Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - New Napster Set for Beta Launch

   (Oct 9, 2003 - 3:26 PM)

   I think this would have been a great approach before but there seems to be too much competition, if you ask me... iTunes was successful on Apple computers simple because it was on an Apple computer, if you ask me. What do I mean? Well, until iTunes, there was only so much you could do with a Mac other than publishing/production-type stuff and a VERY light selection of video games; this truly expanded the Apple computer as the multimedia beast it supposedly is IMHO. 8)
   
   Napster DID establish massive numbers but we also have to think about the following: it came up in a time when there really wasn't many alternatives. Scorge (sp?), WinMX, LimeWire, and other services showed up soon after but Napster already had it's cult following and word-of-mouth, especially at colleges, gave them a HUGE boost. I think academia is where Napster was expanded so much; all the playground and in-class banter, I'm sure.. Now THAT'S a nice little market to tap into. =o]
   
   Nowadays, people are still downloading free music, in spite of the risk they succumb to and, in all reality, the RIAA can't do much about it.. It's not like they can hack our firewalls to view our hard drives and invade our privacy in the process, amongst other things. If people use insecure, unencrypted communications and get caught, well, they kind of deserve it. The RIAA's only hope to make everyone happy is try to find a peaceful middleground.
   
   I would say that the services shoud allow you to download songs for free BUT limit how many MB's a user can download a month. Users can subscribe on a per-month, per-quarter, or per-year basis. Obviously, the per-year basis will give you the greatest savings.. Then you can have different grades/levels of service. For example, a trial user can download 30MB of songs a month which is great if you download at lower sampling rates and decent if you do a more standard 128ish download. Really, if a track is ripped well, even 96K can sound really good but obviously not as crisp as like 192 and above. =o]
   
   Anywho, the flip side of the above example is the premium user... Such a user pays the most money on whatever frequency he/she chooses to go with. That subscription level could get you let's say 200MB worth of songs a month which, really, is all you'd WANT to download on a monthly basis. This can allow people to download those REALLY long and UBER high-quality songs that break the 12MB mark easily. It's all about putting in throttling controls that ensure that nobody gets screwed over.
   
   It seems like Napster is scrapping the peer-to-peer piece of the service and centralizing music... This approach means that things will likely get slower once more users appear; queues and other load-balancing techniques just won't cut it this way. Ideally, you want users sharing/hosting their files so that there is more variety. One of the most beautiful things about MP3 sharing is the fact that you can find songs that you probably CAN'T find at your local store cause it's out of print, rare, ultra-rare, whatever.
   
   If the service makes searching convenient, intuitive, and fast, then the investment over other services will make sense for the user. Personally, I download MP3 files here and there. When I find REALLY good stuff, I am often compelled to buy the CD, vinyl, or whatever. If artists are afraid that they'll lose money with MP3's being legal, they should make better music. =oX
   
   In all seriousness, the RIAA went about things in a completely, well, STUPID manner.. Sure, they're a business and profitabily is important but strong-arm tactics only make people resent you, much like Microsoft in the IT world. Taking this into account, Napster has a shot and they do have some VERY strong branding on their side.. It all depends on the flexibility of subscription options. If you have very stringent/static access types, people will definitely bish and moan.
   
   Man, if I was Roxio and I just bought Napster, I'd make it really kick-arse... Too bad these huge companies stick with their cookie-cutter ways all the time. =oP

2. Comment - Microsoft Alters IE Due to Patent Ruling

   (Oct 9, 2003 - 2:23 PM)

   Reviewing what I just wrote, I noticed a typo or two so excuse me on that... I also thought of an important question: can/should a company be liable if they release a similar product unknowingly? It is my understanding that royalties are only necessary when someone clearly uses another's software framework, API, kit, and what-not BUT how do you prove intent beyond reasonable doubt? It's an issue that always come up... So what do you guys think about that?
   
   I think that the USPTO needs to have a separate division that handles online businesses because it is a trend that still grows EVEN after the [DOT]COM boom. I checked their site and they seem to have some sort of policies and procedures but it all seems SO open-ended. USPTO has five organizations that are part of the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and NONE of them specialize in anything that closely resembles Internet, software, computers, or any sort of IT concentration. Meanwhile, the government is trying to regulate such things yet the law needs *MAJOR* revamping; they lack the organizational bodies and expertise, from what it seems. I've worked for gov't agencies and, BOY, it can make you want to jump out a window.. Gotta be careful what I say or my post may flag something at the FBI HQ or something. =oP
   
   In any case, patent and trademark procedures definitely need some expansion and ellaboration, at that. It's a pisser that people exploit the system so much and gov't officials just sit around with their thumbs up their pat00ts. =oX

3. Comment - Microsoft Alters IE Due to Patent Ruling

   (Oct 9, 2003 - 2:10 PM)

   El Raton, that there is THE smartest thing you have ever said! What's funny, though, is how select USPTO is about cases involving software. You see, someone can blatantly clone a video game concept and just change the name and *MAYBE* a few other things, then there is suddenly no chance of there being a worthwhile court case, let alone any sort of hearing.
   
   Conversely, people can patent technologies and design paradigms that they have not necessarily implemented, and then people must pay them royalties if they wish to use their "intellectual property". Even worse, some people have even patented certain catch phrases and get a pay-out every time someone uses their phrases with a mass audience present. That is VERY discerning, to say the least.
   
   As a developer that has some ideas that are, IMO, very innovative, my fear is that these laws are so loosely supported that I will not have the protection I need when I need it... But then there are clowns like Eolas that exploit "the system" and quite well at that.
   
   Someone made a comment about how this all goes back to like '94... Very much true. While the details of this ongoing story are a bit hazy in my mind, I do recall that there was a compant that filed for a plug-in patent but they only obtained it AFTER the fact. Last I checked, "post mordem" liability does not exist in the U.S. justice system but I could just be talking out of my arse... I do write a lot of contracts all the time, just to cover my butt... Liability is such a HUGE thing to consider and most businesses only look at it as an after-thought.. Sad, really... =o\
   
   USPTO sux0rz. =oP

4. Comment - Microsoft Extends Java Deadline

   (Oct 9, 2003 - 11:12 AM)

   "And we all know that "the most fun" is how we all benchmark our purchasing decisions. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier with a Nintendo?"
   
   LOL! That's pretty funny! Bill DID cover his arse by saying that his criteria for enjoying WinXP is the entertainment value whereas his BSD box is for productivity; fair enough, m8! Personally, those are the very reasons that I use Win2K: productivity AND entertainment in one place. I have my alternative operating systems but, meh, I don't have time to play with NIX with all the coding projects I have on the table.
   
   Don't get me wrong: ANY NIX distribution blows Windows out of the water in terms of stability, flexibility, and overall geek value BUT I think some people just use Linux/Unix for the geek value of it alone, or just cause they REALLY hate Microsoft. I started off my IT career with NIX and I think Windows lacks a lot of innovation but, in the end, I stick with what works and, like bill said, Windows is not giving me any problems. 8)
   
   In any case, back to the topic, I will reiterate that I dislike Java and I stick to C++ and none of this fad technology. For smaller applications and scripting purposes, I use JS, Perl, PHP, and the likes. Sun may arguably have a monopoly in the Java market as a result of this whol thing but, in all honesty, it's not exactly a HUGE market with Macromedia, Allaire, Borland, IBM, and others competing in that little market I like to call "web-based crapola". Nah, web-based stuff rules but it's like everyone is trying to coin their own technologies so the lack of standardization makes really has split up the market significantly, IMHO.. Java is one of many ways to get the job done and I feel that the main advantage there is compatability. Performance, on the other hand, is okay.. But nothing to really get all excited about. =oP
   
   Anywho, you guys got me rambling.. Java needs a major over-haul and I think it's far better for Sun to handle it over Microsoft. That's all. Don't crucify me for my opinions; I have my reasons for them, as I'm sure you have yours. If someone wants to explain why they'd choose Java as a programming language, ESPECIALLY beyond the scope of web-based applications, I'd certainly been open-minded enough to hear you out; even if the arguments have been made time and again. (o=

5. Comment - Microsoft Alters IE Due to Patent Ruling

   (Oct 9, 2003 - 11:01 AM)

   This seems to be the talk of the town, as they say... I was watching TechTV and nearly every program seemed to mention this case. From what they said, it seems that the problem is more than plug-in technology per se; ActiveX is supposedly the problem... Well, that's clearly misleading as the problem is more general than that, which means it extends FAR beyond the evil empire called Microsoft. =oP
   
   If M$ loses this case, the means that we'll see a VERY big change in how web browsers work; it'll likely make performance much worse... Companies will either have to pay royalties or change their underlying technologies as the plug-in system is pretty low-level.. Sucks that Eolas comes out with this now; I guess that's what a company does when they're desperate for money. =oX
   
   In any case, I already can think of other ways to handle plug-in's.. Heck, it may be as simple as just changing the way the technologies are worded/termed... There's all sorts of ways to dodge these legal bullets. Been there, done that, bought the the t-s***.. I think Microsoft will BS their way out of this easily like they usually do but, if they don't, the rest of the industry should be scared. Heck, Mozilla probably is next on the hitlist! o_O