THE CONCORDE LEGEND

... found this music with the voice recording in the web. Don´t know who made this.
There exists no full video of this crash and the black box recording was never released.
So i made this video with the spoken text and music of the band and took original clips and clips from reports and brought it together to reconstruct the horrible moment.

In memory of Captain Christian Marty who was also one of the first man and the first Frenchman who crossed the Atlantic Ocean on the surfboard and in memory of the crew and all the other people who died. R.I.P.

The last photo shows the crashed concorde BTSC.

Here you can find the written text of the black box:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr000725.htm

and many mor information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

SOCIAL MEDIA BIZ

If You Want to Make a Fortune in Social Media, You'd Better Move Fast

Putting the words "social network" in a business plan won't alter the basic laws of macroeconomics, and one of those laws is this: No matter how hot an industry may be at a given moment, only a handful of players from that industry will survive over the long term. We now know that the dot-com era was an historical anomaly in many ways, but it did adhere to this economic law.

Java Website Hosting
Shared & Private Tomcat Plans Avail Over 10yrs Of Java Web Hosting Exp!

LinkedIn has been a public company for roughly two weeks, but its brief history on Wall Street should give the people running other social  media companies a lot to think about.

The biggest question to ponder is whether they should go public now -- or as soon as they can convince an investment bank to shepherd them through the process -- or wait until the business is a bit more mature and possibly able to command a higher price.
My advice to anyone running a social network that's not named "Facebook" or "Twitter" would be to go public as quickly as you can -- and cash out as much of your newly minted stock as you can -- before this social media bubble pops.
Groupon has already jumped in, and the water seems fine -- but for how long?

This is Not a Dot-Com Redo

Some very smart people are contending that the rise of social media companies doesn't constitute a bubble. Things are different, the argument goes, because social media companies -- unlike their dot-com predecessors -- have real business models and already are generating actual revenues.
LinkedIn, for example, generated roughly US$250 million in 2010 from three revenue sources: subscriptions to premium user accounts; employer job postings; and ads targeting its user base. After closing the books on 2010, LinkedIn reported $3.6 million in actual earnings.
That's not bad for a startup, but shouldn't a company that's supposed to be worth $8 billion -- which is where LinkedIn stands based on this week's stock price -- be earning a bit more than that?
There are indications that some social networks are doing better. Some analysts believe Facebook and Groupon are bringing in more than $2 billion a year each. There's no way of verifying those numbers, however, or determining how much profit either company is realizing.
The biggest names in social media -- Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, and even LinkedIn -- probably are earning a profit. They also have business models that could position them to do so for the foreseeable future.

You Can't Buck the Laws of Economics

That does differentiate them from most of the seemingly high-flying companies in the dot-com era, but it doesn't necessarily mean buying stock in a social media company will prove to be a better long-term investment.
That's because putting the words "social network" in a business plan won't alter the basic laws of macroeconomics. And one of those laws is this: No matter how hot an industry may be at a given moment, only a handful of players from that industry will survive over the long term.
We now know that the dot-com era was an historical anomaly in many ways, but it did adhere to this economic law. If we look at the pure dot-coms from that era, few are left standing, with Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN) perhaps the most notable survivor.
There were other groups of companies racking up record sales during that boom, and their ranks thinned as well, even as the Internet itself has expanded over the years.
The providers of networking gear fit that category. Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO) was the top name in networking during the dot-com heyday, and it's one of the few with a commanding market presence today.

Driving a New Economy

During the height of the dot-com boom, I was a working journalist covering the enterprise software space -- companies that developed and sold applications to help other companies run backend business functions such as moving inventory and managing production.
Customer relationship management applications were particularly hot, but what was really exciting was the prospect of moving enterprise applications to the Internet, with the expectation that every company would be operating like a dot-com.
I still recall an executive with a supply chain management vendor confidently predicting that his company's software would be the engine driving a new economy. He even drew a diagram to show how his software would take an order from a customer at a car dealership and push that information back through the supply chain to trigger the building of the exact car the customer wanted.

Betting on Facebook and Twitter

At that time, this company had roughly the same stock market valuation that LinkedIn boasts now -- but when the dot-com bubble burst, that company's fortunes started sinking as well. A couple of years ago, it was purchased by another supply chain management vendor for a small fraction of what is was worth in the dot-com era.
As for the rest of the enterprise software market, it's now dominated by a relatively small number of companies, such as Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) and SAP (NYSE: SAP).
If the laws of macroeconomics hold, which they usually do, we'll see the same thing happen in the social media realm.
If I had to place a bet on which social media companies will survive for the long haul, my money would be on Facebook and Twitter, and that's about it.
I pick these two because they appeal to extremely broad audiences, and most of their users visit them daily. In fact, many log in several times during the course of a day.

A Shakeout Is Inevitable

LinkedIn, which happens to be my personal favorite social network, has a rather sizeable user base of its own, with 90 million registered users and 45 million unique visitors each month. It also caters strictly to business professionals, an audience that many advertisers covet. I wonder, though, if that narrow focus could ultimately be a detriment to LinkedIn as the competition for social networking advertising heats up over time.
Facebook and Twitter clearly are catering to the masses, but they also have the capability to offer services that would appeal to the average LinkedIn member. Conversely, I think LinkedIn would have a hard time pulling in the hardcore Facebook and Twitter crowd.
Then there are the daily deal companies like Groupon and Living Social, which have so many competitors entering their space that a shakeout is inevitable.
Obviously, there's no way to predict which of these companies will survive and which will fail. But I'm fairly confident in saying that five years from now, there will be a lot fewer social media companies than there are today. There also will be a fair number of people who got rich investing in these companies -- and a good number who lost a bundle doing the same.
Anyone hoping to be in that first group should move now, before this non-bubble bursts. 

TV R.I.P.

Is the internet going to be the death of television?

By Fiona GrahamTechnology of business reporter, BBC News

Are you sitting comfortably: Will technology sound the death knell for traditional broadcasters?

In August 2010, the end of the age of television as we know it was widely predicted.

The US pay TV market had suffered its first ever drop in subscribers. In the end the economy was roundly found to blame, with cable packages being sacrificed as families were forced to tighten their belts.

                                                                                                    

                                                                                         Apple TV lets users watch streamed video  from iTunes and 'over the top' services on their TVs

But some commentators pointed to this as the inevitable result of the growth of on demand and over the top offerings available on the internet.

So is technology killing what we think of as traditional television - and taking pay TV operators with it?

It's a confusing picture. Nielsen, who track US television viewing habits, have reported a drop in television ownership - albeit from 98.9% to 96.7%. DVD sales are falling, while Netflix recently overtook cable operator Comcast to become the biggest subscription video service in North America.

IMS Research however is predicting digital cable TV subscribers in the US will increase by 7.8m between 2010 and 2015.

YouTube, Hulu, iPlayer, Netflix and other 'over the top' (OTT) services, not to mention illegal downloading, all offer alternatives.

Apple and Google have both launched OTT services that let consumers play online content through their televisions, although Google's service is only available in the US.

We're watching more video than ever before this way. But we're also watching more television. What is less clear is where the broadcast industry is ultimately headed.

Ask the experts

So what do those in the industry think lies in store?

Neil Gaydon is the chief executive of pay TV technology developer Pace. They manufacture set-top boxes and other technology for some of the world's biggest cable and satellite operators.

He points to a rise in subscription figures over the last two quarters as proof that pay TV is healthier than ever.

"All the latest evidence is zero cord-cutting [using devices like laptops and tablets instead of TV sets] - zero, and actually all over the top is doing is providing other services," he says.

Pace CEO Neil Gaydon says convenience and ease of use mean pay TV is still attractive to consumers

"And if you look at TV viewing figures, it's the highest it's ever been."

He also points to the what he sees as the failure of Apple TV and Google TV to take off.

"The challenge to pay TV is greatly exaggerated - OTT has certainly pointed to the desire people have to watch what they want, when they want.

"What OTT hasn't answered, it doesn't have a business model yet that describes how it will make money."

Mr Gaydon doesn't see pay TV standing still. In his view, OTT has sounded a wake-up call to operators to develop hybrid services.

"The set-top box will morph into a media gateway," he says.

"If you fastforward, and you think about the home of the future, you will have to have a hub, a media gateway, some form of device that's going to manage a suite of services."

On demand

Not everyone is quite so confident the set-top box will survive the change.

Suranga Chandratillake is the founder of blinkx, a video search engine and aggregator.

"Every device will have an internet connection as standard, that's increasingly the case already. I think set-top boxes are a temporary business at this stage," he says.

Despite this, Mr Chandratillake is not predicting the end of television as we know it.

"I think that the device will live on, I think that we'll continue to have large screen devices whether we call them TVs or not.

"But while linear will remain popular, I think you will see massive growth in on demand. I don't know to what extent these two things are cannibalistic."

The success of services like Netflix, he says, is proof consumers are willing to pay for reasonably priced services.

"I think partly we'll pay for it through small upgrades to our satellite, cable or broadband bills.

"The other way is through advertising - there'll be software or cloud services, you'll use a lot of them for free, but you'll be shown ads in the middle of them.

"I think though there are certain aspects of linear consumption that will remain with us. We'll all still watch the World Cup final at the same time."

Sports night

Irdeto's Christopher Schouten agrees.

Continue reading the main story.

"We've seen a new category and that's reality. People prefer to watch the X Factor as it's happening, rather than after the fact.

"There's still a lot of value in that kind of content, but I would argue it is diminishing."

Irdeto is a global software security and media technology company. It has over 500 customers, mainly in the pay TV area.

Mr Schouten says most consumers still fall into the "TV traditionalist" category, who are happy with cable or satellite.

But this is changing.

"We clearly see other groups starting to splinter off into becoming what we call digital dabblers, people with a casual interest in media, but when they're interested it has to be exactly what they want and it has to be on demand.

"And then there are the media die hards, it has to be on demand, flexible, personal and portable.

"I think the over the top experience has been very beneficial to the market, because it has stimulated traditional pay TV operators into waking up, and realising consumers want a more on demand experience, that meets the criteria of what we call media 3.0, this anytime, anywhere content experience."

All of this is also dependent on where you are in the world however.

"If we look at industry trends, there are many markets where broadband is not yet as advanced, where [the set-top box] will be the dominant model for some countries."

Illegal downloading remains a threat, according to Mr Schouten, but he encourages customers to see it in terms of a competitor. One they can learn from.

"For the advanced customer there are three major competitors. There's pay TV operators, over the top and piracy.

"When we as an industry give consumers a legitimate option that meets their requirements, many of them will pay for it. Giving people what they want is always the best way to get them to behave differently."

So it seems the future may be a bit of a mixed bag.

"There is still a groundswell of people that come home and turn on the TV to watch regular programmes at a regular time. A lot of people still build their home life around that sort of thing," says Paul O'Donovan, of technology research specialists Gartner.

"The pay TV market will change from the multiple channels we have today. Out of 300 channels most people only watch seven, but dip into others.

"Clearly people like on demand, and there's been a lot of uptake and interest.

"I think the future is more about video on demand, and watching content when you want to watch it."

TV TRANSFORMED

• Average TV size in the US in 2009 is 46", will be 65" in 2015
• Mobile has seen a 53% increase in video viewing over the past year
• By 2015, some 463m TV sets worldwide will be capable of accessing video via the internet, 36% of those in the EU
• Over 18m tablets shipped worldwide in 2010

Source: Christopher Schouten, Irdet