You choose to go to a web site with a bloated web page
And you somehow know what the size of the page is before you get there? For you, the brief snippet in a Google results list is enough to tell you "yes, this is 100% without a doubt exactly the page that I need"?
To use the light analogy, it'd be like flipping on and off a light switch, and not knowing how many lights will turn on, or for how long they will stay on.
You make a good point about how DoS is an illegal mechanism, but combating DoS attacks is not something that the average user should have to get involved in. The analogy of a neighbor running an extension cord from your house doesn't translate well, as the "neighbor" could be anywhere on the planet. It should be up to the ISP to protect you from any DoS attacks, and as long as there was something in place so that the user did not have to pay for the bandwidth from the DoS that inevitably get through, then yeah, that point is kindof lost. But from watching others trying to fight ridiculous little charges that X company is hoping you'll think is too tiny to be worth fighting, something tells me they'd still try and make you pay for the bandwidth.
The Church of Global Warming (renamed to the Church of Climate Change, since we're now cooling since 2001)
I realize it may be a hard thing for some folks to understand, especially the kind that blindly follows a book allegedly written some 6000 years ago (not that I'm claiming you believe it, only that those kinds of people are the kind I am familiar with), but making a claim, and then later revising it when you've found out you may not be correct, is a Good Thing. From the rest of your post, you do still seem to believe that we are fucking up our planet, but I'm just pointing out that the way you started off is more conducive to the people who believe that we can do no wrong, that humanity can waste and waste and the planet will always be here, perfectly habitable for humans. Again, not saying you think that.
Personally, while I believe us to be having an impact on our climate, I do not believe we as of yet know enough about it to know how to combat the change (including, but not limited to, whether we need to do stuff to heat us up or cool us down). I would also like to point one thing out.
Lest we forget that corals were some of the earliest forms of life on the planet. Yet, they survived the time when all that carbon we were burning was still in the atmosphere and the oceans.
All that carbon that we are currently putting back into the atmosphere and oceans? It's never been in the atmosphere and oceans all at once.
You also cannot somehow "spend" someone elses electricity, while it's very easy to spend their bandwidth (bloated web pages and DoS attacks come to mind).
But Valve is also a publisher, right? To reverse the analogy, if EA opened up a physical store to sell their games, and they also sold games that they don't publish, that would be Steam. Here, it's clear that EA really isn't the publisher, as they probably have very little to do with the production of the content. But in the virtual it gets a bit more fuzzy. Valve basically is publishing your game for you, handling the distribution of it and the production of new copies.
Part of the problem seems to be that, historically, you'd have only one publisher, but now you can go to Steam, WiiWare, Microsoft's downloadable game thing, Sony's downloadable game thing, Direct-2-Drive, etc, and they can all publish your game for you.
idk if stonewallred was trying to be Flamebait or not, but they sort of have a point. Why would a US copyright matter in the Czech Republic? Did the US take them over when I wasn't looking and now US laws are valid there?
You don't need to understand auto mechanics to know whether a car was stolen or not
But depending on circumstances, you just might. Maybe the parking brake just failed and it rolled into the road and got towed off, or just rolled into a ditch out of sight, or something. A mechanic would be useful in determining that it was indeed part failure and not someone tried driving off with it.
Anyway, since we're talking about this from the perspective of the defense's lawyers, just because it may not be obvious, they still should have thought to talk to someone who knows something about computers. The lawyer is there to win the case, not lose it, so they should be pursuing any and all angles, attacking the plaintiff's facts in every imaginable manner. The fact that Ms Thomas' first lawyer did not should say something. Whether that something is anything more than they weren't properly doing their job, I do not know.
I'm with you. To twist your quote around a bit, "God damn it, I paid for that movie and I want to see the whole thing!"
When (if?) he does upgrade to a widescreen TV, he'll just have the exact same problem except with bars on the sides (unless he's like my mom and either can't tell the difference between a 4:3 picture at a 4:3 aspect ratio and a 4:3 picture stretched to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or simply doesn't care).
Hear hear! I'm glad someone brought this up. Why, I remember on a particular episode of Modern Marvels about carbon, where they talked about a particular style of racecar that used carbon fiber because it was lighter and would fare far better in a crash than a similar racecar made out of steel.
I'll admit that I may have been overestimating on the channel count as well as the bill, so now that I have the time, lets look at some actual numbers.
On the basic plan, FIOS gives you 298 channels for $47.99 per month. It looks like only 8 of those are PPV, so that's $47.99 being divided 290 ways, for ~16.5 cents per channel. And it also does not factor in Verizon's operational costs (which I have no idea how to estimate), so it will be even lower than that (if any of it does get back to the networks).
As for each channel not getting paid equally, in your example is ESPN part of some Sports package or part of the basic cable service? Because if it's part of a Sports package, that's ala carte at work right there.
But lets say it is included in basic service. How does each channel getting back different amounts mean ala carte can't work? If I'm only paying for a few channels, those few channels could get even more per subscriber per month than they do currently, which could in turn be a larger income per month. What I mean is, if 100 subscribers currently each pay a penny per month towards Discovery, that's $1 a month. If in ala carte mode only 10 people subscribe to Discovery, but the Discovery portion of their bill is now 20 cents, Discovery is now making $2 a month. It'd be interesting to see some actual numbers, but that was not the point of my post. For all I know ala carte really can't work. My only point was to start a discussion about why it could or couldn't work.
Two things.
1) Simply having a "video programming costs" number by itself is worthless. You don't know how much of that is for things like Showtime/HBO packages, basic cable service, and the maintenance and daily operational costs of the equipment. I'm ignoring things like Showtime/HBO packages because that portion of your bill is going directly for those few channels, it already is ala carte at work.
2) I guess I should have clarified what I meant by "significant portion going to the individual channels". Now that I have time, lets look at some actual numbers.
On the basic plan, FIOS gives you 298 channels for $47.99 per month. It looks like only 8 of those are PPV, so that's $47.99 being divided 290 ways, for ~16.5 cents per channel. So, no, that's not significant. And it also does not factor in Verizon's operational costs (which I have no idea how to estimate), so it will be even lower than that.
Why? Do you really think that a significant portion of that bill you pay the cable company each month is going to the individual channels?
We're up to, what, over 900 channels? If we say that the cable bill is $90 a month (and that's overestimating), that's only a single dollar per channel, which would then be further subdivided to pay for each show that airs on that channel. And that doesn't even factor in what the cable company takes from that bill for system maintenance, employee salaries, and other expenses of running a cable company.
Obviously if you are paying for, say, the Showtime package, I suspect most of that does go towards Showtime, but I would suspect that in the case of basic cable, very little of what you are paying actually goes back to the networks.
I am not a statistician, but isn't it a little more difficult than simply counting the current population size and dividing that by the total number of occurrences? I mean, shouldn't we also factor in everyone who lived between 1954 and now (for the sake of argument, lets say time began with the first strike), and also somehow factor in time since many of those people may be dead today and thus should not count as being hit by a space object?
Two instances of such an event in less than 60 years does not automatically invalidate the thousands of years prior where such an event had not occurred.
With the ebay sales, the money is coming to you direct from the stolen credit card
Sounded to me more like Person B sells item to Person C (an item they do not have), Person C pays Person B through whatever, Person B then buys item from Person A using stolen credit card, then negotiates the shipping such that Person A ships direct to Person C.
With the RIAA trying to use the best of both worlds in order to win their cases (at least that's how I've heard it), it does get hard to remember that.
How is it libellous? Are you saying that being a Christian song writer is a bad thing and no one in their right mind would wish to have such a label applied to them?
but in practice they don't have the money needed for travel.
If one has legs, one has the means to travel just about anywhere. I will grant you that, at least in the lower 48 states, it seems there are very few, if any, places where one can truly live off the land ala Lewis and Clark, so you'd still need money for food.
Have you ever seen the speed with which a phone addicted teenage girl texts???
No, but I seem to recall hearing about a texter being beaten by good old fashioned morse code (and the texter was allowed to use shorthand while the morse code person either wasn't or chose not to).
My mistake, I thought you were referring to Disney's practice of releasing something on VHS/DVD/Bluray for a limited time before ceasing production for X years.
To be fair, there are morethanIthought that are still available, but I clearly remember seeing commercials for some of those claiming that they'd be "locked away" in the Disney Vault "soon".
Steve Jobs' health should have no bearing on the financial success of Apple.
Yes, I know in actuality it does (did?), but Steve Jobs isn't immortal, he will one day die. If Apple is to continue after Steve Jobs, he needs to be able to step aside quietly now so that Apple may shine on its own without the help of the reality distortion field.
You're right that you get used to it. Anyone who's watched the show from the beginning is, in theory, proof of this. The cast itself may not have changed, but if you listen to one of the first episodes back-to-back with one of the later ones, you can definitely tell that the voices changed slightly over the course of the show as the actors found the right voice for each character.
But that was a gradual change over the course of the show. If a brand new voice were to suddenly take over for one of the characters, that would be a lot more difficult to accept. That is, they would "sound wrong" for longer than if the voice had gradually changed to that new voice. Some might argue that jumping right into a new voice like that, the character would never sound right.
Why does TV and Movies break their own cannon, well to keep the current story more entertaining.
You're trying to compare live action to cartoons, and that just doesn't work very well. If you get a new actor in a live action film or TV series, you're getting both a new voice and a new face, which at least for me, generally makes it easier to immediately accept the change, because my brain isn't getting confused hearing a different voice come out of the same face.
I am not a physicist, so maybe I have the wrong idea here, but I'd have imagined that the thin atmosphere would mean less air required inside. If you fill a balloon up at sea-level, stick it in a box, and begin to remove the air (lowering the air pressure), the balloon will expand.
Slashdot Mirror
You choose to go to a web site with a bloated web page
And you somehow know what the size of the page is before you get there? For you, the brief snippet in a Google results list is enough to tell you "yes, this is 100% without a doubt exactly the page that I need"?
To use the light analogy, it'd be like flipping on and off a light switch, and not knowing how many lights will turn on, or for how long they will stay on.
You make a good point about how DoS is an illegal mechanism, but combating DoS attacks is not something that the average user should have to get involved in. The analogy of a neighbor running an extension cord from your house doesn't translate well, as the "neighbor" could be anywhere on the planet. It should be up to the ISP to protect you from any DoS attacks, and as long as there was something in place so that the user did not have to pay for the bandwidth from the DoS that inevitably get through, then yeah, that point is kindof lost. But from watching others trying to fight ridiculous little charges that X company is hoping you'll think is too tiny to be worth fighting, something tells me they'd still try and make you pay for the bandwidth.
The Church of Global Warming (renamed to the Church of Climate Change, since we're now cooling since 2001)
I realize it may be a hard thing for some folks to understand, especially the kind that blindly follows a book allegedly written some 6000 years ago (not that I'm claiming you believe it, only that those kinds of people are the kind I am familiar with), but making a claim, and then later revising it when you've found out you may not be correct, is a Good Thing. From the rest of your post, you do still seem to believe that we are fucking up our planet, but I'm just pointing out that the way you started off is more conducive to the people who believe that we can do no wrong, that humanity can waste and waste and the planet will always be here, perfectly habitable for humans. Again, not saying you think that.
Personally, while I believe us to be having an impact on our climate, I do not believe we as of yet know enough about it to know how to combat the change (including, but not limited to, whether we need to do stuff to heat us up or cool us down). I would also like to point one thing out.
Lest we forget that corals were some of the earliest forms of life on the planet. Yet, they survived the time when all that carbon we were burning was still in the atmosphere and the oceans.
All that carbon that we are currently putting back into the atmosphere and oceans? It's never been in the atmosphere and oceans all at once.
You also cannot somehow "spend" someone elses electricity, while it's very easy to spend their bandwidth (bloated web pages and DoS attacks come to mind).
But Valve is also a publisher, right? To reverse the analogy, if EA opened up a physical store to sell their games, and they also sold games that they don't publish, that would be Steam. Here, it's clear that EA really isn't the publisher, as they probably have very little to do with the production of the content. But in the virtual it gets a bit more fuzzy. Valve basically is publishing your game for you, handling the distribution of it and the production of new copies.
Part of the problem seems to be that, historically, you'd have only one publisher, but now you can go to Steam, WiiWare, Microsoft's downloadable game thing, Sony's downloadable game thing, Direct-2-Drive, etc, and they can all publish your game for you.
idk if stonewallred was trying to be Flamebait or not, but they sort of have a point. Why would a US copyright matter in the Czech Republic? Did the US take them over when I wasn't looking and now US laws are valid there?
You don't need to understand auto mechanics to know whether a car was stolen or not
But depending on circumstances, you just might. Maybe the parking brake just failed and it rolled into the road and got towed off, or just rolled into a ditch out of sight, or something. A mechanic would be useful in determining that it was indeed part failure and not someone tried driving off with it.
Anyway, since we're talking about this from the perspective of the defense's lawyers, just because it may not be obvious, they still should have thought to talk to someone who knows something about computers. The lawyer is there to win the case, not lose it, so they should be pursuing any and all angles, attacking the plaintiff's facts in every imaginable manner. The fact that Ms Thomas' first lawyer did not should say something. Whether that something is anything more than they weren't properly doing their job, I do not know.
I'm with you. To twist your quote around a bit, "God damn it, I paid for that movie and I want to see the whole thing!"
When (if?) he does upgrade to a widescreen TV, he'll just have the exact same problem except with bars on the sides (unless he's like my mom and either can't tell the difference between a 4:3 picture at a 4:3 aspect ratio and a 4:3 picture stretched to a 16:9 aspect ratio, or simply doesn't care).
Hear hear! I'm glad someone brought this up. Why, I remember on a particular episode of Modern Marvels about carbon, where they talked about a particular style of racecar that used carbon fiber because it was lighter and would fare far better in a crash than a similar racecar made out of steel.
Someone needs to mod you up.
Hundreds of those channels are PPV
I'll admit that I may have been overestimating on the channel count as well as the bill, so now that I have the time, lets look at some actual numbers.
On the basic plan, FIOS gives you 298 channels for $47.99 per month. It looks like only 8 of those are PPV, so that's $47.99 being divided 290 ways, for ~16.5 cents per channel. And it also does not factor in Verizon's operational costs (which I have no idea how to estimate), so it will be even lower than that (if any of it does get back to the networks).
As for each channel not getting paid equally, in your example is ESPN part of some Sports package or part of the basic cable service? Because if it's part of a Sports package, that's ala carte at work right there.
But lets say it is included in basic service. How does each channel getting back different amounts mean ala carte can't work? If I'm only paying for a few channels, those few channels could get even more per subscriber per month than they do currently, which could in turn be a larger income per month. What I mean is, if 100 subscribers currently each pay a penny per month towards Discovery, that's $1 a month. If in ala carte mode only 10 people subscribe to Discovery, but the Discovery portion of their bill is now 20 cents, Discovery is now making $2 a month. It'd be interesting to see some actual numbers, but that was not the point of my post. For all I know ala carte really can't work. My only point was to start a discussion about why it could or couldn't work.
Two things.
1) Simply having a "video programming costs" number by itself is worthless. You don't know how much of that is for things like Showtime/HBO packages, basic cable service, and the maintenance and daily operational costs of the equipment. I'm ignoring things like Showtime/HBO packages because that portion of your bill is going directly for those few channels, it already is ala carte at work.
2) I guess I should have clarified what I meant by "significant portion going to the individual channels". Now that I have time, lets look at some actual numbers.
On the basic plan, FIOS gives you 298 channels for $47.99 per month. It looks like only 8 of those are PPV, so that's $47.99 being divided 290 ways, for ~16.5 cents per channel. So, no, that's not significant. And it also does not factor in Verizon's operational costs (which I have no idea how to estimate), so it will be even lower than that.
Why? Do you really think that a significant portion of that bill you pay the cable company each month is going to the individual channels?
We're up to, what, over 900 channels? If we say that the cable bill is $90 a month (and that's overestimating), that's only a single dollar per channel, which would then be further subdivided to pay for each show that airs on that channel. And that doesn't even factor in what the cable company takes from that bill for system maintenance, employee salaries, and other expenses of running a cable company.
Obviously if you are paying for, say, the Showtime package, I suspect most of that does go towards Showtime, but I would suspect that in the case of basic cable, very little of what you are paying actually goes back to the networks.
I am not a statistician, but isn't it a little more difficult than simply counting the current population size and dividing that by the total number of occurrences? I mean, shouldn't we also factor in everyone who lived between 1954 and now (for the sake of argument, lets say time began with the first strike), and also somehow factor in time since many of those people may be dead today and thus should not count as being hit by a space object?
Two instances of such an event in less than 60 years does not automatically invalidate the thousands of years prior where such an event had not occurred.
With the ebay sales, the money is coming to you direct from the stolen credit card
Sounded to me more like Person B sells item to Person C (an item they do not have), Person C pays Person B through whatever, Person B then buys item from Person A using stolen credit card, then negotiates the shipping such that Person A ships direct to Person C.
Remember, these are NOT criminal trials
With the RIAA trying to use the best of both worlds in order to win their cases (at least that's how I've heard it), it does get hard to remember that.
How is it libellous? Are you saying that being a Christian song writer is a bad thing and no one in their right mind would wish to have such a label applied to them?
but in practice they don't have the money needed for travel.
If one has legs, one has the means to travel just about anywhere. I will grant you that, at least in the lower 48 states, it seems there are very few, if any, places where one can truly live off the land ala Lewis and Clark, so you'd still need money for food.
Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this shit a war.
Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not?
Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end.
Shamefully taken from a comment by SoVeryTired.
Have you ever seen the speed with which a phone addicted teenage girl texts???
No, but I seem to recall hearing about a texter being beaten by good old fashioned morse code (and the texter was allowed to use shorthand while the morse code person either wasn't or chose not to).
My mistake, I thought you were referring to Disney's practice of releasing something on VHS/DVD/Bluray for a limited time before ceasing production for X years.
I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.
A quick Amazon search shows that you might be wrong.
To be fair, there are more than I thought that are still available, but I clearly remember seeing commercials for some of those claiming that they'd be "locked away" in the Disney Vault "soon".
Actually, I was expecting more of an underminer than an overlord.
Steve Jobs' health should have no bearing on the financial success of Apple.
Yes, I know in actuality it does (did?), but Steve Jobs isn't immortal, he will one day die. If Apple is to continue after Steve Jobs, he needs to be able to step aside quietly now so that Apple may shine on its own without the help of the reality distortion field.
Even if they do. You can get use to it.
You're right that you get used to it. Anyone who's watched the show from the beginning is, in theory, proof of this. The cast itself may not have changed, but if you listen to one of the first episodes back-to-back with one of the later ones, you can definitely tell that the voices changed slightly over the course of the show as the actors found the right voice for each character.
But that was a gradual change over the course of the show. If a brand new voice were to suddenly take over for one of the characters, that would be a lot more difficult to accept. That is, they would "sound wrong" for longer than if the voice had gradually changed to that new voice. Some might argue that jumping right into a new voice like that, the character would never sound right.
Why does TV and Movies break their own cannon, well to keep the current story more entertaining.
You're trying to compare live action to cartoons, and that just doesn't work very well. If you get a new actor in a live action film or TV series, you're getting both a new voice and a new face, which at least for me, generally makes it easier to immediately accept the change, because my brain isn't getting confused hearing a different voice come out of the same face.
Could I have made money doing something else? Probably. The best example I can come up with off the top of my head is fucking Vongo.
That just sounds wrong on its own.
I am not a physicist, so maybe I have the wrong idea here, but I'd have imagined that the thin atmosphere would mean less air required inside. If you fill a balloon up at sea-level, stick it in a box, and begin to remove the air (lowering the air pressure), the balloon will expand.