If I imagine that I earned $1B dollars in my head, can I be taxed on it?
No. You agree that is silly.
Now let's say that I go to my laptop computer and type in a file:
"I earned $1B in my head today"
Can I be taxed on that? No. You agree that is silly.
Now let's say my friend looks at my computer and says "Oh, I see you earned $1B in your head today. I just made a solid gold Ferrari in my head today that I'm willing to exchange for the $1B in your head today". And so he exchanges his pretend Ferrari for my pretend $1B.
Should we both pay taxes on our pretend ferraris and pretend $1B?
No. We wouldn't even have that discussion. It's so incredibly stupid.
So explain to me again about this taxing pretend stuff on a computer?
They could have augmented the juice with Vitamin C for basically nothing. I'm really surprised they've let the brand name be destroyed to save a few pennies.
It reminds me of years ago when GM was closing a few plants and putting a few thousand workers on the street to save about $300M dollars. At the same time Ross Perot was on the board of directors (GM had purchased EDS) and was making a lot of noise about how GM's executives were running the company poorly, basically badmouthing GM.
So... GM turned around and paid him $700M to buy his shares out and shut him up (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/i s_v23/ai_4660761).
And then we sit around and wonder how these companies are so screwed up.
I live in a rural area about 20 miles away from a major US city. When Verizon hooked up fiber to my house about 18 months ago, it took a crew of 6 men all day to go from the pole at the road to get the fiber to my house. They had 4 pieces of heavy equipment.
And they had to spend that much time at the 9 houses on the same road as me. So 6 men spending 9 days gets 9 families connected to fiber.
By the way, "analysts" are now criticizing Verizon for spending so much time and money to get that last mile hooked up. What the chances that anyone else would invest that much in infrastructure? Especially now, since the money guys are now skittish about spending big to get fiber back to homes?
I think one of the previous posters said it best... people who criticize the US don't understand the scale of what has to be done here.
"If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem."
I don't know of anyone in the past 30 years who had antibiotics given to them by a licensed physician for a viral infection as you're suggesting. Maybe I live in a different part of the world than you.
In evolutionary terms, it seems inevitable that the use of antibiotics on a widespread basis will cause resistant germs to evolve. By cutting down the use of antibiotics, we're buying more time to come up with new treatments, that's all.
I mean, you end up liking the film, the ending makes no sense. You cannot explain the ending in any kind of rational way unless you assume the female lead was complete nuts and did things randomly throughout the film.
I mean, I'll buy the film just for the action, but the director must've fallen asleep when he ended the last part of the movie.
"If your "LQ" version is too good, people -- pirates and honest folks alike -- won't buy the HQ version and just stick with what's free; if it's too crappy"
So turn it into advertising. Have a DJ put bumpers around it. At the beginning have a voice announce it like a DJ, talking over the record, and as the song ends, have the same voice announce the artists again, tell the listener the record label, and even spell the name of the band.
It worked in radio, why not online?
Why not at least try it for a bunch of bands to see?
"Just imagine what will happen to Wal-Mart if they had to sell retail..."
They already do. They're only cheaper on stuff that you can't compare to other stores, mostly made to sell relatively inexpensively.
Every time I go into Wal-Mart, I always see the highest prices on stuff that I can actually compare to another store. Electronics, video games, car parts Wal-Mart is about the most expensive place to buy them.
"Local bookstores for example are starting to massively suffer from online competition. Customers walk in, browse, leave and order the book from amazon.com for 10-20% less. How do you combat this?"
Offer better services ranging from knowledgeable clerks to coffee bars to author signings to small concerts certain nights of the week.
Or maybe the local bookstore's days are at an end. It hardly seems worthy of laws or court actions. Times change. We all adapt or end.
I always think of this type of award as a form of corporate welfare. It basically tries to ensure an even starting point and an even result based on someone's definition of fair.
The bonus is that after selection, even if the vendor is a complete screw-up, no one takes responsibility since no one actually picked the vendor. The "Committee" did.
Probably not, and even if they could, I would if you could find a 7 year old who could adequately explain what is copyright. And I'd like to find a 7 or even a 70 year old who understood copyright laws completely.
I'm guessing the record companies think the mother is hiding behind the 7 year old are they're basically trying to smoke the mom out. It demonstrates poor legal and PR judgment in my opinion. One of these goofy lawsuits will basically be the straw the broke the camel's bake.
I'm guessing Record Company contracts only specify moral actions by the artists, not the record company. Despite their public crying, record company contracts push all the risk to the artist.
"If you need 40 computers in a classroom, you need 40 computers. "
What he probably means is that if you have 30 student in a room, and you know a certain percentage will use Macs, and a certain percentage will use PC's, you need to have more than 30 computers total to satisfy the total student population.
Or to put it another way, you can probably break the students down into 3 groups:
Group 1 only knows how to use Macs Group 2 only knows how to use PCs Group 3 can use either.
Since the percentage of each group will be random in any one group, you have to put more total computers in the room to satisfy every student, unless you can have computers that can boot to either Windows or Mac, then you can more closely match the total computers to the total number of students.
They probably got significant discounts from Apple as well to go to an all-Apple solution.
"Even if they're not correct, YouTube is on notice that the video may contain copyrighted content."
At first I was agreeing, but the more I thought of it, the less it made sense.
Let's say the tag was this:
Buck Rogers Flying Saucer 1938
Can I deduce that it may contain copyrighted video? How precisely could you do that?
Or:
Dynasty Evans
Well, it could be Linda Evans in Dynasty, or it could be a video about a business dynasty by the Bob Evans company.
These two examples would be trivial, except that if you multiple the problem by 10's of millions of videos, the problem seems insurmountable.
Unless the tags says this:
Copyrighted Material By Viacom That shouldn't be here
Then I see how you could tell. But otherwise, I don't see how you could reasonable tell copyrighted material was uploaded.
Worse, even if you had someone view every video, that person would have to be miraculous and judge that maybe something has a copyright. Unless the video actually says (c) 2007 VH1. Either that or you assume everything is infringing, and then just shut the website down because there is no real way to tell what is copyrighted and what isn't.
I think the problem is more difficult than it appears.
Sure, just like the RIAA is exploiting the same protection when they file these John Doe lawsuits.
I think most people are missing the point. I think Viacom is looking for more money than Google actually makes over the content. How much could a single advertisement be worth on YouTube? 10 cents? I'm guessing Viacom wants more than 10 cents per view. Their other deal with another video company seems to have fizzled for the moment.
I'm not shedding any tears for Viacom. Google for "Viacom Settle" and you'll see dozens of cases a year where Viacom is suing or being sued. It's seems to be a standard practice for them. This is nothing new.
There is evidence that ethanol is a technological dead end because of the amount of energy required to produce it, and we may not be able to grow enough crops to support really widespread use without clearing more land.
I don't know the real answer, but it seems wise not to commit to a technology unless you can be sure of it's consequences.
"Jiffy lube says to change oil my oil every 3,000 miles or three months."
Undoubtedly because Jiffy lube makes a lot of money from people wasting oil this way.
"The manufacturer says 5,000 or six months."
Unlikely. I think 7,500 miles is more common. BMW suggests 15,000 miles, but does use a simple computer that estimates gallons burned and tells you when the oil needs to be changed. The result is cheaper for the owner and better for the environment.
I only bring this up because Consumer Reports debunked the 3K oil change rule about 10 years ago with actual engine teardowns. Globally, imagine the effect if people are changing oil twice (or 3 times) as often as necessary. Even if everyone was recycling the old oil, but when you figure a decent percent just dumps it and it winds up in the water, or soil. It's just terrible for the environment.
"It is also important to note that there are large-format NiMH batteries available which are not subject to control by the Cobasys patents. Electro Energy Inc. and Nilar Inc. both manufacture large-format NiMH batteries"
That article is really interesting. Are the Nilar batteries less interesting to EV manufacturers? I get the sense that NiHM batteries are really only preferred today, but that in a few years, the Li-Ion will be preferred, assuming it proves as durable as NiHM.
Slashdot Mirror
This is really pretty silly.
If I imagine that I earned $1B dollars in my head, can I be taxed on it?
No. You agree that is silly.
Now let's say that I go to my laptop computer and type in a file:
"I earned $1B in my head today"
Can I be taxed on that? No. You agree that is silly.
Now let's say my friend looks at my computer and says "Oh, I see you earned $1B in your head today. I just made a solid gold Ferrari in my head today that I'm willing to exchange for the $1B in your head today". And so he exchanges his pretend Ferrari for my pretend $1B.
Should we both pay taxes on our pretend ferraris and pretend $1B?
No. We wouldn't even have that discussion. It's so incredibly stupid.
So explain to me again about this taxing pretend stuff on a computer?
They could have augmented the juice with Vitamin C for basically nothing. I'm really surprised they've let the brand name be destroyed to save a few pennies.
Sounds like a bureaucracy at it's finest.
It reminds me of years ago when GM was closing a few plants and putting a few thousand workers on the street to save about $300M dollars. At the same time Ross Perot was on the board of directors (GM had purchased EDS) and was making a lot of noise about how GM's executives were running the company poorly, basically badmouthing GM.
i s_v23/ai_4660761).
So... GM turned around and paid him $700M to buy his shares out and shut him up (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/
And then we sit around and wonder how these companies are so screwed up.
I live in a rural area about 20 miles away from a major US city. When Verizon hooked up fiber to my house about 18 months ago, it took a crew of 6 men all day to go from the pole at the road to get the fiber to my house. They had 4 pieces of heavy equipment.
And they had to spend that much time at the 9 houses on the same road as me. So 6 men spending 9 days gets 9 families connected to fiber.
By the way, "analysts" are now criticizing Verizon for spending so much time and money to get that last mile hooked up. What the chances that anyone else would invest that much in infrastructure? Especially now, since the money guys are now skittish about spending big to get fiber back to homes?
I think one of the previous posters said it best... people who criticize the US don't understand the scale of what has to be done here.
"If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem."
I don't know of anyone in the past 30 years who had antibiotics given to them by a licensed physician for a viral infection as you're suggesting. Maybe I live in a different part of the world than you.
In evolutionary terms, it seems inevitable that the use of antibiotics on a widespread basis will cause resistant germs to evolve. By cutting down the use of antibiotics, we're buying more time to come up with new treatments, that's all.
"What I don't understand is why Microsoft isn't playing a price war yet."
They're waiting for Sony to blink first.
Sony drops $100, MS drops $120.
I mean, you end up liking the film, the ending makes no sense. You cannot explain the ending in any kind of rational way unless you assume the female lead was complete nuts and did things randomly throughout the film.
I mean, I'll buy the film just for the action, but the director must've fallen asleep when he ended the last part of the movie.
"If your "LQ" version is too good, people -- pirates and honest folks alike -- won't buy the HQ version and just stick with what's free; if it's too crappy"
So turn it into advertising. Have a DJ put bumpers around it. At the beginning have a voice announce it like a DJ, talking over the record, and as the song ends, have the same voice announce the artists again, tell the listener the record label, and even spell the name of the band.
It worked in radio, why not online?
Why not at least try it for a bunch of bands to see?
"Just imagine what will happen to Wal-Mart if they had to sell retail..."
They already do. They're only cheaper on stuff that you can't compare to other stores, mostly made to sell relatively inexpensively.
Every time I go into Wal-Mart, I always see the highest prices on stuff that I can actually compare to another store. Electronics, video games, car parts Wal-Mart is about the most expensive place to buy them.
"Local bookstores for example are starting to massively suffer from online competition. Customers walk in, browse, leave and order the book from amazon.com for 10-20% less. How do you combat this?"
Offer better services ranging from knowledgeable clerks to coffee bars to author signings to small concerts certain nights of the week.
Or maybe the local bookstore's days are at an end. It hardly seems worthy of laws or court actions. Times change. We all adapt or end.
I always think of this type of award as a form of corporate welfare. It basically tries to ensure an even starting point and an even result based on someone's definition of fair.
The bonus is that after selection, even if the vendor is a complete screw-up, no one takes responsibility since no one actually picked the vendor. The "Committee" did.
This is big big news. It means that if you own any shares or interest in Caldwell Banker, then it's time to sell before this news gets out.
Probably not, and even if they could, I would if you could find a 7 year old who could adequately explain what is copyright. And I'd like to find a 7 or even a 70 year old who understood copyright laws completely.
I'm guessing the record companies think the mother is hiding behind the 7 year old are they're basically trying to smoke the mom out. It demonstrates poor legal and PR judgment in my opinion. One of these goofy lawsuits will basically be the straw the broke the camel's bake.
I'm guessing Record Company contracts only specify moral actions by the artists, not the record company. Despite their public crying, record company contracts push all the risk to the artist.
The last line in the article:
"All options are being explored. That's all that we are going to say at this point," Yu told news agency Reuters.
I imagine those options probably include "running away" and "hope to god they don't sue us".
"old classic award winning albums are pirated too"
This kind of thing must stop. I recommend we roll back copyright to 17 years and we can eliminate all the piracy on older albums overnight.
"With traditional radio, it is impossible to tell how many people are listening at any one time"
Well, you better tell Arbitron, because they sure make a good living on what is impossible.
Can you tell to the last person? No, but the ratings give them a good enough idea that advertisers are willing to pay based on that data.
"If you need 40 computers in a classroom, you need 40 computers. "
What he probably means is that if you have 30 student in a room, and you know a certain percentage will use Macs, and a certain percentage will use PC's, you need to have more than 30 computers total to satisfy the total student population.
Or to put it another way, you can probably break the students down into 3 groups:
Group 1 only knows how to use Macs
Group 2 only knows how to use PCs
Group 3 can use either.
Since the percentage of each group will be random in any one group, you have to put more total computers in the room to satisfy every student, unless you can have computers that can boot to either Windows or Mac, then you can more closely match the total computers to the total number of students.
They probably got significant discounts from Apple as well to go to an all-Apple solution.
"Even if they're not correct, YouTube is on notice that the video may contain copyrighted content."
At first I was agreeing, but the more I thought of it, the less it made sense.
Let's say the tag was this:
Buck Rogers Flying Saucer 1938
Can I deduce that it may contain copyrighted video? How precisely could you do that?
Or:
Dynasty Evans
Well, it could be Linda Evans in Dynasty, or it could be a video about a business dynasty by the Bob Evans company.
These two examples would be trivial, except that if you multiple the problem by 10's of millions of videos, the problem seems insurmountable.
Unless the tags says this:
Copyrighted Material By Viacom That shouldn't be here
Then I see how you could tell. But otherwise, I don't see how you could reasonable tell copyrighted material was uploaded.
Worse, even if you had someone view every video, that person would have to be miraculous and judge that maybe something has a copyright. Unless the video actually says (c) 2007 VH1. Either that or you assume everything is infringing, and then just shut the website down because there is no real way to tell what is copyrighted and what isn't.
I think the problem is more difficult than it appears.
"However, they are exploiting that protection."
Sure, just like the RIAA is exploiting the same protection when they file these John Doe lawsuits.
I think most people are missing the point. I think Viacom is looking for more money than Google actually makes over the content. How much could a single advertisement be worth on YouTube? 10 cents? I'm guessing Viacom wants more than 10 cents per view. Their other deal with another video company seems to have fizzled for the moment.
I'm not shedding any tears for Viacom. Google for "Viacom Settle" and you'll see dozens of cases a year where Viacom is suing or being sued. It's seems to be a standard practice for them. This is nothing new.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/ethanol_woes.h tml
e thanols-flawed-concept/story.aspx?guid=%7BEC55D7AD -6E1C-4AD8-912F-A2A0BD4D4299%7D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/corn-based-
There is evidence that ethanol is a technological dead end because of the amount of energy required to produce it, and we may not be able to grow enough crops to support really widespread use without clearing more land.
I don't know the real answer, but it seems wise not to commit to a technology unless you can be sure of it's consequences.
It's not just that it was white collar, it's that the people doing it were rich and powerful.
The trouble with saying that it's "white collar" is that it doesn't recognize the real reason she got a pass. She's rich and has powerful friends.
"Jiffy lube says to change oil my oil every 3,000 miles or three months."
Undoubtedly because Jiffy lube makes a lot of money from people wasting oil this way.
"The manufacturer says 5,000 or six months."
Unlikely. I think 7,500 miles is more common. BMW suggests 15,000 miles, but does use a simple computer that estimates gallons burned and tells you when the oil needs to be changed. The result is cheaper for the owner and better for the environment.
I only bring this up because Consumer Reports debunked the 3K oil change rule about 10 years ago with actual engine teardowns. Globally, imagine the effect if people are changing oil twice (or 3 times) as often as necessary. Even if everyone was recycling the old oil, but when you figure a decent percent just dumps it and it winds up in the water, or soil. It's just terrible for the environment.
"It is also important to note that there are large-format NiMH batteries available which are not subject to control by the Cobasys patents. Electro Energy Inc. and Nilar Inc. both manufacture large-format NiMH batteries"
That article is really interesting. Are the Nilar batteries less interesting to EV manufacturers? I get the sense that NiHM batteries are really only preferred today, but that in a few years, the Li-Ion will be preferred, assuming it proves as durable as NiHM.
Thanks for the link.
"Richard Blumenthal said of the proposition, 'If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet,'"
Dick,
We cannot put a man on the moon. I hope that doesn't upset your wacky internet age thing.
Signed,
Reality