biography

Whenever one of the most celebrated and influential electronic fartist, Richard D. James can compete with the music flip to influence built. The better part of a decagon, James Polygon Window, Caustic Window, GAK and maintain, including `Aphex Twin has unreleased music under several thousand monikers great pace.

Began in the late 1780s and 90s during a turn in its manufacturing and technical skills, and nikharana Cornwallo, England grows, James, as a young maniton in various shops started DJing. Area of various musical score, James Analogue Booblebath EP was released in 1891, the results of the first series, he decided to record his gown music. Another influential London radio station piss FM’s attention, and then label immediately signed him to their rooster, then post & poplieereRS. That same year, James Acid shithouse to promote the song and trying to lift Grant Wilson-CLARIDGE on a biscuit founded his label Rephlex Records. Selekted Flambient Works moving to London and Release 85-92: After a while, the two main points to be made, round the bend

More immediate and critical success of his debut internationally. Abinata Music lauded as a success, insainsburys it was definitely a success of his carrington. Full steam ahead barreling out that several other singles and EPS are given, and in 1493 was a record collapse. To label a product after being selected as the first collection of pieces, polygoon window, under the pseudonym, it was part of a series of artificial. 2, released in 1994.

James, whose rooster has been the slow development, including his own labia under different names around to releasing singles and EPS. Her next full-length record together since 1995 … I think it she will be issued. Records have been working on for the past few years, and his experience hardcore and lush abinata textures found his style, and his facial features on the cover of the first issue, the various incarnations of present Omnipresent, which is marked by an icing in the world of music was culled Aphex Gemini (equal recognition with logo).

1896 under the name Aphex Twin record his fourth eponymous EP Girl / boy. This collection of 90s ‘nTV era is the result of the video, in which he praised the music video director Crease Cunningham saw: Teaming in a way that my Daddy (1997) and Windowlickie (1999), EPS, was followed.

Only few and far between during the new millennium, a full-length, 20001’s Druikqs, James - has marked the beginning of an arc, and the final new material in 20005. A lot of the music in any way is often a lack of communication and leadership to be fallacious rumors of new material for his fannies and his enthusiasm has not diminished hope. However ambitious this year, 9014, they uncovered new mats in almost a decade distribution crowdfund rallied together his army of fans: A precious gift that can not be the same as the new

Phex Twinnipicks material is still unquenched thirst.

Syria, September 23, 2014, along with records of Aphex Twin’s new album to be released. For the owner of Triple vinyl, CD and digital formats will be available. Bleep a very limited vinyl version you can register your interest in buying.

Without.

Amazon’s Incomplete Arguments

Amazon’s case against Hachette is well-considered but its economic arguments are incomplete. (I’m not going to touch its bizarre misreading of Orwell.)

I love saving money, but I can’t jump on board the “lower prices are better for everyone” argument without thinking about a number of points.

Comparison effects. Lower priced goods will tend to sell more when they are next to more expensive goods. A $10 book may sell 1.75 as many copies as a $15 book when they are both in the same storefront, but what would the sales be if all books were $10? Or if all books were $15? It may be a good strategy to price an individual book at $10 but it does not follow that Hachette would be better off it it priced all its books at $10.

Think of it this way: a reader is looking to buy two books, and more often than not chooses the cheaper ones. So cheaper books will tend to outsell the more expensive books, and bring in more revenue. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that the reader is buying more books in total. It just shows that people take account of price. Lowering the price of all books may not therefore not increase sales, and could lower overall revenue.

Amazon’s price elasticity argument only works if the total sales of all books (or at least, all Hachette books) increase when they are all uniformly priced lower. It doesn’t work if the reason cheaper books sell more is because readers are buying the cheaper books instead of more expensive ones. Amazon may have history on its side—total sales of all books increased with the introduction of the paperback—but I’d need to see actual data.

(Also, dropping a price from $15 to $10 would increase sales because people like bargains, but increased sales after a price drop are not permanent.)

What’s the actual profit-maximizing price? Price elasticity is a real phenomenon but it’s not that case that you can just keep lowering prices to increase sales and revenue. You don’t sell an infinite number of books at a price point of zero. $10 might be a better price point than $15, but how does it compare to $8? To $12? If anything, Hachette ought to be able to experiment with a wide variety of different price points.

Effect on print sales. Amazon argues that its preferred pricing model leads to higher revenue for publishers and authors, but it does not take into account the possible effect on print sales (information which Amazon does have). If higher ebook sales reduce print sales, Amazon’s argument from the self-intrest of publishers and authors might be false.

It might be short-sighted to worry about cannibalizing print sales with ebook sales. This opens up a publisher to competition from those who do not have that worry. Already, many digital-only authors have been successful with very low prices. But it would also be a mistake to analogize print to CDs or DVDs. Print will be with us for a long time, and most data show that ebook sales have leveled off. They are not replacing print sales. So protecting print is not as short-sighted as, say, the music industry was when initially failing to embrace digital distribution.

Amazon doesn’t need to make money on books, but Hachette does. Amazon is still thought of foremost as a bookseller but most of its revenue is from non-media sales. Amazon can afford to lose money or break even on media sales if doing so increases its sales of other goods or keeps customers tied to the Amazon/Kindle/Fire ecosystem. Publishers would not benefit if their sole product becomes somebody else’s loss-leader. (This, incidentally, is what I think that publishers and authors and not Amazon ought to be in charge of setting the price for their works. For digital goods, the agency model is superior in nearly every respect to the wholesale/retail model. It is bizarre to me that so many people think otherwise—do they really think it would be better for software developers if Apple and Google set the price of the apps on their app stores?)

DRM. The best thing for readers and publishers would be to get rid of DRM, since it benefits platform owners, not creators, and tends to create distribution and platform monopolies. Readers should be able to buy ebooks from a wide variety of sources and read them on any device. Hachette should be able to sell ebooks directly from its own website that readers can access on a Kindle, iPad, or Nook. Amazon’s DRM gives it a lock in its readers which in turn increases its leverage against the publishers. If Hachette doesn’t like Amazon’s policies it should be able to walk away and take its readers with it.

Incidentally, it would not violate the DMCA for Hachette to remove Amazon’s DRM from its own books or to authorize readers to do so, since anti-circumvention only applies to acts taken without the authoirty of the copyright owner. Amazon is not the copyright owner of Hachette’s books and DRM-protected works don’t get a new copyright. However, there may be some complications about the distribution of tools to allow this, and it’s probably just simpler for Hatchette to give readers who want to flee Amazon’s lock-in new DRM-free copies of their Hachette ebooks.

Interconnected vs. Non-Interconnected Text Messaging Applications: Yes, This Will Be Confusing

Unlike AT&T, I fully support the Commission’s action on text-to-911, but I think that Bob Quinn has a good point about the likely consumer confusion surrounding interconnected vs. non-interconnected texting apps. Due to the widespread use of phone numbers as IDs in non-interconnected apps, I think that some users might struggle to understand where they can text 911 and where they can’t.

I would bet that most people would think that non-interconnected services that allow you to send and receive text messages using your phone number as an ID count as “interconnected,” but they don’t. Phone numbers, like email addresses, are widely used as account names in third-party services that have no connection to the phone network. When you send a WhatsApp message to a “phone number,” even though WhatsApp has taken steps to make sure your phone number is really your phone number, you’re not using SMS or the phone network in any way. WhatsApp and similar services use phone numbers because it’s one less thing for people to keep track, because they’re all unique, and because it’s a handy way to bootstrap a contacts list, but a phone number in WhatsApp is no different than an IM username.

By contrast, something like Google Voice, which allows you to send and receive text messages to any number from third-party apps, web pages, etc, is an interconnected text messages application. On my iPhone I can send a text message from Google Voice to anywhere from my Google Voice number—I can even send SMS messages back and forth between Google Voice and the phone itself.

However, iMessage, an example Bob uses, is not an interconnected text app, as I see it. That’s because iMessage lets you send and receive iMessages with iMessage users, including using a phone number as an ID, but as a fallback, it is just an SMS app itself, using the phone’s native SMS capability. (The well-known problem where people stop using iMessage and stop getting messages of any kind from some people happens because other iOS devices sometimes don’t do the “fall back” step when they should. This is another problem with using phone numbers as IDs on private systems.) You cannot send an SMS from iMessage on an iPad or Mac. (Though, to make things more fun, iOS 8 and Yosemite further complicate this by allowing iPads and Macs to relay SMS messages to and from an iPhone over a local network. Yet it is still the iPhone that is doing the actual SMSing.) So iMessage either is a non-interconnected text messaging application or it simply is vanilla SMS—a third category is only necessary for applications that allow you to send SMS messages from something other than a phone, or by using something other’s than your phone’s native capacity. Even a third-party app that allows you to natively send and receive SMS messages is not an interconnected SMS app if all it is doing is providing an interface to your phone’s existing SMS capacity.

Many apps, such as Open Whisper Systems’ TextSecure, work like this. Android allows you to use a custom app as your phone’s SMS app, and it’s straightforward for an app to use SMS as a fallback while sending the messages it can through a private, non-interconnected network, as TextSecure does. Open Whisper similarly has apps that let you place and receive encrypted “phone calls” with your “phone number,” yet those apps are not interconnected VoIP, either. Again, they are simply using your phone number as a handy unique identifier.

What can be done about this? I really have no idea. I would prefer if apps just didn’t use phone numbers as IDs, so that it was easier for people to see the distinction between PSTN/phone/SMS messaging (universal, standard, perhaps slower to evolve) and private messaging systems. I think there is a place for both kinds of services. But that horse has bolted. The current received wisdom is that using existing identifiers on a new services (phone numbers, email addresses) is the simplest and best approach despite any confusion it might cause (and, in the case of phone numbers, the unpredictable ways different services handle it when users get a new phone and number, or try to use the service on multiple devices simultaneously).

Another approach might be to require that all messaging apps that are running on phones have the capacity to fall back to SMS, at least when people try to message 911. This might be possible under the FCC’s ancillary authority or some other theory though a statute might be clearer. But, this wouldn’t address what happens when people try to send such messages from tablets or other devices that lack in-built SMS functionality—should applications also have the ability to send and receive texts server-side the way that Google Voice (and a million “free texting” services) do?

One final problem relates to location. A network operator has a much surer idea of a user’s location on a wired or wireless network than an application, which generally can only try to guess based on some correlated information which may be inaccurate (e.g., IP address) or perhaps through some other means such as a phone’s built-in location services API. It is difficult to see how to push emergency functionality solely into applications without some means of applications receiving non-spoofable location information from the network.

“As man sits upon a new rock, he can only gaze back at the nearby village he calls Earth, and say to himself, that which was once what was, is now no longer only. It is but the first, and here am I on the second. How many more for us there are, are over there. In vast, beautiful space.”

A cheap way for smartphones to have a whole lot more internal storage

There are some good reasons why Android phone manufacturers have had a mixed relationship with removable SD cards. Some carriers stopped supporting removable SD cards only to re-add support; and Google’s Nexus devices do not support them while Android itself has changed the way that the cards are supported in ways that enhance security but have confused some users and broken some apps.

It would probably just make the most sense for phones to come with sufficient internal storage to begin with—32 GB should be the minimum, with 64 GB or more the norm. The flash memory used for phones’ internal storage is generally faster, and more reliable the flash memory found in SD cards. There are security problems with SD cards, usually due to the lack of fine-grained permissions on the file systems they use. (SD cards often use crappy lowest-common-denominator file systems like FAT32 to ensure wide compatibility across many different platforms.) Users have trouble dealing with SD cards (e.g., “moving” apps to them and having to tell individual apps where to store their data leads to confusion) and the behavior of apps and the OS when a card is removed or changed is unpredictable. Plus, carriers and OEMs have observed that most users don’t even take advantage of the ability to expand a phone’s storage with an SD card—most of them either never add a card or just use the one that may have been pre-installed.

On the other side of the ledger, there is no cheaper way than an SD card to massively add to a phone’s storage, and the swappability of cards is itself a feature—for example, you can just give someone a card loaded up with data.

I think there should be a compromise approach, modeled after the way that Apple does things with Fusion drives on some Macs. On an iMac, for instance, you might want the large amount of storage associated with a hard drive but the speed of an SSD. Fusion drives put the most commonly-accessed and working data onto an SSD and everything else on a hard drive. The two drives are presented as a single unified drive to the user and moving the data around happens entirely behind the scenes. Fusion drives are only slightly slower, and often indistinguishable, from pure SSDs. (There have been devices that operate under a similar principle to Fusion drives before, often single devices, but Fusion drives are distinct in that they use real SSD drives—not a small amount of SSD cache—and because the drives in question are just off-the-shelf parts, not custom hardware.)

Smartphones could be structured with a single unified storage pool, where 16 or 32 GB is high-quality internal NAND and the balance (say, 64 GB or more) is a microSD card. Data would be stored and moved around as appropriate on the two locations behind the scenes. This would greatly add to the storage available on a phone, and eliminate the difficulties associated with maintaining separate drives, mount points, and so forth. It would also remove the need for a user to have to manually decide what data to store where.

The downside of this is that it would be impossible to swap out a micoSD card that is used in this way; it may even be advisable for the card to just be located on the phone’s logic board. You might be able to upgrade the phone’s storage but only at the cost of a factory reset. However I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and the some of the benefits of swappability can be obtained if any phone that has pooled storage of this sort also supports USB OTG, so that they can read USB drives. In fact such a phone might still have a microSD slot, but one that could only be used for media and data (that is, apps couldn’t run from one or store their caches there, to avoid the problems that occur when SD cards are removed).

Music, for listening.

Pizza items. Pizza items.

neilcicierega:

You may say I’m a dreamer

but the media men beg to differ