There is a pretty consistant and simple rule for Star Trek movies. Odd numbered ones suck and even ones are good.
Sucked: I The Motion Picture III Search for Cash^w Spock V Final Frontier VII Generations IX Insurrection
Good: II Wrath of Khan IV Voyage Home VI Undiscovered Country VIII First Contact
Admittedly, my tastes lean toward the ones/intended/ to be funny. Also, as the numbers get higher, the line is starting to blur as they take fewer chances in the stories.
As a side note, I have a friend who completely blocked out Final Frontier until she saw a bootleg copy of the MST3K'd version. Must have been the campfire songs.
In many places, zip-codes cross municipal boundaries. A better choice would be zip+4.
The rate charged for this should be a national flat rate or at most broken out by state, giving states the option of not charging tax at all.
Here in NY, there are nearly 80 tax authorities to report your taxes under. As many as 10% of those change their rate annually. Most businesses deal with 1 of those, a few more if they're a chain. E-commerce would grind to a halt if you had to get it right for all 80. Especially since the correllation between zip codes and tax authorities is not documented.
Regarding the EU system, The problem there is that great gobs of money would flow into small areas. The Horned One (Bezos) operates a distribution facillity for the east coast in, IIRC, New Jersey. It would certainly be unfair to have all the books purchased through Amazon.com, on the eastern seaboard, paying taxes to some town in NJ for the priviledge.
If I'm gonna pay online taxes, the revenue is going as close to home as possible.
People who want to protest should include in their web page a link to disable 1-click technology,(with one-click, if possible) or a link to the page at Amazon to do it with an info link on why.
I think people turning off their 1-click settings may send a wake up call to Amazon. I'm sure they're keeping track of the number of subscribers who have enabled 1-click.
I'm glad to hear their not going to the extreme of editing the broadcast, so maybe they have a shot at defending themselves.
However, I think the networks can make the arguement that their broadcasts are intended to be viewed full screen and that adding content, even outside the original screen, makes a significant alteration to their copywritten material and does not, therefore constitute simple re-transmittal.
The networks have several reasons to try to stop this from an advertising point of view: 1. The iCraveTV ads runs a significant risk of having those ads conflict with the ads in the content. 2. The ads may conflict with the editorial policies of the network (e.g. Porn ads). Although clearly not their fault, ads like this could reflect badly on the network. 3. Broadcast networks derive their revenue from advertising. Allowing iCraveTV to sell advertising during their broadcast, potentially reducing the network revenue stream, without iCraveTV sharing any of the cost of producing or transmitting the original signal, is simply wrong.
They *are*, as I understand it, editing the signal to add their own advertising and a charging the _advertisers_.
Repeating a signal is one thing. Changing it first is clearly a violation of copyright.
Also consider the lack of editorial review on the part of the networks vis-a-vis the new ads. How does the end user know the new ads aren't part of the original broadcast?
You should not make this decision based solely upon price.
Reliability is what you need to keep in mind. The technology that drives the Internet is still pretty young, deployed in a less than redundant fashion, and not entirely safe from software glitches. (Anyone remember MCI crashing their backbone for a week.)
If you plan to go it alone (ie. get a circuit and do your own hosting), be prepared for that circuit to go down with little warranty. (A 100% uptime guarantee means little after you've been down for 24 hours anyway. Typical result, if they honor the guarantee is credit for the down period of service or perhaps a month of service) Few startups have the capital to run two circuits to two different providers to avoid this problem. For that reason, more so than cost, co-location is a good idea. However, make sure the ISP you co-locate with is redundantly connected.
One other issue regarding co-location. Be careful about the structure of the network you are putting your server on. If you drop your server down on a flat ethernet, you've opened you box up to anyone with access to the other boxes. (I won't even get into the risks associated with having console access to your server out of your control.) SSL and SSH become absolute musts. For this reason, some go for the host it at home approach.
If you want to balance cost and security, consider a small circuit to your office server to do secure things and a co-located server for the high-bandwidth routine traffic.
It has been my understanding that, atleast in NY State, connecting a medical database to the Internet is illegal. Has anyone else heard anything like this?
Surely 'net connectivity will remain an advanced feature for the typical home appliance for some time. Most people will be protected by being too (clueless||apathetic) to connect their toaster to the Internet in the first place. By the time people figure out this 'feature', I'd like to believe it will no longer be an issue. Anyone elses parents have a VCR flashing 12:00?
We've been paying over inflated prices for CD audio here in Aus for far too long, so this idea of charging heaps of bucks for digital audio isn't new. That goes for software as well.
Slashdot Mirror
They did the entire movie and got blocked by Paramount before it ever aired. It has been floating around in bootleg ever since.
There is a pretty consistant and simple rule for Star Trek movies. Odd numbered ones suck and even ones are good.
/intended/ to be funny. Also, as the numbers get higher, the line is starting to blur as they take fewer chances in the stories.
Sucked:
I The Motion Picture
III Search for Cash^w Spock
V Final Frontier
VII Generations
IX Insurrection
Good:
II Wrath of Khan
IV Voyage Home
VI Undiscovered Country
VIII First Contact
Admittedly, my tastes lean toward the ones
As a side note, I have a friend who completely blocked out Final Frontier until she saw a bootleg copy of the MST3K'd version. Must have been the campfire songs.
Kinda reminds me of a program a friend of mine wrote back in the early 80's to generate his D&D dungeons.
Nothing quite so funny as watching players to trying to find rhyme or reason in the dungeon layout/content.
Keeping his secret was well worth the entertainment.
In many places, zip-codes cross municipal boundaries. A better choice would be zip+4.
The rate charged for this should be a national flat rate or at most broken out by state, giving states the option of not charging tax at all.
Here in NY, there are nearly 80 tax authorities to report your taxes under. As many as 10% of those change their rate annually. Most businesses deal with 1 of those, a few more if they're a chain. E-commerce would grind to a halt if you had to get it right for all 80. Especially since the correllation between zip codes and tax authorities is not documented.
Regarding the EU system, The problem there is that great gobs of money would flow into small areas. The Horned One (Bezos) operates a distribution facillity for the east coast in, IIRC, New Jersey. It would certainly be unfair to have all the books purchased through Amazon.com, on the eastern seaboard, paying taxes to some town in NJ for the priviledge.
If I'm gonna pay online taxes, the revenue is going as close to home as possible.
People who want to protest should include in their web page a link to disable 1-click technology,(with one-click, if possible) or a link to the page at Amazon to do it with an info link on why.
I think people turning off their 1-click settings may send a wake up call to Amazon. I'm sure they're keeping track of the number of subscribers who have enabled 1-click.
I'm glad to hear their not going to the extreme of editing the broadcast, so maybe they have a shot at defending themselves.
However, I think the networks can make the arguement that their broadcasts are intended to be viewed full screen and that adding content, even outside the original screen, makes a significant alteration to their copywritten material and does not, therefore constitute simple re-transmittal.
The networks have several reasons to try to stop this from an advertising point of view:
1. The iCraveTV ads runs a significant risk of having those ads conflict with the ads in the content.
2. The ads may conflict with the editorial policies of the network (e.g. Porn ads). Although clearly not their fault, ads like this could reflect badly on the network.
3. Broadcast networks derive their revenue from advertising. Allowing iCraveTV to sell advertising during their broadcast, potentially reducing the network revenue stream, without iCraveTV sharing any of the cost of producing or transmitting the original signal, is simply wrong.
They *are*, as I understand it, editing the signal to add their own advertising and a charging the _advertisers_.
Repeating a signal is one thing. Changing it first is clearly a violation of copyright.
Also consider the lack of editorial review on the part of the networks vis-a-vis the new ads. How does the end user know the new ads aren't part of the original broadcast?
You should not make this decision based solely upon price.
Reliability is what you need to keep in mind. The technology that drives the Internet is still pretty young, deployed in a less than redundant fashion, and not entirely safe from software glitches. (Anyone remember MCI crashing their backbone for a week.)
If you plan to go it alone (ie. get a circuit and do your own hosting), be prepared for that circuit to go down with little warranty. (A 100% uptime guarantee means little after you've been down for 24 hours anyway. Typical result, if they honor the guarantee is credit for the down period of service or perhaps a month of service) Few startups have the capital to run two circuits to two different providers to avoid this problem. For that reason, more so than cost, co-location is a good idea. However, make sure the ISP you co-locate with is redundantly connected.
One other issue regarding co-location. Be careful about the structure of the network you are putting your server on. If you drop your server down on a flat ethernet, you've opened you box up to anyone with access to the other boxes. (I won't even get into the risks associated with having console access to your server out of your control.) SSL and SSH become absolute musts. For this reason, some go for the host it at home approach.
If you want to balance cost and security, consider a small circuit to your office server to do secure things and a co-located server for the high-bandwidth routine traffic.
It has been my understanding that, atleast in NY State, connecting a medical database to the Internet is illegal. Has anyone else heard anything like this?
Surely 'net connectivity will remain an advanced feature for the typical home appliance for some time. Most people will be protected by being too (clueless||apathetic) to connect their toaster to the Internet in the first place. By the time people figure out this 'feature', I'd like to believe it will no longer be an issue. Anyone elses parents have a VCR flashing 12:00?
We've been paying over inflated prices for CD audio here in Aus for far too long, so this idea of charging heaps of bucks for digital audio isn't new. That goes for software as well.