Too much boring news, too little interesting news.
...and too many people who are tired of wasting their time reading stuff they thought might be useful.
I spend a lot of time on sites like Digg, Slashdot, and Techdirt. Perhaps I've been focusing on the wrong topic but I find I have more interest in seeing what people have to say about something than the something itself. That is to say... I find peoples highly opinionated/agendized takes on what happened more interesting than what happened.
As some one noted above most of the stories are cookie cutter. After you have read enough of them even the stories about man eating rabbits and murderous office chairs start to become repetitive. However, occasionally I read something that IS useful. Like an update on the ongoing war with the RIAA and MPAA that does more than declare "F*CK THE RIAA." Stories that actually point out some of the ways the RIAA are losing or gaining ground. Or how about a story on how Hillery wants the government to take further control of how parents raise their children (which lost her my vote long before Obama even announced running).
Perhaps the solution isn't adding more superfluous information. Maybe the solution is taking all the superfluous information away. Maybe the problem itself is as simple as supply and demand. Too high a supply of stories (both low and high quality) with too little demand has resulted in a lessening of the value of all stories, interesting or not. The news market is flooded with low quality stories and only a few useful stories can be found. I do believe this scenario, coupled with other factors not present in the "News Industry," was the primary cause of the Video Game Industry Crash of 1983. Perhaps the solution is to cut back on supply, so that demand can catch up with it. They should focus only on bringing news forward that is actually interesting and HASN'T already been reported by another news source or that at the VERY least hasn't been reported from that angle (assuming the new angle is, in and of itself, worthy of a story).
I'm no economist (and I don't play one on tv) but the high prevalence of low quality stories is why I don't even bother with news sites. Nine times in ten the stories seem obvious or just bore me. Then again, Perhaps I'm just so jaded that nothing interests me any more.
With robots, the "valley" happens for the same reason that some one with severe deformities makes people uncomfortable... the human brain is genetically wired to identify these people as ether a hindrance to the group or a threat to the human races continued survival. We can't place the exact nature of the feeling without looking back and seeing what evolutionary reasons there would be for it. It is too primitive to be convey a specific message. Instead most people write it off as just an unexplainable feeling of dread or nervousness, ostracize the individual triggering the feelings, or worse (usually without even knowing the real reason why). When robots reach this point of being almost human, that same subconscious response is triggered.
I can see where marketing that is personalized to the point of making it obvious how much random-internet-dude knows about me would make me nervous. However, I do not think making it even more personalized would alleviate the sense of being watched. Quite the contrary, I think it would make it even worse.
Let's say one Sunday night I decide I've got enough money to spare for a next-gen game console and do a couple of internet searches to compare. Then the next morning I'm getting ready for work and as I check my email every single advertisement is about the PlayStation 5 or the XBox 1440. I'm gonna be just a little bit unnerved at how they got that info. That is well across the border of collecting info and into the realm of outright spying.
With personalized advertising there is no valley. It's a sheer cliff face leading to a 300 foot fall onto sharp jagged volcanic rock being smashed over and over by 20 foot waves.
Son, I'm not even sure you know what an Italian restaurant looks like if you think Olive Garden qualifies. But no, the pasta at Olive Garden isn't better then Bertolli and no it's not a 4 star restaurant.
"Actually, it's two to three, lest you forget drinks, desserts and appetizers. Not that the waiter always delivers the food."
Uhm... so... once to take the order, once to give the bill, and once to pick the money up? Just to make sure we are on the same page here: I don't consider Waffle House a restaurant.
Once to see what drinks we want, maybe even make a suggestion regarding the current specials. Second time to see if we are ready to order, and if so, place that order. Third time likely to bring the food, but that isn't always done by the waiter themselves. Third/Fourth time to check on the clients and make sure their glasses are filled and, if they didn't deliver the food themselves, to make sure everything is as ordered. Fourth/Fifth time to check glasses again and get an idea how close the clients are to being done (so as to know when to check back for the final visit). Fifth/Sixth time to see who wants desert, if they are ready for the bill, and refill glasses one more time.
That is a minimum. That assumes I am there for an hour tops.
That is the worst part. People no longer sit at the table with their family and chat. They huddle around the boob tube and watch their shows in silence instead. Now I'm gonna have to reach across the table and smack the crap out of my friends to get them to stop chatting with some one who DIDN'T go out to eat with them? I might get sued by a few restaurants after I rip the damn thing off the wall and throw at a the people who, when I came to the restaurant, I liked.
America needs stop looking for new ways to stay connected... and start looking for ways to connect.
If this thing becomes popular I am gonna have to go hunt down whoever invented this thing and make him spin a wheel to decide which way he will die... all 7 choices taken straight form the movie Se7en.
"and restaurants probably save even more money on needing a smaller wait staff."
So they are looking to turn their restaurants into an experience I can get at home... for much less money... in much less time... and without any of the problems associated with going to out to eat...
First off: a smaller staff, even with these machines, is a bad idea. Bringing food to the table is only 1 out of about 5 visits that will be made to that table when the people sitting there are in a hurry. Those that are sitting there shooting the breeze (parties and the like) will likely be there long enough for you to check on them 10 or more times (over 2-3 hours). Yes the staff could be summoned as needed... but my guess is that would result in the need for a much larger staff.
In the end, there is nothing a restaurant chef can cook that I can't with my modest electric range and my modest collection of skillets, pans, pots, knives, and other, more specific, cookware. Further more, in many cases I can do it better. I can watch TV or play video games while I do it. I can shoot the breeze with a gaggle of friends as well. What I can't do is sit on my ass while I'm waited on hand and foot. That is what restaurants are for. People go to restaurants to slow down. They want to be pampered a bit. When restaurants stop being about waiting on clients and becomes about customers waiting on themselves restaurants become redundant... useless... worse than useless.
Yes I still wouldn't have to cook my own meal... but that takes 10 minutes with some of the stuff you can find in the grocery store now days. Check out the Bertolli pasta meals next time you're there. Toss it in a tall pan, covered, for about 10 minutes, stirring once or twice... then eat. Every bit as good as what you can get at most Italian restaurants in the US short of say... 4 stars.
Make checking out faster. Make reservations easier. Make knowing when your table is ready more comfortable. Make knowing when the customers food is ready more efficient. Make carpet and tables that detect spilled drinks. Make cameras that can tell when some one has finished their food and might be ready for desert. Make glasses that notify the staff when it is less than half full. All these things technology can do. It can not, however, replace a semi-skilled waiter or waitress... not even for placing an order.
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that the first thing that must happen for the shift from old music industry to new music industry to occur is for the artists to abandon the old ways. Not the big bands ether. It's the up and comers that will be the final nail in the coffin. The Nicklebacks and S.O.A.D.s of tomorrow.
Like Mike said, for many bands the way to become big has been to put themselves out there on the internet. However I don't see that working (as is) for very long once it becomes a popular thing to do. Right now the idea is novel and the market is virgin. However, once every garage band and their brothers have their own website fans will find themselves confused and irritated at how hard it is to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
This will necessitate the next step, websites and services that do for the artists exactly what the record labels promised to do for the artists in years gone by... marketing them, helping manage their needs, essentially running the business end of things while the artists do what they do best. I do not see these services totally taking over the management for the bands. That would just be the same as before. Instead, I see the bands hiring some one (or perhaps a small firm) to manage their presence on these sites, much like they do already with MySpace.
But this to me raises a more interesting question... why wait till fans are confused to start such a service. Why not begin building it and do the ground work of getting the up and coming bands on board now. Heh... if only I had the money and time for something like that laying around...
Men and Women think different. I'm not saying that one is better than the other but it is true that Women and Men as a general rule perceive the world differently. Also I'd like to say that I know these are generalizations but, as the term implies, these things are generally true. I acknowledge that there are exceptions... some times a lot of them.
Eroticism is one place where the difference between men and women is very acutely apparent. As a male I can't help but see the romance novels on the shelf at the books store as completely over the top and completely ridiculous, a sentiment most men share. Meanwhile women think the exact same thing about porn. I tend to think both might be right.
Men are looking outward. This is why they faun over flashy cars, big TVs, and video games. Women on the other hand spend their time looking inward. They tend to pursue relationships (of all kinds), artistic expression (not just classical art but also things as "mundane" as home decor), and looking good (clothing, makeup, etc) much the way most men pursue their dream car.
Games could be made that are much more in line with what the majority of women want but the established (mostly male) gamer market would be uninterested in much of the resulting games. I'm sure there is a middle ground in gaming. This is true of everything I have pointed out as a difference so far. However, I will never give up my blood and gore shoot first ask questions later testosterone junkie FPSs where I play a muscle bound super soldier wading through the minions of hell and most women will never find that sort of thing interesting.
Many, though thankfully not all, of the women I know view video games as a childish waste of time. How do you target a demographic that has largely written off the content you are trying to sell to them as "a childish waste of time?" This is why attention to female gamers is so rare. It's because female gamers are so rare. The bottom line for the resulting games just isn't good enough to warrant the development costs. Hopefully consoles like the Wii and DS are changing that.
Wow Mike! You've stirred up a hornets nest this time. I'm feeling a bit frisky so I'll throw my two cents in.
To me the key is the differences between the fact that some goods are scarce and some goods are infinite. Content, such as music, video, and text. Are infinite.
Before the dawn of the digital age content creators and providers were the only ones who could reliably get their hands on equipment capable of making high-quality reproductions. Analog media degrades with each copy. Digital does not (perceptibly). Now any soccer mom with a computer at home can churn out a dozen copies of whatever content she wants and hand them out to every on that shows up to the soccer game. This costs the content industry money. Each person who receives the content in this fashion now has no reason what so ever to go out and pay for it.
THIS, is where opinions on the issue divide. The content industries say that their loss of profit is due to the theft of their content. The file sharers tend to say the content industries loss of profit is because they haven't adjusted to a change in the capabilities of the average consumer.
This is the problem the content industries are wrestling with. While I CAN'T copy a 20 ounce bottle of coke. I CAN copy a Metalica album. One is scarce. The other is not only not scarce but is literally infinite. They are DIFFERENT.
Is this difference enough to determine whether or not one is stealing and the other is not? Really that just depends. Stealing means what we want it to mean. Even at a conceptual level it's meaning can change. The real question, in my mind, is not whether or not it IS stealing but rather whether or not it SHOULD be stealing.
If a steal the coke from the pizza joint when the staff isn't looking they lose money EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GIVING IT AWAY FREE. After all they were only giving them away free to entice people to come in an buy something. Perhaps the end lose is small but that is still one less coke they have on hand to offer that special with. Thus taking scarce goods without permission of the current owner will, without exception, result in loss of profits for SOME ONE.
If a friend of mine gives me a copy of the latest White Stripes album the recording industry also loses profits. However, they don't HAVE to. The newspaper is the key because in each news paper, as some one above pointed out, has advertisements in it and the advertisements are worth more with every pair of eyeballs that sees them. The music and movie industry could switch to a business model such as this. They could make money even when the music is shared. Hell they could make more money when it is shared than when it isn't.
This, IMO, is the fine line that separates theft and content sharing. With a theft money WILL BE lost and there is really no way around that. You could put advertisements on coke bottles but how many people would see each coke bottle. With content sharing money doesn't have to be lost.
They don't even have to develop and deploy such a distribution system. There are people out there that would love to try it (myself for example). But the RIAA and MPAA are focused on trying to make people buy CDs. They assess extremely high and completely unreasonable royalties from any service that doesn't involve straight sales of the songs.
If they would just realize that the reason Napster, Kazaa, and others were so successful is not because of them being free, but rather because they are convenient. If the service would be convenient enough people wouldn't want to share the music they wouldn't need or even want to make copies for each of their devices. They could carry around a cellphone/ipod sized wifi/gsm/G3 based player that would play their music over any set of speakers/headphones they own. Let them play whatever song they want as many times as they want, setup play lists, etc etc. Just pop in with an advertisement every now and then at the beginning of a song. You don't have the problem of trying to play the most popular songs before and after a commercial break like with radio because the songs being played are EXACTLY the ones the user wanted to hear. the content takes up no space on the users hard drive, leaves them with no need to convert between formats, can not be lost as long as they remember their user name and password, will work on any of the transceivers they own as long as the sim number or whatever is added to their account, and wouldn't need DRM because there would be no reason to make copies of the music to begin with (which opens up the option of interoperability in the player market).
*shrug*
And here I am, an outsider, coming up with this. I just can't feel sympathy for a group of companies hell bent on digging their own graves... especially when people are falling over themselves to get the content industry to stop.
Re: New business models and business culture chang
"The problem is that all of the business models will require huge business cultural changes."
You know that is probably the worst part of it all. Not only do the idiots at the RIAA not understand the impossible battle they are fighting but they go out of their way to prevent those who do from doing the things that would actually help the RIAA and it's members the most. I would love to get in on some of the ideas I have come up with for a free content distribution system. However, I would have to license the music from the RIAA's members and would ether have to cripple the whole thing with DRM or other forms of unacceptable limitations, thus dooming the whole endeavor to failure, or I would have to pay such huge licensing fees that the profit margin would be a negative number.
Hmm... I think calling us dipshits for something that, as far as I can tell no one here has claimed to be true, seems just a little rude. Sounds to me like you've got some pent up aggression from an argument you had with some one some where else.
No one said memorizing is bad and I for one don't avoid memorizing stuff just cause I can Google it. I actually can't Google from my car or a plane. I can't Google from a restaurant unless it offers wi-fi and I happened to carry my laptop for some strange reason. Memorization still has it's uses.
As for your argument about memorizing boring facts. If the point is to train your brain and improve memorization why not memorize useful information instead. That way you not only improve your memory skills but also gain a great deal of additional knowledge that is useful for something other than playing trivia games with your family once a year at Christmas. I'd say no matter how you slice it memorizing boring facts simply doesn't make sense.
Yes but unless you are doing a report on a specific book, an author, or printed contemporary literature all information that can be found in books printed since the mid 1900's can be found online.
In fact a great deal of information is not available in printed form but only online. Granted most such info is rather trivial but if you were doing a book report on the trivialities of modern life you couldn't use books to learn about them as easily.
Because those are just trends. They are no more world changing than disco or bell bottoms. Google on the other hand has had a significant impact on the way research is performed and as such has resulted in a number of changes in any area related to research. This has far reaching implications for everything from the military to shopping.
Considering the depth and scope of the impact Google has had I think a site devoted to tech news would be wise to keep an eye on it and all related info.
It is kind of hard to flee from a company that owns vast stretches of the actual infrastructure that mucks up the internet backbone in the US. Even if you and all your providers don't use AT&T the odds are that some of the websites you visit are only reachable from you're ISP by traveling across AT&T's backbone to get to their ISP. Same for the other companys such as Sprint, MCI, and Verizon.
You know one thing that bothers the heck out of me is a point I have yet to see any one else make.
If I decide to start a website I need a host. There are a number of way to get one but general speaking I would pay some one to rent to me a server or space on a server, and to house and maintain that server. Part of the money I pay my hosting company will be put together with the money paid by other customers of that host to pay for ultra-high bandwidth internet service.
Now in the time I have used ircd hosts, web hosts, and other forms of hosting I have never had a hosting service that received their internet connectivity directly from AT&T. I did have one that got service directly form Sprint but most of them used smaller ISP's offering fiber connections.
So in the case of a Billy Bob's Shrimp Packaging's website (for example) Billy Bob pays the hosting company, who pays the ISP, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, so on and so forth till it reaches one of the major providers. In the case of the home computer the owner pays an ISP directly, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, so on and so forth until it reaches one of the major providers.
The major carriers such as AT&T are not paying anyone except when performing maintenance on their network, upgrading equipment, paying their employees, or paying taxes. In fact, through a sort of trickle effect EVERY ONE is ALREADY paying THEM. The computer owner is paying them, whether he uses them as his primary ISP or not, and yes the website owner is in fact ALREADY paying them, whether his webhost gets internet directly from them or not. Major companies like Google are no different in this respect than owners of small websites. They just have many more sites, redundant servers, and entire server farms of their own.
Perhaps I am wrong in my statements above. Things would certainly make more sense if I was. However, if I am not why is it that if companies like AT&T are already getting paid on both ends by every one they still think they should be allowed to charge one end again directly "or else." I mean if they were offering some benefit or additional service or even at least one service to begin with to a website owner, be it Google or Billy Bob's Shrimp Packaging, I might understand. Yet AT&T isn't providing anything to Google or Billy Bob. They are providing high bandwidth connectivity from across the continent to the ISP of the ISP of the ISP of Billy Bob and Google but they aren't providing anything to Billy Bob or Google directly. Worse they are threatening to take away a service THAT IS ALREADY PAID FOR unless the customer of the customer of the customer of the company that already paid for the service doesn't pay extra directly.
Yet, it seems I am the only one who notices this. Perhaps I have it wrong. If I am right it seems like this would pretty much be an instant nail in the coffin for the whole idea of charging companies like Google "or else."
I don't see a hacker in china stealing mp3s. Mp3's seem like a serious waste of effort for something that, despite common belief to the contrary, isn't all that easy to do in a targeted manner. If malware is used to gain access to the files then having the computer taken to a shop near the time of the files showing up online would provide a line of defense to be used in court. If the laptop is stolen then report it. The police report would get any lawsuit thrown out instantly.
Any large scale theft of such files would likely involve a lost or stolen laptop or data theft by computer techs and family. All of which can be proven in court with reasonable effort.
Also, I think stealing mp3's off some one else's computer would be more difficult than taking files ripped from other sources or even purchased outright and then obfuscating the watermark to prevent identification... similar methods are used by fan subbing and movie pirating communities now.
I understand your point and, ideally, I agree. However, if done properly watermarks could be a viable middle ground between the desires of the record/movie industry and the desires of music/video consumers.
It is possible for a watermark to be placed in both an audio and video file in such a way that it is not easily noticed, much less likely to degrade quality in a perceptible manner. It also doesn't root kit your computer, degrade performance, or prevent you from using one purchase on every device you own.
Also, if they do decide to tie individual files to individual purchases from consumers it could easily be done by making the watermark in the form of a serial number. That serial number would be linked internally to a phone number and email. Every file gets a different serial number so as to limit the possibility of any one getting framed. If the file is shared, with or without the purchasers permission, the serial number would by itself be benign. However, it would still allow the record industry to take legal action by comparing the serial number to their internal database and to do so with far greater accuracy than current methods.
While removing such a watermark would be far easier to remove than the recording industry might like the average Joe would not be able to do it. This would provide a powerful road block for the primary source of file sharing's success: accessibility. Audio and video piracy would be pushed back until it was no more prevalent than software piracy and it would rob many file sharing services of their primary source of funding... possibly starving some of them out. The RIAA and MPAA aren't going to think in these terms though and their aggressiveness will allow the fires of dissent to burn a while longer.
If you take a look at this from the recording industries point of view there are some more considerations. The majority of people who buy CDs don't go to concerts or they will only go to a handful over the course of their entire lifetime. They don't go to the band or label's website. They don't buy branded memorabilia unless they happen upon it while shopping. They don't purchase or even expose themselves to the possibility of purchasing anything outside the CD or download. Free music to these people is a free lunch... and lost revenue for the RIAA. The MPAA on the other hand would benefit easily from it.
I think there is a massive advertising opportunity for music and video to make revenue without having to sell the media. There are, however, technical issues to be addressed for audio files. How do you keep the advertisement from being removed from the track in it's shared form and how do you keep the advertisement from becoming an annoyance to the user. Surely you could make allowances for the file to not play the advertisement after the first time it is played on an individual computer, but when copied onto a new computer or device it should play the advertisement once more. You could also create a delivery system similar to youtube or rhapsody while allowing for the audio to be streamed directly to a device over cellphone, wifi, and satellite networks. This also has the advantage of allowing the advertisements to be completely up-to-date. Either of these would require a new audio format or a new delivery system and for the numerous software and hardware players out there to support them. Not exactly an inexpensive solution.
It would be nice if the recording industry would pursue giving their customers what they clearly want and from a sort of Babylonian view point I think they owe us that much. Yet, that is not what is going to happen. You and I both have been pointing out for some time that the RIAA and MPAA's methods would never succeed because file sharing was not going to go away. Well... unless a massive amount of opposition is brought against watermarking, more so than DRM, it would enable them to do exactly what we said they couldn't. They will be able to file lawsuits with reasonable certainty that the defendant shared the files and will no longer need to ask for settlements. They will be able to win court battles easily and will be able to sue for even larger sums of money. They might not stop file sharing but they will certainly have an opportunity to turn the tide on illegal file sharing.
There are two sides to every coin... and the RIAA/MPAA just shined theirs.
On the post: Now There's A Concept: Newspapers Should Add Value To The News
Too much boring news, too little interesting news.
I spend a lot of time on sites like Digg, Slashdot, and Techdirt. Perhaps I've been focusing on the wrong topic but I find I have more interest in seeing what people have to say about something than the something itself. That is to say... I find peoples highly opinionated/agendized takes on what happened more interesting than what happened.
As some one noted above most of the stories are cookie cutter. After you have read enough of them even the stories about man eating rabbits and murderous office chairs start to become repetitive. However, occasionally I read something that IS useful. Like an update on the ongoing war with the RIAA and MPAA that does more than declare "F*CK THE RIAA." Stories that actually point out some of the ways the RIAA are losing or gaining ground. Or how about a story on how Hillery wants the government to take further control of how parents raise their children (which lost her my vote long before Obama even announced running).
Perhaps the solution isn't adding more superfluous information. Maybe the solution is taking all the superfluous information away. Maybe the problem itself is as simple as supply and demand. Too high a supply of stories (both low and high quality) with too little demand has resulted in a lessening of the value of all stories, interesting or not. The news market is flooded with low quality stories and only a few useful stories can be found. I do believe this scenario, coupled with other factors not present in the "News Industry," was the primary cause of the Video Game Industry Crash of 1983. Perhaps the solution is to cut back on supply, so that demand can catch up with it. They should focus only on bringing news forward that is actually interesting and HASN'T already been reported by another news source or that at the VERY least hasn't been reported from that angle (assuming the new angle is, in and of itself, worthy of a story).
I'm no economist (and I don't play one on tv) but the high prevalence of low quality stories is why I don't even bother with news sites. Nine times in ten the stories seem obvious or just bore me. Then again, Perhaps I'm just so jaded that nothing interests me any more.
/2 cent
On the post: Where's The Line Between Personalized Advertising And Creeping People Out?
It's not a valley...
I can see where marketing that is personalized to the point of making it obvious how much random-internet-dude knows about me would make me nervous. However, I do not think making it even more personalized would alleviate the sense of being watched. Quite the contrary, I think it would make it even worse.
Let's say one Sunday night I decide I've got enough money to spare for a next-gen game console and do a couple of internet searches to compare. Then the next morning I'm getting ready for work and as I check my email every single advertisement is about the PlayStation 5 or the XBox 1440. I'm gonna be just a little bit unnerved at how they got that info. That is well across the border of collecting info and into the realm of outright spying.
With personalized advertising there is no valley. It's a sheer cliff face leading to a 300 foot fall onto sharp jagged volcanic rock being smashed over and over by 20 foot waves.
On the post: Ordering Your Meal Via A Computers: A Gimmick Or Useful?
Re: Re: uhm... no.
"Actually, it's two to three, lest you forget drinks, desserts and appetizers. Not that the waiter always delivers the food."
Uhm... so... once to take the order, once to give the bill, and once to pick the money up? Just to make sure we are on the same page here: I don't consider Waffle House a restaurant.
Once to see what drinks we want, maybe even make a suggestion regarding the current specials. Second time to see if we are ready to order, and if so, place that order. Third time likely to bring the food, but that isn't always done by the waiter themselves. Third/Fourth time to check on the clients and make sure their glasses are filled and, if they didn't deliver the food themselves, to make sure everything is as ordered. Fourth/Fifth time to check glasses again and get an idea how close the clients are to being done (so as to know when to check back for the final visit). Fifth/Sixth time to see who wants desert, if they are ready for the bill, and refill glasses one more time.
That is a minimum. That assumes I am there for an hour tops.
On the post: Ordering Your Meal Via A Computers: A Gimmick Or Useful?
Re:
America needs stop looking for new ways to stay connected... and start looking for ways to connect.
If this thing becomes popular I am gonna have to go hunt down whoever invented this thing and make him spin a wheel to decide which way he will die... all 7 choices taken straight form the movie Se7en.
On the post: Ordering Your Meal Via A Computers: A Gimmick Or Useful?
uhm... no.
So they are looking to turn their restaurants into an experience I can get at home... for much less money... in much less time... and without any of the problems associated with going to out to eat...
First off: a smaller staff, even with these machines, is a bad idea. Bringing food to the table is only 1 out of about 5 visits that will be made to that table when the people sitting there are in a hurry. Those that are sitting there shooting the breeze (parties and the like) will likely be there long enough for you to check on them 10 or more times (over 2-3 hours). Yes the staff could be summoned as needed... but my guess is that would result in the need for a much larger staff.
In the end, there is nothing a restaurant chef can cook that I can't with my modest electric range and my modest collection of skillets, pans, pots, knives, and other, more specific, cookware. Further more, in many cases I can do it better. I can watch TV or play video games while I do it. I can shoot the breeze with a gaggle of friends as well. What I can't do is sit on my ass while I'm waited on hand and foot. That is what restaurants are for. People go to restaurants to slow down. They want to be pampered a bit. When restaurants stop being about waiting on clients and becomes about customers waiting on themselves restaurants become redundant... useless... worse than useless.
Yes I still wouldn't have to cook my own meal... but that takes 10 minutes with some of the stuff you can find in the grocery store now days. Check out the Bertolli pasta meals next time you're there. Toss it in a tall pan, covered, for about 10 minutes, stirring once or twice... then eat. Every bit as good as what you can get at most Italian restaurants in the US short of say... 4 stars.
Make checking out faster. Make reservations easier. Make knowing when your table is ready more comfortable. Make knowing when the customers food is ready more efficient. Make carpet and tables that detect spilled drinks. Make cameras that can tell when some one has finished their food and might be ready for desert. Make glasses that notify the staff when it is less than half full. All these things technology can do. It can not, however, replace a semi-skilled waiter or waitress... not even for placing an order.
On the post: Nine Inch Nails Sells Out Of $300 Deluxe Edition In Under Two Days
The Future is Now
Like Mike said, for many bands the way to become big has been to put themselves out there on the internet. However I don't see that working (as is) for very long once it becomes a popular thing to do. Right now the idea is novel and the market is virgin. However, once every garage band and their brothers have their own website fans will find themselves confused and irritated at how hard it is to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
This will necessitate the next step, websites and services that do for the artists exactly what the record labels promised to do for the artists in years gone by... marketing them, helping manage their needs, essentially running the business end of things while the artists do what they do best. I do not see these services totally taking over the management for the bands. That would just be the same as before. Instead, I see the bands hiring some one (or perhaps a small firm) to manage their presence on these sites, much like they do already with MySpace.
But this to me raises a more interesting question... why wait till fans are confused to start such a service. Why not begin building it and do the ground work of getting the up and coming bands on board now. Heh... if only I had the money and time for something like that laying around...
On the post: The Search For The Elusive Captive Audience Means No More Contemplation?
Re:
The change you mention will never happen unless enough people are convinced there is a problem.
On the post: EA Makes A Bid For Take Two: Soon You'll Be Able To Shoot John Madden In GTA
!!!!
Seriously didn't EA announce plans to stop doing this cause they realized they were destroying every company they "assimilated?"
Would some one please put EA down already.
On the post: Women Are From Venus, Men Like Video Games
Men vs Women
Eroticism is one place where the difference between men and women is very acutely apparent. As a male I can't help but see the romance novels on the shelf at the books store as completely over the top and completely ridiculous, a sentiment most men share. Meanwhile women think the exact same thing about porn. I tend to think both might be right.
Men are looking outward. This is why they faun over flashy cars, big TVs, and video games. Women on the other hand spend their time looking inward. They tend to pursue relationships (of all kinds), artistic expression (not just classical art but also things as "mundane" as home decor), and looking good (clothing, makeup, etc) much the way most men pursue their dream car.
Games could be made that are much more in line with what the majority of women want but the established (mostly male) gamer market would be uninterested in much of the resulting games. I'm sure there is a middle ground in gaming. This is true of everything I have pointed out as a difference so far. However, I will never give up my blood and gore shoot first ask questions later testosterone junkie FPSs where I play a muscle bound super soldier wading through the minions of hell and most women will never find that sort of thing interesting.
Many, though thankfully not all, of the women I know view video games as a childish waste of time. How do you target a demographic that has largely written off the content you are trying to sell to them as "a childish waste of time?" This is why attention to female gamers is so rare. It's because female gamers are so rare. The bottom line for the resulting games just isn't good enough to warrant the development costs. Hopefully consoles like the Wii and DS are changing that.
On the post: Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question
hornets nest
To me the key is the differences between the fact that some goods are scarce and some goods are infinite. Content, such as music, video, and text. Are infinite.
Before the dawn of the digital age content creators and providers were the only ones who could reliably get their hands on equipment capable of making high-quality reproductions. Analog media degrades with each copy. Digital does not (perceptibly). Now any soccer mom with a computer at home can churn out a dozen copies of whatever content she wants and hand them out to every on that shows up to the soccer game. This costs the content industry money. Each person who receives the content in this fashion now has no reason what so ever to go out and pay for it.
THIS, is where opinions on the issue divide. The content industries say that their loss of profit is due to the theft of their content. The file sharers tend to say the content industries loss of profit is because they haven't adjusted to a change in the capabilities of the average consumer.
This is the problem the content industries are wrestling with. While I CAN'T copy a 20 ounce bottle of coke. I CAN copy a Metalica album. One is scarce. The other is not only not scarce but is literally infinite. They are DIFFERENT.
Is this difference enough to determine whether or not one is stealing and the other is not? Really that just depends. Stealing means what we want it to mean. Even at a conceptual level it's meaning can change. The real question, in my mind, is not whether or not it IS stealing but rather whether or not it SHOULD be stealing.
If a steal the coke from the pizza joint when the staff isn't looking they lose money EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GIVING IT AWAY FREE. After all they were only giving them away free to entice people to come in an buy something. Perhaps the end lose is small but that is still one less coke they have on hand to offer that special with. Thus taking scarce goods without permission of the current owner will, without exception, result in loss of profits for SOME ONE.
If a friend of mine gives me a copy of the latest White Stripes album the recording industry also loses profits. However, they don't HAVE to. The newspaper is the key because in each news paper, as some one above pointed out, has advertisements in it and the advertisements are worth more with every pair of eyeballs that sees them. The music and movie industry could switch to a business model such as this. They could make money even when the music is shared. Hell they could make more money when it is shared than when it isn't.
This, IMO, is the fine line that separates theft and content sharing. With a theft money WILL BE lost and there is really no way around that. You could put advertisements on coke bottles but how many people would see each coke bottle. With content sharing money doesn't have to be lost.
They don't even have to develop and deploy such a distribution system. There are people out there that would love to try it (myself for example). But the RIAA and MPAA are focused on trying to make people buy CDs. They assess extremely high and completely unreasonable royalties from any service that doesn't involve straight sales of the songs.
If they would just realize that the reason Napster, Kazaa, and others were so successful is not because of them being free, but rather because they are convenient. If the service would be convenient enough people wouldn't want to share the music they wouldn't need or even want to make copies for each of their devices. They could carry around a cellphone/ipod sized wifi/gsm/G3 based player that would play their music over any set of speakers/headphones they own. Let them play whatever song they want as many times as they want, setup play lists, etc etc. Just pop in with an advertisement every now and then at the beginning of a song. You don't have the problem of trying to play the most popular songs before and after a commercial break like with radio because the songs being played are EXACTLY the ones the user wanted to hear. the content takes up no space on the users hard drive, leaves them with no need to convert between formats, can not be lost as long as they remember their user name and password, will work on any of the transceivers they own as long as the sim number or whatever is added to their account, and wouldn't need DRM because there would be no reason to make copies of the music to begin with (which opens up the option of interoperability in the player market).
*shrug*
And here I am, an outsider, coming up with this. I just can't feel sympathy for a group of companies hell bent on digging their own graves... especially when people are falling over themselves to get the content industry to stop.
On the post: TV Writers Settle; Will Make It More Difficult For Hollywood To Adapt
Re:
... for a COMMODITY. Services and finished goods are not so black and white.
On the post: RIAA Says Copyright Filters Could Be Put In Anti-Virus Software
Re: New business models and business culture chang
You know that is probably the worst part of it all. Not only do the idiots at the RIAA not understand the impossible battle they are fighting but they go out of their way to prevent those who do from doing the things that would actually help the RIAA and it's members the most. I would love to get in on some of the ideas I have come up with for a free content distribution system. However, I would have to license the music from the RIAA's members and would ether have to cripple the whole thing with DRM or other forms of unacceptable limitations, thus dooming the whole endeavor to failure, or I would have to pay such huge licensing fees that the profit margin would be a negative number.
On the post: Judge Says RIAA Should Be Fined For Bundling File Sharing Lawsuits
$$$
On the post: Is There A Google Generation?
Re:
No one said memorizing is bad and I for one don't avoid memorizing stuff just cause I can Google it. I actually can't Google from my car or a plane. I can't Google from a restaurant unless it offers wi-fi and I happened to carry my laptop for some strange reason. Memorization still has it's uses.
As for your argument about memorizing boring facts. If the point is to train your brain and improve memorization why not memorize useful information instead. That way you not only improve your memory skills but also gain a great deal of additional knowledge that is useful for something other than playing trivia games with your family once a year at Christmas. I'd say no matter how you slice it memorizing boring facts simply doesn't make sense.
On the post: Is There A Google Generation?
Re:
In fact a great deal of information is not available in printed form but only online. Granted most such info is rather trivial but if you were doing a book report on the trivialities of modern life you couldn't use books to learn about them as easily.
On the post: Is There A Google Generation?
Re: Whats Next Youtube it?
Considering the depth and scope of the impact Google has had I think a site devoted to tech news would be wise to keep an eye on it and all related info.
/2 cent
On the post: Why AT&T's Plans To Filter The Internet Will Only Do More Harm To AT&T (And Everyone Else)
Re:
On the post: Akamai Does Not Violate Network Neutrality
they already are paying...
If I decide to start a website I need a host. There are a number of way to get one but general speaking I would pay some one to rent to me a server or space on a server, and to house and maintain that server. Part of the money I pay my hosting company will be put together with the money paid by other customers of that host to pay for ultra-high bandwidth internet service.
Now in the time I have used ircd hosts, web hosts, and other forms of hosting I have never had a hosting service that received their internet connectivity directly from AT&T. I did have one that got service directly form Sprint but most of them used smaller ISP's offering fiber connections.
So in the case of a Billy Bob's Shrimp Packaging's website (for example) Billy Bob pays the hosting company, who pays the ISP, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, so on and so forth till it reaches one of the major providers. In the case of the home computer the owner pays an ISP directly, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, who pays another ISP, so on and so forth until it reaches one of the major providers.
The major carriers such as AT&T are not paying anyone except when performing maintenance on their network, upgrading equipment, paying their employees, or paying taxes. In fact, through a sort of trickle effect EVERY ONE is ALREADY paying THEM. The computer owner is paying them, whether he uses them as his primary ISP or not, and yes the website owner is in fact ALREADY paying them, whether his webhost gets internet directly from them or not. Major companies like Google are no different in this respect than owners of small websites. They just have many more sites, redundant servers, and entire server farms of their own.
Perhaps I am wrong in my statements above. Things would certainly make more sense if I was. However, if I am not why is it that if companies like AT&T are already getting paid on both ends by every one they still think they should be allowed to charge one end again directly "or else." I mean if they were offering some benefit or additional service or even at least one service to begin with to a website owner, be it Google or Billy Bob's Shrimp Packaging, I might understand. Yet AT&T isn't providing anything to Google or Billy Bob. They are providing high bandwidth connectivity from across the continent to the ISP of the ISP of the ISP of Billy Bob and Google but they aren't providing anything to Billy Bob or Google directly. Worse they are threatening to take away a service THAT IS ALREADY PAID FOR unless the customer of the customer of the customer of the company that already paid for the service doesn't pay extra directly.
Yet, it seems I am the only one who notices this. Perhaps I have it wrong. If I am right it seems like this would pretty much be an instant nail in the coffin for the whole idea of charging companies like Google "or else."
On the post: Digital Watermarks Are Not The Answer
Re: RE: Undetectable watermarks
Any large scale theft of such files would likely involve a lost or stolen laptop or data theft by computer techs and family. All of which can be proven in court with reasonable effort.
Also, I think stealing mp3's off some one else's computer would be more difficult than taking files ripped from other sources or even purchased outright and then obfuscating the watermark to prevent identification... similar methods are used by fan subbing and movie pirating communities now.
On the post: Digital Watermarks Are Not The Answer
I duno...
It is possible for a watermark to be placed in both an audio and video file in such a way that it is not easily noticed, much less likely to degrade quality in a perceptible manner. It also doesn't root kit your computer, degrade performance, or prevent you from using one purchase on every device you own.
Also, if they do decide to tie individual files to individual purchases from consumers it could easily be done by making the watermark in the form of a serial number. That serial number would be linked internally to a phone number and email. Every file gets a different serial number so as to limit the possibility of any one getting framed. If the file is shared, with or without the purchasers permission, the serial number would by itself be benign. However, it would still allow the record industry to take legal action by comparing the serial number to their internal database and to do so with far greater accuracy than current methods.
While removing such a watermark would be far easier to remove than the recording industry might like the average Joe would not be able to do it. This would provide a powerful road block for the primary source of file sharing's success: accessibility. Audio and video piracy would be pushed back until it was no more prevalent than software piracy and it would rob many file sharing services of their primary source of funding... possibly starving some of them out. The RIAA and MPAA aren't going to think in these terms though and their aggressiveness will allow the fires of dissent to burn a while longer.
If you take a look at this from the recording industries point of view there are some more considerations. The majority of people who buy CDs don't go to concerts or they will only go to a handful over the course of their entire lifetime. They don't go to the band or label's website. They don't buy branded memorabilia unless they happen upon it while shopping. They don't purchase or even expose themselves to the possibility of purchasing anything outside the CD or download. Free music to these people is a free lunch... and lost revenue for the RIAA. The MPAA on the other hand would benefit easily from it.
I think there is a massive advertising opportunity for music and video to make revenue without having to sell the media. There are, however, technical issues to be addressed for audio files. How do you keep the advertisement from being removed from the track in it's shared form and how do you keep the advertisement from becoming an annoyance to the user. Surely you could make allowances for the file to not play the advertisement after the first time it is played on an individual computer, but when copied onto a new computer or device it should play the advertisement once more. You could also create a delivery system similar to youtube or rhapsody while allowing for the audio to be streamed directly to a device over cellphone, wifi, and satellite networks. This also has the advantage of allowing the advertisements to be completely up-to-date. Either of these would require a new audio format or a new delivery system and for the numerous software and hardware players out there to support them. Not exactly an inexpensive solution.
It would be nice if the recording industry would pursue giving their customers what they clearly want and from a sort of Babylonian view point I think they owe us that much. Yet, that is not what is going to happen. You and I both have been pointing out for some time that the RIAA and MPAA's methods would never succeed because file sharing was not going to go away. Well... unless a massive amount of opposition is brought against watermarking, more so than DRM, it would enable them to do exactly what we said they couldn't. They will be able to file lawsuits with reasonable certainty that the defendant shared the files and will no longer need to ask for settlements. They will be able to win court battles easily and will be able to sue for even larger sums of money. They might not stop file sharing but they will certainly have an opportunity to turn the tide on illegal file sharing.
There are two sides to every coin... and the RIAA/MPAA just shined theirs.
Next >>