My problem with bundling is that your cable dollars *underwrite* crap like the Kardiashian shows, whether you watch them or not. I don't, but through my cable bill, I'm as responsible for the Kardiashians (as a media entity) as much as anyone.
I'm surprised more people aren't irked at this aspect, that as cable subscribers, they are funding any shows/channels they detest.
I think you're missing the point here...This would be the average person-on-the-street's reaction to using any sort of Linux distribution.
Sure, the reaction looks stupid. But you can't expect everyone in the world to become sysadmins or Linux experts, so if you want Linux to be used outside the admin and hobbyist communities, Linux distros need to work out-of-the-box..
The simple reason the Big 3 are in trouble now is that banks are a lot more hesitant to lend money, both to dealers (for inventory) and to consumers (To buy cars).
The other problems Detroit faces are real (i.e. quality control, building SUVs), but those are more long-term (i.e. not crisis-level) problems...
>What's amazing is that Visa ever allowed it in the first place.
What's disturbing is that Visa is, in effect, dictating how its customers should spend their money. I have a Visa *debit* card. So I'm not crazy about Visa stepping in and being the moral arbitrator on what I should or should not buy.
Of course, if working with AllofMP3 puts the company in some sort of financial risk, then I can see the point of cutting off payments. If this is not the case though, what is Visa's rationale behind the move? Visa's mission is *not* to enforce worldwide copyright treaties.
I suspect this issue will come up again in greater force in other arenas (porn, online gambling, etc.) In the meantime, I think I'll switch to a bank that offers MasterCard.
>How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb?
It would hurt Google when the owner of Joe's Shitty Search Appliance Co., branded his product as a "Google Box" and people would buy it, thinking they were getting Google-quality searches. Once the owner of trademarked name loses control of its use (i.e. the word becomes a generic description of something i.e. klennex, white out, etc.), there is nothing Google could do to stop Joe from selling his shitty boxes under Google's name.
I hate to deflate people's expectations, but this looks *very* much like one store offering this service, not a rollout of a new service across the entire Circuit City corporation.
The sole evidence Ars Technica has for this service is a photograph of a flyer! There is nothing on the Circuit City Web site about the service, nor does it look like the company issued a press release touting the new service.
More probably, this "service" was devised by some store manager too ignorant of the ways of the DMCA to understand what he was offering. S/He was just looking to bring in a few more bucks (on the other side of the same display case is another advert on a free in-house PC clinic. I bet that's not a Circuit City wide service either, just a local store initiative). I'm sure DVD ripping service will be discontinued as the minute corporate headquarters gets wind of this. Which, thanks to Slashdot, should be right about... now.;-)
I wouldn't blame the ill-informed Circuit City Manager, nor even Consumerist, which first posted the photo (but wouldn't provide a location interestingly enough). Ars Technica should know better though. That's just sloppy journalism.
I need somebody who knows how to reach somebody on the phone, ask some questions, and transcribe the results. A lot of people with deeper technical background won't do that.
In all too many cases though, it's like sending a reporter to cover a baseball game who doesn't understand the rules of the game. You get back this story about how colorful the uniforms are, what a beautiful day it was, and, gosh, look at the great value that the home team has provided for the attendees.
My main beef with information technology journalism (which admittedly I practice) is that it is horribly one-dimensional. Too often stories are generated from public relations pitches, rather than by listening to the buzz happening out in the community--through mailing lists, user groups and blogs (In other words, understanding the whole game).
At their worst, these pubs see their readers as little more than consumers. Too many stories are low-key sales pitches, their intent obscured by the pub's spin of "providing value to the reader." Companies are quoted first, then analyst and, way at the bottom, actual users.
When was the last time you saw a tech pub cover, say, a raging controversy from a users group or from a mailing list of experts? Or from an academic paper? Most pubs run case studies and quotes of actual users, but those are carefully vetted by the company they are speaking for beforehand. What tradeoffs did these users get in exchange for speaking to the press? Why is there is no disclosure here?
InfoWorld is actually better than most pubs in both getting writers with technical expertise, as well as tracking down actual users, but it is still susceptible to hype (Its coverage of SOA, I thought, crossed the line from journalism to advocacy). Covering the industry != covering the chief companies of that industry.
Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did? The production costs for (digital) CDs are several of orders of magnitude less than they were for (analog) LPs, yet the price-point never moved.
Simple supply and demand. Vendors don't charge you what it costs to make a product, they charge what you are willing to pay for that product.
>Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you >is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the >moment, but who knows what the future >will bring.
As an aside, I always thought it was odd that the fundies, who always preached about the evils of relativism (inherit in a world w/o God), are now using relativism as the basic argument for ID ("We should consider more viewpoints than just Darwin's").
It does. Although it has recordings of many well-known artists--Cold Play, Miles Davis, Sigur Ros, etc.--these recordings were done on smaller labels before they became famous and were tied to more restrictive contracts.
EMusic can sell unencumbered MP3s because it deals mainly in artists that would benefit from more casual sharing of their material. They are still in (or stuck in) that stage of popularity where they need to gain more fans--who will go to the shows, buy new music. I'm not likely to copy my new Trailer Bride CD over to you (Unless I wanted to "turn you on" to the group), because you probably haven't heard of them. You most definitely wouldn't buy any music from them anyway.
The EMusic approach would be severely slash sales for hugely popular groups like U2 though, for whom enlarging the audience is no longer an issue. Besides, at that level of popularity, the sharing is done for a different reason. One person in a peer group could buy the MP3s and make copies for all her friends, so U2 sells one album instead of 10. That's not introducing someone to a new group, it's just saving them the cost of buying the music they were probably going to buy on their own anyway.
DRM definitely helps the most successful msucial acts more than the unknown ones. Or, conversely, widespread copying is a tax on success.
The RIAA doesn't want to frame the debate in these terms ("Illegal copying is illegal copying regardless of the popularity of the artist"), but on a pragmatic level, this is where the chips fall, and why Emusic hosts a great deal of really good (though obscure) music and not be too worried about the DRM/copying debate....
Both those examples *are* absurd, even as portenders. This story has feels lkike it has been planted by the telecom companies to help in their lobbying efforts for multi-tiered service.....
As a potentional consumer, this sort of preloaded iPod deal seems to be of limited value.
Not only will an iPod *not* allow you upload songs onto your computer, for storage, but if you want to actually add any more songs at all, you'd have to reformat the iPod to accomodate the new iTunes account, taking all those songs with it. So, why would I want an iPod with someone else's music collection on it?
The idea does raise a geniunely evil possibility though. I'm no fan of DRM, but I can see why musicco's are worried. If I collect tens of thousands of MP3s from eMusic, etc., and came into a financial pinch where I needed money quickly, what would stop me (besides the FBI) from selling a collection of DVDs ("Great Pop Music Through the Decades. All Artists Included!") for like $1,000 or $10,000 each? AS few discretly handled deals and I could be sitting pretty.
>If iPod sales slip below a magic number of >saturation, say 40%, Apple WILL open >Fairplay and go from there.
Myself, I hope they never do. Nor do I hope Microsoft's Urge starts supporting either FairPlay or iPods.
As someone who has spent consierable effort moving my music collection to MP3s, I'm now worried about the longevity of the format. Will I still be able to play MP3s 40 years from now?
As long as there are least two competing formats, Apple's and everyone else's (read: Playsfersure ), then MP3 will remain the only universal song format. People will rip to it to ensure device compatability and device makers will include it to make sure people actually buy their portable music players. Having these giants fight over who gets to offer the dominant media format certainly does encourage the vendor-neutral choice.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principl e [wikipedia.org]
It should be noted that the uncertainity principle also applies to Wikipedia itself, insofar that you can never be entirely sure if the information posted there is legit;-)
Slashdot Mirror
My problem with bundling is that your cable dollars *underwrite* crap like the Kardiashian shows, whether you watch them or not. I don't, but through my cable bill, I'm as responsible for the Kardiashians (as a media entity) as much as anyone.
I'm surprised more people aren't irked at this aspect, that as cable subscribers, they are funding any shows/channels they detest.
Lucky! Neither DC nor NYC have connectivity, at least underground...
Let Google be your portal to the entire Internet! Sheesh.
Also, fwiw, Amazon owns Audible, the largest purveyor of spoken word books (or "books on tape" as they used to be called)...
I think you're missing the point here...This would be the average person-on-the-street's reaction to using any sort of Linux distribution.
Sure, the reaction looks stupid. But you can't expect everyone in the world to become sysadmins or Linux experts, so if you want Linux to be used outside the admin and hobbyist communities, Linux distros need to work out-of-the-box..
The simple reason the Big 3 are in trouble now is that banks are a lot more hesitant to lend money, both to dealers (for inventory) and to consumers (To buy cars).
The other problems Detroit faces are real (i.e. quality control, building SUVs), but those are more long-term (i.e. not crisis-level) problems...
The Web-based version of Scrabulous seems to be working just fine.
Did anyone check out the Linux Foundation's reply to Austin LUG guy?
Talk about snide. I'd expect such hostility from Microsoft, but evidently such FUD tactics are not beneath the Linux Foundation either.
Maybe this is their way of trying to put an end to the hobbyist Linux crowd.
>As a developer, I'm waiting for an open-source solution, so that I'm not restricted to .NET languages, a single platform to develop on, etc.
Miquel de Icaza is working on an open-source version of Silverlight for Linux. See here.
YES! The records were *way* better mastered than the CD reissues, which sound wimpy and watered down. Not the proper stage for Zep at all....
joab
>Solar Power Becoming More Affordable
Err, solar power is free, actually. Last time I checked, Mr. Sun wasn't charging for his rays. It's the conversion that costs....
joab
>What's amazing is that Visa ever allowed it in the first place.
What's disturbing is that Visa is, in effect, dictating how its customers should spend their money. I have a Visa *debit* card. So I'm not crazy about Visa stepping in and being the moral arbitrator on what I should or should not buy.
Of course, if working with AllofMP3 puts the company in some sort of financial risk, then I can see the point of cutting off payments. If this is not the case though, what is Visa's rationale behind the move? Visa's mission is *not* to enforce worldwide copyright treaties.
I suspect this issue will come up again in greater force in other arenas (porn, online gambling, etc.) In the meantime, I think I'll switch to a bank that offers MasterCard.
joab
>How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb?
It would hurt Google when the owner of Joe's Shitty Search Appliance Co., branded his product as a "Google Box" and people would buy it, thinking they were getting Google-quality searches. Once the owner of trademarked name loses control of its use (i.e. the word becomes a generic description of something i.e. klennex, white out, etc.), there is nothing Google could do to stop Joe from selling his shitty boxes under Google's name.
joab
I hate to deflate people's expectations, but this looks *very* much like one store offering this service, not a rollout of a new service across the entire Circuit City corporation.
... now. ;-)
The sole evidence Ars Technica has for this service is a photograph of a flyer! There is nothing on the Circuit City Web site about the service, nor does it look like the company issued a press release touting the new service.
More probably, this "service" was devised by some store manager too ignorant of the ways of the DMCA to understand what he was offering. S/He was just looking to bring in a few more bucks (on the other side of the same display case is another advert on a free in-house PC clinic. I bet that's not a Circuit City wide service either, just a local store initiative). I'm sure DVD ripping service will be discontinued as the minute corporate headquarters gets wind of this. Which, thanks to Slashdot, should be right about
I wouldn't blame the ill-informed Circuit City Manager, nor even Consumerist, which first posted the photo (but wouldn't provide a location interestingly enough). Ars Technica should know better though. That's just sloppy journalism.
joab
I need somebody who knows how to reach somebody on the phone, ask some questions, and transcribe the results. A lot of people with deeper technical background won't do that.
.02
In all too many cases though, it's like sending a reporter to cover a baseball game who doesn't understand the rules of the game. You get back this story about how colorful the uniforms are, what a beautiful day it was, and, gosh, look at the great value that the home team has provided for the attendees.
My main beef with information technology journalism (which admittedly I practice) is that it is horribly one-dimensional. Too often stories are generated from public relations pitches, rather than by listening to the buzz happening out in the community--through mailing lists, user groups and blogs (In other words, understanding the whole game).
At their worst, these pubs see their readers as little more than consumers. Too many stories are low-key sales pitches, their intent obscured by the pub's spin of "providing value to the reader." Companies are quoted first, then analyst and, way at the bottom, actual users.
When was the last time you saw a tech pub cover, say, a raging controversy from a users group or from a mailing list of experts? Or from an academic paper? Most pubs run case studies and quotes of actual users, but those are carefully vetted by the company they are speaking for beforehand. What tradeoffs did these users get in exchange for speaking to the press? Why is there is no disclosure here?
InfoWorld is actually better than most pubs in both getting writers with technical expertise, as well as tracking down actual users, but it is still susceptible to hype (Its coverage of SOA, I thought, crossed the line from journalism to advocacy). Covering the industry != covering the chief companies of that industry.
My
joab
Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did? The production costs for (digital) CDs are several of orders of magnitude less than they were for (analog) LPs, yet the price-point never moved.
Simple supply and demand. Vendors don't charge you what it costs to make a product, they charge what you are willing to pay for that product.
It wants its story back.....
joab
>Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you
>is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the
>moment, but who knows what the future
>will bring.
As an aside, I always thought it was odd that the fundies, who always preached about the evils of relativism (inherit in a world w/o God), are now using relativism as the basic argument for ID ("We should consider more viewpoints than just Darwin's").
It's nonlogical, as Ralphie might say.
>Heck, if eMusic has a wide song base,
It does. Although it has recordings of many well-known artists--Cold Play, Miles Davis, Sigur Ros, etc.--these recordings were done on smaller labels before they became famous and were tied to more restrictive contracts.
EMusic can sell unencumbered MP3s because it deals mainly in artists that would benefit from more casual sharing of their material. They are still in (or stuck in) that stage of popularity where they need to gain more fans--who will go to the shows, buy new music. I'm not likely to copy my new Trailer Bride CD over to you (Unless I wanted to "turn you on" to the group), because you probably haven't heard of them. You most definitely wouldn't buy any music from them anyway.
The EMusic approach would be severely slash sales for hugely popular groups like U2 though, for whom enlarging the audience is no longer an issue. Besides, at that level of popularity, the sharing is done for a different reason. One person in a peer group could buy the MP3s and make copies for all her friends, so U2 sells one album instead of 10. That's not introducing someone to a new group, it's just saving them the cost of buying the music they were probably going to buy on their own anyway.
DRM definitely helps the most successful msucial acts more than the unknown ones. Or, conversely, widespread copying is a tax on success.
The RIAA doesn't want to frame the debate in these terms ("Illegal copying is illegal copying regardless of the popularity of the artist"), but on a pragmatic level, this is where the chips fall, and why Emusic hosts a great deal of really good (though obscure) music and not be too worried about the DRM/copying debate....
joab
Both those examples *are* absurd, even as portenders. This story has feels lkike it has been planted by the telecom companies to help in their lobbying efforts for multi-tiered service.....
joab
>Just what does a slashdotting sound like?
A tidal wave?
As a potentional consumer, this sort of preloaded iPod deal seems to be of limited value.
Not only will an iPod *not* allow you upload songs onto your computer, for storage, but if you want to actually add any more songs at all, you'd have to reformat the iPod to accomodate the new iTunes account, taking all those songs with it. So, why would I want an iPod with someone else's music collection on it?
The idea does raise a geniunely evil possibility though. I'm no fan of DRM, but I can see why musicco's are worried. If I collect tens of thousands of MP3s from eMusic, etc., and came into a financial pinch where I needed money quickly, what would stop me (besides the FBI) from selling a collection of DVDs ("Great Pop Music Through the Decades. All Artists Included!") for like $1,000 or $10,000 each? AS few discretly handled deals and I could be sitting pretty.
joab
>Brian Eno composed this sound for
>windows 1995.
yeah, the opening chimes on Windows 95 is from the great Eno himself. Myself, I found it sounded better when played backwards.
joab
>If iPod sales slip below a magic number of
>saturation, say 40%, Apple WILL open
>Fairplay and go from there.
Myself, I hope they never do. Nor do I hope Microsoft's Urge starts supporting either FairPlay or iPods.
As someone who has spent consierable effort moving my music collection to MP3s, I'm now worried about the longevity of the format. Will I still be able to play MP3s 40 years from now?
As long as there are least two competing formats, Apple's and everyone else's (read: Playsfersure ), then MP3 will remain the only universal song format. People will rip to it to ensure device compatability and device makers will include it to make sure people actually buy their portable music players. Having these giants fight over who gets to offer the dominant media format certainly does encourage the vendor-neutral choice.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principl e [wikipedia.org]
;-)
It should be noted that the uncertainity principle also applies to Wikipedia itself, insofar that you can never be entirely sure if the information posted there is legit