What, no flux capacitor?

Today's blog post centers around two images, mainly because I had nothing else to post. My dad gave that e-mail to me after he got it, and I've kept it for five years in a paper preserving environment (i.e. my bulletin board).

I'm pretty sure that you won't get anything if you e-mail TimeTravel@DNS-Host.com, which is why I left the sender's address in. My dad's e-mail is pixelated, so as to preserve his privacy. The guy's "alternate e-mail" is also pixelated for his privacy, but I didn't pixelate the @aol.com portion for nostalgia's sake.

I'm not sure whether the message was sent by a prankster or a guy who really thought that he could travel back in time. Perhaps he was simply smoking too many "blue moon crystals."

Beta

Beta software - oh, how unfinished you are. More refined than alpha, but less stable than gold. Beta software means different things to different people, depending on who you ask. To programmers, beta means "developers only." To Google, beta means a service that is fully functional but unfinished. To gamers, beta is PC games 1.0 - Game developers frequently ship games with flaws that will be ironed out later.

I was playing Warcraft 3 online the other day. There's a cool features for custom maps - single-map campaigns with objectives outside the standard army-building format. The other day, I saw in the menu a beta version of Smash TV. Since I had played Smash TV as it was recreated in Starcraft, I jumped at the opportunity to play this game - even though it was still in beta.

I found an available player slot, where I found several other players and the game developer, who was hosting the map. I discovered a like-minded individual, who had decided that if nobody else would make a Smash TV for Warcraft 3, he would. Unfortunately, when we started the game, the developer noticed that there were no enemies to kill, thereby making victory or defeat impossible, and he realized that the game would need to be revised to fix that. The game ended, and all the players left.

Another time, I found a beta tower defense game. A tower defense game, to all you non-gamers, is a game where the object is to build attacking powers in a maze-like fashion to prevent enemy units from reaching their destination. Anyways, unlike the game of Smash TV, we unsuspecting players found the beta to be an interesting experience. Much of the game was unbalanced in the player's favor, although there were a few instances where the enemy units were too resilient. The game ended 3/4 of the way through, when one of the levels wouldn't start at all. And despite the debug commands the game dev put into the game, there was nothing to do but say good-bye and clear out.

Game developers, I salute you.

Sony PlayStation 3 Revisited

If you haven't noticed, I've been subjective about the PS3 before I started writing for this blog. When in May of 2006 Sony announced that the premium (read: only version anyone would ever consider of the ) PS3 would cost $600, I was pissed. The PS2 is a fine console and by now damn cheap, too. Sony has fumbled with the PS# since the beginning, and they've been arrogant about it to boot.

Sony assumed that people would not care about the exorbitant price tag - relying almost solely on brand name, just like I assumed - and buy the next version of a video game console. Sony's downfall came when they tried to push the PS3 as a media platform as well as a video game console. Here's the golden rule: If it plays video games, people will know it as a video game console. It plays Blu-Ray movies and MP3s? Consumers will still recognize it as a video game console. The Xbox 360? Yeah, it plays media, but if will forever be known as a video game console for consumers.

Sony pissed me off by figuring the cost of a Blu-ray disc player into the PS3, thus raising the price. Not only do I not want to spend $600 on a video game console, but I also have no interest in either of the high-def movie disc formats.

The market actually surprised me. The PS3 craze lasted only a week after the PS3's American launch, and then the whole franchise promptly imploded. When SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) President Jack Tretton promised $1200 to anyone who could find a PS3 on store shelves, the writers of webcomic Penny Arcade found $13200 worth of merchandise in less than an hour. Simply put, PS3s aren't exactly flying off the shelves.

For the best market indicator, we turn to eBay. At the time of this writing, there are 1043 PS3 systems being sold - 98 Used. Two months ago, there ere 10 thousand such auctions. Many Playstation 3 consoles were selling for over $700. At this point, on the other hand, you're hard pressed to find a PS3 selling without a bundle for more than $600 - with games and controllers, $750 at most.

The scalping supply for PS3s is shrinking. Right now, there are 1886 Wii systems for sale on eBay - nine-fifths of the number of PS3s. In a month or two,practically no one will be selling PS3s as they're being sold. We will no longer see the majority of PS3s sold in mint condition. The PS3 seller will turn into a consumer who has finished using his or her console and now wishes to sell it. I'm not going to say that the PlayStation 3 has reached market saturation, but the supply curve is shifting downward; since all PS3s are the same, that means the price is declining, as well.

Sony has managed things very badly. They've completely misjudged the market. Even the future doesn't look bright. You know why? At this very moment, Nintendo Wiis are flying off the shelves. And with those Wiis are games. And when a consumer spends hundreds of dollars on the video game system, the chance of buying an additional console is minuscule - especially when the marginal cost of that second console is over twice what you paid for the first. Couple that with a low penetration of high-def television sets - necessary to fully enjoy the PlayStation 3's capabilities, and you have yourself a quagmire. Sony is taking a hit that will stay with them for years to come.

The Man is censoring me, or something (I better get my tin foil hat)

Just a note. I finally discovered that I can change the date and time of my posts. Oh, the things you learn when you actually look for the answers.

---

On Friday, my English class went to the school computer lab to work on research for a persuasive essay. The computer lab consists of approximately 35 or 40 computers running Windows 2000. But who can blame school districts for saving money?

Before I go on, I'd like to talk fondly about breaking Windows 2000 security features. Windows 2000 is more insecure than you think. Although admins can block access to certain drives and folders in Win2000 Professional, it doesn't work as well as it should. At my high school, the C:\ drive, which stores program info, is blocked. The block can easily be bypassed by creating a shortcut. This enables users to install everything from Mozilla Firefox to MapleStory, instances of which have remained on the network for months. The only limitation is that software installed can be accessed only on the computer on which it was installed.

And so now I will relate to you the wonders of bureaucracy. By the end of the period, I had compiled a list of worthwhile weeks that I needed to save. I went to my favorite online word processor, Google Docs, with the intention of creating a document full of links. To my surprise, I was greeted with the WebSense warning that the website I was attempting to access was deemed inappropriate under the category "Personal File Storage and Backup" or something of the same nature. Harrumph! I tried to outsmart the filter by going to Writely.com (now transformed into Google Docs); such an effort was held at bay with the same WebSense Enterprise warning.

Frustrated, I did the only thing I could do: Beat the system with irony. And when you're battling WebSense, you need lots and lots of irony. I went to Zoho Writer, another online word processor with whom I had an account, and as expected, this time WebSense was nowhere in sight. Oh, the irony - the delicious, tragicomic irony. I created a new document and saved the links just as the bell rang, and I made it in time for my next class.

A couple periods later, when I again had to use the computer lab for an individual assignment. It was by chance, I suppose, that not only did I get access twice in one day, but both system administrators were in the same room, as well as one of my friends, who had the same problem as I. I approached the admins, having no time restraints on my assignment, and told them that I believed that WebSense was unnecessarily blocking a useful website. I told them about the situation, and my friend chimed in. They checked the site and found the situation I had detailed.

Next, the real kicker came: They couldn't change anything, because the district was in charge of the filter, and the district had chosen to add a bunch of new websites to to the blacklist that very day. You can just imagine me jumping for joy at learning about the tangled web of bureaucrats.

Naturally, I will have no trouble getting around the useless filter by going to a site that does the same thing as Google Docs - until the filter is removed, but there's little chance of the district actually doing anything useful. The irony is that only one online word processor was touched. Just Google Docs. I suppose it must be evil, and everyone is at risk of contagion when people use it. Or something like that. Come to think of it, I can't imagine a situation where the school district has ever proved to be good at much of anything. Did you know that Arizona is next to last when it comes to spending on public education per student? Just one of the nifty things I learned growing up.

Arizona: Come for the warm weather, stay for the... erm... um... warm weather, I guess

Worst. Hiatus. Ever.

Well, I've decided that I'm going to take baby steps. I've decided that I want to focus on the Internet. (Wow, what a commitment.) I'm going to not mention anything that didn't happen on the Internet or anything that doesn't have to do with the Internet. (Really creative, huh?) Any mentions of real life will be practically unintentional. So that means I'm not going to talk about politics. (Unless it's Internet politics.) I'm going to show you just how much of a nerd I am. (I hope you're not worried.) By the way, you might've noticed that my most recent blog posts have been shorter and less informative. That's because I've had the nasty habit of writing blog posts in fifteen minutes and publishing a short time later, because I was basically forcing myself to write. I'm not going to do that anymore. I will still try to publish at least thrice a week, but I won't be pushing myself to the point where quality suffers.

---

So, guess what? Muslix64 has cracked both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Cue the obligatory laugh from Nelson. This sentence is here so that I can quote Wikipedia for the third time in three sentences.

Isn't that funny? AACS is this super-advanced content protection system - two legs up from DVD encryption, which was found to literally be comprised of a few bits, which is pretty weak - and some guy discovers a workaround in eight days. Imagine if it takes you a decade to write this really intricate that's bound to win a Hugo or two, and then some reader discovers this big plot hole in the first chapter of three hundred and you no longer have any credibility. This is only kinda sorta like that. You might be able to fix the hole in later publications (if there are any), but for the present you're screwed. So after bypassing HD-DVD encryption, as an encore Muslix64 went on to bypass Blu-Ray technology.

So you'd expect HD-DVD movie rips to spread across the BitTorrent trackers like wildfire, right? Well, no. For one thing, a high def movie file can be as large as 20 GB. Considering that most hard drives are 200 to 300 GB, no one will be downloading very many HD movie rips. Then there's the fact that most people have Internet connections that don't exceed 11 Mbps - Megabits per second, equivalent to ~1.4 Megabytes per second. Consider that one Gigabyte is 1024 Megabytes. If you were to download a 20 GB - 20,480 Megabytes - file without interruption at 11 Mbps - a speed that few consumers ever experience - it would take you at least five hours (under optimal conditions). And would the quality really be that much better than a 700MB DVD rip? Not enough.

While the AACS bypass won't matter much now, look to the future, let's say five years, in 2012. Imagine that Blu-Ray is, or HD-DVD is, or both are, the dominant high-def video disc formats. One in two Americans has a high def movie player in his or her home. Internet Service Providers - don't forget the Internet - are now offering cheap service packages that are commonly 20 Mbps or even 40 Mbps. (I really think that kind of service will come to America, when in Japan consumers can have packages as fast as 100 Mbps.) At 40 Mbps, or 5 MBps, it'll take you less than three hours (again, under optimal conditions) to download 20 GB. You know what will happen then? The movie industry will, once again, be very concerned about piracy.

In the end, the movie industry will not trounce movie pirates. The Motion Picture Association of America has failed miserably at fighting movie piracy. Content producers will again and again try to combat piracy, but to no avail. There is no perfect defense. Devoted pirates will only find the weak points harder to find, but eventually they will be found. That is a matter of fact. It has been proven through the failure of DVD encryption and AACS encryption. It should be noted that a fix to the current AACS problem is eventual - I should be surprised if it does not come. But that fix will, in the end, be bypassed as well.

Content producers are trying to fight an unwinnable battle against smarter foes. The only way to defeat piracy is to make it impractical. The content producers - the movie studios - will have to compete. The market will change, or the movie studios will lose out. As consumer Internet access becomes faster and home computers become more accessible and monitors show better picture, a market will emerge for watching high definition content. And when your choices for watching that content are using expensive video discs and hardware that requires complex encryption verification or a speedy download that requires only your time, the choice will be clear.

Of course, ask someone more knowledgeable than me. (I may be wrong.)

Blog entry #48

I originally started this blog with the philosophy that a person with something to say should say it. Take that last sentence, for example: I didn't beat around the bush or use a more subtle topic sentence; I came out and said it. Within this past week I have been lax about updating my blog. I won't make excuses for it. It wasn't because I didn't want to write or because I didn't feel like it. My silence stems (not from sibilance but) from a lack of motivation. Simply put, I didn't have anything to say.

I read Digg every day: Thanks to the persistence of bloggers and news junkies who share my interests, Digg has become my primary news site. (I'm not referring, of course, to the blatant FUD articles, the fanboy speculation, and the conspiracy whispers.) But let's face facts; most of the news that people hear about everyday is worthless in a week, and the more important issues are covered by bloggers more well versed, researched, and articulate than I. And then there are the lesser known bloggers, and then the lesser still. I must be a 20th tier blogger. I thank my returning visitors, a few whom I have, according to StatCounter.com. Blogging is like the music industry, in a way: Some work for decades and never get famous. Others get lucky and achieve fame and sometimes fortune. (Of course, then there are the astroturf bloggers who no one will take seriously in a few months, but like pop stars they don't count.) So I'm basically publishing in a field populated by professionals and veterans, and I doubt the CSS theme I designed myself will put me over them. To use a 4chan idiom, I'm pissing in an ocean of piss.

So I'm at a crossroads. I can struggle to write about topics in general, I can specialize in a certain topic, or I can stop blogging entirely. I'm not blogging about my personal life, because that is even more insignificant than my opinions, since I'm not a celebrity (and let's face it, when you're a movie star or other celebrity no one takes your opinions seriously). Is my blog the new Knights of Labor: Failing because I'm trying to accomplish too much? It's difficult for me, because I have no clear path to follow. Maintaining three to four posts a week is difficult when you have nothing to write about, and there's nothing I hate more than filler. I hate writing filler. You can't read Jules Verne without skipping the inanely boring paragraphs.

Social Darwinism will have its way with me, and that's all there is to it. I love writing, but if there's nothing to write then I'll have to move on. I don't know how this is going to end. In the meanwhile, please don't expect much productivity from me within the next few days while I weight my options. Will blog entry #48 by my last? Stay tuned...

Digg needs a section for blogs

Digg is, of course, the popular news site - stories chosen by the masses ad promoted by the masses. The site has been lauded and hated alike, and Diggers are vocal participants in the phenomena known as Web 2.0. Digg is the most democratic of news aggregators, and Keven Rose and company have been covered by periodicals such as Time and The New York Times. The most important news is daily brought to the front page by the people who matter the most: The users.

But increasingly, Digg's democracy has discovered entropy: Bugs in the system, glitches in reality. Occasionally, Digg doesn't work the way it's supposed to. More and more, people are submitting stories about blog entries - Gasp! The horror! Digg is being invaded by blogs!

Seriously, many blogs don't constitute news. The problem with the Digg website is that there's no section for blogs: News blogs have to go in the Political Opinion section, and Linux blogs have to go in the Linux section - even though neither are categorically newsworthy. Then there are the rumor blogs - you know, the ones that say, "G.W.Bush executed Saddam Hussein so Hussein couldn't testify to Bush's plot to take revenge for his father," or, "The Linux kernel was written by Steve Wozniak, not Linus Torvalds!"

The Digg team has recently introduced new categories to the website: Podcasts and Videos. Wouldn't it make sense to then add a Blogs section, as well? Many blogs simply aren't about news, as the News category might suggest. Separate the wheat from the chaff, and everyone will be happy; the blogosphere won't bother the news junkies, and vice versa. The Blogs section could even mirror the News section and all its categories, to satisfy the news blog junkies.

This would eliminate complaints about the presences of blogs on the front page of the News section. The new Videos section has worked very well thus far: There have been virtually no videos submitted to the News section since, and everyone is satisfied. Why can't the same be done for blogs?

One Apple fanboy in particular

As a devoted Digger through and through, as I have been for some time now, I am fascinated by one particular character from a cast crazier than Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel, and Richard Pryor all put together: Daniel Eran Dilger. The man seems to hate Microsoft for no apparent reason, other than that it's more successful than Apple - the jewel in Dilger's eye.

I first heard of Dilger when hundreds of Diggers in September Dugg a story about how recently announced iTV would change television. My first reaction was, Huh? Would a box with mysterious features really conquer the tube, which we all know to be the gospel? I wasn't very impressed by his article - no more so than I was with Mr. Dilger, who goes by Daniel Eran on his blog. (Eran is his middle name.) For some reason, one guy was calling himself a magazine. (Does that mean I'm a magazine, too? I have a blog!)

What astounded me was Dilger's absolute awe in able Apple's apposition. To Mr. Dilger, Apple is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. Dilger's series of essays on the iTV were speculative at best and unfounded at worst. To be fair, plenty of his other essays have some semblance of fact or solid base, but I did not see anything decent in my first impression. Practically every one of his entries mentions Microsoft - usually in ridicule. While the company undoubtedly deserves a number of lashes, Mr. Dilger seems to attack Microsoft for doing anything at all. It's sort of like beating a dead cow. He's even criticized Microsoft for building the Zune with a screen bigger than the iPod's. Mr. Dilger is at war with Microsoft, or so it seems.

One of his more questionable claims is that success of the Xbox 360 is a myth - an illusion of football players, guns, magic, and sorcery. Apparently selling 8 million units in one year is disappointing. The PS2 sold more units: Three million more! But Dilger doesn't quite seem to understand the console market: Note that last year, Sony sold 20 million PS2 units worldwide. (I'm using his source, from PC vs. Console.) With the arrival of the PS3, is has all but looked like the end of the PS2's life cycle: The Xbox 360 has been on the market for one year, and the PS2 six. The PS2 is an established brand with tons of games. The Xbox 360? One year, definitely not as many games. The reputation of a six-year-old console will bulldoze a newbie. In 2007, we'll see a lot more sales of the Xbox 360, with the arrival of Xbox 360 exclusives and other big wig games. Year two will be big for the Xbox 360, and the next three years will see plenty of Xbox 360 sales. Video game consoles have life cycles of five to six years: The PS2 came out in 2000, and the PS3 2006; the Xbox came out in 2001, and the Xbox 360 2005 (an unusually short lifespan of four years). Also, is it just me, or did Dilger compare a game console to a portable music player? That really doesn't make much sense at all.

But aside from the content, I tend to view Dilger negatively, because it seems someone has been gaming Digg. A Digger even compiled a list of likely fake users, controlled by a real person to artificially inflate the Digg count for Dilger articles. Furthermore, at some point in late November or early December, the Digg team blocked stories originating from RouglyDrafted.com. Dilger cried foul and for a short time appended each of his blog entries with a short, sordid tale of special interest groups like Microsoft paying Digg to censor Mr. Dilger. Excuse me if a claim like that doesn't raise his credibility. (All those appendices are gone, but they were amusing for a week or two.) Daniel Eran then moved to NewsTrust.net. He subsequently started reviewing his own essays, giving them favorable ratings without fail. Integrity, shmegrity. That sure puts to rest any doubts that at one point or another, Dilger was indeed Digging his own stories under different pseudonyms.

I don't like Daniel Dilger. I'm not fond of any fanboys, but Dilger takes the cake as the biggest Apple fanboy with the least amount of integrity. To my knowledge, Dilger has never admitted to Digging his own stories, but it seems pretty certain that he did it.

Physical media

I own 46 CDs. I have reviewed 43 additional albums. I own 0 songs - none from iTunes, none from Yahoo!, none from MSN. That's zero, zip. I may have grown up with the Internet, but I will not give up CDs for files on an operating system. No way, no how. Physical discs have too much value for me to abandon them in the name of technological advancement.

And in an age when I can pick and choose which songs I want to buy, there's just one problem: I wouldn't actually own the songs I would buy. For some reason, I would only have a license to those songs - like I need permission to listen to the music I buy! Who calls me villain? Ha!

I will never buy music with embedded digital rights management (DRM). It's never gonna happen. Not any time in the next century. The music stores would have to give me a damned good reason to do that, and I just can't see it happening. There's one huge problem with DRM: It removes incentive, instead of creating it. In the next few minutes, I could begin downloading music from dozens of sources: Some legal, some infringing copyright in the process, but all quickly available. And when I can download unrestricted music at no monetary cost, there is no good reason to pay for an item of lesser value. I ask: What value does DRM add? Presently, none. DRM allows me no incentive to purchase the files it locks down - DRM says I don't own what I buy; I am buying a license, a permit that can be revoked or denied to me at any motion.

Other consumers will purchase DRM-laden music for one of several reasons: They are not concerned about the limitations; they are not aware of the limitations; it's cheap; they cannot choose an alternative. Any of these reasons are possible. I may be an audiophile, but I am not gullible: I will not degauss my CDs, I will not pay $500 for a wooden volume knob, and I will not pay for a license when I could find music of better resolution for free. I am perfectly aware of programs that will strip the DRM from iTunes files or licensed WMA files, but I still cannot do it - I would be upholding the very statutes I have thoroughly come to loathe.

But of the MP3 stores? Audio Lunchbox or eMusic? Jamendo? I have not used their services, either. I'm just not interested in those stores. I don't support them, because I have no incentive to; I am not out to spite DRM. I simply will not purchase it.

My CDs have the most value to me. They take up space; they are real. They are not a bunch of files in a box. They are discs, with packaging and additional material. I need no license for them. I don't care if the entire world stops buying CDs; any music I purchase will be on a CD.

Some Linux users are just too good for me, I suppose

Thanks to Digg, I happened to stumble across this analysis of why Linux is not Windows, at the blog OneAndOneIs2, by Dominic Humphries. By all means, "Linux != Windows", the blog entry I am trying to dispel, is quite long. I didn't attempt this task on a whim, but I believe that "Linux != Windows" was very wrong for several different reasons, and as such I decided that I would use my blog to do what I like to do most when it comes to blogging, speak my mind. This blog entry is divided into sections, according to each "problem" that divides each component of the opinion I am refuting. This essay relies heavily on the original article, so I suggest you read that first. At any rate, I shall proceed.

Point 1. How is it impossible to expect Linux to be better than Windows and have the same features? Isn't that called an upgrade? Doesn't that imply that improvements have been made upon central concepts? Claiming that Linux cannot be like Windows and better than it is like claiming that Windows Vista could not possibly exist, because it's Windows XP, but better. Mr. Humphries is missing the point of Windows users who try Linux. Those users want an upgraded Windows; they're not looking for something exactly the same. If those users wanted an operating system that's exactly the same and Windows, why not choose Windows in the first place?

Firefox succeeded not because it was different, but because Firefox built off of IE and had better, upgraded features. Just look at FF2 and IE7: For the most part, the GUI is the same! You navigate to different websites by typing the URL into the navigation bar and press Enter or click Go; you navigate through your window/tab history by using the Backward and Forward tabs; you save websites by putting their paths in bookmarks. Is the Find function an ability that Firefox devs invented? Of course not! Its presence in the bottom of the browser is (you may disagree) and improvement, an upgrade! It's not superior because it's different; it's superior because it has better functionality! Better != different! Sites like OldVersion.com exist because changes to software made the new versions worse! Firefox's features, when IE6 was competing with Firefox, were better than those in IE because they were easier to use and faster to use! If Firefox changed the default language to Swahili, would that make it better than IE? But Mr. Humphries' reason, yes, because it's different. Again, if users were looking for a copy of IE, they would just use IE! I myself switched to Firefox, because I heard that Firefox had better features, not because it was different. Firefox was similar enough in use to IE that I had no trouble adapting to it.

Point 2. This section is quite misleading. It asks whether or not there's really any big difference in the differences in Linux distributions and then compares Linux to a car: If you can drive one car, you can drive them all!

But you see, the difference in choices is more complicated than that. When you want airbags in your car, you don't choose between "Baag," "Baglite," "Big Bag," or "Sfebag" type airbags, all of which do the same thing but conform to standards that ordinary (most) people won't understand. When you have lots of choices in interfaces, file managers, desktops, and even window managers, people who just want to use a computer will be confused when presented with a choice. If you have to explain all of the intricacies of an operating system to someone who just wants to get work done, chances are that person will give up and move to what he or she is used to - Windows XP, which comes in the consumer-friendly name differentiations of "Home" and "Professional." When your operating system has dozens, if not hundreds, of minute differentiations without any clear advantage in any, that is one example of too many choices. When you have so many choices for both underlying and trivial options, you have to do one of two things, or a combination: Differentiate, or consolidate. Give the user reasons to choose, not options; most people just want to get their work done! Give the people the means to the ends, not the means to the endless! The problem is that there are too many choices there they don't need to be.

Ah, and here we come to desktop Linux. Let me admit that I am an experienced Windows user, and I believe that Linux is not ready for the desktop. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. I have considered switching to Linux, as I've mentioned in my last blog entry. (I'm not going to rehash it, for the most part.) Mr. Humphries is ignoring the big reason that Linux is not ready for Dell and blaming the whole thing on Windows junkies. Honestly, if it was only our fault, why is Linux so slow in moving onto the computers of the masses? We're not getting in your way!

Or is it because of the work ethic involved: You might have to adjust Linux to get it working, and if you need help you have to go to some forum. That's just the problem: The masses want to use their computers, not work with them. I worked with MS-DOS and had no trouble using at after I learned the commands. I'm not rigid to one set of controls, and I have no doubt that a beginning computer user who works with Linux will have little trouble learning what buttons to press. But what if something isn't working? What if you can't find something? The average person doesn't even care about what the problem is! People just want to fix it and go - wham bam, thank you, ma'am. That leads me to...

Point 3a. I'm not panning forums. Forums are great. I've used a great many forums!

You're not going to endear many Linux switchers by telling them that they have to get used to tech support from a loose organization of volunteers. When I search 'Windows help' in Google, I get Microsoft's support site; when I search 'Linux help,' I not only get Linux Questions, but LinuxSelfHelp, Linux Online, linuxhelp.blogspot.com, linuxhelp.co.za, and JustLinux, just to name a few. These websites may be comprised of fine, fine people; I don't know. But what I do know is that with Windows, you know who to ask: The guys that make it. Coincidentally, the guys that made it also have a website for it! Linux is like Windows in that regard, ironically: The guys that made it also have a website for it - and thousands of people made it! The problem is that there is too much choice where there shouldn't be.

And is it just me, or is Mr. Humphries criticizing Windows users because most users only use software after it's stable? Sorry to rain on your parade, but that simply is not going to fly for most people, except for the most hardened Linux veterans or the peopel actually working on the program. Let me give you an example: Songbird. Songbird is at release version 0.2.1. It's barely usable. (I've tried it myself.) But when the media library fails to comprehend my Weird Al library because the metadata has quotation marks (among other random quirks), it's NOT ready for use. Should I apologize for expecting my programs to work when I run them? I run my programs to get something done, and I'm not about to compromise my productivity for "new" software. I have standards: I shouldn't need to fool around with software to get it to work. Only in the world of Linux is that expected!

Furthermore, Mr. Humphries criticizes Linux switchers for expecting their software to be polished to a grade as high as Windows. Remember that they "don't owe you anything?" For God's sake, Linux is competing against Windows! Like it or not, Linux is trying to compete in the same market in which Windows operates. They're trying to convert people to this OS, and they're complaining that people expect it to be good? That's their own damn fault! They shouldn't cry that it's impossible them you to deal with, because those Linux heads got themselves into it! They're trying to compete against an OS with 95% of the market share, and they expect to wow people by not providing comprehensive, easy service and telling users to find the answers for themselves? Some call me a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance! I'm crying my eyes out that those poor Linux devs are overworked and paid nothing. Hey, they chose to do what they do; programming is not a task that can be performed by the unskilled, and managing programmers isn't, either. If you have a product to sell, the free market doesn't care about how much work you put into it: Only the quality of its mettle. Root, hog, or die.

Point 3b. It is in fact more elitist to say, "Everybody knows this," than, "Everybody ought to know this." According to Mr. Humphries, everyone who has never used Linux before is a novice. Let me build on that an offer a parable:

Imagine, if you will, a Beginning French class. None of the students before have ever taken French in their lives; they don't even know the alphabet or the diacritic marks. So one of the students raises his hand and asks about the alphabet. The teacher shrugs it off, replies that the alphabet is something everyone knows, and goes on.

In that example, it sure sounds like the teacher telling the student that he ought to know that would be the same thing as saying everybody knows that.

The difference is that telling someone that they ought to know something places emphasis on what is not learned and that it is in fact crucial. That phrases places emphasis on the fact, not the person. Would it be elitist for a French teacher to tell the students what they ought to know in order to prepare for the test?

By contrast, telling someone, "Everybody knows that!" puts the emphasis on the person. Saying that assumes that the person who is hearing it is a Have Not in a world of Haves. Claiming that everybody knows something - and you don't - puts you at a lower level. There's no emphasis on even learning what is unknown. If you don't know it, then you're sunk.

And now I get to talk about the Lego metaphor. It's completely wrong. When you download a distribution of Linux (especially a desktop distribution), you get an environment that is set up for you - just like a Windows installation. That's not like getting a Lego set at all! I honestly don't know of a right metaphor, but this one is completely irrational. If you're comparing Linux to Windows, then the only difference is that the Linux toy car comes with the tools to take it apart, build, find, or purchase extensions, and customize it how you like, while the Windows care comes with a paint set. I absolutely hated this section of "Linux != Windows". Linux doesn't come broken up into many different pieces. Would you really compare downloading programs to a Lego car? If so, then Windows would also be a Lego car! Besides, the focus of Linux should be the focus of any other operating system - providing a platform for getting things done. Emphasizing how much you can take apart only skims the purpose of an operating system's usefulness. What is the worth of Linux if its only purpose is to be taken apart and put back together again?

Just because you use open source software doesn't mean you want to open up the code and spill its guts. Though I may use Mozzila Thunderird, Mozilla Firefox, StepMania, and Foobar2000, I really don't care about how they work. Generally, software being open source is just an added bonus, not an important feature.

Point 4. This is just another attempt to brush off the users who simply want to get things done, by claiming that the software was created for a difference target audience.

Now, obviously there is nothing wrong with designing tools for programmers; I find no faults with developing an efficient IDE, for instance.

But when you don't tell the beginning users what is most efficient for them, that's your fault. Face it; people who just want to get work done just want to know how to do it in the quickest way possible. Even if you have just developed the most powerful text editor on Earth, there's no way you should advertise it to a person with the goal of expediency if it takes a few hours to learn. Chances are, Vi is one of those programs. It may certainly be an excellent program, but give the novices something like OpenOffice if they just want to type a list or two! Don't you think you're missing the mark if you're trying to sell a newbie on a program so complex that it requires special effort to close it?

Point 5. Look, is it too hard to write a program that has both keyboard shortcuts and menus? I definitely see the point here: Different users have different needs. Once you know the shortcuts, any other way is painfully long. So, I have to disagree on this point, but I totally respect where the opinion is coming from. My version of "user-friendly" says, "Programmed to be usable by those familiar with simple commands and by others who can understand non-obvious shortcuts."

Point 5a. While Point 5 is respectable, its folow-up is less so. While Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V are non-intuitive, they are very efficient. All you need to cut and paste are only but a couple keystrokes away, and the only finger you need to shift is your index finger.

So what does d5w offer? That's just as non-intuitive as Ctrl-X or Ctrl-V to the uninformed. But when you get to know either keystroke combination, that combination becomes familiar and efficient. To the uninformed, d5w doesn't look like much at all. But if you've worked with it before, of course you'll know what it is!

Point 5b. I liked reading the first half of this section, and it all goes downhill from there.

Dominic Humphries is complaining that coding menus takes time. Well of course it does. But if you can't compete with the market, that's your own problem.

Secondly, how is MS Word inferior to Vi and Emacs, because the latter are used for coding? Here's a reality check: MS Word wasn't designed for programming. It was designed for word processing! If you want programming, use an IDE! For God's sake, MS Word is not inferior to Vi or Emacs because they're aimed at different audiences! Is there a joke that I missed, due to lacking a sense of humor? If not, then I can hardly believe the nonsense that I just read.

And again comes up the issue of appealing to the masses. Believe it or not, it's more efficient for some people to just click on what they want instead of learning commands. If you're not going to develop frontends for the programs you're putting into Linux, you're going to have lots of users who will find Linux to be a complete waste of time.

Point 6. This whole portion of the article is one great straw man argument. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would believe that Linux is copying Windows for developing a GUI. What is Point 6 trying to prove?

Point 7. It's this last category that makes this article worth debunking. This "problem" demonstrates arrogance to the highest degree possible. To the common user, it's the middle finger. it's like saying, "Screw you and your little dog, too," to everyone not fortune enough to be in the know. Here, let me sum up "problem 7":

We don't care about you or your needs, and if you don't know what we know, then you're not worth our time.

What a callous choice of words for a community so intent on convincing people that Linux is better. I suppose all those people on Digg who relate tales of switching and never looking back are fringe radicals, hm?

What is so supremely ironic is that Humphries claims that the goal of Linux is to create the best operating system ever. But if you don't accept feedback, how is it going to be usable?

This point is the gotcha clause. The excuse clause. It makes Linux sound like a colossal waste of time to the whole world except for a few people. But the truth is that Linux is usable, and if you're listening to Mr. Humphries, then asking whether or not you are good enough for Linux is an excuse for not supporting you.

Asking the users to do everything for themselves will not only frustrate good people but convince the smart but unexposed people that they'd be wasting their effort on such callous people. Let me ask you something, Mr. Humphries: Are you saying that you're developing an operating system and then not expecting people to use it? That proposition is so laughable that it's hard for me to even refute it. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense at all. I'm finding difficulty finding the sense in it. You're developing a usable operating system, not expecting anyone to use it, and criticizing people who expect it to work but have trouble? Doesn't that violate the philosophies of the desktop Linux distros, who are trying to convert the common people? Doesn't that even contradict the goals of Firefox, since Firefox is built from user input?

Mr. Humphries, I really hope that you're not naive enough to believe what you're saying. I sincerely hope that you do not reflect a majority of the Linux community, because "problem 7" is your problem. I sincerely believe that Linux is about the people, not the machines, and if you're crazy enough to insist that the computers matter more than the people, you're not doing anything for Linux. The last category in your article will do nothing to advance your cause.

Don't switch to Linux just because you can

Let me sum up the situation: Yes, it's Linux. But there's no reason for me to use it. Yes, it's free, and yes, it's secure, but I don't need it.

I'm not against Linux: I think it's a great OS, certainly, but I'm not going to switch to it. Reading Digg every day exposes me to a slew of articles about why now is the right time to switch to Linux and how "So-And-So moved from Windows to Linux and never looked back!" but I really see no incentive to move to Linux.

You how everyone knows that Microsoft is copying Apple, and everyone is pretty vocal about it? Well, if you think about it, Linux is copying Microsoft, but no one seems to be talking about it. Admit it, Linux developers are trying to copy Microsoft, even going so far as to emulate it (a.k.a. WINE). Why should I switch to Linux when there's still a desire in the community to run Windows programs? Isn't Linux supposed to replace Windows? It would be like switching to a Mac and claiming that OSX is superior to XP, but then installing Parallels and XP on the Mac. If Linux is really so great, why does it need offerings compatible with another operating system? I know it looks like I'm saying that a smaller software library for Linux makes it inferior, but it is inferior to me.

I have considered switching. But every time I've considered it, I've found a reason to not do it. The big reason is that Windows is easy to use. Ignore the stigma that Windows always crashes; I seemly suffer it naught. Windows recognizes any worthwhile device I can throw at it (not advisable), and it's simple. The Linux community as a whole believes that you should only bother with Linux if you're willing to make it work. This attitude even prevails among the community of desktop Linux users. Lost is my ability to count the numerations of the aforementioned comments on Digg stories. Few Linux supporters that I have witnessed actively believe that Linux should be so easy to use that you don't have to tinker it; that for me is enough to drive me away. I have installed MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP on various computers. (I love how you need to install DOS on your computer before you can install Windows 95 on it!) Windows XP is such a cinch to install and use that there's no reason to switch. I'm happy that my computer works just like that. I don't want to use an operating system that needs tinkering to work. You know what I call that? Beta software.

I know I haven't covered security. One word: Router. Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Symantec Antivirus 9 is installed on my computer, although I've never had any viruses on my computer. Simply put, I've never had a security crisis on my computer. If you're smart enough, it won't happen. I'm not advocating Windows to the general public based on my experience, because generally people don't have common sense. (Why on Earth would you click on a pop-up that says, "Click me!"?) Even if Linux does have better security, I don't need it.

Yes, yes, Linux is not all that shabby. But I'm not about to switch to Linux just because it's Linux/it's not Windows. Look, Linux people. You want to hook me in? Here's what I want: Your operating system has to be so easy to use that it will work right out of the box, no tinkering whatsoever; it has to have support from developers that will port all of their Windows software to Linux; it has to have compatibility with every driver Windows can handle; and it must do everything Windows can do, and more. Until then, I'm happy where I am.

Free games (as in beer)

The free multiplayer game scene is really lacking: Sporadic, disunified, and stagnant. With no accounting incentive in the market, the incentives for developing such programs are too implicit for programming teams to find worthwhile.

Everybody wants stuff for free. Admit it, if someone gave you everything on a platter, no strings attached, I guarantee you'd take advantage of it. People love free stuff. (Some proponents of the free programs movement also believe that code should be free.) There are tons of games that have been developed to meet this demand, ranging from Runescape, to GunZ, to War Rock, and beyond. Some of the people behind these games are in it for the money; others, the achievement; others, the community. Whatever the motivation is for writing these games, there seems to be a fair amount of people willing to satisfy the demand for free stuff.

Of course, simple economics become a significant problem simply at the mention of free stuff. Programming a fully 3D, immersive, interactive world is by far an exceedingly complicated task. Programmers work for high salaries because programming is not for everyone. And there it is: What do the developers of free games get in return? Some only work on games in their spare time; others, who would like to participate, can't. The reality of the situation is that performing a difficult task for little compensation isn't feasible. Not only is it hard to support a project with donations, but resources become more scarce when there are competing projects. There are hundreds of free games! Obviously some people have to be excluded from the donation collecting process.

Therein lies a further problem, one that (not coincidentally) plagues the open source scene, as well (but to a much lesser extent): Disunity. There are so many games that it's a challenge to find talent that can do significant work. Programming in a team is like forming a band: If you don't know what to do, it's not like you're going to be able to do a lot after a few weeks of practicing. Learning how to program takes months, and programming promotes a never-ending process of learning. That is the premium that corporations like Apple and Microsoft pay for. How are you going to convince people on the Internet who you don't know to do it for free?

Re:Comments relating to "Mac blogs talking about the Zune"

Imagine my surprise on Monday night when, after writing my Tuesday item, I discover that my Sunday entry has comments. My first two comments ever on my blog! My e-penis went over NINE THOUSAND. I'm now an Internet celebrity, even though I could count the number of returning visitors on both hands. (I'm not ashamed of using StatCounter.com to track that sort of thing.) To be fair, both comments didn't agree with me, and I wish my first comment would've went something along the lines of, "FATHER MY BABIES!!!!!1ONEONEONE." Granted, I'll take what I can get. Perhaps I can build a readership by pissing off all the Apple fans and becoming the opposite of Daniel Eran. (That would never work out, since there is nothing wrong with Apple.)

Now, of course, I have to deal with the comments. I have to either constructively take heart or disregard them. I knew that decision before I started writing this entry. So, please pardon me while I take two sentences and run with them.

Microsoft didn't set themselves up to compete with the iPod. Microsoft never announced that they intended to compete directly with the iPod. Microsoft has never said that such was their intention. Everyone else has been saying that Microsoft is trying to compete against the iPod. How has Microsoft set themselves up? By entering the market? By simply entering the market, Microsoft was automatically aiming for the neck of the juggernaut? What a load of baloney.

To be fair, though, Microsoft was inadvertently competing with Apple. Let's say a consumer doesn't have an MP3 player, and that consumer wants to buy a fully featured device between $200 and $300 - nothing unusual. So you have Apple, iRiver, Microsoft, Creative, and Sandisk all competing against each other. So, at one point in the process, the consumer has to make a choice between Microsoft and MP3 Player X. So, Microsoft isn't competing directly against the Zune - I'll explain why in the next sentence. Microsoft may be competing with Apple, but they are also competing with at least three other companies, all of whom are viable players. Just because Microsoft is in the market, you can't justify the assertion that Microsoft is trying to kill Apple.

Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Microsoft is definitely trying to get into the consumer markets, and they've been doing so for a decade or so. (Trying is the key word.) The Xbox 360, until the Zune, was the most recent iteration of that. Microsoft is trying to convince you, the consumer, that your living room and ears should be supported by big M. Who stands in their way? Apple, of course. Microsoft would love nothing more than to knock Apple out of the market - Apple, who has an outstanding track record in product quality. Of course, Microsoft is smart enough to know that a goal like that is impossible. However, I am sure that they would like to become the other elephant in the room and become oligopolies. And while Microsoft is a small player in that arena at the moment, nothing would surprise me less than if Microsoft became a major player in the consumer markets in the next 10 to 20 years. That is, if Microsoft doesn't gloriously screw themselves by making stupid firmware.

And then I get to address the second comment. I don't really know what to say to you, Anonymous. I'm trying not to be hypocritical? I'm sorry? Would you come back later and generate more traffic for my blog?

Corporate allegiance

Why is it that consumers who specialize in a certain product tend to treat that product's producer as a patron saint? I'm looking at you, all you Microsoft devotees, you Apple fanboys, you Linux saints. Why is it we are all engaged in OS holy wars? How is it that the competition between Windows, OSX, and Linux became personal? The battle has practically become a war. Inevitably, people on the Internet cannot meet without eventually dividing themselves from each other simply for their choice in operating system. Good Lord, people are disliking each other for no real reason!

It would be impossible to say that any one 'group' started it. Rather, the fight has existed for a decade or two. UNIX and OS/2 used to be a part of the holy wars! So it's impossible to lay the blame solely on specific supporters, since the shift in OS popularity involved separate groups of people. Instead, I'll categorically blame everyone: Everyone for being simple-minded, everyone for being confrontational, everyone for acting like stuffy, arrogant aristocrats.

Right now the major conflict lies between Windows and Mac users, with a touch of Windows vs. Ubuntu on the side. But when you look at the sides that are fighting, you have to ask, what's the big deal? I mean, if you look at Windows XP/Vista and OSX, it's critically apparent that the two are fundamentally the same. It's not like one operating system has a magic program that does everything better; it's not like one is solidly superior. Techies use the tools they choose because those are the tools with which they are most efficient. Just because you like your Mac doesn't make you superior; just because you like your Dell doesn't make you more cost-effective; just because you like Ubuntu doesn't mean that everyone else should.

What aggravates me so much about this issue is how pervasive it is; even I have been drawn into it. The problem of course is that every conversation about operating systems eventually turns into deciding which is better. The answer is that none is clearly supreme. You can cry and kick and moan, but operating systems all have advantages and disadvantages. Ignore, for a minute, the advertising and the branding and the image and the perspective, and in the end there really isn't that much difference. Operating systems simply have different methods of accomplishing the same objective.

Let me give you a little bit of American history. In the debates between the presidential candidates for the election of 1860, between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, both candidates slapped one another with labels and epiphanies: Douglas called Lincoln a Negrophile, and Lincoln called Douglas a slavery lover. However, if you were look at both candidates' true facets, we see a strikingly similar picture: The two are practically identical. Both candidates perceived slavery as a problem with no easy solution; both candidates were comfortable with slavery; both candidates grew up in Illinois. American history does not fail to recognize their similarity, but in 1859, the two candidates seemed radically different.

Windows XP and OSX and Ubuntu and even OpenBSD all have several traits in common: They are all able to get things done; they all have tools for maximizing performance; they all have tools for managing data. Why is there so much fuss? Type on your keyboard and hit the Enter key already. There shouldn't even be an argument here. It's not like one side is right and the other wrong - not by a long shot.

But here's the big picture: Your choice of computer does not matter. History will not recognize your brand of laptop; nobody will scrutinize your distribution of Linux of choice. Computers are like cars - tools for getting things done. I wholly believe that arguing about which kind of computer you use is not only detrimental to your potential contributions to society but also detrimental to your mental health, creating a virtual arena where choices become boxing matches and every option becomes a dual. The real world isn't about fighting; get up from your computer chair and experience the world for what it is - an opportunity to build a better Earth. There is absolutely nothing to gain in getting lost in the details - not even the size of your e-penis is consequential.

Mac blogs talking about the Zune

Why is it that Mac blogs are talking about the Zune? I mean, why would a blog about Apple products feature an entry about the latest advertisement for the Zune? now, to be fair, Macenstein has features covering a variety of other tech products. But Macenstein is not alone. Through Digg, I've seen at least five Mac blogs talking about the Zune. Why? The Zune is hardly related to Apple products at all.

I believe that it's anti-Microsoft sentiment. Now, you can tell me, "Duh!" and call me a simpleton for introducing the concept in the second paragraph of this blog entry, but in the famous words of Rob Corddry, "Commmmme ooooooooooon!" Here we have tons of blogs by Apple fans talking about a product that is at this point no more an iPod killer than it is sewing machine. It's just not going to happen. So why talk about it? I mean, doesn't the Zune belong in the museum of failed Microsoft products?

The issue I have is not that people are talking about it, but it's that Apple fans are treating the Zune like a major competitor, when clearly the Zune is about to go cold on the mat. Apple blogs are just beating up on the Zune simply because it was produced by Microsoft. Microsoft's been humble in saying that they're not trying to compete with the iPod, but the Zune's poor sales compared to the other major MP3 players seem to prompt more attention than the sales of Creative's line of MP3 players or the iRver family. We hardly hear anything about the Creatives or iRivers on Mac blogs, but the Zune gets a good amount of attention for being a market failure!

All the attention Mac blogs are giving the Zune does nothing to discourage the stereotype that consumers of Apple products just like to stick it to the Man and like to just go against the crowd. Don't act like it doesn't exist; Apple's commericals even promote this hipster image. All the attention the Apple blogs are giving the Zune seals the deal. There is a message that lies underneath the message put out by Apple blogs, and the question in that is how subtle that message appears. The high level of Zune coverage by Mac sites is nothing short of Apple's fans sticking up their noses at Microsoft.

Digg: Four things you can put in story descriptions besides, "Title says it all."

When I visit news aggregator Digg, there is a multitude of stories that have titles but no descriptions. Increasingly, users are submiting stories with nothing in the description field but, "Title says it all."

No. Really, no, the title doesn't say it all. Here are eight kinds of descriptinos you could add to give your story depth and a reason for visitors to actualy read your stories:

1. Personal insight. How does the story relate to your life? What does the story mean to you? Have you had an experience that relates to what you're submitting? Does the link talk about an ordeal that everyone can relate to? If you're truly a human, surely you have an opinion about what you're submitting and a reason for why you're submitting it. God forbid you're linking to your blog and can't be bothered to say why your blog entry deserves to be Dugg. While there's nothing wrong with submitting one of your blog entries, you shouldn't expect to draw traffic to your unknown corner of the woods if the traffic has no incentive to come.


2. A witty comment. Are you good at telling jokes? Do any obvious puns come to mind? Perhaps you can think of a play on words. Even if it's just a one-liner, readers will appreciate a good laugh. Remember to use humor for stories that are light-hearted or oddball or YouTube links. You wouldn't laugh at a funeral, would you?


3. Summary of the story. What's the gist of the story? Think back to the fundamentals of writing essays in high school: Who, what, when, where, why, and possibly how. People will want to know the specifics once they know what's happening. Why is the story relevant to anyone? How does the story relate to other stories? What's the backstory? All or some of these can be answered by a concise summary.


4. Highlights. What if you don't want to write a summary? What if you don't like summaries? If you're linking to an article or thesis, nobody will mind if you cut and paste a section of text from the source that best exemplifies what the story is about.

Let's sum up:You get 75 characters in the title and 350 in the description. You have over quadruple the room for a reason for people to click the link. Why are you submitting to Digg if you don't really have much to say about the story? People will - possibly justifiably - think your story is spam or the dreaded blogspam. The people who read Digg regularly aren't idiots. Write a description that says you aren't one. People's brains won't break if they read a few more words.

No love for Sony

As a fan of Digg, it's been quite obvious to me that in the past few weeks and even months that the dislike of Sony is intense. If Digg was the entire market, Sony would fail to sell more than a few PS3s. Now, I'm not claiming that there is only antipathy for Sony at Digg; Digg is representative of many gamers. I can't say that I know exactly how many gamers are angry at Sony, but there are a few reasons that I can find for this:

• Price. Sony didn't make many friends by making the 60 GB Playstation 3 a full $600. You want to alienate your fans? Charge them through the nose. This isn't disposable income, here. And increased development costs leading to $60 games don't help either. But what's even worse about pricing your product badly is when it's accompanied by


• Arrogance. The Sony execs seemed to assume that everybody would love the PS3, no matter what, simply because the first two consoles were great - and let's not forget the PS2. The PS2 is an awesome console. It was simply better than the Xbox and Gamecube, and still is a good platform, with its cheap price, large library of games available for it, and large fan base. Of course, Sony couldn't help but ride on the PS2's coattails for as long as possible; unfortunately, when it came time to develop the PS3, the execs believed so much in the brand that they forgot about


• Innovation. Seriously, what's new about the PS3? A hard drive, some shinier graphics, Blu-Ray, and a motion-sensitive controller. Oh yeah, Sony got the idea for their controller from Nintendo, and the new controller has no rumble feature. The hard drive? Sony produced a hard drive attachment for the PS2. Sony chose for the next generation to simply include one. Shinier graphics? Shouldn't we expect the graphics to be improved from the last generation? Check. For $600 per unit, I would expect the graphical capabilities of the PS3 to be better than those of the competition. No check.
  
  So it seems like the most innovation Sony has done with the PS3 is the introduction of a Blu-Ray drive. The thing is, most Americans don't have HD-compatible televisions. Microsoft kept the price of the Xbox 360 low by selling the HD-DVD drive as a separate component. Sony wants all or nothing: You get the Blu-Ray drive, or you don't buy the console. Since the BR drive costs $125 per unit, many fans are unhappy about the prospect of buying a Blu-Ray drive they don't want.

But all is not lost! Theyre might just be something Sony can do to win back disenfranchised gamers:

• Lower the price. This one won't happen for a while - not until manufacturing costs and component costs drop. Right now, with Sony losing hundreds of dollars on each PS3 sold, Sony can't afford to drop the price without a damn good reason.


• Wait. I'm serious. Sony has either made a big mistake in the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive, or Sony is in fact ahead of the curve. By that, I'm talking about the prospect of consumers buying HDTVs. It's possible that in a year or two, consumers might like the included BR drive, which will enhance gameplay a lot. Of course, that's still a long shot: What if Sony had taken Microsoft's route and instead opted later to release a cheaper Blu-Ray add-on? Time will tell.

But what about innovation? Sony is screwed here. Buying a video game console isn't like buying an iPod. You don't buy second or third generations of your video game console. (If you do, you're a consumer whore.) Sony is screwed on the hardware. Sony is stuck with the hardware they got. Sony would just anger everyone more if they released "Platstation 3.1 - Now with more innovation!" Sony has failed to offer a new experience with the PS3, and there's no firmware patch that can upgrade components. Right now, what Sony really needs is a patch to fix their relationship with the gaming community at large.

What does Viacom's deal with YouTube hold for the future?

YouTube allows Viacom content on YouTube.

YouTube, the online video giant now owned by Google, has recovered the momentum it stood to lose when the likes of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert disappeared from the site. Thousands of fans were dismayed to find that YouTube was no longer Comedy Central central. Some users of Digg.com proclaimed that they would be moving all their Stewart and Colbert clips to Dailymotion, one of YouTube's many competitors.

It's good to see that companies are embracing the Internet, not scorning it. This deal will work well for both parties; Viacom (presumably) receives compensation for the content posted, and YouTube draws more visitors and raises its value thanks to the traffic of people looking for Jon Stewart. Both companies would lose out if Viacom chose litigation over co-operation: The only important question to ask is what of what Viacom's compensation consists.

It's possible that media giants are warming up to technology - a move completely uncharacteristic of the entertainment industry of olden times. Media giants fought tooth and nail against the VCR, radio, and even the piano roll; every time, the entertainment industry eventually learned to embrace technology. While anyone might be afraid of new technology, to examine history and subsequently ignore it is downright ignorant. But now that the likes of NBC, Warner Bros. and Viacom have deals with YouTube, it's possible that fear of technology might in the future take a back seat to jumping on the technology and making a profit before anyone else can. The porn industry has been notorious for this.

Why exactly is the porn industry so adept to learning technology. It all has to do with the market. To a certain degree, the porn market is perfect competition. There are lots and lots of porn makers each making very similar products. There are many varieties of porn that all share similar content, depending on the type. That means that there isn't a lot of room for branding; company has to stand out before it can establish a brand peopel can recognize. Also, a lot of porn on the Internet is available for free - on websites, in file-sharing network, etc. There is so much free porn available that there is very little incentive to actually buy it. Subsequently, porn companies cannot dictate the market price easily; while they may be able to charge different rates for certain content, a movie priced too high means that consumers will just look elsewhere for porn - Namely, the Internet, where porn is free. When wiggle room is not easy to come by, porn studios can differentiate themselves from the market by utilizing the latest and greatest in technology. This allows them to drive down costs and provide a unique product for which people are willing to pay more.

The porn industry is not like the entertainment industry at all. The music industry, for example, is an oligopoly, where roughly 85% or more of record labels in the United States are owned by four companies. Each label dictates the market price for a certain product, because each product is different; unlike porn, music is distinct. Artists usually have a certain sound or image associated with them - The Decemberists have Colin Meloy's nasal voice and acoustic backing, Muse has Mathew Bellamy's falsetto and controlled guitar distortion, and Modest Mouse has Isaac Brock's definitive drawl and twangy guitar. These are aspects easily recognizable and exclusive to each artist. Unlike porn, every production is unique. Famous bands often seek specific producers or studios for a sound that they want to call their own. The television industry is in some ways like the music industry.

Since the entertainment industry not only sets the market price but controls the availability of content, the entertainment industry has little incentive to adapt to new technology. Most people are unfamiliar with technology and don't care about new gadgets and widgets. Since the entertainment industry is so ingrained in the current system, and since there isn't a large demand for entertainment sitting on the bleeding edge of electronics, the entertainment industry has been non-responsive to new technology. As with the VCR and radio, the entertainment industry only got involved with the new technology when it threatened the current system.

YouTube is something else. YouTube is no VCR or radio; YouTube has the potential for users to commit copyright infringement on a massive scale. That the old media companies are partnering with YouTube is significant in that regard. Though the movie studios were shortsighted when it came to Sony v. Betamax, the media industry appears to be showing an impressive amount of patience in dealing with YouTube. When Google bought YouTube, many speculators predicted lawsuits coming the way of YouTube, due to receiving funding from a company with such deep pockets; so far, that has not been the case (except in the ironic case of the UTube lawsuit, which is totally unrelated to media).

Could it be that the media industry no longer intends to litigate every new technology out of existence? Perhaps these companies have come to the conclusion that money is wasted in trying to destroy technology that might upset the media companies' control over their media. Perhaps these companies have come to the conclusion that consumers don't like the image of over-litigious stuffed suits. Perhaps these companies have given up. Perhaps they are simply biding their time, waiting to strike. Ignoring the RIAA's lawsuits against consumers, it seems that media companies might be changing the ways they handle technology. Could we finally see the day when a record label executive doesn't start to sweat bullets at a technology that takes him completely by surprise?

Peril and danger in the music industry

The music industry loses more than 5 times the GDP of France to BitTorrent

That blog entry is hilarious. The guy is absolutely genius. But allow me to take it a step further. That research only followed one BitTorrent tracker, ThePirateBay. According to Slyck.com, 21 of the top 23 BitTorrent trackers link to music. Assuming that each one of these trackers racked up $11,440,939,650,000 in potential infringement penalties, then the RIAA lost $240,259,732,650,000 to piracy in one month. Yes, that's 240 billion dollars in the space of 30 days. Now, assuming that the number of infringements stays constant (it doesn't) through the year, that means in one year piracy costs the music industry $2,883,116,791,800,000 - almost three quadrillion dollars. That's 252 times the U.S.'s entire national debt, and it's all because of BitTorrent use in the space of a year.

This is the equivalent of a revelation. The music industry is wrong to say that they've lost 300 million dollars to piracy; they just need to come out and say that piracy costs the music industry almost three quadrillion dollars a year, and only then will anyone realize the terrible scope of piracy. Considering that BitTorrent has been around for about two years, the music industry has thus lost around $5.6 quadrillion dollars - just through BitTorrent.

If we were to count the cost of piracy through other file-sharing programs, such as Limewire, DirectConnect++, and KaZaA, and if we were to also include losses to CD trading, the suggestions are staggering. According to this article, the world GDP for 2002 is $32 trillion - $32,000,000,000,000. If we were to count all forms of copyright infringement between 2004 and 2006, I'd esimate that the music industry has lost about $10 quadrillion or more to piracy - $10,000,000,000,000,000. In two years the music industry lost about 313 times the amount of money there is on Earth to piracy. Wherever you live, call your senators and Congressmen and demand that they find a solution to this horrible, horrible problem, because piracy costs the music industry more money than is humanly possible. We cannot let this proceed any longer, or it will continue to cost the music industry more than the cumulative GDP of every country ever. Every second is worth a million dollars.

The aesthetic reasons songs aren't played on the radio

There is a lot of music in the world. A lot. I can not emphasize just how many bands and soloists and producers there are on Earth, and the list grows as I write this. As the means of production become more accessible, anyone who before could only wish that they could make a record now has only to look in the right places to find a studio that will fit inside your computer.

But don't think that this rise in accessibility has much of an impact on the music industry - not even the indie labels. Even though The Average Joe Band has their shiny disc for sale on CDBaby and a couple tracks on Myspace, they are likely to see very few sales. Their market consumes such a niche space that it receives very little attention. Indeed, there are so many different spheres of accomplishment and recognition that it becomes easy to lose the prize in the mist.

Since there are so many garage bands, bedroom musicians, jam bands, singer-songwriters, DJs, bands, singers, orchestras, and supergroups, chances are that whatever the average music consumer hears is the cream of the crop. While even the most non-discerning consumer will be able to tell you which bands absolutely suck, this itself is remarkable - A band has been separated out from all the other millions of bands. A record executive has singled out one band from a multitude of others and determined it to be worthy of an investment. But any record store will have hundreds, if not thousands, of other bands' albums and singles. Several record executives have found sounds they believe will appease the marketplace.

That of course leads to reaction from the music consumers. A target audience usually consists of the core market for certain genres of music. Bands within those genres compete for the tarket audiences' attention. This happens in every record store. The record store, in response to the target audience, will supply the target markets with the music the store believes will appeal to the most people. Inevitably this leads to discontent from consumers who see their tastes and preferences excluded from the market. These discerning consumers will turn to niche markets or second-hand markets for the music they seek.

It is the indie genre that arises from the collective of unhappy voices. The previously marginalized product finds a new market that completely disregards the consumers from the major spheres and chooses only to appeal to smaller, less viable spheres of consumers. In the course of this process, some genres or performers are ignored at each level, leading to new spheres, including music distributors that operate by putting artists' songs into the iTunes market, for example. There are so many different spheres available that perhaps almost all music consumers will stay within the three biggest spheres - major pop/rock artists on big record labels, indie pop/rock artists on big record labels, and indie pop/rock artists on indie record labels.

But what does that have to do with me? I'm just a volunteer record reviewer for a community radio station, KXCI. Once ever week or every two weeks I drop off CDs I've analyzed and pick up some more. KXCI gets hundreds of CDs in the mail every week. The process never ends. I don't know how many other volunteers do what I do, but what I do know is that every week the music director's small office, equipped with two desks and a couple bookshelves, is stacked high with CDs. CDs occupy the bookshelves, they lean on each other in small crates piled like little appartments, they lay scattered across the desks, they cover the floor, they are everywhere. These CDs encompass a wide variety of genders and genres. These CDs were recorded by people all across the United States and some of them are from other countries. These CDs were produced by professionals and amateurs alike. What these CDs share is that the public at large will near none of them - maybe one or even two.

Half of the music I hear is unfit for radio. I'm not pretentious, I'm not picky - I just review music and determine its suitability for airtime. KXCI has standards, and I have standards. People locally and all around the world listen to KXCI, thanks to FM and streaming audio. If I cannot listen to an album without later talking about it in violent terms to my half-interested friends, there is no way I'm going to recommend it for radio play.

So ignoring all the spheres, all the economics, and all the radio, I'm going to tell it straight: Some music will never be heard by the general public because it is bad. no, I tiptoe - Half the music that exists is bad. I would immediately change the channel if the music I have to hear was played on the radio. Some of the albums I hear I would not wish on my worst enemies, and as a reviewer I listen to every song on the albums I review.

Bad music is almost indefinitely prevented from entering the three biggest spheres - I am not talking about music I don't like that others may like. This is despicable music I am talking about. However, music is quite subjective. When I talk about bad music, I talk about music that subsists in the smallest spheres, that appeals to the smallest markets.

The simple explanation for why many bands remain unknown is simply that they are bad. They appeal to far too few people to be successful. It is not a matter of marketing a band or writing the write songs or meeting the right people. If you are bad, no one will listen to you. I'm telling this to all the unknown bands out there: Mediocrity is the number one obstacle to success. A lot of music in the world is bad. The scope of the world's mediocre music is so vast that few people in the world will ever hear the scope. I am exposed to far more unpleasant music than I would prefer.

There is a lot of music in the world, much of it bad. The reason people at large don't hear it is because a filter like me will catch it. There is a good reason why you haven't heard of the bands The Weegs or An Albatross - And if you know who they are, you have "bad" taste in music - Someone has determined that you in all chances won't like those bands. People like me, who review music, decide on a daily basis which bands have a chance of going on the radio. If radio is life and death, half the bands that send their CDs to radio stations, hoping to break into the market will die.

The thing about reviewing records is that reviews are not absolute - Any music journalist could tell you that. There is no rubric for the constitution of a 10 on the ratings scale; instead, scores for music are based on other music. Actually, it is a question of how well does the music plays in comparison to other bands - the opportunity cost of radio, if you will.

So really, why does some music never play on the radio? I'm not going to tell that it's because it fits only a niche market or because there are better bands that could be played. Frankly, if your music doesn't get on the radio it's because it sucks.