This was the week Google surprised the world with Chrome, its own open source web browser. Just imagine the deadly effect that had on a dozen or more browser-specific start-ups in Silicon Valley. Lots of readers are wondering what I think of Chrome, like my opinion really matters. Chrome is okay -- faster, but not faster enough to make me change for that reason alone. It's better than IE and almost better than Firefox except there are no plug-ins to speak of. What I really wonder, though, is why Google bothered to do a browser at all? Now I know.

It's not like there aren't enough web browsers in the world. There are plenty. And though Internet Explorer still dominates the Windows market, Firefox (not to mention Opera, Safari, etc.) is there to keep Microsoft honest,. So why did Google even bother? There are two general opinions on this and they are not mutually exclusive. Naturally one opinion is widely held and the other is held mainly by me.

The first reason why Google had to do its own browser comes courtesy of my friend Dave:

"People are looking at Google Chrome and actually think Google is competing in the so-called Browser Wars," said Dave. "This is not the case at all. Google doesn't care what happens to Chrome. And, in fact would be absolutely thrilled if Firefox and Opera enhanced their browsers to the point where they trounce Chrome into extinction. Google doesn't make a dime off of Chrome. Its money comes from people using the web browser -- any browser.

"What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks. Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything, making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.

"Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast, efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination. JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this, Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and IE."

Now back to Bob. Everything Dave says makes sense and I agree with it, but it doesn't answer my real question, which is not "Why did Google have to do a browser?" but rather, "What made it impossible for Google NOT to do a browser?"

The answer to this latter question begins with Dave noticing Microsoft's recent IE- and Windows-specific web content, which cracks open the door on Google's greatest fear -- that Microsoft will turn off ads in IE.

Microsoft can't do that, can they?

Microsoft can do pretty much whatever it wants in this area. There is plenty of browser competition. They can hobble their own product if they like, though it would drive users away from IE -- from a product that brings Microsoft no direct revenue anyway -- so what's the risk?

Microsoft turns off the ads in IE and what happens? Google takes a huge revenue hit, is knocked down three pegs in the eyes of Wall Street, while pretty much nothing happens to Microsoft, which would have just shown the world who is still the sheriff.

I am not saying this is going to happen, but I AM saying that it COULD happen -- and that very remote possibility is, by itself, enough to make Google have to produce its own browser.

Let me be clear that there doesn't have to be any subterfuge here on Microsoft's part. They can simply turn off the ads in IE, declaring it a non-commercial product. If you don't like it, get another browser -- there are plenty to choose from. Microsoft's revenue would go almost unchanged while Google's would plummet, if only for a few weeks or months -- just long enough for Microsoft to come through with a second punch, that is if they have thought that far ahead.

If you are wondering whether people really sit around Google asking if Microsoft would actually do something like this, well they do.

So to avoid that eventuality (and to do all the other things that Dave said, above) here we have Chrome, Google's attempt to direct the future of browser development and take some momentum away from IE.

Chrome promotes WebKit rendering, which is also done in Safari. It would not surprise me if WebKit didn't make some inroads shortly with Firefox and Opera, helping somewhat to turn the tide away from IE. Yet WebKit will change, too, by adopting Google's V8 JavaScript engine, replacing JavaScriptCore in both WebKit and Safari. Thus all the open source browsers (and Safari) become better and more alike, which helps them against IE.

A rising tide floats all (open source) ships. Google needs open source browsers to become even more competitive with IE, hence Chrome is a reference design that Google knows will work brilliantly with all Google Apps.

So much for Chrome: Now for something REALLY scary. I've been hearing that peer-to-peer file sharing has declined a bit. Actually, it's the rate of growth that has declined, but in a market where volume is always rising and prices always falling, even a decline in growth can be significant. This is happening for lots of reasons (market saturation, summer vacation, etc.) but the effect appears to be real, much to the relief of the RIAA and MPAA, which hate people sharing music, TV shows, and movies that they see as violating the intellectual property rights of their members.

But I think something else is actually happening. People are just finding new ways to share files -- ways that are harder to detect and even more chilling for society to prohibit.

Look at where P2P came from in the first place. The idea behind BitTorrent and similar programs was that many people wanted the same content and few users could afford the bandwidth to run their own dedicated servers, so sharing files by caching and re-serving small pieces of files was very efficient, especially with flat-rate bandwidth. Depending on your point of view, P2P has been a huge success or a huge pain in the ass.

But all the while, the cost of Internet bandwidth has come down A LOT. Remember P2P was born in the 1990s when most users still had dial-up connections. With the cost of Internet backbone bandwidth dropping 50 percent per year for the last decade or more, the economics have changed dramatically and it has become reasonable to effectively have your own server. No, I'm not talking about YouTube, I'm talking about dedicated servers used in large part to distribute movies and music. I'm talking about any of a number of Internet backup services.

The poster child for this new kind of service is RapidShare, a German file-sharing service that will let you distribute files up to 200 megs each for free and up to two gigs for not much money -- 55 Euros per year -- with no limit on the total number of files, total storage, total downloads or even total simultaneous downloads. Rip your copy of The Dark Knight, store it on RapidShare, then send the download URL to anyone you like or simply post it somewhere on the web. It's not as efficient as P2P, but it sure is easier AND harder to detect since nothing but http is used.

Can you see where I am going with this? How are the MPAA and the RIAA likely to respond if this technique becomes really popular? They are going to want to spy on us more, even to the point of auditing (or attempting to audit) our network backups. More lawsuits, more grandmothers and little kids being sued, less privacy.

I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA will fail in the long run. Once custom protocols and ports are dropped and you can't tell the difference between a spreadsheet and I Am Curious (Yellow) the game is up. But we're still years -- and a lot of pain -- away from that.

Word is that Alaska governor, Republican vice presidential nominee and airborne wolf huntress Sarah Palin gave one of her children the middle name "Van" so that his name would rhyme with Van Halen. After all, one of its best-selling albums, 1984, did come out the same year she competed in the Miss Alaska pageant.

John McCain (who may or may not have been aware of her predilection for the guitar legend) played the band's pop anthem "Right Now" after announcing Palin as his running mate. For the record, Van Halen didn't given the Republican ticket permission to use the song -- and they say they wouldn't even if asked. We see a pattern here ... McCain faces a lawsuit from Jackson Browne for infringing copyright by using Browne's song "Running on Empty" without permission.

Anyway, on to the Democrats. We know Barack Obama running mate Joe Biden is a staunch supporter of the RIAA and other copyright interests through his sponsorship of the Perform Act, which tried to prevent people from recording satellite and internet radio, and the fact that he was one of only four senators invited to the RIAA's champagne party in celebration of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which makes it a felony to rip a DVD.

Biden was also a main supporter of the RAVE Act -- a nightmare of a law that was apparently intended in part as a way to charge crack house owners for illegal activity taking place on their premises, but which has resulted in night club owners and rave organizers being arrested for merely hosting parties. (Even Fox News has called the act "raving lunacy.")

If Palin has a stance on copyright reform we haven't heard about it, although apparently she has a record of trying to burn -- er, ban -- certain books from the state's libraries. This indicates that she might have a latent Tipper Gore-like tendency to censor music as well, despite her appreciation of the creators of post-innuendo ditties as "Hot for Teacher" and "Everybody Wants Some."

On the balance, neither candidate appears to offer much for music fans, although Palin doesn't have much of a voting record to compare with that of the longtime senator Biden. But on the surface, we'd have to imagine that a Van Halen fan who used to wear humorous T-shirts ("I may be broke but I'm not flat busted") is a better choice than a spoilsport who supported the Perform and Rave Acts.

As for the presidential candidates, though, the Democrats have a clearly preferable choice in Obama, who asked the Democratic National Committee to waive the copyright on debate footage. And as he told Rolling Stone, he has all sorts of decent stuff on his iPod (Stevie Wonder, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Jay-Z and Bob Dylan).

McCain, on the other hand, told Blender that he counts two ABBA songs ("Dancing Queen" and "Take A Chance On Me") among his all time top ten favorite songs. "If there's anything I'm lacking in, I've got to tell you, it's taste in music and art and other great things in life," McCain told the Aspen Institute.

But the 72-year-old presidential hopeful couldn't resist coming to the defense of his favorite band. "Everybody says they hate ABBA. How come everybody goes to (the musical) 'Mamma Mia?'"

See Also:

• Moby On McCain, Cocaine and Hookers
• Ludacris' 'Obama Is Here' Song Invites, Ignites Controversy
• McCain Offends Van Halen, Sucks at Music
• First Paris, Now This: Jackson Browne Sues John McCain
• Barack Obama Doesn't Want to Work on Maggie's Farm No More

(Biden photo: Joe Crimmings Photography; Palin photo courtesy of Palin family via AP)

Filed under: Thrillers, Casting, Deals, Mystery & Suspense, Fandom, Tom Cruise

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Have you ever broken the sound barrier? It's easier than you think. You just need a good bullwhip,
which converts arm movement into supersonic speed and triggers a sonic boom
called a whip crack.
Thanks go to William Gurstelle for the original article in Make Volume 9.
To download The Bullwhip MP4 click here or subscribe in iTunes.

Check out the complete Bullwhip article MAKE 09 "The Bullwhip"
and you can see that in our digital edition.

Editor's note: This video has a new sponsor, GoDaddy - so if you're thinking of getting a domain name you can use the MAKEMAG code and get 10% off... -pt
If you want to make an impact online, GoDaddy.com has what you need. .COM names as low as $1.99. Plus, world-class hosting, fast-&-easy Web site builders and much more. Plus, as a viewer of the MAKE Podcast, enter code MAKEMAG, when you check out, and save an additional 10% on any order. Some restrictions apply, see site for details. Get your piece of the internet at GoDaddy.com.

• Jeune : "Bonjour, comment allez vous ?"
• Moi : *Grmblll* "Bien" ! Omagad, il va me cogner c'est sûr !
• "Alors vous voyez je fais partie de l'association "2 Mal Fêteurs" qui cherche à aider les jeunes victime de la lèpre cancereuse du sida sexuel, pour cela je participe à une collecte de fond qui permettra d'acheter de l'équipement pour soulager les douleurs de ces petits qui souffrent fort dedans leurs petits corps. Mais au fait cher M. vous n'avez rien contre les petites victimes du choléra diabétique de la mucovisidose au moins ?"
• "Euh bah euh" répond-je hésitant, ne pouvant décemment pas lui avouer qu'étant une radasse de bidet doublé d'un sadique ces petits enfants pouvaient bien mourir noyés dans le vomi d'un phacochère en overdose de crack que ça ne m'émotionnerait même pas. J'ai donc répondu "Bien sur que non, j'adore les petits lépreux de la gale bubonique" avec un grand sourire aussi faux que l'outil de travail de la mort (oui ça n'a rien à voir).
• "Oh, c'est tip top cool groovy ! Du coup je suppose que vous allez bien vouloir m'aider dans ma quête pour les sauver" Me répond-il en tournant son visage en direction de l'horizon et en faisant pleurer ses yeux ! "Vous voyez je vend des paquets de nougat et l'argent de la vente revient à l'association qui aide les petits miséreux. En plus c'est cool le nougat, ça colle aux dents et ça fait des caries. Alors, seriez vous prêt à m'acheter un paquet de nougats, vous qui semblez tant concerné par les miséreux de la planète ?"
• "Euh bin ouais, pourquoi pas, c'est combien ?"
• "Un Huit !" (note : 1,8 prononcé sans la virgule, c'est un détail important)
• Comprenant 1,8€ et trouvant cela pas trop cher pour sauver le monde je fouille dans mon portefeuille et lui tend 2€ en déclarant, pour la jouer bon prince qui se la pète, "Tu peux garder la monnaie". Le gars empoche alors l'argent avant de penser à me dire ...
• "Ah ah ah, lol, suis je sot, on s'est probablement mal compris, la barre de nougat ne coute pas 1,8€ mais 8€, un paquet...8€ ... Un Huit !" Me dit il prouvant au passage ses dires en me montrant le prix imprimé en tout petit sur le nougat.
• N'ayant pas assez de pognon je lui répond : "Hum, j'ai pas assez de sous mais c'est pas grave garde les 2€ je prend pas le nougat"
• "Ok, pas grave, merci quand même"

• L'arnaqueur commence son speech sur les pauvres cancereux avant de poser une question du style "Est ce que vous trouvez que la guerre c'est nul et qu'on devrait tous vivre heureux avec les petits oiseaux ??" à laquelle on ne peut répondre que par "Oui". Ce Oui est un premier engagement, une première marche car en disant cela on commence déjà à "cautionner la cause des petites victime de l'ébola dypthérique du tétanos"
• L'étape suivante, la plus tordue, consiste à volontairement déformer la valeur du paquet de nougat, tout en donnant l'impression que c'est un accident, afin que celui ci ne paraisse pas trop cher. Le fait de dire "Un Huit" et pas "Un paquet c'est huit euros" créé ainsi une nouvelle marche à l'escalier qui mène aux 8€. 1.8€ étant une somme peu élevé il y a de grande chance que l'arnaquer donne les sous.
• Une fois la thune empochée l'arnaqueur annonce alors la "vraie" valeur du nougat, preuve à l'appuie. Ayant déjà donné 2€ la "victime" qui se sent en faut de n'avoir pas bien compris la somme véritable va alors trouver acceptable de donner 6€ de plus. La dernière marche est franchie !

Have you ever broken the sound barrier? It's easier than you think. You just need a good bullwhip,
which converts arm movement into supersonic speed and triggers a sonic boom called a whip crack.
Thanks go to William Gurstelle for the original article in Make Volume 9
View the PDF

With the opening of the 2008-09 Concert Season, conductor JoAnn Falletta is celebrating her tenth anniversary as music director of the Buffalo Philharmonic, an orchestra frequently shortlisted as one the best in the United States and continues to thrive even as subscriptions are down elsewhere. Falletta’s is a name also familiar from recordings; in just short of two decades she has managed to make more than fifty of them for labels such as Naxos, Koch, Delos, Albany and others. The list of orchestras that Falletta has guest conducted over the years — posted at her website at http://www.joannfalletta.com/ — is so dense that it’s blinding. However, if this were 1978, rather than 2008, such credentials as Falletta has racked up as a conductor would have been impossible. AMG’s Uncle Dave Lewis caught up with Maestro Falletta over the phone in late July.
 
 
AMG: When we first met, it was during the promotion for the Golabek Sisters’ Koch disc of Poulenc’s Babar; you were still with the Long Beach Symphony then.

JoAnn Falletta: Indeed, I have been away from California a long time now. I’m very happy in Buffalo, but I still remember California, and miss the orchestra.

AMG: Do you have a jet-setting life, holding down posts in many places and commuting, like some conductors?

JAF: Well I also led the Virginia Symphony in Norfolk, so I would travel back and forth between Virginia and Buffalo. Before I came to the Buffalo Philharmonic, I had the position in Virginia and went back and forth between Norfolk and Long Beach! I do conduct in different parts of the world, but it works out to be a very good mix. Even when I was commuting between Long Beach and Virginia, I found it stimulating.

AMG: When did you decide you wanted to be a conductor?

JAF: I fell in love with the symphony orchestra –- and the repertoire –- when I was a little girl. My family and I went to lots of concerts, and I was so impressed with the orchestra and the fact that so many people were focused together, the level of cooperation, everyone working together to make it happen.

I owe a debt to my great teachers – Sixten Ehrling and Jorge Mester. I also took master classes with Leonard Bernstein at Juilliard; he was an icon, someone who really showed what an American musician could do. On the podium he was spectacularly flamboyant and uninhibited –- wonderful!

AMG: To most outsiders, the Buffalo Philharmonic is known for the legacy of Lukas Foss and its commitment to contemporary music. Is that reputation something you maintain with the orchestra now?

JAF: In Buffalo, we continue to perform American composers and we build on what Lukas Foss did, which made Buffalo world-famous for spearheading new American music. At the time that Foss did it, it was sometimes challenging to audiences; they were so overwhelmed by the transition from the classical European model of Josef Krips and William Steinberg to the contemporary American music of the 1960s. But he established the American voice in Buffalo, and this is a part of our legacy.

We have had our own record label in Buffalo for several years –- Beau Fleuve — and work extensively with Naxos. Right now, we are working on a multi-CD project with John Corigliano on Naxos –- a release this September including Three Hallucinations from Altered States and the world premiere recording of Mr. Tambourine –- Seven Poems of Bob Dylan, with a second CD including Phantasmagoria and the Red Violin Concerto with our concertmaster, Michael Ludwig. It’s great to be able to work with John, both in rehearsal and in the recording studio. We will also be releasing on Naxos the world premiere recording of Daron Hagen’s opera Shining Brow, based on the early years of Frank Lloyd Wright and a John Adams recording including The Chairman Dances, Slonimsky’s Earbox, and Naïve and Sentimental Music. We have been doing a lot of new music, including composers such as Miguel del Aquila, Michael Daugherty, Jacob Druckman, Lukas Foss, Federico Ibarra, Aaron Kernis, Arturo Marquez, Behzad Ranjbaran, Roberto Sierra, Joan Tower, Persis Vehar, Chen Yi, and Ellen Zwilich; the audiences have been very receptive to it.

AMG: I might be asking for trouble in saying so, but it appears to me that composers are producing new music a bit easier to deal with than they did in Foss’ time.

JAF: Many composers now have a great desire to be vitally connected with the audience. They care about communication, and audiences open up to the music because the quality is very high. Composers are anxious to make those connections, and it doesn’t mean that they have to write romantic music, or in a conservative style.

AMG: Heretofore, I have been scrupulously avoiding the inevitable “female conductor question,” but there is still the notion that women conductors are unusual. I saw one of Antonia Brico’s last concerts, and I came away thinking that she was more impressive than the music she made. That was thirty years ago, but recently when your colleague Marin Alsop took over Baltimore there was some measure of opposition, and the Vienna Philharmonic still bars women members as a matter of policy. Where do think we might be now, versus what it was like in Brico’s time?

JAF: One major difference is that we have equal access to training; women conductors no longer need to be self-educated, as we are accepted in conservatories. No one here in the United States seems to feel it is a big deal anymore, though Europe is still more conservative in some respects. But there is still much more acceptance then there was just 20 years ago. Bear in mind that it’s a difficult profession for men or women, but it has changed a lot for the better in these respects.
 

JoAnn Falletta, Buffalo Philharmonic — Charles Griffes: The White Peacock

JoAnn Falletta, Buffalo Philharmonic — Frederick S. Converse: Flivver Ten Million

Michael Ludwig, violin, JoAnn Falletta, Royal Scottish National Orchestra — Erno von Dohnányi: Allegro risoluto e giosco from Violin Concerto No. 2 in C minor, Op. 43

Andrew Russo, piano, JoAnn Falletta, Prague Philharmonia — Paul Schoenfield: Dog Heaven from Four Parables