Kyle Brady: Blog » The Internet

Making Net Neutrality Policy [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:05:45 +0000

Net Neutrality policy, or, rather, the need for such policy, is not a new topic, yet it has only just reached the halls of Congress for consideration, and brought with it the usual slew of idiocy and incompetence that can only be found in a group of people trying to legislate on an arena of life they barely understand, let alone participate in.

At it’s heart, Net Neutrality is about unfettered, unrestricted, and unbiased access to the Internet, but as is typical with such a broad concept, there are many variations and definitions. The most idealistic and effective interpretation of Net Neutrality is one that prevents Internet Service Providers from filtering, shaping, or blocking traffic based on type, source, or size, as well as preventing discrimination by ISPs that may have conflicting interests.

An effective example is to examine Comcast’s holdings and behaviors: they are, at the heart, a cable network with television subscribers and have ample interest in seeing on demand media via the Internet (such as Hulu) fail to achieve mass market success - they also have VoIP telephone offerings, which competes with services such as Skype. In the case of Comcast, it would be in their best interest to prevent, augment, or charge an extra fee for the use of services over its network that competes with their offerings, but this is highly unethical and they have yet to officially implement such policy – although it is inevitable and is rumored to currently be the talk of their executives. Furthermore, Comcast has expressed interest in so-called “bandwidth caps” that would put arbitrary limits on the amount of data a user can send and receive over their broadband connection within a given time period, which is a not-so-clever approach to decimating their high bandwidth service rivals.

Companies such as Comcast already participate heavily, and illegally, in a practice known as “traffic shaping”, by which certain types of traffic are either severely impeded or prevented entirely for reasons that are not publicly admitted to – experiments have proven peer-to-peer traffic to be one of the triggers of this behavior, and using “too much bandwidth” in an arbitrary time period, a policy stated nowhere, is another trigger known for AT&T.

These are the reasons why Net Neutrality is important, but weak policy passed with a Net Neutrality label, either by the FCC or Congress, is not enough. Republicans have already, predictably, come out in force against regulating ISPs, along with their fellow corrupt politicians throughout Congress that are more interested in their own pockets than the betterment of America or its people – John McCain, an admitted technophobe and Internet-avoider, has even introduced legislation that would prevent the federal government from even getting involved in this issue.

It is critical to the future of America, most especially a digital one, that Internet Service Providers come to be regarded as the next utility company, rather than as a service that citizens can choose to participate in. If only a single lesson can be learned from the financial mess of the last two years, it is this: markets cannot, and will not, regulate themselves when there are ever greater profits to be had at the expense of their customers/beneficiaries. The lack of regulation on the broadband market so far has resulted in a situation that is quickly approaching chaos, with a variety of plans and machinations to provide ever-less services for ever-greater prices.

The inevitable argument in Congress will be whether the networks have the ability to support unadulterated traffic, and the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. This, however, will be hard to express to those who are technologically illiterate by trade or ignorant by choice. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that digitally-minded citizens across America make their voices heard on this issue: if a customer has ever experienced less-than-advertised speeds, long-term disconnected service, traffic filtering/shaping/blocking, or been the recipient of other such nefarious activities, both the FCC and Congress need to know.

An America that has bandwidth caps, approved traffic types, and networks that don’t communicate with each other is not a country that can continue to grow and compete on a global, or digital, scale. Technological illiterate Senators such as John McCain should be excluded, by whatever means possible, from the process, along with those Senators that have indicated their loyalties lie with those finance their campaigns, such as Diane Feinstein. This issue, much like true healthcare reform, is one that can only be accomplished through brute force and political strength of will – there will be no bipartisanship, and it is likely that anyone within Congress that considers themselves a conservative, regardless of party, will oppose such legislation as well.

In light of Congress' known stagnation and distinct lack of progressive interests, perhaps the FCC should pass their legislation first, however weakened, to set the tone and discussion for future Congressional legislation – if there is policy in place that provides the foundation of true Net Neutrality, it would be considerably more difficult for detractors to argue against the mere existence of such legislation.

Julius Genachowski, it is time to prove that you are capable of achieving what you claim to believe in - America is waiting.

Michael Jackson: Time to Move On [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:05:39 +0000

Last week, Michael Jackson died. The “King of Pop” may have been unintentionally murdered by his doctor the victim of unintentional manslaughter, but the larger story is that the Internet essentially broke due to his death. More importantly, the metaphorical presses of the media stopped for days on end, and are only just beginning to recover – a full week after the initial event. For most people, his death was just the passing of a former celebrity turned modern eccentricity, but for a small minority it was earth shattering. It was for this highly emotional minority that the entirety of the American news media, both on and offline, mainstream and non, decided to have round-the-clock dedicated coverage.

It was highly embarrassing to see the media fawn over Michael Jackson’s death as if he were a beloved icon, when the very same groups loved to crucify his every odd move and decision. Even more embarrassing was that they decided constant coverage was an appropriate reaction so such a small-scale event, shunning crucial events in both North Korea and Iran for chasing a dead celebrity’s body around the state of California. No major media outlet was an exception: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NPR, and The BBC all had similar amounts, and depth, of coverage – FOX News too, if they can be included as a news source.

While the death of a former celebrity, possibly the world’s most popular, is sad and marks the end of an era, such 24/7 coverage was both unnecessary and unproductive. Iran had large protests in the streets over an election (which still remains in dispute), and North Korea was brandishing words of war against the Western World – was this not news? Additionally, America’s politicians are in a highly agitated state of fact versus rhetoric over “healthcare reform” – something the general population knows little, if anything, about.

In a culture that gets most of its news via media infotainment, the level of gossip on these networks is already absurdly high – Michael Jackson managed to eclipse every other event in both America and the world. Due to such an eclipse, American citizens tuned into the so-called news at record levels, only to receive unintelligent and garbled fodder pieces instead of intellectual stimulation. FOX News’ usual ranting rhetoric would have been preferable to the “MJ Watch”, since it would have at least elucidated the important issues – even if the facts and spin were entirely incorrect.

This week is no better in the media: Michael Jackson is beginning to fade, as there is nothing left to talk about, but South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford has taken his place as the nonsense sensationalized news piece du jour. True, he disappeared completely from his office for days to have an affair with a woman in Argentina. Yes, it was possibly achieved using government funds, and his previous trysts may have involved improper uses of state money as well. He should be forced to resign, and fade from the political life completely – potentially even prosecuted for his misuse of funds. But he is not deserving of constant coverage and attention. Such public scrutiny may destroy his career, but rumors are he is already considering his future as an author thanks to his new-found celebrity.

When will the American media learn? Or the news media at large? What entertains or attracts a large viewership is not part of the definition of “news story” – it shouldn’t be difficult to discern what is truly important versus what is pandering fluff, and yet the 24/7 news cycle is continuing to produce larger quantities of unimportant pieces. The only places to find in-depth coverage of politics or otherwise ignored issues are blogs, and even then they cater to audiences that are already interested in such topics – previously ignorant individuals are not being informed by Politico, DailyKos, or Donklephant.

The American political culture continues to split even further into argumentative factions, prohibiting even the most basic of legislation from being passed, and the majority of America is too concerned with the daily life of C-list celebrities to even notice. This is not what should be happening, and it is contributing to our potential future decline.

It’s time to let the Michael Jacksons and Mark Sanfords of the country fade into the background, permanently, so the real issues can be addressed, however briefly.

How To Cut Your Startup’s Costs [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:20:27 +0000

Apparently there's trouble in the American financial market. And the economy is falling like a rock through lava. Who knew?

Well the ever-so-bright VC's thought to put out a memo to "the world" about tough times ahead. Some are even predicting a forthcoming Apocalypse for Web 2.0 itself.

So here are some tips on how to cut your Web 2.0 Startup's costs!

Tip 1: Cut the Crap

You know all those company indoor-skydiving events? Or huge launch parties? How about huge spacious warehouse offices in "posh" San Francisco that you don't need, and only fill 20% of?

Yep. You guessed it! Stop spending your precious (or not-so-precious depending on how "smart" and "intelligent" your "great idea" is) money on stupid and wasteful things. What happened to the "startups are rough" culture? I remember hearing rumors of working out of garages, the "company" being all of three people, and not having time to do anything but product/company development (including socializing).

Nowadays there isn't a "wonderful startup" in the Bay Area that doesn't have "I'm a cool hipster!" office space, 2000% more employees than they actually need, or the "employee mood improvement" accessories like nap pods or free espresso to the end of infinity.

But you probably don't have to do anything about that, do you? Because all these things are important to the startup culture, they're critical to success! You obviously can't make a widget for viewing your zombie pokes on someone's blog without having hundreds of well rested hipster caffeine robot employees.

Tip 2: Have a Real Business Model

As Ted so sagely mentions, the "business model" of "traffic first, profit/sustainability later" no longer flies. Technically, it never did, but the funding community apparently won't accept that as proposal for your latest Twitter+Digg mashup clone.

So now you have to find a way to make money. Let me suggest not responding with "Google AdSense!" or "We'll get sponsors!" because you and I both know that won't work either. You need to find a real way to make money, if that's even possible.

In the real world, real companies make real products and sell them to real people. Did you know that even happens online sometimes? Or they use their products as a middleman vehicle for other people's products, or a different one of their own. Again, who knew?

But this probably also doesn't apply to you either. Not only is no-one going to pay for a "pro" account on your Facebook-but-for-dogs site (Flickr is the exception, not the rule), but you can't charge people! That goes against all the principles of socialism and Web 2.0! It would be tantamount to treason, probably.

Tip 3: Stop Being Stupid

This third tip is probably the best of them all, and the most valuable to you and your company: fold up shop. Call it quits. Pack up. Go home. Let the fat lady sing.

Whatever euphamism you want to use, I'm suggesting you stop doing what you're doing. Maybe you can change the world with your Javascript-based social network TI-83 calculator replication website, but then again, you aren't The President of the U.S. ... despite what your mommy told you when you were little.

It's time for Web 2.0 to die, and I'm all for it. There are some companies that will remain, and some of those may even have a right to (RockYou, Slide, etc. ... you don't even qualify as real companies). But the rest need to go away, even if it 6 months for them to burn through their millions in funding by continuing "growth" (hiring their friends) and "development" (creating APIs).

Fun Times

I'd love to say it's been a fun ride, but it really hasn't.

See you on the flipside, where you're a homeless "idea man", and I'm not.

p.s. Hopefully this means that alot of the Web 2.0 hypecrowd echochamber dies off. I can always hope that my archnemesis Michelle Failington of TechFlunk disappears soon... maybe even MashablePR too.

--- --- ---

Update (10/11/2008 8:10am PST): I sent an email yesterday to Jason Calacanis to bother him about being qualified for my suggestions, but he didn't really appreciate it. And responded pretty terribly. So, of course, I made the email public.

Another Open Letter to R/WW [Self]

Kyle Brady — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:31:16 +0000

Something I just fired off to the powers-that-be at ReadWriteWeb:

Dear Read/WriteWeb,

I was poking around, and I came across Tim O'Reilly's response to the R/WW post about Google being "spread too thin", and in one of the first comments beneath it, he states that the latest batch of writers aren't up to par.

I've been a fan of R/WW for awhile, and have voiced my opinions about you guys going the echo-chamber direction, and I applaud you for avoiding that disaster over the last few months, remaking yourself into something else entirely.

But what, exactly, is the direction you're going?

You continue to cover startups that have little to no value (to anyone)... mashups of mashups, aggregators of aggregators, etc. And then you have posts like the "Web 2.0 Grizzled Entreprenuers" (or whatever it's called) that make absolutely no sense... you can't be in the Web 2.0 world and be anything but happy with sunshine breath, and "riding the economy" is really not important, or even relevant, to these same people. The only thing that matters is where their money comes from, and most of them have enough to go for at least a year, thanks to the investors I've previously ridden so harshly for their pack-mentality.

Web 2.0 is dying, and it seems that only a few people are seeing it. Not that it was ever truly "alive", but the recent economic events have made some realize the insanity of what was/is going on. And this means that your content will change. Again.

So, my suggestion to you is twofold:

Reign in your writers. Just because they have access to a high profile blog doesn't mean they should go writing whatever comes to mind. Even I don't do that, and I barely have an audience. The image and brand of RW/W is going to be upheld or destroyed on an individual post basis, and, as O'Reilly proved, one false step in the wrong direction can make a bigger impact than having many great posts.

Focus on important things. At this point, I'm not sure anyone cares (least of all me) about "MuxTape dying, but it's going to be revived, and, oh, by the way here's a few writeups about other places that are "the MuxTape for YouTube!"." Focus on the people who are actually doing difficult things. Things that matter. Ted Dziuba may be nasty and sarcastic, but he has the right idea. Not to mention actually doing something interesting and, God forbid, programmatically difficult.

This is important to you, now more than ever. Not only because of the changing tides, but also because you have an audience larger than before.

Who does not know how great you used to be.

Disclosure: I'll be publicly posting this on my blog. A reader manifesto is still a manifesto.

Funding: An Insightful Insight [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:31:46 +0000

[aka "Funding != Good Idea" or "Funding Doesn't Mean They're Smart"]

I spoke to a recruiter via phone yesterday who was trying to interest me in getting a job with RockYou. When I politely declined, he wanted to know why, and I said something to the effect of "I have no interest in working for companies whose sole existence is, and always will be, dependent on outside funding and other people's platforms...not to mention those without any real business plans or actual use value".

His response? A resounding "I don't think they would have gotten [insert large number here] of funding if they didn't have value or a business plan."

So, out of that lovely event, comes this exciting installment of "Kyle telling you what should already be obvious."

How VCs Work
Venture Capitalists are well known for investing in things that have either:

Already been funded
Already been proven successful

This isn't true across the board, but when you look at the subset of VCs that invest in Internet-based "software" companies, the probability of truth gets much closer to 1.

Don't believe me?

How many fully-funded Twitter clones are there?
Facebook clones?
"Digg killers"?
"Google [search] killers"?

Web 2.0 Is Not Business
Another widely acknowledged nugget of gold is that most "Web 2.0" properties are not profitable. In fact, most of them have no idea how they could generate a revenue stream even remotely close to their operating costs, other than "oh, well we'll just put ads on the site!"

Good Idea? Yeah, Right.
One of my biggest pet peeves of the Internet at the moment is the "me too!" atmosphere. If one person does something that becomes popular (note: popular is not the same as successful), or gets a large round of funding, there's immediately a gaggle of idiots who want to do the same thing, but with some twist.

Alot of good ideas don't get funded, or even noticed. Why? Because no-one has done it yet, or it's "too risky". The big money would rather bet on something other people have bet on before, because it's "tried and true". So these groups of people with original ideas trundle on their own for awhile, and sometimes end up with a startup company that took years to put together while they cooked sausages at children's festivals.

Developer's Platforms
Newsflash: basing your entire "business" (without revenue) around the whims of someone else is stupid, and roughly equivalent to swimming in the ocean while chewing on a giant electrical line that's dangling from a satellite in orbit.

Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, etc. can change their APIs, data access levels, or platform structures at any time, for any reason. You want to develop a way to throw Zombie feet at your friend's pig farms? Great. You want to create a company, and get funded, so you can do random "social activities" with other people through another company's platform? Right.

One of the cardinal rules in running web software is that you should control as much of the user experience as possible. This is why Facebook has massive data centers instead of cloud-sourcing to someone like, say, Amazon S3... and you don't see someone like Google betting the virtual farm on MySpace's clunky architecture.

People Are Idiots
If you follow that motto, you'll see the world clearly. Ok, maybe have alot less friends, but you'll thank me for it. Why? Because once you realize that people are lazy and want to do the least work possible to get fame/success/fortune/whatever, you are able to see the giant flaws in their plans without falling into the potholes containing many fellow sheep.

There's only two reasons why someone would assume that having funding equates to a "good idea", a "great business", a "revenue stream", or "really smart people":

They have no idea what they're talking about
They're an idiot

Conclusion

So why, in all that is mighty, would anyone assume that an extravagantly funded Web 2.0 "software" company is going to exist in 5 years, be profitable, or even be remotely valuable to real people?

I have no idea.

p.s. If you want to cry and complain and argue that I "have no sources", then use what little of that brain you may have to do some Google research yourself.

-----------------

Update (6/26/2008 4:00am PST): How fitting! Mashable just put up a story about a major Facebook Application "magically disappearing", and not due to something the app developers did... it either got "accidentally removed" or banned. Hmmm... [see more]

Update (6/26/2008 1:15pm PST): Valleywag picked this up. Nice! And it seems that people agree with me...

Writers’ Strike? Really? [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:43:32 +0000

Again, this is a topic I've avoided recently, not to better understand it, but because I thought it was stupid and would never happen. Oh how I was wrong.

Unless you live in a deep dark hole full of demons, you know there's a Writers' Guild strike going on. And that it's deeply affecting shows that some people probably are more addicted to than a backwater hic to meth.

Why?

From what I understand, and I'm not claiming to either, there are two issues:

Money

Distribution

Each is actually dependent on the other, so let's take a look...

Money

I read somewhere (not cited) that the average TV writer makes $200k/yr. Oh wow, that's completely surprising! I thought everyone in Hollywood / LA was poor, and just pretended to be rich and successful, when in reality they are more poor than the average American and totally without any fame. I guess I was mistaken.

Seriously? $200k/yr for writing a season's worth of TV shows, that ranges from 12-24 episodes, with maybe another show or two? And you're COMPLAINING? [Edit/Note: my reference of "$200k/yr" was based upon something I read, and meant to link to. I've since lost that link, but I mention it because the number is being questioned by a few people.]

If you're a writer (also called "authors" in the real world of books), you don't expect to make alot of money, or be immensely successful. Yes, there is one author out of many who becomes wildly successful (and occasionally very rich) like J.K. Rowlings or Michael Crighton, but you don't get into "the business" because you want to be rich. The fact that these writers make an absurd amount of money for what equates to a small portion of a book, and is often times just juvenile humor or slightly complex drama, is amazing.

But even more amazing that they feel underpaid.

Distribution

The guys who write NBC's "The Office" have a video floating around the Internet (Google it) of them complaining about not receiving money for distribution of their media. They mention "webisodes" and "online viewing of episodes", and not being properly compensated for them.

This is hilarious to me.

Let me get this straight: you're complaining that not only are you not getting enough money for doing very little amounts of work, but you're also complaining that you aren't getting paid for your content being shown in what is a largely ad-free environment?

If you view an episode of "The Office" online (legally), you are shown maybe three 30-second advertisements during the showing, and it's usually for the same company/product/service. If you view one of their "webisodes" for the show, you get even less advertisement. So, you want to be paid for everytime someone views your work, especially online? How does that even make any sense?

You People Are Stupid

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you (writers) don't get paid per viewer of your TV show through the normal delivery method (aka TV), do you? I'm pretty sure you don't because the number of viewers for any given show is one of the most highly argued issues in modern media. So that means you get a lump sum for a certain productivity level.

I will then assume that that amount of money scales based upon both your work output and the overall popularity of the show (from season to season). By the same logic, one would assume that if you write a "series of 10 webisodes" (as the same video references), you get paid more than you would for just a normal season.

Right? That's what I thought. You guys just can't accept that, God forbid, your show is viewed any other way than on TV or DVD. May Zeus strike me down if I were to miss an episode, and want to watch it on the network's website, so I can continue watching your show that I may or may not love so dearly.

Guilds? Is This 1943?

Not only does this whole strike situation piss me off, but it also brings to light one of the worst permutations of a great idea in the history of mankind: a guild/union. A long long time ago, in an America perhaps 60 years ago, they were a great idea. They helped to standardize wages, work conditions, and other critical elements of any job.

But today, they are nothing but a sorry excuse for a group of money-grubbing attention whores. The only time I can remember a strike actually having purpose and legitimacy, during my time of sentience, is the UPS strike (Google it). This writers' strike is not an example of good intentions or purpose, just like when labor unions band together to increase how much the standard plumber charges you to show off his ass.

New Media

The world of "new media" is here, so get over it. Blogs, videoblogs, webcams, webisodes, TV on the Internet, and others are not going anywhere, no matter how much you want them to "go gently into this good night". The "old media" companies are having a hard enough time adjusting as it is (online episodes, Internet-distribution of media, etc.), without you causing them any more problems.

If you like making everyone's future absolute Hell, keep it up. Maybe we can make a revision to the DMCA where no-one is allowed to distribute anything on the Internet, ever, without paying someone royalties.

Yeah, because that has worked out so freaking well to the music industry, hasn't it?

[I'm not the only one who thinks this way... see what Micheal Eisner and Jon Stewart think]

This Is Why You (Comcast) Suck [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:51:32 +0000

Why does Comcast continue to suck? No-one really knows...

Let's review the major problems: blocking certain types of Internet traffic, limiting their "unlimited" bandwidth, playing porn on the Disney channel, filtering emails, shutting down accounts with "too much" traffic, high prices, terrible service, terrible products... Did I miss anything? Probably, but that was just off the top of my head.

Oh, Comcast

Comcast has been around a long time. A long long time. And they pretty much have a monopoly on cable TV/Internet service, which is cool. On top of that, prices keep going up for all services, while the quality / features stay the same. Not a good way to do business if you like your customers.

Oh, speaking of customers, Comcast is known for their superb customer service, right? And they're always on time for appointments. [end sarcasm] If your business revolves around deliver exactly what the customer wants, along with when and how, why would you erode your business by failing to do so? People initially switched to Comcast Internet because it was faster than dial-up, and cheaper than DSL. Comcast is now randomly slow, not cheap at all, and known to randomly crap out.

Why You Will Fail

Comcast is about to lose it's stronghold on America, possibly even disappear forever. It's not going to happen overnight, but the beginnings of the revolution are already in place: unsatisfied customers, major complaints across the board, upcoming competitors, and an inability to adapt to the present [see the links above for references]. Outsourcing customer service to India? Check. Refusing to answer direct questions about company policies? Check. Political scandal [email filtering]? Check. Money issues [inexplicably rising prices and "fees"]? Check.

Does this remind you of any company? No? Think hard. The company's business involved black gold, and their name rhymed with "Genron".

Alternatives

Right now, the main problem with trying to leave Comcast is alternatives. For all intents and purposes, the majority of it's customer base have no choice. If you live in an apartment building (like myself), chances are it's prewired for cable, and they frown on dishes. The only alternative is DSL, which is only available depending on your location in relation to the source. This will change.

Verizon has FiOS coming down the pipes, and it's promising to be a whopper of a death threat. TV service that resembles "cable", fiber-optic speeds for Internet service, and phone? All for one low price? Sign me up, moi capitan! The only problem with FiOS is that it may not be in your area in the near future (for example, if you live on a farm 25 miles from civilization), but they're supposedly laying cable as fast as possible. I'll have it within 6 months. And believe you me, I'm going to leave Comcast in a blaze of hellfire.

The Cableocalypse

People hate Comcast. People like Verizon. People hate high prices. People love low prices. People hate bad customer service. People love good service. People hate being controlled/throttled. People love being free.

It's a simple equation. How else can I spell out Comcast's impending date with the four horsemen? Verizon sees the fragile pane of glass that is Comcast, and they're rushing to shatter it with the mighty hammer of Thor.

Dear RIAA, We Love You! [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:01:36 +0000

As you may have noticed, the music industry has been shaking up lately thanks to Radiohead, Madonna, Jamiroqai, and Oasis... along with The Pirate Bay and TorrentSpy, of course.

When will this end? When will the RIAA realize it's performing an exercise in futility, cut losses, turn tail, and go home (metaphorically speaking... or am I being serious...)? There's a couple answers in this "perplexalation" (I just made that word up, and I'm going to use it daily).

Big Names

For the recording industry to truly fall apart, there needs to be bigger artists to sign on to this. I don't have a link to it, but Nine Inch Nails did all of this months ago. Now Radiohead and Madonna, two artists who are in very different genres and speak to different people, have jumped on the bandwagon. Who's next? It's hard to say. Many up-and-coming bands already do the online album "thing" from their MySpace pages, and (as I wrote about a few days ago) Prince gave away his latest album as well.

So let's do the tallying of the artists' categories:

(1) Pop Music [Madonna]

(1) "Alternative" [Radiohead]

(1) Goth Rock/Alternative/Synth Rock/Whoknowswhat [Nine Inch Nails]

(1) College Frat Boy and Teenage Females Music [Oasis]

(1) Obscure R&B/Funk [Jamiroqai]

Notice anything? Two of the most popular genres in the country are missing: Rap/Hip-Hop and Country.

Rap

I honestly believe that for the recording industry to fall, it will have to be a fight across all fronts. That being said, I have a hard time believing that artists within this specific circle will give away their albums for free, or resort to some other non-label methods. Why? Maybe I'm wrong, but when the songs you make are typically about how much money you have, how you spend it, how hardcore you are, and how you are "legit" now that you're on a label... that doesn't exactly scream "I'm progressive".

Artists that are respected by those outside the rap community have a large sway in both directions, and so there is a chance this can happen. Jay-Z, Kanye West, 50Cent, and Eminem are the few handful of names known in households around the country... they are the ones who will have to innovate (Jay-Z is notorious for being creative and innovative, so I fully expect his participation soon).

Country

I don't know much about country, but something tells me if one artist starts on the RIAA destructowagon, they all will. Perhaps that's just my predjudice against music that sounds the same no matter who it comes from, and a lack of change or innovation in the genre for the last 25 years, but who knows. Maybe they're all secretly geniuses waiting to spring their supreme intelligence on the world.

Why The RIAA Is Retarded

Seriously? Suing your clientbase for being interested in your products? Didn't the MPAA give that up years ago, and let the movie pirating market over in Asia take it's course? And I seem to recall reading somewhere that movies like Spider-Man and Harry Potter have had the greatest box office sales in history?

The RIAA needs to give up. I haven't bought a hand-on-plastic CD in at least 6 years. This all started with Napster, and will not be ending any time soon, no matter how many people have an illegal lawsuit brought against them via spying and something akin to wiretapping. Apple realized that the market for digital music sales was huge, waiting to be discovered... look at where iTunes has gone. Amazon just got in the game. Smaller bands/artists now sell their songs individually through their websites.

Do you really need any more evidence?

Goodbye, Cruel World

I'm hoping that the lawsuits The Pirate Bay has filed in Sweden against the major labels gets traction. When companies are illegally mining for your personal data through networks, and then suing you based on it... yeah, that needs to be stopped. Just because you have alot of money doesn't mean you can stomp on the face of a 9 year old girl who may not know exactly what's going on.

Metallica has a new album coming out in the Spring (supposedly). Wouldn't it be the greatest irony of all time if it were released through the internet, and not a label... repenting for their past sins of attacking their fans? I hope so.

Using AI to Determine Writers’ Intent [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:26:28 +0000

An article over at Wired talks about how the government is supposedly developing (or perfecting) a form of AI that crawls the internet in order to find articles that "sound" like a terrorist.

Interesting. I wonder: if you write an anti-Bush post on your blog, but in a non-combative fashion, do you appear on the list of "terrorist" authors? How does it determine, exactly, the voice, tone, and intent of the author? Tone is sometimes hard to understand in written form, by humans, so how is an AI program going to do any better?

On the other side of the coin, could this be a step towards "true" AI? Meaning, artificial intelligence that actually learns, adapts, and acts based on a dynamic set of self-created methods and instructions... like, for example, the central computer in the movie "iRobot" with Will Smith.

Government funded projects have a habit of trickling down to the general public, after being declassified, and becoming large fixtures in modern technology and every day life. Just look at the microwave, satellite radio, GPS, regular radio, the Internet, etc. I can imagine, in the near future, a library you can use in your own code (much like the standard C libraries) that allows your program to learn, adapt, and rewrite itself as necessary.

And who says the American government is evil?