| A small and insignificant source of commentaries on what's going on in the world today. By Jozef Purdes. |
|
Departments Front page Random Ramblings The Luddite's View Hyde Park Propaganda'r'Us For Future Reference Archive
Recommended links (in no particular order)
Friends
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
|
In defence of Internet access Once again, telecom companies are trying to convince the FCC that DSL service should be deregulated, and that they shouldn't be required to allow other DSL companies to use their lines. And once again, many people complain that with only one or two companies controlling Internet access to their homes, they could be prevented from viewing whatever they wanted. Those fears are no unfounded. After all, only a few days ago, the Canadian ISP Telus blocked over 700 Web sites it didn't like, including a breast cancer fundraising site. However, I was never too concerned about these forms of corporate abuse. Once again, corporations ared behind the technological curve, and they don't realize that a few years from now wireline Internet will be obsolete, replaced by wireless. So it wouldn't matter anymore who controlled the last mile of data cables to people's homes. Unfortunately, some companies are catching up. Take Comcast, for example. It is pressuring the Boston Logan Airport to shut down a competing, cheaper WiFi service by Continental. As a Comcast customer, I must admit that so far I never had problems with their service (after I switched to a third-party DNS server), but this is a direct attempt at creating a local monopoly, in order to retain its higher prices. The only reason it's legal is that Comcast's wireless transmitter is on someone else's private property.
And this is where the next turf wars will take place. The power of wireless transmitters will be limited, so that competition cannot cover large areas. And with the criminalizing of using others' WiFi connections, soon we'll be limited once again to either the expensive Comcast of the barely working Bell South, at least in my area. Microsoft's pop-up blocker
One thing that drives me crazy, though, is the Microsoft pop-up blocker (with my current computer rights, I'm not able to disable it and install the Google Toolbar). Set at "Medium", the blocker is so dilligent that it even blocks everything from MS Sharepoint and MS Outlook Web Access, thus rendering other Microsoft services useless (in fact, due to these problems with Sharepoint, our office switched to Wiki). While I can disable the pop-up blocker for a certain Web page at the moment, doing so will reload the page, causing me to lose everything I've written. Microsoft did it once again - applied a concept already used by other companies, but implemented it so poorly that even its own products are suffering. On SORBS and e-mail blacklisting Now I find myself on the receiving end of my own wishes. I found that I got onto the SORBS blacklist, and I've been there for nearly a year prior to getting an Internet connection. My crime? Having a dynamic IP address.
No problem for me. People who use a blacklist that blocks me don't deserve to receive my mail. Unless it's an institution that has me as a client, and whom I pay for good customer service. Such as Tatra Banka, one of the largest banks in Slovakia, where I have a business account. Today, after a series of bounced mails, I gave them a choice: their mail server is not big enough for the two of us. Either me or SORBS will go... Hacking iTunes I do believe, however, that unlike DeCSS, the PyMusique is a very misguided effors. The difference between DVDs and iTunes is that the former operates on the basis of local monopolies, while the latter is merely a distributor. The DRM and region codin of DVDs is implemented at the publisher's end, not by the distributor. As a result, there is no alternative legal source to acquire the DVD of a particular movie; instead, cracking the DVD scrambler was the only solution. One may claim (and I personally share this opinion) that if you are unwilling to abide by the publisher's rules, you shouldn't purchase the DVD, but Jon and others have a strong argument claiming that few DVDs mention the required operating system to run. iTunes, on the other hand, is only a distributor. You can get the same songs from other sites as well, and these sites seem to be competing not only on price, but also on licensing. Napster, for example, lets you only rent the music. Microsoft claims that its music service would allow the songs to be played on all mp3 players. The iTunes site states that it would work only with certain versions of Windows and Mac OS, and thus Linux fans can't claim ignorance. Instead of breaking the code, they should simply look for another site, which allows them to download music. And trust me: there are sites that legally do so.
The only valid argument in favor of cracking iTunes is that the songs would only play on Aople's mp3 players; a fact that is not readily available on the iTunes web site. However, this is a matter for the courts, not for vigilante hackers. Googlebombing as a way to fight spammers?
As an entry at threadwatch.org correctly points out, though, this is a very symbolic and very useless way to protest. Unlike political supporters in other Googlebombing cases (Waffles, Miserable failure), spammers don't care about protests like this; they'll just create a few thousand more links in blogs and elsewhere. However, the original article does offer one great piece of advice, which got lost in all the noise around: adding rel="nofollow" into the "a href" tag will cause the search engine disregard the link for the purpose of page ranking. If this tag was automatically used by the vast majority of blogs and message boards, this kind of spamming would be useless. So instead of linking to online poker at Wikipedia, just ask your local php guru to automatically add this to all the links posted in your comments, and you'll be set. 2004 in PC gaming Dear gaming companies: I've been a bad, bad boy... Dear gaming companies, I have a confession to make. I’ve never before purchased so few boxed games as in 2004. Not only that, with all those high profile titles appearing just before Christmas, I have no intention to go to the store and give you some of my money. You’ll be probably blaming it on piracy, just like those DVD and music publishers did, and you’ll be as wrong as them. The sad truth is that it was you who abandoned me, not the other way around. Back in the good old days, games were as buggy as today, and there was a fair share of crappy titles that I felt sorry for buying. There were also some good games, just like there are today. However, games seemed to be more fairly priced, and they were being sold on the premise of good gameplay, not hype or aggressive marketing. The companies were run by game enthusiasts who didn’t look as much on the bottom line as they did on spreading the joy of gaming. They didn’t try to rape the customers and have them to come back for more. They were friends. That’s when I became a very loyal customer. I followed game developers, and often I purchased their games without thinking twice or without reading a review. I may have been disappointed, but I’d go back and buy their next title as soon as it came out again. I was looking for more of the same – more of the same quality, while introducing new, original concepts. This is still true, but only in a very limited respect. There are still some developers I’d buy from everything, such as Trevor Chan, Chris Crawford or Jane Jensen. In fact, I have only recently finished Jensen’s last game, despite the fact that it has received very poor reviews. However, I would not touch the vast majority of current games with a ten-foot pole, because I don’t feel like getting abused anymore from you, dear publishers. I think you are all crooks, and that what you do is bordering with fraud. Just recently, you tried to hide the fact that you were selling me a buggy game, delayed over a year, with a gameplay of only 10 hours and shipped without a manual and with only paper-sleeves protecting the CDs for $55, behind a buggy resale-prevention scheme. I know that trick very well: kick a person in the groin and hope he’ll be too much in pain to notice that you are raping him with a broomstick. You have more tricks up your sleeve, I see. You want to avoid reviews and the word of mouth, and now you are trying to force gamers to preorder your games. You are trying to sell me games with familiar names but a completely different game experience. You are trying to sneak free adventure games, independent developers like Stardock or Spiderweb Software, or developers who have seen the light and abandoned their publishers, there is plenty of content to choose from. And it appears that I am not the only one who is fed up with you, large publishers. Your stock price is roughly the same as it was five years ago, down 50% from 2003. Your margins are slipping, thanks to the fact that you keep increasing your advertising spending faster than the spending on new game development. The gaming population is maturing, and your old tricks don’t work anymore. The best you could do now is to die quietly, without taking any good developers to the grave with you. I personally can’t care less anymore; my attention has been diverted to those who deserve it, and their name is neither Vivendi Universal, nor Lucasarts or Electronic Arts, nor any number of other large publishers.
Rest in pieces, dear publishers.
Ode to Microsoft Publisher 11 How to defraud people, the Harvard Business School lesson Now, I know that Harvard Business School isn't exactly technology-friendly. In fact, it was the technology fiascos described in the book Year One: An Intimate Look Inside Harvard Business School that convinced me not to apply there. Still, I didn't think that unless I ran Windows or MacOS and MSIE I wouldn't be able to open my legally obtained and paid for documents. It turns out that documents downloaded from HBSP don't work with any other browsers but MSIE and the even worse Netscape, and that people with Linux or older versions of either Windows or MacOS are screwed. In addition, you need to be connected to the Internet to view or print the files. This doesn't sound like such a bad deal, but consider this: First, Windows and especially MSIE are so insecure, that even the Department of Homeland Security recommended that people don't use that browser. Yet, Harvard insists that we do. In addition, many people, including me, have two computers, one for work and the other specifically for the Internet. I personally keep a barebones cheap computer connected to the Internet, with nothing but a browser, an e-mail client, a firewall and an antivirus program. I would never connect my computer with all the software and documents to the Internet, especially considering that some software, such as Palisade's Decision Tools or Macromedia's Dreamweaver MX (and other programs in the MX suite) would require purchasing a new license if I decided to install them again, even on the same computer. Yet, Harvard insists that I have my work computer connected to the Internet.
The net effect of their policy? I've got files for $18.50 on my hard drive, and I'll probably read them on the screen. The next time, however, I'll pay half of their value to the person who downloads them, printes them out and allows me to make a copy. We'll all be better off, and the only one who loses out is HBSP, thanks to their shortsighted publishing policy. Starforce has broken my computer
Recently, however, I switched my computer settings, so that instead of restart the computer would give me the blue screen of death. Since then, I noticed that the only file that caused these crashes was prosync1.sys. The only place where the file is present is in the Starforce 3 virus. In other words, Starforce 3 has made my computer crash half the time when it was booting up. That's pretty impressive, especially for a virus that even the newest antivirus programs refuse to catch. That evil copy protection I'm very much against software piracy, and I'm also against an all-out boycott of companies that use this protection. For this reason, I compiled a list of known games that use the Starforce protection. However, this list may not be complete, so it's in your best interest to research a game before purchasing it.
AceSaga This, however, is only a temporary solution. In the long run, the customers should pressure companies to dump this copy protection scheme. And here comes my ages-old mantra: it should be the reviewers' responsibility to point out such problems with games, if the publishers refuse to disclose it on the game boxes. Unfortunately, even some of the most respected review magazines are refusing to become gamers' advocates. Now, because I'm talking about copy protection, I'd like to mention another one. Safedisc, version 3.15 and above, has a software conflict with about a dozen of other applications, some of them are quite wide-spread. If you have one of them installed, this bug would prevent you from playing the game. The following is a list of known games that use this copy protection:
Bad Boys II (Empire Interactive) Common sense is underrated
The secret of keeping such an unprotected computer clean? Common sense. I don't open the attachments I don't know, and using an older version of Eudora, I don't even have to open suspicious e-mail to delete them. I also use Opera as my browser, so the huge security holes in MSIE don't apply to me. While I'm glad I have an antivirus program now, I doubt it'll catch any viruses anytime soon; with a little common sense, they never make it onto my computer. Evil, evil RIAA Be it as it is, I immediatelly did what I'd recommend everybody to do - I went and purchased all albums I wanted to buy at iTunes from Amazon Marketplace, Buy.com and other used CDs retailers. I paid in average $3 per each of the three albums, and I cost the RIAA arounf $30 in profits. I don't do illegal downloads, and I do like certain artists who signed up with the big labels, so buying used CDs is the best way for me to go.
One more aspect of this story is interesting - the conspiracy theories that Slashdot users started posting. Here's a summary of those that don't sound completely off the wall:
And here's one that's completely crazy: That evil game copy protection To make a long story short, here's basically what's happening. A new copy protection scheme disables the game if your computer has software installed that can potentially copy the game. The publisher doesn't disclose this information on the box, sends protest letters when somebody mentions it in a game review, even though publishers are well aware that almost no store would allow the game to be returned for a refund. As a result, publishers now sell intentionally faulty products, which may not work on a computer, and which cannot be returned. It's as if music studios sold music tapes that wouldn't work on double-deck radios...
Why am I mentioning this? As a warning. If you play computer games, you may be once in a situation where a game doesn't work, thanks to such copy protection scheme. Your best defense is to find out about this potential problem by reading reviews on sites that always mention any technical problems you may encounter with a game. I always do so, and so does Avault (occassionally; their Syberia II review doesn't mention this problem). And if you accidentally purchase such a game and can't get it to work, download a pirate copy, which will function properly. You already paid for your license to use the game, after all... Google IPO - crunching the numbers Google wants to sell 11.92 million shares, or 4.8% of the company, and raise $2.7 billion in the process. That means that Google assumes the value of each share it sells will be $226.50. That would make the entire company (nearly 250 million shares) worth $56.25 billion. Let's go a step further and look at the earnings. Last year, they were slightly over $100 million, the first quarter of 2004 they reached $64 million. Let's be extremely generous and say they'll reach $300 million for the year. That's $1.20 per share, or the 2004 P/E ratio of nearly 190.
No matter how good a company is, a forward P/E of 190 is unsustainable. I personally would start looking at Google when the P/E falls to 30 (a very generous proposition), and seriously considering purchasing it at P/E 15 to 20. However, for the IPO, I think I'll do the opposite. Max out my margin account my shorting as much Google stock as I can. Google is a great company, but emotional investors are stupid. Microsoft rulling - victory for the consumer
Whenever I see a computer with Real Player already preinstalled, I format the hard drive and install everything again, without the player. I then warn the user against installing Real Player (I actually give him a list of software not to be installed), and if he does, it's not my problem anymore. Not being required to include Real Player in Windows, Microsoft scored a huge victory for the consumer. Connecting to the Internet? No, thanks. However, I wouldn't stop there. With the Witty Worm and the new Beagle version that infects the computer the moment you open the e-mail (which is necessary if you use most of the modern e-mail clients and want to delete the e-mail), I fear that the age of Internet as a tool that enhances your computer is over. Ever since the last similar scare, I walways used my worst computer for my Internet connection and kept my good computer strictly off-line. For example, I'm typing this on six years old machine, which nas nothing but Opera for browsing and Eudora 3.0 as an e-mail client. My MS Office, graphics and HTML editing programs, games and all documents are on a computer that's only a year old, but doesn't even have a modem or a network card.
I'm afraid that more people will move into this direction in the future. As a consequence, Internet becomes just another communications medium, like your phone. People will gather information from there and exchange e-mails, but on-line gaming or software on demand will stagnate. Call me a doomsayer; I think I'm an optimist. No more attachments, please Bond valuation at the music industry Switch to your usual music store. Most likely, the CDs are all sold for roughly the same price, and you are buying blindly, knowing only a few songs from a CD. The more songs you know and like, the more likely you are to buy the CD, as the average price per song would be lower. However, you may not be aware which of the CDs come with strings attached. The CD may not start in your computer, or if you try to rip the music you'll be stopped. Whether you have the right to do so or not is beyond the scope of this entry; the question is what's the fair price for such a CD. The main difference between the bond market and the music market is that in the bond market, traders have much more options. The market doesn't have to be rational, but at least the traders can compare different bonds and price them according to this comparison. In music business, you don't have these options. The vast majority of CDs is released by an RIAA member, and so they follow the same rules. I still remember when those annoying stickers that are often stronger than the plastic case weren't mandated. Once the RIAA decided that all CDs had to have them, everybody complied, and you can hardly find a new CD without them. So guess what's gonna happen once the RIAA mandates some kind of copy protection. Compared with the options before such a copy protection, the CDs should trade for less, as they give more power to their issuer. However, because there's no comparison to CDs without a copy protection, the customers will have only two options: buy music or not. As a consequence, I think that the efforts of people who try to delay the inevitable pay-for-session business model are well-meant but miss the target. They should instead try to convince labels to break from the RIAA (if possible) or create their own alternative labels, in order to offer an alternative and more importantly, a point of reference. Such a label could sell CDs for $15, with no strings attached. If another label wanted to include copy protection, people would be able to compare between those two labels and demand lower price for the restricted CDs. Market forces would once again work well, unlike now when the RIAA has pretty much a monopolistic position.
In a sense, we will see something similar in the upcoming on-line music wars. Different stores will introduce different pricing and various levels of digital rights management. While much will depend on the marketing, music will become a commodity, and not catter to tastes anymore. Instead, the main selling points will be the price, the ease of use, and the amount and quality of options that the customers will receive. Some may opt for cheaper songs but less freedom, while others would be willing to pay more in order to be able to copy the music several times. Until the RIAA wakes up and tightens the rules to the lowest common denominator, people will be able to enjoy the music market in a way it was meant to be. Digital -vs- 35mm
* When I hike, I don't want any high-tech around me. Yes, I'm aware that even my camera has a small microchip inside, but at least I don't hear all that beeping, don't have a screen with a dozen of buttons and don't have to haul a bag of batteries with me. Computers belong in the office; nature is still low-tech. |
| © Jozef Purdes, 2003 |