+1 Amen to this. Along with Pandora and new music videos being released on YouTube, there's no need to pirate anymore. If the RIAA would just get their heads out of their asses and stop assuming that everyone wants to screw them (well we do, but only because they're so damn greedy), they might actually realize that people are willing to pay when it's worth it.
Also more and more, I find independent artists who are selling their CD's or MP3's direct on their own website and I'm perfectly willing to buy it because I like the music and want to support the artist. Knowing that most of the money goes to the artists helps my decision a lot too.
People that serve up video and audio don't have to pay for the creation of the content (at most, they have to pay for licensing which will almost always costs far less). Why are people complaining? NYT provided a price point that it thinks it's worth. If the public disagrees, we and NYT will find out soon enough. That's how capitalism works. Nobody's pointing a gun at your head to tell you must pay it. Likewise, you are not entitled to their content if you're not willing to pay what they ask. You have better info sources for less? Fine, then use them. Why would you even care what NYT charges then?
Personally, I find myself reading NYT articles more than any others because of the thought provoking topics and the writing itself. I don't know how many articles I read per month, but if I find that I'm going over their free limit, I will happily pay it. Certainly worth more than cable. And definitely worth more than Pandora, (which I love also). Worth more for *me*, that is.
I'm a little saddened to see all the negative comments aimed at the *victim*. What did he do wrong? He trusted someone. Apparently, that's so idiotic and inconceivable that it makes him the one who's at fault. What's next? Blaming rape victims for not bringing pepper spray on a blind date? What happened to blaming the perpetrator? The lesson here appears to be, if you're capable of scamming people online, then you deserve the money and your victims are morons. I guess the study that was written about in NY Times last year wasn't far off the mark.
So in effect, to use said extension, you will need to either:
a) Upgrade your XP/Vista box to Windows 7
b) Say goodbye to your Mac
c) Ditch your *nix distro
I can't really see many people doing that. However for anybody using the operating system, it's really not such a bad idea. While the idea of Microsoft developing a Firefox extension may turn heads, they're only doing it to benefit themselves.
Microsoft is a Fortune 500 company that exists to make profit. What do you expect from them? Help other companies compete with them? Work on projects with no financial benefit or strategic value at all? Are there companies I'm unaware of that do this?
One execution does not make the country less corrupt.
> Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution
Are you crazy? Do you really believe what they are paying you to write? Local pollution and greenhouse gases are being pumped out of china at an incredible increasing rate.
> sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions
Are you just plain stupid? Are you aware how your country generates its power? Let me give you a clue: COAL, DIRTY DIRTY COAL.
> bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.
You don't need lobbyists to be evil. Your government manages it all by themselves.
Please go to 4chan and post your garage there. Moron.
You clearly have some anger issues that are leading you to make some incorrect assumptions. I am an American just like you. Please read my reply above.
My intent was more to post about the pollution, but it appears that my post about corruption has set off a barrage of angry replies.
Let me start by saying that yes, corruption IS rampant in China. However, there is hypocrisy in Americans condemning them for it since our government and social system is hardly clean of corruption itself. In our case however, corruption has been painted, relabeled, and essentially sanctioned. In a truly clean system, none of our politicians would be able to receive any money either directly or indirectly from any corporation. How many politicians can we say this is true of?
My post is not meant to praise China's system. If it were that much better, I'd be living there (yes, I am American and no I am not being paid). We talk about how much air pollution (if you count CO2) comes from China, when we ourselves are still ranked #2 (or possibly still #1). And considering that we have a third of their population, we're not qualified to tell anyone else how bad their pollution is. Esp when they're better positioned to do something about it than we are. We're the pot, they're the kettle, and you know the rest...
When will the youth of China decide they've had enough of conformity and respect for authority? China has raised it standard of living in recent decades but they still suffer from a severe lack of basic freedoms, corruption, and choking pollution. The civil rights movement and Vietnam triggered the events of the 60's in the USA. When will the same happen in China?
Basic freedoms have improved, corruption has been far less than I've seen in the US (their former food and drug regulator was found to be taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies, and subsequently executed), and the choking pollution has only been a recent occurrence because of the rapid growth.
The pollution is bad right now, but I think China is in a position to turn that around really quickly. Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution who will oppose any and all environmental laws. Of course they don't want pollution, but currently the government is in a tough position of making choices between pollution and slowing down the growth of the country. However, one might note that their pace of growth in renewable energy is torrid. They have been putting a lot of money into wind and solar tech. Plus, they are already way ahead of the game in creating a practical 100% electric car. To me, it seems like sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions. Without a bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.
because there's no finish line. One can only hope to dominate for as long as possible. I agree that Android will probably become the most dominant mobile OS in the next few years, but that hardly means iOS is going to become insignificant. Windows dominates still, but as everyone can see Apple's hardly hurting financially with OS X. There's plenty of room in the market for two mobile OS's.
It's one thing to buy cheap Chinese made consumer electronics goods, but would you really want to risk your life in an aircraft? They cant even get products specifically destined for children right without someone unscrupulous substituting something inferior or deadly (lead paint, melamine). Unfortunately as a country they have a long way to go to rebuild their reputation.
Many of the same things were said when the Japanese started exporting electronics and cars to the U.S. It is a fatal mistake by many Americans to assume that lack of quality in the past guarantees lack of quality in the future, or more to the point, that their aerospace products will be manufactured in the same factory as goods destined for Walmart. They have already successfully launched satellites and people into space, indicating attention to engineering detail when it matters. Nobody here seems to notice or care that they're quickly and quietly becoming the leaders in producing and developing renewable energy tech. This outright dismissal is going to be the eventual downfall of our lazy American asses. I hope our politicians don't dimiss this as easily as you do (and probably many other posters).
I know you didn't write this (it was in the article), but "create enough blood for a transfusion" is a meaningless statement. Depending on the medical situation, one could need anywhere between 1 bag of red blood cells (450 ml) to 20 bags of blood. In the Nature article that ColdWetDog linked, it states,
Converted cells aren't without their drawbacks, though. Unlike iPS and embryonic stem cells, they cannot easily multiply in the lab, so producing the large quantities needed for applications such as screening drugs could prove tough, says Wilmut (embryologist and director of the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, UK)
As I suspected, differentiated cells such as skin will have limited ability to replicate. A 12 x 12 cm patch of skin doesn't have many cells compared to a standard 450 ml bag of packed RBC. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible, I don't see how this is likely to be turned into a realistic and practical solution for the blood banks.
While this is an interesting discovery, scientific history is littered with interesting discoveries that led nowhere. The practicality is dubious until we find answers to quite a few questions. Like how much skin it takes to produce a half liter of blood. A half liter is the standard volume of one bag of packed red blood cells (RBC). To be precise - 450 ml. If you need the entire skin to produce that much, then it's not exactly practical. And if you can grow an RBC supply from just a little bit of skin, how much time will it take and how much money in resources to develop AND store an adequate quantity? And will doing so compromise the stability or functionality (O2 carrying capabilities) of the RBC's produced by such a method?
Millions of people are already reading on Kindles and Kindle is the #1 bestselling item on Amazon.com for two years running. It's also the most-wished-for, most-gifted, and has the most 5-star reviews of any product on Amazon.com.
Let me start with this; I knew someone who was close to an author (she will go unnamed) and whenever the author published a book, I was always encouraged to go up to Amazon and write a review.
I'm trying to find the original article, but a year ago Dow Jones reported that online reviews are inflated - people are way too nice.
In my experience with my own purchases, five star reviews are horribly misleading and inflated. And many times, I think they're written by shills. I now go to the 1 star reviews first (ignore the user errors and the folks who didn't like the shipping) and go up the ratings and ignore the fives. Apparently, some shills are writing 4 star reviews. Fortunately, the shills are kind of easy to spot - I'll leave that up to you figure it out - I don't want to make my buying harder than it is.
True if there are only a few reviews. However, when the reviews number in the hundreds or thousands and the ratio of 5 stars to 1 stars is like 20:1, I tend to believe the 5 stars. I do still read the 1 star reviews to see if the complaints are valid or if they're simply by someone who had some issue with Amazon support and decided to ding the product for it. But your point is valid. I do find that the 4 star reviews tend to be the most objective and helpful.
You're right in that Apple is free to moderate their boards however they wish. But you are missing the point. Image is very important to Apple. They are trying to keep "the Image" intact. But ultimately Apple is tarnishing "the Image". They are trying to control information in a very Orwellian way (i.e. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."). And what makes it very damning and hugely ironic, is that Apple is turning into the very thing they fought against in their very first Macintosh Commercial.
Well, if you also read the other Orwell story, Animal Farm, it's not really all that ironic. In fact, with their huge increase in wealth and power, it was probably inevitable.
Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!
Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity! But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!
... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while/var,/temp,/home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month.
I would love to replace my hard disks, arguably the most critical and vulnerable components of my computers, with SSDs, but only if they are more reliable in the first place, and can thereafter be regarded generally as an improvement.
Um, those of us who would like a much smaller desktop or a smaller (and lighter) notebook computer care about size. If you can have 1 TB postage sized hard drive, engineers would have a MUCH easier time creating smaller form factors. Furthermore, besides the smaller size, you also have far fewer concerns about heat AND moving parts (a factor for notebook computers which are dropped fairly frequently). With non-server usage levels, SSD's in my experience have been quite reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Amen to this. Along with Pandora and new music videos being released on YouTube, there's no need to pirate anymore. If the RIAA would just get their heads out of their asses and stop assuming that everyone wants to screw them (well we do, but only because they're so damn greedy), they might actually realize that people are willing to pay when it's worth it. Also more and more, I find independent artists who are selling their CD's or MP3's direct on their own website and I'm perfectly willing to buy it because I like the music and want to support the artist. Knowing that most of the money goes to the artists helps my decision a lot too.
People that serve up video and audio don't have to pay for the creation of the content (at most, they have to pay for licensing which will almost always costs far less). Why are people complaining? NYT provided a price point that it thinks it's worth. If the public disagrees, we and NYT will find out soon enough. That's how capitalism works. Nobody's pointing a gun at your head to tell you must pay it. Likewise, you are not entitled to their content if you're not willing to pay what they ask. You have better info sources for less? Fine, then use them. Why would you even care what NYT charges then?
Personally, I find myself reading NYT articles more than any others because of the thought provoking topics and the writing itself. I don't know how many articles I read per month, but if I find that I'm going over their free limit, I will happily pay it. Certainly worth more than cable. And definitely worth more than Pandora, (which I love also). Worth more for *me*, that is.
Why do people keep thinking they can "improve" nature without any consequences?
I'm a little saddened to see all the negative comments aimed at the *victim*. What did he do wrong? He trusted someone. Apparently, that's so idiotic and inconceivable that it makes him the one who's at fault. What's next? Blaming rape victims for not bringing pepper spray on a blind date? What happened to blaming the perpetrator? The lesson here appears to be, if you're capable of scamming people online, then you deserve the money and your victims are morons. I guess the study that was written about in NY Times last year wasn't far off the mark.
So in effect, to use said extension, you will need to either: a) Upgrade your XP/Vista box to Windows 7 b) Say goodbye to your Mac c) Ditch your *nix distro I can't really see many people doing that. However for anybody using the operating system, it's really not such a bad idea. While the idea of Microsoft developing a Firefox extension may turn heads, they're only doing it to benefit themselves.
Microsoft is a Fortune 500 company that exists to make profit. What do you expect from them? Help other companies compete with them? Work on projects with no financial benefit or strategic value at all? Are there companies I'm unaware of that do this?
Along that line of reasoning, if you take a human being of extremely low intelligence (e.g. Sarah Palin), they will also look at you like you're daft.
How much were you paid to post that comment?
China is incredibly corrupt and corruption is rampant throughout all levels of society.
Freedom? Are you kidding me.
One execution does not make the country less corrupt.
> Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution
Are you crazy? Do you really believe what they are paying you to write? Local pollution and greenhouse gases are being pumped out of china at an incredible increasing rate.
> sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions
Are you just plain stupid? Are you aware how your country generates its power? Let me give you a clue: COAL, DIRTY DIRTY COAL.
> bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.
You don't need lobbyists to be evil. Your government manages it all by themselves.
Please go to 4chan and post your garage there. Moron.
You clearly have some anger issues that are leading you to make some incorrect assumptions. I am an American just like you. Please read my reply above.
My intent was more to post about the pollution, but it appears that my post about corruption has set off a barrage of angry replies.
Let me start by saying that yes, corruption IS rampant in China. However, there is hypocrisy in Americans condemning them for it since our government and social system is hardly clean of corruption itself. In our case however, corruption has been painted, relabeled, and essentially sanctioned. In a truly clean system, none of our politicians would be able to receive any money either directly or indirectly from any corporation. How many politicians can we say this is true of?
My post is not meant to praise China's system. If it were that much better, I'd be living there (yes, I am American and no I am not being paid). We talk about how much air pollution (if you count CO2) comes from China, when we ourselves are still ranked #2 (or possibly still #1). And considering that we have a third of their population, we're not qualified to tell anyone else how bad their pollution is. Esp when they're better positioned to do something about it than we are. We're the pot, they're the kettle, and you know the rest...
When will the youth of China decide they've had enough of conformity and respect for authority? China has raised it standard of living in recent decades but they still suffer from a severe lack of basic freedoms, corruption, and choking pollution. The civil rights movement and Vietnam triggered the events of the 60's in the USA. When will the same happen in China?
Basic freedoms have improved, corruption has been far less than I've seen in the US (their former food and drug regulator was found to be taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies, and subsequently executed), and the choking pollution has only been a recent occurrence because of the rapid growth.
The pollution is bad right now, but I think China is in a position to turn that around really quickly. Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution who will oppose any and all environmental laws. Of course they don't want pollution, but currently the government is in a tough position of making choices between pollution and slowing down the growth of the country. However, one might note that their pace of growth in renewable energy is torrid. They have been putting a lot of money into wind and solar tech. Plus, they are already way ahead of the game in creating a practical 100% electric car. To me, it seems like sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions. Without a bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.
because there's no finish line. One can only hope to dominate for as long as possible. I agree that Android will probably become the most dominant mobile OS in the next few years, but that hardly means iOS is going to become insignificant. Windows dominates still, but as everyone can see Apple's hardly hurting financially with OS X. There's plenty of room in the market for two mobile OS's.
What would happen if a suicide bomber set off a bomb in a crowded screening line...Would we then set up a screening for the screening?
It's one thing to buy cheap Chinese made consumer electronics goods, but would you really want to risk your life in an aircraft? They cant even get products specifically destined for children right without someone unscrupulous substituting something inferior or deadly (lead paint, melamine). Unfortunately as a country they have a long way to go to rebuild their reputation.
Many of the same things were said when the Japanese started exporting electronics and cars to the U.S. It is a fatal mistake by many Americans to assume that lack of quality in the past guarantees lack of quality in the future, or more to the point, that their aerospace products will be manufactured in the same factory as goods destined for Walmart. They have already successfully launched satellites and people into space, indicating attention to engineering detail when it matters. Nobody here seems to notice or care that they're quickly and quietly becoming the leaders in producing and developing renewable energy tech. This outright dismissal is going to be the eventual downfall of our lazy American asses. I hope our politicians don't dimiss this as easily as you do (and probably many other posters).
I know you didn't write this (it was in the article), but "create enough blood for a transfusion" is a meaningless statement. Depending on the medical situation, one could need anywhere between 1 bag of red blood cells (450 ml) to 20 bags of blood. In the Nature article that ColdWetDog linked, it states,
Converted cells aren't without their drawbacks, though. Unlike iPS and embryonic stem cells, they cannot easily multiply in the lab, so producing the large quantities needed for applications such as screening drugs could prove tough, says Wilmut (embryologist and director of the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, UK)
As I suspected, differentiated cells such as skin will have limited ability to replicate. A 12 x 12 cm patch of skin doesn't have many cells compared to a standard 450 ml bag of packed RBC. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible, I don't see how this is likely to be turned into a realistic and practical solution for the blood banks.
While this is an interesting discovery, scientific history is littered with interesting discoveries that led nowhere. The practicality is dubious until we find answers to quite a few questions. Like how much skin it takes to produce a half liter of blood. A half liter is the standard volume of one bag of packed red blood cells (RBC). To be precise - 450 ml. If you need the entire skin to produce that much, then it's not exactly practical. And if you can grow an RBC supply from just a little bit of skin, how much time will it take and how much money in resources to develop AND store an adequate quantity? And will doing so compromise the stability or functionality (O2 carrying capabilities) of the RBC's produced by such a method?
When I read this summary, why does it read like a description of a South Park episode?
Can't wait until I can order one. I've always wanted a huge package.
Adjusted for inflation? A penny or two?
You're just jealous that my wife is harder than yours.
Only because your dick was more expensive.
Millions of people are already reading on Kindles and Kindle is the #1 bestselling item on Amazon.com for two years running. It's also the most-wished-for, most-gifted, and has the most 5-star reviews of any product on Amazon.com.
Let me start with this; I knew someone who was close to an author (she will go unnamed) and whenever the author published a book, I was always encouraged to go up to Amazon and write a review.
I'm trying to find the original article, but a year ago Dow Jones reported that online reviews are inflated - people are way too nice.
In my experience with my own purchases, five star reviews are horribly misleading and inflated. And many times, I think they're written by shills. I now go to the 1 star reviews first (ignore the user errors and the folks who didn't like the shipping) and go up the ratings and ignore the fives. Apparently, some shills are writing 4 star reviews. Fortunately, the shills are kind of easy to spot - I'll leave that up to you figure it out - I don't want to make my buying harder than it is.
True if there are only a few reviews. However, when the reviews number in the hundreds or thousands and the ratio of 5 stars to 1 stars is like 20:1, I tend to believe the 5 stars. I do still read the 1 star reviews to see if the complaints are valid or if they're simply by someone who had some issue with Amazon support and decided to ding the product for it. But your point is valid. I do find that the 4 star reviews tend to be the most objective and helpful.
Blackberry will be announcing a new tablet supposedly powered by a Marvell chip. Looks like we might see this chip in action soon enough.
Fusion. On earth. What could go wrong?
The dog ate my homework. The dog ate my toe. Jeez, man's "best friend" sure takes a lot of crap from us.
You're right in that Apple is free to moderate their boards however they wish. But you are missing the point. Image is very important to Apple. They are trying to keep "the Image" intact. But ultimately Apple is tarnishing "the Image". They are trying to control information in a very Orwellian way (i.e. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."). And what makes it very damning and hugely ironic, is that Apple is turning into the very thing they fought against in their very first Macintosh Commercial.
Well, if you also read the other Orwell story, Animal Farm, it's not really all that ironic. In fact, with their huge increase in wealth and power, it was probably inevitable.
Helicopters signal the end of automobiles, just as soon as their poor $$/mile traveled ratio reaches parity, but you can buy helicopters from Air Hog right now!
Solar panels signal the end of nuclear power AND the oil industry, just as soon as their poor $$/watt ratio reaches parity! But you can get a solar powered calculator RIGHT NOW!
Can I be a tech pundit yet?
Yeah, and LCD's signal the end for CRT's...
Oh wait.
... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while /var, /temp, /home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month.
I would love to replace my hard disks, arguably the most critical and vulnerable components of my computers, with SSDs, but only if they are more reliable in the first place, and can thereafter be regarded generally as an improvement.
Um, those of us who would like a much smaller desktop or a smaller (and lighter) notebook computer care about size. If you can have 1 TB postage sized hard drive, engineers would have a MUCH easier time creating smaller form factors. Furthermore, besides the smaller size, you also have far fewer concerns about heat AND moving parts (a factor for notebook computers which are dropped fairly frequently). With non-server usage levels, SSD's in my experience have been quite reliable.