It's not like the original Wii was enormous...it may have been the smallest major gaming console ever sold. And since the price is not significantly less and the functionality is significantly less (no internet) I'm left wondering one thing:
Why would Nintendo waste their money developing and selling this?
...since charges of piracy are so ridiculously inflated. If you download the discography of your favorite musician, that's usually under 1GB and can contain hundreds of songs. Each one of those violations could come down on RapidShare's head. So just one user using one day's worth of bandwidth is enough "piracy" to end RapidShare.
...because most planets form under similar conditions to Earth (coalescence of dust cloud, leaving behind large lumps - asteroids - which are pulled in toward the star by gravity and bombard inner planets).
30 years ago, music sharing was copying cassettes...in person. And sharing government secrets was done largely in person, too, spy to spy agency.
15 years ago, music sharing was Napster. Downloading from a centralized source. Ditto for Wikileaks.
Today, music sharing is "in the cloud", decentralized, private, and often encrypted. Seems only natural for Project Tyler (which desperately needs a new name) to do the same.
According to the next article, this apparently means that this new center won't really do anything. After reading how "buzz-wordy" the summary was, I can see why the authors feel that way. All this summary said to me was "zoo buzzword buzzword buzzword' which translates to "zoo overpriced dull ill-advised".
...and the robot's weaknesses. The fluidity of the arm and hand are nearly as good as a human's. But the hand is human controlled. If this was controlled by a computer, it probably wouldn't be able to do many of the things in the video. But even forgiving that, it's the fluidity that would be lacking. Humans can make incredibly detailed and precise movements without thinking, something computers are probably still decades away from duplicating (maybe more).
...who clicks on ads? The only time I click them is by mistake and then in frustration I close the new window, usually before it loads.
My value per click is $0.
There have been many studies regarding this phenomenon, but most of them show that the effect is small. In other words, if you eat foods at the "right" time, you might absorb fewer or burn more of them than if you eat at the "wrong" time. However, because the effect is small, eating 4,000 calories a day will still result in obesity long-term, regardless of what time of day you're eating them.
Simply put, our bodies evolved to pack on the pounds in time of plenty and then miserly dole out that fat during lean times. During the present day in the 1st world (a time of plenty of easily-digested calories), the body just packs on the weight unless calorie restriction and exercise are done regularly.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that would be a problem. These bills are part of the public domain. Now Congress could pass a law changing that status...but I don't want to give them any ideas!
THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.
The government SHOULD do this, but if they refuse, simply go around them. This is how governments should always be treated: Encouraged when useful, bypassed when not.
+1 insightful. When Napster first appeared, many many people were still using dial-up. This limited the impact, and even then the RIAA was having a hissy-fit. Fight as they might, downloading became the default method for obtaining music (legally and illegally).
Fast forward 15 years and internet speeds are now sufficient to do the same with movies. MPAA will have a similar hissy-fit, but I think it's safe to assume that in 5 years, downloading will become the default method for obtaining movies (legally and illegally).
The question I'm always left asking is this: "Should artists be paid for recordings?"
In days past, performers made money for performing. They still do. There were no recordings on which to profit.
If ALL music were free as in beer and free as in liberty, surely artists would make less money. But would they go bankrupt? Many would still be multi-millionaires from concert ticket sales and merchandise alone. These would be the same artists with or without iTunes and CD sales.
So I ask: Should artists be paid for recordings? I think the answer is "No."
Slashdot Mirror
...the plastic uses iridium. That's expensive stuff, even if used in incredibly small quantities:
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/iridium/
Currently over $1,000 an ounce.
"Mr. Williamson promptly left Apple headquarters in Antarctica, and walked to his home in Middelfart, Denmark."
That's impossible. Apple maps says Middelfart is south of Antarctica. Sheesh.
It's not like the original Wii was enormous...it may have been the smallest major gaming console ever sold. And since the price is not significantly less and the functionality is significantly less (no internet) I'm left wondering one thing:
Why would Nintendo waste their money developing and selling this?
...since charges of piracy are so ridiculously inflated. If you download the discography of your favorite musician, that's usually under 1GB and can contain hundreds of songs. Each one of those violations could come down on RapidShare's head. So just one user using one day's worth of bandwidth is enough "piracy" to end RapidShare.
...because most planets form under similar conditions to Earth (coalescence of dust cloud, leaving behind large lumps - asteroids - which are pulled in toward the star by gravity and bombard inner planets).
30 years ago, music sharing was copying cassettes...in person. And sharing government secrets was done largely in person, too, spy to spy agency.
15 years ago, music sharing was Napster. Downloading from a centralized source. Ditto for Wikileaks.
Today, music sharing is "in the cloud", decentralized, private, and often encrypted. Seems only natural for Project Tyler (which desperately needs a new name) to do the same.
According to the next article, this apparently means that this new center won't really do anything. After reading how "buzz-wordy" the summary was, I can see why the authors feel that way. All this summary said to me was "zoo buzzword buzzword buzzword' which translates to "zoo overpriced dull ill-advised".
...and the robot's weaknesses. The fluidity of the arm and hand are nearly as good as a human's. But the hand is human controlled. If this was controlled by a computer, it probably wouldn't be able to do many of the things in the video. But even forgiving that, it's the fluidity that would be lacking. Humans can make incredibly detailed and precise movements without thinking, something computers are probably still decades away from duplicating (maybe more).
1984 Second? Fahrenheit 451. Same reasoning.
Homer: "Stupid Flanders!"
Ironically enough, I HAVE this exact device. It was given to me as a gift, but still.
...who clicks on ads? The only time I click them is by mistake and then in frustration I close the new window, usually before it loads. My value per click is $0.
...then skynet became sentient, then we had to send a terminator back and then...ah hell, you know the rest.
There have been many studies regarding this phenomenon, but most of them show that the effect is small. In other words, if you eat foods at the "right" time, you might absorb fewer or burn more of them than if you eat at the "wrong" time. However, because the effect is small, eating 4,000 calories a day will still result in obesity long-term, regardless of what time of day you're eating them.
Simply put, our bodies evolved to pack on the pounds in time of plenty and then miserly dole out that fat during lean times. During the present day in the 1st world (a time of plenty of easily-digested calories), the body just packs on the weight unless calorie restriction and exercise are done regularly.
...die rather suddenly. Usually heart attack. Strange.
News of patent filings...do they matter?
Seriously, when will this patent mess be fixed (or will only 3 companies be left standing...Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia?)
I thought they had somehow found a way to get to Mars months sooner.
Imagine my disappointment upon learning that they are landing closer and so just ended up with a shorter drive. (end sarcasm)
In all seriousness, this rover has some amazing hardware that has the best chance yet of finding microbial life on Mars.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that would be a problem. These bills are part of the public domain. Now Congress could pass a law changing that status...but I don't want to give them any ideas!
THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.
The government SHOULD do this, but if they refuse, simply go around them. This is how governments should always be treated: Encouraged when useful, bypassed when not.
And so long as a computer power supply can fail, a monitor can go bad, or a cable can become disconnected, you will need on-site support.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
+1 insightful. When Napster first appeared, many many people were still using dial-up. This limited the impact, and even then the RIAA was having a hissy-fit. Fight as they might, downloading became the default method for obtaining music (legally and illegally).
Fast forward 15 years and internet speeds are now sufficient to do the same with movies. MPAA will have a similar hissy-fit, but I think it's safe to assume that in 5 years, downloading will become the default method for obtaining movies (legally and illegally).
We are the Borg...we are really thirsty ...we will drink your coffee ...resistance is futile.
We are at war with Eurasia...we have always been at war with Eurasia
Near the end of the speech the queen also was heard to say "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."
The question I'm always left asking is this: "Should artists be paid for recordings?"
In days past, performers made money for performing. They still do. There were no recordings on which to profit.
If ALL music were free as in beer and free as in liberty, surely artists would make less money. But would they go bankrupt? Many would still be multi-millionaires from concert ticket sales and merchandise alone. These would be the same artists with or without iTunes and CD sales.
So I ask: Should artists be paid for recordings? I think the answer is "No."