That sounds like the stuff what countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia, et al do with the Internet: Limit the voices of anything that the government doesn't like.
As someone who has lived with the restrictions of the Chinese internet for the past 6 years... Nope. It's nothing like this. Not even close. Nobody at Google or in Hollywood is "Inviting you to tea" for what you put in your TV or movie script. And nobody is publishing lists of what isn't "harmonious" or doesn't "promote the welfare of the party".
This is people, through companies, expressing opinions and "voting with their dollars". i.e., "capitalism"
It's curious that you would still have problems hearing the movies these days, considering that the last movie I went to, the theater had bumped the volume level up to about the same point as a heavy metal concert! Do they really think it "improves" the experience to deafen the audience?
for those of us with varying degrees of hearing impairment, it's not that the movies aren't loud enough, it's that the audio is mixed so terribly--and actors these days can't be bothered to enunciate. For me, I "can't hear" because it's too loud. All the background noise drowns out the dialogue. The low-end "thump and boom" overpowers the mid-range (where the human "speaking voice" is found).
That's people taking snapshots. That's not serious (pro or hobby) photography.
I've taken some great shots with my phone. I'm not saying it can't be done. But a phone that takes a good snapshot in very good conditions (direction of light, intensity of light, level of light, contrast, etc.) will never replace a DSLR which can take advantage of *actual* optics which are designed to deal with various shooting scenarios.
If you're using your "professional DSLR" to take snapshots at a family dinner, then yes: your phone can do the job. But that's like saying "My Toyota works just as well for getting my kids to school in morning traffic as my Lamborghini does."
Of course, it's impossible to prove that the treatment did nothing for you and you would have got better on your own, but hey, why not?
Not really. I'm dealing with a "control" scenario right now.
Every few years, I'll do something that will cause me to pinch a nerve in my neck (lower cervical/upper thoracic) It can be mild, like a pain when moving my arm in a certain way, or severe where I can't turn my head more than 10 degrees to one side. If I wait for it to go away on its own, it can take weeks. If I go to the chiropractor, partial relief (reduced pain, increased mobility) is immediate, and full relief happens in 2-3 days. It may or may not require a second adjustment--but that's up to me.
I'm dealing with a pinched nerve that seems to originate right between my shoulder blades (but I know that "feels like" can be deceptive). I know the cause: Chairs that are too short, and desks that are too high. But I'm in China, and that's the way all the furniture is. I'm using pillows and stacks of foam to deal with the former, but I can't rebuild the office desks to deal with the latter. I can't find a chiropractor here. I know a qualified one could fix this right away.
But I'm also aware that the only thing Chiropractors can do is adjust joints to relieve pressure on nerves and strain on muscles. And a good one will give you advice on how to avoid these problems in the future (like, take your wallet out of your pocket when you sit down).
A lot of the feeds I get show banner ads in the content. But more than that, it's not about profiting directly from RSS, it's about providing a very simple way to gently remind viewers to come read the full content--and see all the ads on the page.
Marketers use all sorts of methods to drive viewers to websites. An RSS feed will bring people to a site multiple times a day (more views) instead of coming once per day (e.g., over morning coffee). A good headline and an interesting excerpt--followed by a link to the full content on the website--is an excellent way to pull in eyeballs. Additionally, if the ads are tailored to the content, it helps to target the ads and increases the chances of clicks/conversions.
Choose the most stable OS you are willing to support. "Stable" as of "Debian stable". I.e. you want an OS that will work even if you are away for a couple of months and will not need a day to update when you return
That's part of the reason I'm asking for opinions: I live--quite literally--on the other side of the world from her (I'm in China, she's in the US). My first thought was Ubuntu (with something other than Unity UI), but I wanted to see if there are any other options I might not know about.
I'm actually in the very larval stages of trying to create an open-source "studio" to fill the niche that channels like SyFy are vacating.
The Trilobyte Project goes one step farther than just being a place for independently-produced shows, it actually invites and relies on the input of the fans in order to create and shape the shows.
I have 25 years of experience in live theatre (acting, design, production, and tech), so the foundation is there for making the right kinds of decisions.
The worlds created are open-source, and released under a Creative Commons license, so people are free to use the worlds for their own works. The stories we hope to create are plot-driven with minimal FX. There are currently half a dozen worlds listed in the forums and available for discussion and development, but we're currently focusing on developing a single series that will be easy to film and produce.
As I said, this project is in its very initial stages. We have 2 writers and a handful of contributors. If you're interested in getting involved with an independent studio and contributing from the ground up--in input, not in cash--then please join in the discussions and help us create something that we, as SF fans and geeks, can call 100% our own.
"For most state laws that I've looked at, if you encounter material that is child pornography, it is not criminal if you immediately report it and surrender it to law enforcement."
Not to get off topic, but... I have a friend sitting in prison right now who, I believe, would like to disagree with you on that.
MADD started out as a group of mothers who'd lost a loved one to drunk drivers. They've become a multi-million dollar propoganda machine that is both draconian and irrational.
They continue to equate the federal statistics for "alcohol-related accidents" and present them as "drunk driving fatalities". Under the former term, if two cars collide and both drivers are sober, but a passenger is drunk, it qualifies as an "alcohol-related accident". If a person has a drink before committing suicide in their car, it's an "alcohol-related accident". This blatantly false method of reporting increases the number of "drunk drivers" by 400-500%. http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/common-dui-dwi-m yths/
Through the efforts and lobbying of MADD, irrational and irresponsible laws have been put in place. These laws pursue stricter and more powerful restraints and punishments on persons who have little or no impairment, while taking resources away from pursuing and properly punishing those who have significant and repeated violations.
If MADD were serious about their stated purpose, they'd spend more time working to strengthen the laws dealing with egregious and repeated violations (the guys who are free after 7 convictions) rather than harassing the average Joe who has a beer after work and heads home to his family.
My local library (a twelve-block walk; what wonderful city do YOU inhabit?) doesn't give the studio a cut when I borrow a DVD. Does yours?
No they buy a different license than the standard consumer license. Just like Blockbuster doens't pay $20 for the movies it rents to people, neither does the library.
I used to be a purchasing agent for a school district. Part of my job was dealing with the purchase of library materials; books, magazines, videos. With the exception of some products marked for "public performance" licenses (i.e., to be shown to large groups such as classes), we paid less than market rate for materials. Discounts from some vendors were (are) as much as 20% off of retail. Even in the "public performance" situation, it's still only 3-4 times retail price, and getting seen by potentially thousands of students.
Even with an increased license price, there is no way that it offsets the "loss of purchases"
The problem is that the movie industry is locked into the mindset of "income=items sold", when they should be looking at "income=product viewed". The income from physical sales of DVDs is only one source of income. Market tie-ins, advertising, product placement, toys, t-shirts, posters, etc., etc., etc....
When you pay $35 for a DVD, you're not paying the movie company $35. You're paying the plastics manufacturer, the stamping plant, the printing house, the warehousing company, the trucking company, the rental on the store, the payroll of the cashier, and a hefty profit on every step down the line. If they can't figure out a way to cut out 9 layers of middle-men and sell their products for little (or nothing) and still make a profit, then all that money the spent getting their MBAs was a big waste.
These same studios produce thousands of hours of programing a year for TV, spending up to $4-5 million per week just on salaries for the stars--not to mention all the rest of the production costs, and they give it away for free (at least from the viewer's standpoint). And they expect me to believe that after they make hundreds of millions of dollars in the first weekend of a theatrical release, they can't come up with a business model that puts the product into the hands of consumers for little or nothing, and still make a profit?
No. There is an important distinction between "not needing advanced degree in the subject" and "accessible to everyone". When you say "everybody" you surely don't mean really EVERYONE, or would you say that every Wikipedia article needs to be understandable by a child of age of 10? Well, I guess that would depend on the 10-year old.:)
Seriously, though, "everyone" is a general term meaning (in this case) "the readership at large". Yes, there is an assumption of at least moderate fluency in the language, a basic degree of education (some high school or better), and a mental capacity to grasp both concrete and abstract concepts. I'd guess that 90% or more of the readership meets these three criteria (I'm assuming that readers would choose a language which they're able to read).
Somewhere at the beginning of the thread, someone posted quotes from the entry on dental crowns. I am fluent in English (more so than the average speaker), have a significantly high IQ, and have had college-level education in science (specifically biology). In addition, my mother has worked in dentistry for over 50 years, and I've picked up a lot of knowledge on the topic from her. I had no clue what was being said in the quoted sentences. That's a poorly-written article--and there's no reason for it.
Albert Einstein held that all science (up to and including his theories on Relativity) could be explained to anyone in a way which allowed them to understand the concepts without needing an advanced degree in the subject.
Isaac Asimov, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking have all proven this is possible through their numerous books. Einstein himself, wrote a book titled "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand" (ISBN: 0-517-025302, 1961, Crown Publishers).
From the preface (written by Albert Einstein):
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.
Any contributor who says it is impossible to write an encyclopedia article which describes a topic with reasonable accuracy in a way which is accessible to everyone is simply wrong. All they are doing is showing their own inability to fully understand the topic and translate it into common terminology. Any concept can be explained without using mathematics or technical jargon. Perhaps not a full and complete explanation, but certainly enough to allow a person to understand the concepts and how they apply to real life.
As a teacher, I have explained art theory to first graders, physics to 5th graders, and philosophy to 9th graders. I've even explained the basics of computers to a redneck by using a beer metaphor.
Wikipedia is not the Journal Science, nor the New England Journal of Medicine. It's an online encyclopedia. People with the technical understanding to read NEJofM aren't going to be coming to Wikipedia to do research on Asperger's Syndrome. Bob Smith the accountant, however, may. If Bob can't understand what's written, then Wikipedia has failed in it's mission.
Reading through the comments here, I see lots of divisiveness, but little actual grasp of reality.
1) Reliability of wikipedia. My litmus test for an encyclopedia is the Tesla/Marconi test. Look at the entries for Marconi and Tesla. If it says that Marconi invented radio, then it's not a reliable source. If it says that Tesla did, it's reliable. This is a point of fact that was settled by the SCOTUS about 60 years ago. Wikipedia gets it right. Most printed encyclopedias I have checked get it wrong. (I used to work for a school district, and part of my duties were to receive in books. I had *lots* of chances to check encyclopedias).
2) 'Learning' is not about regurgitating accepted information. It's about gaining the skills to understand and discriminate good information from bad. Part of the way that a person gains these skills is by occasionally doing the wrong thing and getting corrected. A school district which lays out a policy which (in effect) says 'You may only cite sources of which we approve', is not allowing students the chance to make mistakes--and thereby learn. They are also eliminating the concept of contesting data. (see the following point)
3) Approved sources vs. authoritative sources. When I was in high school, I took a class on WWII. I read the approved textbooks and the approved stories of what happened. As part of the class, I interviewed a WWII veteran--in this case, my father. When comparing the approved text's description of what happened at Monte Casino, and my father's description of what happened, there was a huge disparity. One version was written by historians, peer reviewed, edited, and accepted by the school district. The other version was from someone who was actually there at the time it happened. Which would *you* believe?
In school we are taught (by authoritative sources!) that George Washington's teeth were wooden (False-- they were ivory), that Marconi invented the radio (False--it was Nicola Tesla), and that American bravery resulted in the capture of Monte Casino (False--it was the devious and brutal actions of the Sikhs that causes a German surrender). I'm not sure about the last one, but I know that Wikipedia gets the first two correct, where the approved sources get them wrong.
The administrations who ban Wikipedia (and other online resources) on the basis of 'validity', are prejudiced. They think that anything in print is, somehow, magically endowed with veracity. Those administrations are wrong. The truth of the matter is that *all* sources of information should be questioned. They should be bounced against other sources and both the similarities and discrepancies should be considered and weighed for value.
But schools aren't interested in that. They aren't interested in teaching kids how to think, because teachers aren't rewarded on how well students criticize 'conventional wisdom', and critical and independent thinking doesn't show up well on standardized tests.
And before anyone shouts me down, I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who has been on the teaching side of academia--as both a teacher and an administrator--for the better part of 20 years. As a teacher, I welcomed *any* source that could be justified. I will set one instance of 'My dad was there' against a thousand established encyclopedias and history texts.f
Wikipedia is full of experts, and they have to defend themselves--constantly--against a host of counter arguments. If that isn't the epitome of peer review, I don't know what is.
Oh... and for those who say that sites such as MySpace have no value? Have you seen how many politicians are explaining their platforms via MySpace blogs and profiles? That sounds pretty authoritative to me.
The Congress shall have Power to......promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
If you take time to look into it, "aesthetics" actually have their basis in solid mathematics & physics. Balance, proportion, direction, wavelength, pattern... these are all part of the mathematic basis on which "design" are built.
When it comes to design (which is distinctly separate from "art"), anyone who is mechanically or mathematically inclined (i.e., "geeks") can learn the formulae which will create a pleasing design. It might not be "artsy" or "cutting edge" or "avant garde" but it'll be pleasing to the eye.
Quick, somebody moderate this as flamebait. Never, under any circumstances, consider this a challenge to reform the Slashdot community to be anything but laughably ignorant of the patent system it despises so deeply. This is the place for blind hatred, knee-jerk reactionism, and protecting the delicate groupthink; this is Slashdot.
I can't speak for the entirety of the slashdot community, but given the fact that the US Patent Office has granted patents on naturally-occurring gene sequences, I'm incline to say that the current system is "less than optimal".
I'm neither a patent attorney nor an expert in any aspect of patent law, but I do understand the concept of intellectual property and the reasoning behind patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
You decry all of us here as being ignorant fools, but you provide nothing by which to educate or persuade us. Removing the sarcastic tone from your post, it seems to boil down to nothing more than "There's nothing to see here. Move along."
From my casual, layman's viewpoint, the application for and granting of patents in the US appears to be somewhat.... capricious. If you have a logical, supported argument as to why this perception is flawed, I would very much like to hear it. Though, you must understand, I (and others, I am sure) will actively debate any statements you may make.
While MySpace may be 99.44% teen crap, it should be pointed out that it's also becoming a venue for political expression by elected officials; I happen to know that Russ Feingold (D-WI) has a MySpace page. I seem to recall that several of the current Presidential candidates have profiles on MySpace, also.
This law would ban *all* "social networking sites" from schools and libraries. This means that Barak Obama's new social networking site would be banned. It means that (arguably) any professional or hobbiest forums would be banned (after all, they're nothing more than a bunch of people "talking", right?). It almost certainly would cover professional networking sites--banning based strictly on content is definitely a First-Amendment issue, so if you ban one type of networking site, you'd have to ban them all.
As for those people who say "you can't step into a library and scream whatever you want": well, in many respects, you can. Libraries are public property, and the Law has some very specific things to say about the right of citizens to free speech on public property. Additionally, the analogy is flawed. Viewing a certain type of website is not like standing in the middle of the library and screaming. It's more akin to wearing a Ramones T-shirt in the library: it's an individual doing something which does not disrupt other patrons.
In reply to the idea that "kids are using up all the computer time": how does that differ from the fact that books are checked out from the library for weeks at a time, thereby making them completely inaccessible to other patrons?
Quite frankly, this proposed legislation is nothing more than an old curmudgeon (metaphorically) shaking his cane and yelling "get off my lawn, you damn kids!" --even though they're not on *his* lawn.
"You can't patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn't be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned."
The problem Crichton is pointing to isn't a flaw in the process of patents as a concept, but in the application of the concept to a specific situation: "laying claim" to something that exists naturally, and is already "owned" by many (and in some cases, all) people on the Earth.
It's utterly reasonable (and desirable) to patent a test for Disease X. It's reasonable and desirable to patent a drug or procedure for curing Disease X. It's both detrimental and dangerous to allow someone to patent the gene that causes Disease X and then state that nobody else can do any research on this gene. That discourages innovation and scientific advancement.
Let's take it out of the biological realm for a moment and apply the same reasoning to another industry. It's like someone patenting iron--and preventing manufacturers from creating anything that uses iron. Or someone patenting "zero"--and preventing coders from writing anything that uses a "zero".
The naturally-occuring human genome should be owned by no one. No part of it should be patentable. Inventions based on that genome? Yes. Non-naturally-occuring modifications to that genome? Yes. Processes for replicating naturally-occuring modifications? Yes. But not the genome itself. Withholding access to the pimary data--data readily available everywhere in the world for free--directly and disasterously hampers both innovation and the advancement of scientific knowledge.
"...but there's nothing in the clear language of the bill that would give the AG the power to force ISPs to track browsing, etc..."
Actually there is:
...the Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the retention of records by Internet Service Providers.
Now, I suggest you go read Title 18, 2257:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscod e18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
Specifically this line: "(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section."
Now... go out and read about the "appropriate regulations" which have been issued by the Attorney General and their practical applications and implications. For example: Federal agents can enter a private home without warning nor warrant, and search through her computer files to check for compliance. Anything seen during that "visit"--regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with "porn", can be used as evidence of crime. By order of the AG, the 4th Amendment ceases to exist for cam girls (any "cam girl" who shows skin is considered a "producer of pornography" and her home is a "place of business").
As with 2257, this legislation clearly and specifically gives the Attorney General a blank check in writing rules--rules which are not debated before nor voted on by Congress, nor signed by the President, yet which hold the weight of law.
You can bet that the initial "attack" will be 2-pronged: Porn and Terrorism. Morality and Fear.
And let's be very clear about this: This will be done under the authority of a single, unelected man; a man who, in the current incarnation, wrote guidelines telling members of the current administration how to get away with torture.
While there are very few politicians that I trust, I do trust in the conflict of personal interests which pervades Congress to create a situation where there is at least some degree of valid debate and limit of authority.
A while ago, a friend pointed out an article to me which dealt with exactly this topic. If I still had the link, I'd post it, but it's been lost in the ether.
The basic premise is this: The author puts forth a new sales model for TV viewing: Sponsorship. He came upon the idea while watching a show and noticing all the "empty space" at the top and bottom of his screen. He realized that this space could be sold. So, for example, Pepsi could sponsor this week's episode of Battlestar Galactica. They'd get to put their logo on the screen for the entire show (like the "bugs" that TV stations currently have). Viewers could subscribe to a show (or set of shows) and get the content via P2P, direct download, or DVD mailed to their homes.
I can't remember all the particulars of the economics, but the article was rather specific on how and why this would work. Advertisers would only pay for actual downloads/discs mailed, and producers could charge more because it's guaranteed that every instance being paid for is an actual viewing of the advertising content.
The one major problem the author points out is that this model would eliminate TV stations, since they're little more than advertising middle-men (they produce almost nothing--a local news show or two--and spend the rest of their time matching advertisers to content).
In a way, it's going back to the original model for television: Companies sponsor a show, and viewers watch them for free.
The author even mentions that P2P would be the *preferred* method of distribution, since the producers don't have to pay for all of the bandwidth (or shipping in the case of mailed DVDs). And since the ads are integral to the image, there's no worries about commercial-skipping, etc.
The industries involved would have to change their business models, but in the end, almost everyone comes out ahead.
As a condition of Your use of Go Daddy 's Software and Services, You agree not to use them for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these terms and conditions, and You agree to comply with any applicable local, state, federal and international laws, government rules or requirements. You agree You will not be entitled to a refund of any fees paid to Go Daddy if, for any reason, Go Daddy takes corrective action with respect to Your improper or illegal use of its Services.
[...]... Go Daddy reserves the right to review Your use of the Services and to cancel the Services in its sole discretion. Go Daddy reserves the right to terminate Your access to the Services at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever.
Go Daddy reserves the right to terminate Services if Your usage of the Services results in, or is the subject of, legal action or threatened legal action, against Go Daddy or any of its affiliates or partners, without consideration for whether such legal action or threatened legal action is eventually determined to be with or without merit. [...]
Except as set forth below, Go Daddy may also cancel Your use of the Services, after thirty (30) days, if You are using the Services, as determined by Go Daddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to: [...] activities designed to impersonate the identity of a third party; illegal access to other computers or networks (i.e., hacking); distribution of Internet viruses or similar destructive activities;...
I haven't read through all of the responses, but two fairly distinct views are coming out: Parents need to monitor their children to protect them from predators, and parents need to teach their children to protect them from predators. And there's lots of discussion about what is and is not a "good parent".
I'd just like to make a few points:
If good parenting requires monitoring the teen's activities online, doesn't it also follow that the parents should hover around the mall, the park, the school, the coffee shop, and the mini-golf course?
With the exception of the one girl who was drugged, there's no mention of what constituted the "sexual assault". These girls all went willingly to a meeting with these men, there is no mention of coercion, force, or gross deception.
How long had these girls been talking with these men? Could it be that they went to meet them specifically for "romantic" encounters, knowing full well the age differences?
Anyone who believes that 14-16 year old girls don't go looking for sexual encounters--even with significantly older men--has never dealt with teen-age girls. This isn't as one-sided as people want to make it out to be. These men weren't forcing the girls to talk to them. Other than the one young man lying that he was still in high school (he's only 19, so that's not a huge lie), we have no evidence that there was any deception going on at all. The guy who drugged the girl can definitely be considered a predator, but it's fully possible that the other guys simply got involved in a 2-way relationship which progressed to a point where both parties were willing to meet and take it further.
I'm not saying that this was the smartest move on anyone's part, but considering that--depending on the states these people are in--the sexual encounters could have been entirely consensual and legal, the situation needs to be considered from other perspectives.
Having spent many years teaching high school students, I'm quite certain that there's more to the story than is being presented in the article or the law suits.
"It's extremely difficult to be a 'good parent' and reasonable monitor your child's behavior on the Internet these days."
Actually, it's not. The catch is that you have to be a "good parent" from the beginning: teach your children to be responsible, cautious, skeptical, and realistic when dealing with new situations, and you won't need to monitor them all the time. It's okay to talk to anyone online. It's not okay to give out personal information or go see them without finding out who they really are first.
Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles is one the leading smog capitals of the world.
Umm... no.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a...
That sounds like the stuff what countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia, et al do with the Internet: Limit the voices of anything that the government doesn't like.
As someone who has lived with the restrictions of the Chinese internet for the past 6 years... Nope. It's nothing like this. Not even close. Nobody at Google or in Hollywood is "Inviting you to tea" for what you put in your TV or movie script. And nobody is publishing lists of what isn't "harmonious" or doesn't "promote the welfare of the party".
This is people, through companies, expressing opinions and "voting with their dollars". i.e., "capitalism"
It's curious that you would still have problems hearing the movies these days, considering that the last movie I went to, the theater had bumped the volume level up to about the same point as a heavy metal concert! Do they really think it "improves" the experience to deafen the audience?
for those of us with varying degrees of hearing impairment, it's not that the movies aren't loud enough, it's that the audio is mixed so terribly--and actors these days can't be bothered to enunciate. For me, I "can't hear" because it's too loud. All the background noise drowns out the dialogue. The low-end "thump and boom" overpowers the mid-range (where the human "speaking voice" is found).
No.
That's people taking snapshots. That's not serious (pro or hobby) photography.
I've taken some great shots with my phone. I'm not saying it can't be done. But a phone that takes a good snapshot in very good conditions (direction of light, intensity of light, level of light, contrast, etc.) will never replace a DSLR which can take advantage of *actual* optics which are designed to deal with various shooting scenarios.
If you're using your "professional DSLR" to take snapshots at a family dinner, then yes: your phone can do the job. But that's like saying "My Toyota works just as well for getting my kids to school in morning traffic as my Lamborghini does."
Of course, it's impossible to prove that the treatment did nothing for you and you would have got better on your own, but hey, why not?
Not really. I'm dealing with a "control" scenario right now.
Every few years, I'll do something that will cause me to pinch a nerve in my neck (lower cervical/upper thoracic) It can be mild, like a pain when moving my arm in a certain way, or severe where I can't turn my head more than 10 degrees to one side. If I wait for it to go away on its own, it can take weeks. If I go to the chiropractor, partial relief (reduced pain, increased mobility) is immediate, and full relief happens in 2-3 days. It may or may not require a second adjustment--but that's up to me.
I'm dealing with a pinched nerve that seems to originate right between my shoulder blades (but I know that "feels like" can be deceptive). I know the cause: Chairs that are too short, and desks that are too high. But I'm in China, and that's the way all the furniture is. I'm using pillows and stacks of foam to deal with the former, but I can't rebuild the office desks to deal with the latter. I can't find a chiropractor here. I know a qualified one could fix this right away.
But I'm also aware that the only thing Chiropractors can do is adjust joints to relieve pressure on nerves and strain on muscles. And a good one will give you advice on how to avoid these problems in the future (like, take your wallet out of your pocket when you sit down).
Of course, you can profit through RSS.
A lot of the feeds I get show banner ads in the content. But more than that, it's not about profiting directly from RSS, it's about providing a very simple way to gently remind viewers to come read the full content--and see all the ads on the page.
Marketers use all sorts of methods to drive viewers to websites. An RSS feed will bring people to a site multiple times a day (more views) instead of coming once per day (e.g., over morning coffee). A good headline and an interesting excerpt--followed by a link to the full content on the website--is an excellent way to pull in eyeballs. Additionally, if the ads are tailored to the content, it helps to target the ads and increases the chances of clicks/conversions.
Choose the most stable OS you are willing to support. "Stable" as of "Debian stable". I.e. you want an OS that will work even if you are away for a couple of months and will not need a day to update when you return
That's part of the reason I'm asking for opinions: I live--quite literally--on the other side of the world from her (I'm in China, she's in the US). My first thought was Ubuntu (with something other than Unity UI), but I wanted to see if there are any other options I might not know about.
I'm actually in the very larval stages of trying to create an open-source "studio" to fill the niche that channels like SyFy are vacating.
The Trilobyte Project goes one step farther than just being a place for independently-produced shows, it actually invites and relies on the input of the fans in order to create and shape the shows.
I have 25 years of experience in live theatre (acting, design, production, and tech), so the foundation is there for making the right kinds of decisions.
The worlds created are open-source, and released under a Creative Commons license, so people are free to use the worlds for their own works. The stories we hope to create are plot-driven with minimal FX. There are currently half a dozen worlds listed in the forums and available for discussion and development, but we're currently focusing on developing a single series that will be easy to film and produce.
As I said, this project is in its very initial stages. We have 2 writers and a handful of contributors. If you're interested in getting involved with an independent studio and contributing from the ground up--in input, not in cash--then please join in the discussions and help us create something that we, as SF fans and geeks, can call 100% our own.
"For most state laws that I've looked at, if you encounter material that is child pornography, it is not criminal if you immediately report it and surrender it to law enforcement." Not to get off topic, but... I have a friend sitting in prison right now who, I believe, would like to disagree with you on that.
Through the efforts and lobbying of MADD, irrational and irresponsible laws have been put in place. These laws pursue stricter and more powerful restraints and punishments on persons who have little or no impairment, while taking resources away from pursuing and properly punishing those who have significant and repeated violations.
If MADD were serious about their stated purpose, they'd spend more time working to strengthen the laws dealing with egregious and repeated violations (the guys who are free after 7 convictions) rather than harassing the average Joe who has a beer after work and heads home to his family.
I used to be a purchasing agent for a school district. Part of my job was dealing with the purchase of library materials; books, magazines, videos. With the exception of some products marked for "public performance" licenses (i.e., to be shown to large groups such as classes), we paid less than market rate for materials. Discounts from some vendors were (are) as much as 20% off of retail. Even in the "public performance" situation, it's still only 3-4 times retail price, and getting seen by potentially thousands of students.
Even with an increased license price, there is no way that it offsets the "loss of purchases"
The problem is that the movie industry is locked into the mindset of "income=items sold", when they should be looking at "income=product viewed". The income from physical sales of DVDs is only one source of income. Market tie-ins, advertising, product placement, toys, t-shirts, posters, etc., etc., etc....
When you pay $35 for a DVD, you're not paying the movie company $35. You're paying the plastics manufacturer, the stamping plant, the printing house, the warehousing company, the trucking company, the rental on the store, the payroll of the cashier, and a hefty profit on every step down the line. If they can't figure out a way to cut out 9 layers of middle-men and sell their products for little (or nothing) and still make a profit, then all that money the spent getting their MBAs was a big waste.
These same studios produce thousands of hours of programing a year for TV, spending up to $4-5 million per week just on salaries for the stars--not to mention all the rest of the production costs, and they give it away for free (at least from the viewer's standpoint). And they expect me to believe that after they make hundreds of millions of dollars in the first weekend of a theatrical release, they can't come up with a business model that puts the product into the hands of consumers for little or nothing, and still make a profit?
Sorry. I don't buy it.
Seriously, though, "everyone" is a general term meaning (in this case) "the readership at large". Yes, there is an assumption of at least moderate fluency in the language, a basic degree of education (some high school or better), and a mental capacity to grasp both concrete and abstract concepts. I'd guess that 90% or more of the readership meets these three criteria (I'm assuming that readers would choose a language which they're able to read).
Somewhere at the beginning of the thread, someone posted quotes from the entry on dental crowns. I am fluent in English (more so than the average speaker), have a significantly high IQ, and have had college-level education in science (specifically biology). In addition, my mother has worked in dentistry for over 50 years, and I've picked up a lot of knowledge on the topic from her. I had no clue what was being said in the quoted sentences. That's a poorly-written article--and there's no reason for it.
Isaac Asimov, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking have all proven this is possible through their numerous books. Einstein himself, wrote a book titled "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand" (ISBN: 0-517-025302, 1961, Crown Publishers).
From the preface (written by Albert Einstein):
Any contributor who says it is impossible to write an encyclopedia article which describes a topic with reasonable accuracy in a way which is accessible to everyone is simply wrong. All they are doing is showing their own inability to fully understand the topic and translate it into common terminology. Any concept can be explained without using mathematics or technical jargon. Perhaps not a full and complete explanation, but certainly enough to allow a person to understand the concepts and how they apply to real life.
As a teacher, I have explained art theory to first graders, physics to 5th graders, and philosophy to 9th graders. I've even explained the basics of computers to a redneck by using a beer metaphor.
Wikipedia is not the Journal Science, nor the New England Journal of Medicine. It's an online encyclopedia. People with the technical understanding to read NEJofM aren't going to be coming to Wikipedia to do research on Asperger's Syndrome. Bob Smith the accountant, however, may. If Bob can't understand what's written, then Wikipedia has failed in it's mission.
Reading through the comments here, I see lots of divisiveness, but little actual grasp of reality. 1) Reliability of wikipedia. My litmus test for an encyclopedia is the Tesla/Marconi test. Look at the entries for Marconi and Tesla. If it says that Marconi invented radio, then it's not a reliable source. If it says that Tesla did, it's reliable. This is a point of fact that was settled by the SCOTUS about 60 years ago. Wikipedia gets it right. Most printed encyclopedias I have checked get it wrong. (I used to work for a school district, and part of my duties were to receive in books. I had *lots* of chances to check encyclopedias). 2) 'Learning' is not about regurgitating accepted information. It's about gaining the skills to understand and discriminate good information from bad. Part of the way that a person gains these skills is by occasionally doing the wrong thing and getting corrected. A school district which lays out a policy which (in effect) says 'You may only cite sources of which we approve', is not allowing students the chance to make mistakes--and thereby learn. They are also eliminating the concept of contesting data. (see the following point) 3) Approved sources vs. authoritative sources. When I was in high school, I took a class on WWII. I read the approved textbooks and the approved stories of what happened. As part of the class, I interviewed a WWII veteran--in this case, my father. When comparing the approved text's description of what happened at Monte Casino, and my father's description of what happened, there was a huge disparity. One version was written by historians, peer reviewed, edited, and accepted by the school district. The other version was from someone who was actually there at the time it happened. Which would *you* believe? In school we are taught (by authoritative sources!) that George Washington's teeth were wooden (False-- they were ivory), that Marconi invented the radio (False--it was Nicola Tesla), and that American bravery resulted in the capture of Monte Casino (False--it was the devious and brutal actions of the Sikhs that causes a German surrender). I'm not sure about the last one, but I know that Wikipedia gets the first two correct, where the approved sources get them wrong. The administrations who ban Wikipedia (and other online resources) on the basis of 'validity', are prejudiced. They think that anything in print is, somehow, magically endowed with veracity. Those administrations are wrong. The truth of the matter is that *all* sources of information should be questioned. They should be bounced against other sources and both the similarities and discrepancies should be considered and weighed for value. But schools aren't interested in that. They aren't interested in teaching kids how to think, because teachers aren't rewarded on how well students criticize 'conventional wisdom', and critical and independent thinking doesn't show up well on standardized tests. And before anyone shouts me down, I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who has been on the teaching side of academia--as both a teacher and an administrator--for the better part of 20 years. As a teacher, I welcomed *any* source that could be justified. I will set one instance of 'My dad was there' against a thousand established encyclopedias and history texts.f Wikipedia is full of experts, and they have to defend themselves--constantly--against a host of counter arguments. If that isn't the epitome of peer review, I don't know what is. Oh... and for those who say that sites such as MySpace have no value? Have you seen how many politicians are explaining their platforms via MySpace blogs and profiles? That sounds pretty authoritative to me.
i.e., "Intellectual Property"
If you take time to look into it, "aesthetics" actually have their basis in solid mathematics & physics. Balance, proportion, direction, wavelength, pattern... these are all part of the mathematic basis on which "design" are built. When it comes to design (which is distinctly separate from "art"), anyone who is mechanically or mathematically inclined (i.e., "geeks") can learn the formulae which will create a pleasing design. It might not be "artsy" or "cutting edge" or "avant garde" but it'll be pleasing to the eye.
While MySpace may be 99.44% teen crap, it should be pointed out that it's also becoming a venue for political expression by elected officials; I happen to know that Russ Feingold (D-WI) has a MySpace page. I seem to recall that several of the current Presidential candidates have profiles on MySpace, also.
This law would ban *all* "social networking sites" from schools and libraries. This means that Barak Obama's new social networking site would be banned. It means that (arguably) any professional or hobbiest forums would be banned (after all, they're nothing more than a bunch of people "talking", right?). It almost certainly would cover professional networking sites--banning based strictly on content is definitely a First-Amendment issue, so if you ban one type of networking site, you'd have to ban them all.
As for those people who say "you can't step into a library and scream whatever you want": well, in many respects, you can. Libraries are public property, and the Law has some very specific things to say about the right of citizens to free speech on public property. Additionally, the analogy is flawed. Viewing a certain type of website is not like standing in the middle of the library and screaming. It's more akin to wearing a Ramones T-shirt in the library: it's an individual doing something which does not disrupt other patrons.
In reply to the idea that "kids are using up all the computer time": how does that differ from the fact that books are checked out from the library for weeks at a time, thereby making them completely inaccessible to other patrons?
Quite frankly, this proposed legislation is nothing more than an old curmudgeon (metaphorically) shaking his cane and yelling "get off my lawn, you damn kids!" --even though they're not on *his* lawn.
The key phrase in the article is this:
The problem Crichton is pointing to isn't a flaw in the process of patents as a concept, but in the application of the concept to a specific situation: "laying claim" to something that exists naturally, and is already "owned" by many (and in some cases, all) people on the Earth.
It's utterly reasonable (and desirable) to patent a test for Disease X. It's reasonable and desirable to patent a drug or procedure for curing Disease X. It's both detrimental and dangerous to allow someone to patent the gene that causes Disease X and then state that nobody else can do any research on this gene. That discourages innovation and scientific advancement.
Let's take it out of the biological realm for a moment and apply the same reasoning to another industry. It's like someone patenting iron--and preventing manufacturers from creating anything that uses iron. Or someone patenting "zero"--and preventing coders from writing anything that uses a "zero".
The naturally-occuring human genome should be owned by no one. No part of it should be patentable. Inventions based on that genome? Yes. Non-naturally-occuring modifications to that genome? Yes. Processes for replicating naturally-occuring modifications? Yes. But not the genome itself. Withholding access to the pimary data--data readily available everywhere in the world for free--directly and disasterously hampers both innovation and the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Actually there is: Now, I suggest you go read Title 18, 2257:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
Specifically this line:
"(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section."
Now... go out and read about the "appropriate regulations" which have been issued by the Attorney General and their practical applications and implications. For example: Federal agents can enter a private home without warning nor warrant, and search through her computer files to check for compliance. Anything seen during that "visit"--regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with "porn", can be used as evidence of crime. By order of the AG, the 4th Amendment ceases to exist for cam girls (any "cam girl" who shows skin is considered a "producer of pornography" and her home is a "place of business").
As with 2257, this legislation clearly and specifically gives the Attorney General a blank check in writing rules--rules which are not debated before nor voted on by Congress, nor signed by the President, yet which hold the weight of law.
You can bet that the initial "attack" will be 2-pronged: Porn and Terrorism. Morality and Fear.
And let's be very clear about this: This will be done under the authority of a single, unelected man; a man who, in the current incarnation, wrote guidelines telling members of the current administration how to get away with torture.
While there are very few politicians that I trust, I do trust in the conflict of personal interests which pervades Congress to create a situation where there is at least some degree of valid debate and limit of authority.
Aha! Found the article: http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html
A while ago, a friend pointed out an article to me which dealt with exactly this topic. If I still had the link, I'd post it, but it's been lost in the ether.
The basic premise is this: The author puts forth a new sales model for TV viewing: Sponsorship. He came upon the idea while watching a show and noticing all the "empty space" at the top and bottom of his screen. He realized that this space could be sold. So, for example, Pepsi could sponsor this week's episode of Battlestar Galactica. They'd get to put their logo on the screen for the entire show (like the "bugs" that TV stations currently have). Viewers could subscribe to a show (or set of shows) and get the content via P2P, direct download, or DVD mailed to their homes.
I can't remember all the particulars of the economics, but the article was rather specific on how and why this would work. Advertisers would only pay for actual downloads/discs mailed, and producers could charge more because it's guaranteed that every instance being paid for is an actual viewing of the advertising content.
The one major problem the author points out is that this model would eliminate TV stations, since they're little more than advertising middle-men (they produce almost nothing--a local news show or two--and spend the rest of their time matching advertisers to content).
In a way, it's going back to the original model for television: Companies sponsor a show, and viewers watch them for free.
The author even mentions that P2P would be the *preferred* method of distribution, since the producers don't have to pay for all of the bandwidth (or shipping in the case of mailed DVDs). And since the ads are integral to the image, there's no worries about commercial-skipping, etc.
The industries involved would have to change their business models, but in the end, almost everyone comes out ahead.
I'd just like to make a few points:
Anyone who believes that 14-16 year old girls don't go looking for sexual encounters--even with significantly older men--has never dealt with teen-age girls. This isn't as one-sided as people want to make it out to be. These men weren't forcing the girls to talk to them. Other than the one young man lying that he was still in high school (he's only 19, so that's not a huge lie), we have no evidence that there was any deception going on at all. The guy who drugged the girl can definitely be considered a predator, but it's fully possible that the other guys simply got involved in a 2-way relationship which progressed to a point where both parties were willing to meet and take it further.
I'm not saying that this was the smartest move on anyone's part, but considering that--depending on the states these people are in--the sexual encounters could have been entirely consensual and legal, the situation needs to be considered from other perspectives.
Having spent many years teaching high school students, I'm quite certain that there's more to the story than is being presented in the article or the law suits.
"It's extremely difficult to be a 'good parent' and reasonable monitor your child's behavior on the Internet these days."
Actually, it's not. The catch is that you have to be a "good parent" from the beginning: teach your children to be responsible, cautious, skeptical, and realistic when dealing with new situations, and you won't need to monitor them all the time. It's okay to talk to anyone online. It's not okay to give out personal information or go see them without finding out who they really are first.
Common sense. No net-nanny or big brother needed.