mm091: The Future of Internet Radio – John C. Dvorak

July 30, 2007

MUDGE’S Musings

Written recently and not so regarding Pandora.com, MUDGE’s radio of choice these days. And, I do mean choice, since anytime I’m sitting at my home PC, I’m choosing what to listen to, sans annoying commercials, jingles or DJs.

Here’s one of my favorite reads: John Dvorak, a pioneer in the business of all things personally computational, an amazingly well-informed person, and who (and I say this in the most complimentary way) makes the average curmudgeon such as yours truly seem like a cock-eyed optimist.

He’s got this to say about Pandora and its ilk:

The Future of Internet Radio
07.17.07
Will the success of Web radio spell the end of traditional broadcast radio?

Dvorak

By John C. Dvorak

Over the past month or so, there has been a heated battle between the music industry and Internet radio about rights and fees. Actually, over the past decade, there has been nothing but trouble surrounding Internet radio. I think it’s one of the reasons that podcasting emerged as an alternative to Internet radio. Look closely at podcasting, however; with the exception of the advanced auto-download via RSS aspect, it’s actually just more Internet radio.

[Per L-HC’s reformed process, please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]

The Future of Internet Radio – Columns by PC Magazine

Dvorak points out that Internet radio has manifest advantages over broadcast: reach, on demand, and best of all, low cost:

The death blow, though, always comes down to money. The expense of streaming over the Internet is a fraction of what transmitter-based broadcasting costs. There is no big antenna, no transmitters, no special studios. Nothing within reason can change this metric.

For these $500 ears (a sad story for another time), the sound of Pandora.com is nothing less than superb.

And, as I’ve said at the top: no jingles, no “SUNDAY! AY! ay!”, no 20-minute blocks of clatter and clutter, no drive-time shenanigans from weasels trying to be Howard Stern (sui generis, which Latin phrase in this context means, “top weasel”), just music (of the non-classical variety) that I like to listen to.

I love Pandora.com! Let’s hear it for internet radio!

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Advertisements

mm090: The least bad plan for leaving Iraq. – By Fred Kaplan – Slate Magazine

July 30, 2007

MUDGE’S Musings

So, guys, this one’s lost. My generation’s Vietnam, indeed.

What now? Here’s an interesting idea…

Defeat Without Disaster – The least bad plan for leaving Iraq.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, July 27, 2007, at 2:45 PM ET

Peter Galbraith’s article in the current New York Review of Books, “Iraq: The Way to Go,” is one of the most bracing essays written on the subject lately—a provocative but logical case for a U.S. withdrawal (though not a total withdrawal) that still manages to achieve a few of the war’s original goals.

I don’t agree with every plank of Galbraith’s proposal (more on that later), but anyone seeking a solution to this disaster needs at least to contend with his arguments.

[Per L-HC’s reformed process, please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]

The least bad plan for leaving Iraq. – By Fred Kaplan – Slate Magazine

Kaplan reports that the main tenet of Peter Galbraith’s proposal is:

He has now abandoned his plan for a partitioned federation, regarding the southern two-thirds of Iraq—the areas dominated by Shiite and Sunni Arabs—as hopeless. Instead, he calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from those areas and redeploying some of them to the northern sector, in order to protect the Kurds.

The Kurds need and deserve our protection, especially if it’s true that the Turks are massing 140,000 troops on their border with “Kurdistan.”

Kaplan is unhappy that Galbraith has pretty much written off Arab Iraq as hurtling toward a “sectarian bloodbath.”

If defending Kurds takes our forces out of the path of that certain (and ongoing) Sunni-Shiite bloodbath, I’m liking that idea.

“Least bad” would save some U.S. lives and lots of body parts (the fewer new cases at Walter Reed, the better!).

Any of our vast field of presidential wannabees weigh in on this? Michael Bloomberg, what do you think?

It’s it for now. Thanks,

–MUDGE