Month: October 2002

if it smells like payola

CNN.com – Has rock & roll become irrelevant? – Oct. 3, 2002

No, I don’t think so, but the industries that have both fostered its growth and stifled its creativity have made themselves irrelevant.

In a development that can only be described as farcical in its labyrinthine logic, Clear Channel (the nation’s foremost owner of radio stations) announced that it would be dealing exclusively with a pre-selected set of indie promoters, who will pay the corporation for the rights to their internal research while being paid by the labels. If you’re wondering how that differs from payola — or indeed, why Clear Channel and other radio operators can’t just hire programmers who are smart enough to pick hit singles on their own, sans all this shady promotional influence — well, you won’t find an answer here.

This article has the first use of the word narrowcasting I have seen in a while. In the early days of the Internet, it was tossed around pretty frequently: there would be customized broadcasts and one-to-one interaction between media entities and consumers. The weblog is evidence that it’s possible, but not necessarily viable. Internet radio stations (like Radio Paradise) offer a varied playlist, much more diverse and interesting than commercial radio stations offer. The fact that these stations exist demonstrates a need that commercial radio and perhaps the labels themselves won’t address.

If the Internet broadcasters take to satellite transmission (as Radio Paradise hopes to do), it will be interesting to see if some guy sharing his record collection can do a more entertaining job that professional program directors. The premise of the Tom Petty song featured in the article above is that conservative program directors and large broadcasters have made the DJ who knew his music an artifact. Now his every move is planned for him, every song, every announcement, every segue. No more sharing that great sound he found over the weekend or on a trip: it doesn’t fit the format.

C++ closure

Took my final exam in C++ and object-oriented design today, after tossing the final project over the transom 2 days ago. The final was quite challenging: even open book/open notes, it was tough.

I find I like the design questions and problems better than the ones that rely on syntax retention. The one I found most interesting was the design of a metering/analysis tool for a freeway onramp. The object was to design the data structure to hold the information about all the cars that passed through the ramp on to a motorway, recording the time spent waiting and the number of cars.

As I saw the problem, what was needed was a structure for each car with its time in and out the ramp, any wait time, and as the car left the ramp, the object holding its information would be collected and summarized by an onRamp object.

The Car object could be a simple typedef, a struct or a methodless class.

The questions I liked least were, to my mind, quite vague: one dealt with Polygons as a class, but the class constructor seemed to use just two points — X and Y — to define a polygon. My memory of coordinate geometry is weak, but I seem to recall that a point has no dimensions, the smallest/simplest thing that can have dimensions being a line. I suspect I didn’t do too well on that one.

The 80/20 rule illustrated?

One per cent bugs cause half of Microsoft errors : HindustanTimes.com

“About 20 per cent of the bugs cause 80 per cent of all errors, and – this is stunning to me – one per cent of bugs cause half of all errors.”

from Steve Ballmer’s comments on some recent analysis of customer-reported bugs. Contrast this with a tidbit from David Pogue NYTimes column for today:

I agree enthusiastically that software writers (and hardware guys) should never release a product until they observe a bunch of “slightly less capable than average users” wrestle with the product for the first time. Programmers should be bound and gagged, with their eyes and ears taped open, behind at least 15 users from their targeted user pools, just to watch these “zeta testers” grapple with the product for the first time, fresh out of the box.

a failed experiment

I decided, in solidarity with my long-suffering wife, to give up caffienated beverages for a few days. She has herself wired for the stuff such that giving it up means headaches and general malaise. I don’t have that problem, though I drink much more of it.

I think I would have made it just fine, except it got cold and I realized one of the reasons, perhaps the primary reason, why many of us in the Northwest drink coffee and tea, is to get warm. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go fix myself a mocha . . . . .

trusted by whom??

Weblog Entry – 10/01/2002: “Mac OS X Digital Rights Panel”

[ . . . . ] VP of MPAA said, basic challenge is how to we turn “a personal computer into a trusted entertainment appliance.”

Tim [O’Reilly]: They’re looking for the users to trust it or the studios to trust it? (Laughter.)

This has been my question about this issue, especially MSFT’s involvement with it: a company with their track record for reliability and security using the word “trust” as an advective for one of its initiatives is ludicrous. I think the only DRM issue they’re concerned with is their own license revenue, hence the activation stuff with Windows XP. Treat your customers as potential thieves and see if they notice.

Seen here

scumware sounds pretty accurate

New Software Quietly Diverts Sales Commissions

After conducting a detailed analysis of the software, [Erik Peterson] concluded that the TopMoxie program was intricately designed to substitute its affiliate identification code for that of other sites as transactions were made. He said that the program remained on the computer even if the user removed the original LimeWire music sharing software. “I don’t buy their explanation,” he said. “What kind of accident is that?”

Mr. Petersen also pointed to a statement made in an online forum where the technology was discussed, in which a LimeWire developer characterized accusations that the software diverts money as “pretty accurate,” but said, “While I agree that this is really a bit of a scam, it is a way for us to pay salaries while not adversely affecting our users.”

I was just reviewing my Amazon Affiliate statements (I’ve made $5.15 so far, thanks), and discovered a link to this story. Apparently, some companies have decided their business model is to route sales commissions from affiliates like me to themselves. You might come here, read about something I liked, clickthrough to it at Amazon, and the commission goes to one of these other companies who had nothing to do with the transaction. They just worm their way in through some “shopping software” but removing it doesn’t solve the problem: the diversions continue.

Gee, when I was a kid we called that stealing. Oh, they say the purchaser is told their commission will go to their new friend, rather than the person who brought them to Amazon. But at that point what’s the buyer’s option? Can they reset the affiliate code? They can only not buy the item they came for if they want to be fair to the referring site. Maybe that is the right thing to do . . . . .