well as my revenue stream from donations from people who've been given copies of my work is effectively terminated?
Makes me want to reach for a rapid-fire assault-lawyer with a huge assault-class clip of C&Ds, injunctions, and claims for real and punitive damages, as well as possibly motions for class-action status, and do a legal drive-by on their butts firing on full-auto!
You do realize that such DRM is required to play next gen movie discs, don't you?
I don't ever plan on adopting such a locked-down, poorly thought out and implemented, "Gee, we've not been able to lock down DVDs enough, let's try again!" 'next gen' movie disc format. DVDs are bad enough, thanks!
And Apple is a member of BDA (the bluray association group), so you can be sure that OSX will have DRM requried to play BR discs. This isn't a Windows-specific thing. And what would you prefer, that MS remove that DRM so that Windows wouldn't be able to play those discs at all? The discs are going to have DRM whether Windows or Mac OS implement that DRM or not.
I don't care if Apple and/or Microsoft *invented* the blasted things, let alone if either of them will play them. Because I won't *buy* them! Neither those two OSs, nor the crappy new media formats. It doesn't matter to me what DRM Hollywood decides to use, or who adopts it, because *I* won't.
As a previous poster said, I couldn't care less if the movie/content industries go broke. They haven't made anything worth watching, let alone buying, or giving up liberties for, for a very very long time. I don't pirate. I just don't buy. Same deal with OSs and software.
Maybe if more people stopped buying into the crap, they'd go broke and make room for another buisiness model to spring up.
I stopped patching my xp box 2 years ago. The average user of course probably wouldn't be able to do that, but it works fine for most computer geeks. Back when I first stopped, I would have patched if I felt it was necessary. Now, I wouldn't patch unless you held a gun to my head.
To be honest, I am stuck in a position that as my computer software ages, I am unsure how to upgrade. I will be VERY unlikely to switch to Vista or any future MS offering. Switching to some Linux distro will be a pain because my main computer has been windows for so long, and I enjoy playing games and using various software that is generally not supported on Linux. Mac might be a possibility, but it will still be a pain in the ass. Oh well, I'll consider the options when the time comes.
One option you might consider is running XP (or even 2000, or, *shudder*, 98SE) in a VMWare-type virtual machine. Especially with the new multi-core CPUs, cheaper RAM, and heftier GPUs coming out, this will continue to be an increasingly-viable option for those that don't want to suffer from unwanted DRM in XP or switching to the even more locked-down Vista.
You could be securely browsing, e-mailing, etc. from your linux/FreeBSD OS, while fragging your buddies in CS/Doom3/whatever running in a virtual, sandboxed instance of 2000/XP running in a window on your desktop.
You miss the fact that people talk and even sometimes use the Internet to compare rates. Price rules about 90% of the decisions in the US, maybe more like 99%.
So, if an ISP is charging "realistic" rates they will have zero customers - losing them all to SBC-Yahoo DSL at $14.95 a month. If SBC-Yahoo claims "50 times faster than dial-up" and your ISP claims "your bandwidth will depend on what is available and might be only 10 times as fast as dial-up" how long will clueless Joe Sixpack stick around before switching to the ISP that tells him what he wants to hear?
There are no points for being honest when it doesn't count. In this case only people using P2P applications and BitTorrent clients are pounding on their connection 24x7. So they are the only ones that notice. Joe and his web browsing doesn't really care as long as it is fast.
You have some valid points. However, I still believe that more people than you apparently believe would still see through the hype.
As far as internet price comparisons, if they're using something like the popular "broadbandreports.com" or "dslreports.com" sites, then they are already pretty "clued in". If they're not clued in, those sites will educate them if they read any of the info there.
As far as combatting the marketing hype, that would require some hardball counter-advertising. Perhaps something along the lines of:
"Don't fall for the high-speed claims of [insert competitors' name]! They won't gauruntee you the *actual* speeds and *actual* amount of data you're allowed under their "secret limits"! *They* will cut you off for using more than what they think you should, and *THEY WON'T EVEN TELL YOU HOW MUCH THAT IS!!* Switch to [insert honest-Co.s' name], the one that actually gives you what they promise, and will actually *tell you* what you get for your money!
Dare [insert competitors' name] to gauruntee you in writing the amount of data you can transfer each month without penalties or "down-throttling" like we do! They won't! They think you're gullible!
Don't go for a ride on their 'Dis-Information Super-Tollway!'"
IANAM, (I am not a marketer) so get a real advertising marketer to write you a hard-hitting campaign..possibly even including daring the competition to *gauruntee* the amount of data transfer allowed per billing cycle at a *gaurunteed* average minimum speed.
After "Joe Sixpack" sees/reads/hears that for a while, he'll start thinking "Why *won't* these other ISPs spell out what I'm getting for that money?". At that point, you've gained a new customer. If you can drive home the other ISPs' dishonesty, most will switch if they can do so without too much hassle.
Maybe I'm too optimistic. I find it hard to believe, however, that even the most clueless user wants to deal with a dishonest business, if that dishonesty can be pointed out to them, and there is an alternative honest business available.
It doesn't have to be done like that. If the rates don't reflect actual market costs, that's on you. Charge people what it honestly costs for bandwidth. If people scream, then the situation will get changed at the backbone providers..either on their own, or by force of regulation.
As it stands, you are getting screwed by having unhappy customers already, and being forced to indulge in deceptive if not dishonest business practices. Even better, you're taking the heat at both ends (unhappy customers, plus possibly opening yourself to lawsuits or regulation) while being a patsy for the backbone providers. You're taking the bullet in the posterior twice for their greed.
You may think "Gosh, if I did that, the competition would screw us by advertising higher (false) speed/bandwidth." I don't think so. If you gaurunteed a specified amount of data transfer/bandwidth for a given price, (especially if you dared other providers in your marketing to match your deal) I think you'd get a LOT of customers that are *tired* of being lied to by every other provider.
Even people that one would think are pretty clueless tech-wise are smart enough to know they've been getting screwed by their ISPs. Ask any comcrap or AT&T or most any large providers' customers if they think their ISP gives them a good deal, and watch eyebrows (and ires) rise.
If nothing changes, guess what? Nothing changes. The backbone providers aren't about to change...why should they? They have a great patsy in place...you!
Do you feel that an artist shouldn't be allowed to sell the ownership rights to their work?
Actually, that is an arguable point. What benefits does society get with this transaction? Can the artists not license a record company to do the distribution, production, and promotion under a contract?
Why allow an artificial entity (corporation) to own any sort of intellectual property? Does an artificial entity have unalienable rights endowed by the Creator? If a corporate entity has rights, are they full rights? Does a corporate entity have the right to bear arms?
Sorry, I might be going a bit off-topic with some of those questions, but I think they fit into the larger topic which you bring up of rights ownership, or transferance of ownership to an artificial person (corporation).
I think that much of the problems we in the US are experiencing with copyrights and patents (and more) can be tracked back to decisions about what rights are granted to artificial persons as opposed to what responsibilities and obligations they must fulfill and liability for misdeeds they may do, in return for the rights and benefits they enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anyplace your music can be listened to online presently?
/. to promote myself or my bands' music specifically, as I find it distasteful when others use /. to promote completely unrelated businesses, websites, etc here. I've stated as much in past postings. That's what artist/music forums and sites are for.
Yes, currently my music is being played on several pure internet streaming stations, as well as one terrestrial FM radio stations' streaming broadcasts (as well as their on-air Sunday blues program). I won't be any more specific, as I decided not to use
Strat
Also, since most /.ers will read an article summary and REJECT its value without reading the whole article, I can see a judge reading the opening part of a motion, seeing that it has no merit and rejecting it.
IANAL (or judge), but in my limited experience, the first page is nothing more than a 'cover' page, describing the case number, date(s), names of the parties, jurisdiction, presiding judge, etc.
It contains no factual evidence as to the facts, evidence, or validity or lack thereof of the motion. So, his 'boobytrap' *does* mean that the motion was not read, other than the basic information as to what case it pertains to.
Basically, the judges are looking at the cover page and saying; "I'm not wasting my time with this, regardless of the facts or any duty of mine as a judge to actually rule on the law. The legislatures' decision to create this law and the constitutional rights of the victims of the lawbreakers to redress can go hang!".
Strat
No. It's possible to have music on internet radio IF you as a webcaster have negotiated directly with the copyright owner for every piece of music you play. Otherwise, you're paying a license to SoundExchange, period. They administer the statutory license.
Wait...*I* am in an indie blues band, and we have no agreements with Soundexchange, the RIAA, any label, or anyone else. We give our CDs away all the time, and we're happy to let anyone broadcast us at no charge. Are you telling me these asshats want to try to charge internet radio stations in *my* name for playing *my* original music that I freely give to them to play unless I make some legal arrangements with Soundexchange!?!? How can they usurp *my* rights to let anyone I want play *my* music?
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds like Soundexchange collects by default, that it's necessary to 'opt-out' somehow. If that's the case, I'm gonna find a nice free country to move to where I can give my music to whomever I choose for free if I like. I wonder what the weather is like in Beijing...
Strat
Also: since 9/11, most of the cockpit doors are very strong, which means lots of metal, which means lots of shielding for the instruments up front
Most of the electronics on an aircraft are located either in compartments in the nose or tail, or in bays below central fuselage areas (depending on specific aircraft).
What you see in the panels in the cockpit are 'control and indicator' heads, which house only display and switching to conserve precious cockpit panel space. They are linked by cabling to the actual devices they control or display the output of. Add to that, the cabling required to link sensors back to the devices in the bays from wings, nose, tail, control surfaces, antennas, etc etc.
Even if that cabling is shielded, shielding breaks down with age and mechanical vibration and friction caused by vibration between the cable and the guides through which they are run on their twisting path through the aircraft.
A particular aircrafts' resistance to radio/EMF interference to its' avionics degrades in a non-linear and hard-to-predict manner. Cabling may wear or be damged in areas where it's impossible to inspect without major airframe dissassembly.
I worked for over 25 years as a Rockwell/Collins Avionics-trained and FAA-certified senior avionics technician on a wide range of aircraft, so I'm not talking out of my ass here. I've actually seen with my own eyes this cabling degradation and wear, and had it cause weird, unpredictable, intermittent, and hard-to-isolate problems *without* any nearby interference to make things worse. Adding strong local RF fields to this scenario, especially to aircraft that have been in service for years, is asking for trouble.
Cheers!
Strat
To be fair, Clear Channel is a corporate entity, and it's RIAA backing and conservative morals can be flipped in a second if consumers push for it. In the Madison, WI market a clear channel station (92.1) picked up Air America/The Mic and a number of left wing talk shows. After 3 years, Clear Channel was about to pull the plug on it. As soon as word got out though, consumer pressure on the advertisers drove a number of advertisers to go to clear channel and threaten to pull their adds if the station format changed. The end result, we still have a left wing radio station in Madison.
-Rick
Huzzah! A major victory for both of Air Americas' listeners!
This is a "we don't tell you how much but we cut you off anyhow" issue.
Which can equate to "we can cut you off whenever we feel like it". Which could well be rather dodgy if you have already paid them and they don't refund your money PDQ.
Hate to tell you both, but nearly every ISPs' TOS/AUP states quite clearly that they reserve the right to cut you off at their discretion, change the rules without notice to you, and absolve themselves of any responsibility for your connections' speed or bandwidth performance, or amount of downtime (YMMV). Granted, they don't usually get too nasty if you're not annoying them in some way, but they, by your service agreement/TOS/AUP, have the power to do pretty much whatever they want. Or nothing at all.
If you're not in the U.S., you have a pretty fair chance in many countries of having a friendly consumer law and a friendly court on your side. If you're in the U.S., however, you may be in for a lengthy and expensive litigation, with no assurance you'd win.
Strat
North Korea has never had soviets.
Actually, not Korean soviets as such, but those of the USSR type were not unknown during the Korean war (or 'police action'). Many UN/Allied aircraft were lost during the Korean war to Soviet fighter pilots. See here for some info: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html
I recall from my youth, I had opportunity to listen to one of my fathers' buddies that had flown an F86 Sabre in combat during the war. I remember him saying that they could quickly tell if the enemy pilot they faced were Soviet or Korean by the way the more inexperienced and poorly-trained Korean pilots handled their aircraft, as opposed to the highly-trained, experienced, and confident Soviet pilots.
He said they knew that if the pilots they faced were Soviet, chances were very good that he or one of his buddies was about to die, so determining which they faced as soon as possible was a high priority.
Cheers!
Strat
Of course, since you're just making up statistics (Clear Channel has never controlled close to 75% of the US radio market or "something like" it), it's hard to take your comment seriously at all. I heard that currently 99% of US radio stations only play NPR news and indy rock. It's true because I said so.
m .
True, Clear Channel doesn't and never did own close to 75% of the market. However, corporate owned radio networks do own a huge percentage of radio stations in the United States. I think his point about corporate ownership of large numbers of stations creating fairly homogeneous, industry-driven music playlists across large areas and markets rings true. Not saying anything about the DRM angle, just the point about corporate station ownership and the vanilla mainstream playlists.
Further info is available on corporate radio station ownership and it's effects, etc., with a Google search. One of the top results I found was the Future Of Music Coalition http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRradiostudy.cf
With such large percentages of stations in the largest markets having their playlists determined by far-away corporate execs, the results are fairly predictable. Little chance there for some crazy DJ to "discover" some band or musician and give them airplay based solely on their musical merits.
Cheers!
Strat
"....I might just have to forgo the Vista Experience."
That bit seems to have the same feel as; "I might just have to forgo the Spanish Inquisition experience", or the ever-popular; "I might just have to forgo the amoebic dysentery experience".
Just a random observation from a slightly warped mind.
Cheers!
Strat
I tinkered with electronics & "Radio-Shack" projects back in the late 1970s & early '80s and I still like to go into the local electronics stores to look around (note: NOT Radio Shack anymore). You used to be able to feel like you were doing something close to useful when you breadboarded that 555 IC alarm system, 2N222 transistor amp or got a simple 74xxx "ALU" to work, but nowadays in the 100MHz+ world (yes, I come from the days when computers ran at 5Mhz=0.005Ghz!) it is tough to tinker with anything that has any power.
The Basic Stamp kits look good. You seem to need a pretty hefty Oscilliscope nowadays also.
I would suggest taking the training for a Amature ("HAM") radio license since that involves all the basic electronics stuff, then move into more digital stuff.
TDz.
I also got my start at the Radio Shack at the local mall, early-'70s, as a kid. I was first hooked by the quite nice shortwave receiver on display, and actually hooked up to a decent antenna. I would spend nearly the entire time at the mall there tuning around as my parents shopped. I then started looking at the kits...which back then were much more extensive than the offerings at R.S. nowadays.
My parents were struggling...we had little money. The store manager saw my interest, and after talking to both I and my parents over a number of weekend mall visits, started offering to let me take kits home to build for store display, in exchange for basic tools, soldering iron, small volt-ohm meter, etc.
From there, I went into amateur radio. The ARRL books, especially the ARRL Handbook, are a treasure-trove of electronic knowledge and information. Many may scoff, but for learning basic electronics skills, especially analog, vacuum tube circuit projects have quite a few advantages over starting with I.C.s and transistors.
The size of components and pins allow for nascent soldering skills to develop without frying delicate solid-state parts. The same with wiring a circuit correctly, (although connecting a polarized high-voltage electrolytic capacitor in reverse can be quite spectacular..KA-BOOM!) most mistakes result in either a blown fuse or simply a non-functioning circuit with little damage, possibly a fried resistor. Solid state components are not nearly so forgiving.
The higher voltages also train one in proper safe live-circuit handling and testing, in a painful but usually harmless and quite memorable way. Naturally, that applies to small-signal type circuits like preamps and such, where voltages and currents encountered are minimal (although painful). Power amps and similar circuits have lethal currents and voltages and should be handled with extreme caution, and with another person present in the case of novice electronics hobbyists.
The knowledge and skills I gained in learning vacuum tube circuit basics helped tremendously when transitioning to solid state analog circuitry. There are still applications in which vacuum tubes are superior to their solid state brethren, most notably in hgh-end audiophile sound systems and guitar and bass amplifiers. I currently build custom vacuum tube guitar and bass amplifiers part-time, and hope to expand to a full-time buisiness.
Cheers!
Strat
I wish allofmp3 had set up a fund to pay the artiste via a VOLUNTARY donation equivalent to whatever pittance they normally get from a track.
I doubt that the RIAA-affiliate labels would allow the arists they "own" to receive any such payments, even if they were purely voluntary. The RIAA and the labels already had the option to be paid by the Russian copyrights organisation that collected those fees, and refused.
It's not about being payed for the RIAA/labels, it's about being in _total control_ of the distribution, including setting retail prices and in which formats and in what media the content is available, as well as how and by whom the artists may be paid. That ability to control is what is being threatened in the digital/internet age, and is why you see the RIAA (and MPAA) reacting in the ways they do.
I would argue that even if the RIAA got _more_ money from the Russian copyrights agency than they get from the western equivalents, they still would refuse it, if it didn't allow at least equal controls over distribution and artist compensation that they enjoy in the west.
If any RIAA-affiliated artist attempted to collect any of the money due them from the Russian copyrights agency, I'm certain they'd be litigated straight into the poorhouse. It wouldn't even surprise me if the RIAA lawyers went after any *NON*-RIAA affiliated artist that attempted to collect from the Russian copyrights agency, just to make an example of them, even if they knew they'd lose in court. Which, given the state of the U.S. legal system, is not a given.
It's all about maintaining control at any cost, as changing times and technologies make their current business model obsolete.
Cheers!
Strat
I can't have some hacked together stuff that that may or may not interact well.
If this is the case, then you're definitely using the wrong solution. MS only interacts well with MS (if even then..interoperability in MS solutions isn't universal or without its' own problems), with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions are usually a result of the work of people outside of MS, reverse engineering things with, at the very least, no help from MS...that is, if MS doesn't actively work through multiple means to impede or halt any such efforts outright.
One of F/OSSs' main strengths is the ability to interoperate without artificial barriers for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits, lock-in, and marketshare.
There are F/OSS alternatives available already to accomplish everything you've cited. I know, I've done it. A few minutes' googling will usually result in multiple F/OSS apps/systems/OSs, etc to accomplish a given task. That you chose the MS solution is just that; *your* choice.
However, saying that you have no choice in order to stay in business and/or avoid firing employees is disengenuous. There *are* choices, you just *chose* not to avail yourself of them. Citing "peace of mind" and "interoperability" as reasons is facetious, as it has been widely acknowledged that both qualities are present in spades with current non-MS approved/certified F/OSS solutions.
If you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, perhaps the money you could save using F/OSS solutions could be used to hire more employees or increase benefits/pay rates of current workers.
Just my 0.02
Strat
Apple need to collaborate with Microsoft, and make the Apple Genuine Advantage. As a leader in the field of pissing off customers, Microsoft can proudly show Apple how to protect its interests against those nasty hackers.
:P
s/hackers/customers
There, fixed that for you. You're welcome!
Strat
And you know how they're gonna fix it? By passing a law that allows business method patents except in cases where it method involves the use of a law.
:-|
Or, they could set up a huge organization to rival the IRS to send forms out to every citizen, corp, organization, etc for them to fill out annually to determine how many laws you've obeyed, and how much you owe for NOT going to jail.
But wait..I could pay less by not obeying the law, therefor obeying the law about not using a patented method of obeying the law....
I gotta stop here. If I continue down this path of logic, I'll burn my wetware out like the "Norman" android model from the old original Star Trek episode where Mudd finds an ancient planet of androids and they escape them by inducing a logic loop breakdown!
Cheers!
Strat
I can't say one way or another about youtube URL blocking, but I can say from long experience that yahoo chat servers (not clients) block photobucket.com URLs. I'm in a band, and I have band photos on photobucket, and every time I try to post a link to them in chat, the URLs (along with any accompanying text in the post) get eaten. I can post links to everything else I've tried with no problem, but not anything with photbucket.com.
I've tried with multiple clients across at least 4 different OSs, and every attempt is blocked. Even placing a space between the 'h' and 'ttp' in 'http' to break the link doesn't help. Only if I either misspell 'photobucket' or place a space in the name does it get through. I'm thinking Yahoo is blocking photobucket URLs because they have a competing photo sharing/hosting service (Yahoo Photos).
I find it to be quite petty, and convinces me to never ever use Yahoos' photo service, or any other Yahoo services besides IM/chat. If they are willing to go to these lengths over something so small, how do I know what else they might do to any of my data that I might send or be sent (possibly even including e-mail) with any of their other services?
There's simply too many alternatives to put up with that.
Cheers!
Strat
Funny you should say that, because you won't be able to buy PS3 games used anyway.
Yeah, really. I have a first-gen PS2 (the old thicker-styled one with seperate networking module add-on) that I bought a few years ago for $20, and that will almost certainly be my last game console ever, precisely beacause of all this type of B.S.. They've convinced me they really don't want to sell me anything, so I'll take them at their word.
Cheers!
Strat
..for me never buying another new game console or new game. If they want to treat the equipment they *sold* me as still under their control, then they will pay and/or perform all maintenance on said equipment, and the same for the games. If the games they *sold* me are their property, then they will replace the media when it gets scratched/damaged for a minor, nominal fee to cover handling/shipping. Otherwise, I have better things to spend my money on, thank you very much.
For that matter, if the consoles and games become any more consumer unfriendly, I won't even buy a *used* console or game, even at a garage sale for pennies on the dollar.
Cheers!
Strat
"How about Congress authorizes creation of the CCCA (Content Creators of America)..."
:P
How about Congress authorizes creation of the CCCP (Coalition of Content Creators and Publishers)...
There, fixed that for you.
Cheers!
Strat
So, let me get this straight. I'm an independant artist with a published and distributed CD, on which it's stated: "Please feel free to copy and use this music however you see fit, share it with friends, put it on P2P, make a mix, or include it into other works. Do not include, encode with, or wrap this work in any anti-copying system or use any technological protection measures upon this work. If you value this work, feel free to contribute. Donation details can be found at (website addresses). Enjoy!".
So, by one of my fans simply playing my content with WMP11, their DRM will be imposed on my copyrighted content without my knowledge or consent, my rights as a copyright holder, content creator/artist are trumped/destroyed, as well as my revenue stream from donations from people who've been given copies of my work is effectively terminated?
Makes me want to reach for a rapid-fire assault-lawyer with a huge assault-class clip of C&Ds, injunctions, and claims for real and punitive damages, as well as possibly motions for class-action status, and do a legal drive-by on their butts firing on full-auto!
Cheers!
Strat
,i>OMG, not the DRM crap again.
You, sir, are correct!
You do realize that such DRM is required to play next gen movie discs, don't you?
I don't ever plan on adopting such a locked-down, poorly thought out and implemented, "Gee, we've not been able to lock down DVDs enough, let's try again!" 'next gen' movie disc format. DVDs are bad enough, thanks!
And Apple is a member of BDA (the bluray association group), so you can be sure that OSX will have DRM requried to play BR discs. This isn't a Windows-specific thing. And what would you prefer, that MS remove that DRM so that Windows wouldn't be able to play those discs at all? The discs are going to have DRM whether Windows or Mac OS implement that DRM or not.
I don't care if Apple and/or Microsoft *invented* the blasted things, let alone if either of them will play them. Because I won't *buy* them! Neither those two OSs, nor the crappy new media formats. It doesn't matter to me what DRM Hollywood decides to use, or who adopts it, because *I* won't.
As a previous poster said, I couldn't care less if the movie/content industries go broke. They haven't made anything worth watching, let alone buying, or giving up liberties for, for a very very long time. I don't pirate. I just don't buy. Same deal with OSs and software.
Maybe if more people stopped buying into the crap, they'd go broke and make room for another buisiness model to spring up.
Ok, I suppose I've ranted enough.
Cheers!
Strat
I stopped patching my xp box 2 years ago. The average user of course probably wouldn't be able to do that, but it works fine for most computer geeks.
Back when I first stopped, I would have patched if I felt it was necessary. Now, I wouldn't patch unless you held a gun to my head.
To be honest, I am stuck in a position that as my computer software ages, I am unsure how to upgrade. I will be VERY unlikely to switch to Vista or any future MS offering. Switching to some Linux distro will be a pain because my main computer has been windows for so long, and I enjoy playing games and using various software that is generally not supported on Linux. Mac might be a possibility, but it will still be a pain in the ass.
Oh well, I'll consider the options when the time comes.
One option you might consider is running XP (or even 2000, or, *shudder*, 98SE) in a VMWare-type virtual machine. Especially with the new multi-core CPUs, cheaper RAM, and heftier GPUs coming out, this will continue to be an increasingly-viable option for those that don't want to suffer from unwanted DRM in XP or switching to the even more locked-down Vista.
You could be securely browsing, e-mailing, etc. from your linux/FreeBSD OS, while fragging your buddies in CS/Doom3/whatever running in a virtual, sandboxed instance of 2000/XP running in a window on your desktop.
Cheers!
Strat
You miss the fact that people talk and even sometimes use the Internet to compare rates. Price rules about 90% of the decisions in the US, maybe more like 99%.
So, if an ISP is charging "realistic" rates they will have zero customers - losing them all to SBC-Yahoo DSL at $14.95 a month. If SBC-Yahoo claims "50 times faster than dial-up" and your ISP claims "your bandwidth will depend on what is available and might be only 10 times as fast as dial-up" how long will clueless Joe Sixpack stick around before switching to the ISP that tells him what he wants to hear?
There are no points for being honest when it doesn't count. In this case only people using P2P applications and BitTorrent clients are pounding on their connection 24x7. So they are the only ones that notice. Joe and his web browsing doesn't really care as long as it is fast.
You have some valid points. However, I still believe that more people than you apparently believe would still see through the hype.
As far as internet price comparisons, if they're using something like the popular "broadbandreports.com" or "dslreports.com" sites, then they are already pretty "clued in". If they're not clued in, those sites will educate them if they read any of the info there.
As far as combatting the marketing hype, that would require some hardball counter-advertising. Perhaps something along the lines of:
"Don't fall for the high-speed claims of [insert competitors' name]! They won't gauruntee you the *actual* speeds and *actual* amount of data you're allowed under their "secret limits"! *They* will cut you off for using more than what they think you should, and *THEY WON'T EVEN TELL YOU HOW MUCH THAT IS!!* Switch to [insert honest-Co.s' name], the one that actually gives you what they promise, and will actually *tell you* what you get for your money!
Dare [insert competitors' name] to gauruntee you in writing the amount of data you can transfer each month without penalties or "down-throttling" like we do! They won't! They think you're gullible!
Don't go for a ride on their 'Dis-Information Super-Tollway!'"
IANAM, (I am not a marketer) so get a real advertising marketer to write you a hard-hitting campaign..possibly even including daring the competition to *gauruntee* the amount of data transfer allowed per billing cycle at a *gaurunteed* average minimum speed.
After "Joe Sixpack" sees/reads/hears that for a while, he'll start thinking "Why *won't* these other ISPs spell out what I'm getting for that money?". At that point, you've gained a new customer. If you can drive home the other ISPs' dishonesty, most will switch if they can do so without too much hassle.
Maybe I'm too optimistic. I find it hard to believe, however, that even the most clueless user wants to deal with a dishonest business, if that dishonesty can be pointed out to them, and there is an alternative honest business available.
Cheers!
Strat
It doesn't have to be done like that. If the rates don't reflect actual market costs, that's on you. Charge people what it honestly costs for bandwidth. If people scream, then the situation will get changed at the backbone providers..either on their own, or by force of regulation.
As it stands, you are getting screwed by having unhappy customers already, and being forced to indulge in deceptive if not dishonest business practices. Even better, you're taking the heat at both ends (unhappy customers, plus possibly opening yourself to lawsuits or regulation) while being a patsy for the backbone providers. You're taking the bullet in the posterior twice for their greed.
You may think "Gosh, if I did that, the competition would screw us by advertising higher (false) speed/bandwidth." I don't think so. If you gaurunteed a specified amount of data transfer/bandwidth for a given price, (especially if you dared other providers in your marketing to match your deal) I think you'd get a LOT of customers that are *tired* of being lied to by every other provider.
Even people that one would think are pretty clueless tech-wise are smart enough to know they've been getting screwed by their ISPs. Ask any comcrap or AT&T or most any large providers' customers if they think their ISP gives them a good deal, and watch eyebrows (and ires) rise.
If nothing changes, guess what? Nothing changes. The backbone providers aren't about to change...why should they? They have a great patsy in place...you!
Cheers!
Strat
Do you feel that an artist shouldn't be allowed to sell the ownership rights to their work?
Actually, that is an arguable point. What benefits does society get with this transaction? Can the artists not license a record company to do the distribution, production, and promotion under a contract?
Why allow an artificial entity (corporation) to own any sort of intellectual property? Does an artificial entity have unalienable rights endowed by the Creator? If a corporate entity has rights, are they full rights? Does a corporate entity have the right to bear arms?
Sorry, I might be going a bit off-topic with some of those questions, but I think they fit into the larger topic which you bring up of rights ownership, or transferance of ownership to an artificial person (corporation).
I think that much of the problems we in the US are experiencing with copyrights and patents (and more) can be tracked back to decisions about what rights are granted to artificial persons as opposed to what responsibilities and obligations they must fulfill and liability for misdeeds they may do, in return for the rights and benefits they enjoy.
Cheers!
Strat
"Why do so many linux programmers insist on such crazy naming conventions. Sabayon?"
:P
"Why is it called "Linux", when it could just as easily be refered to as "Operating System Kernel"?"
Hmm..OSK? Sounds like an operating system by Kellogs. Would a custom kernel then be called "Special K"?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Cheers!
Strat