It makes it harder to let go without a new, better, faster, inspiring vehicle to latch on to.
Then join me in latching on to the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule. They are the next big thing in human spaceflight, and probably the only new manned craft that will come online by the end of the decade. Yes, it is only designed for LEO, but with a ferry that cheap we'll be able to afford something bigger to go farther out.
Nothing to do with how many people read, and everything to do with WHAT they read. The Internet provides a far more personalized (read: segregated) world than print media ever could, and it does very little to widen people's perspectives.
The price you pay for the boxset of a television series is for the convenience and without the adverts.
This would be true if the DVDs were (a) convenient and (b) without ads. While boxsets do have less adverts than broadcast, movie DVDs have plenty of annoying trailers for things I don't want to watch, and neither make it convenient to watch on the device of your choice.
There's a difference between a rocket based on tried-and-true technology updated for the 21st century and bleeding-edge never-been-done-before space telescope. A large part of the problem with JWST is that the ambitious requirements called for instruments with materials that literally did not yet exist and had to be researched before they could even be designed. Unfortunately management did not understand this and built the instruments before we knew if they would even work, and they didn't, so the last minute scramble to fix everything was totally inefficient and entirely predictable.
SpaceX has proven itself capable of tackling problems of efficiency and cost, but I don't think they would want to incur the amount of risk involved in this kind of research. Of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that they would do a great job, but I don't think its within their core competencies at this time, if you'll forgive the buzzword.
This has been the cycle for many years, as projects low-ball their estimates to beat other projects on the review desk. Then they have to low-ball even further to beat the other low-ballers. Basically, Congress is saying that this has gone too far and has got to stop. There are gears grinding in the bureaucracy to start producing more accurate estimates.
Exactly right. I was involved in one of the instruments on JWST, and we had no end of trouble because half the engineering work was done before they had even done the research to see if it would work at all. After they did figure out how to make it work, it turned out the engineering was done to essentially nonsense specs. That took a lot of jury-rigging and overtime to deliver, just one of many examples I'm sure.
When was the last time we heard about the FBI asking a credit card company to stop payments to someone? Oh yeah, Wikileaks. We all know how well that turned out.
Miami, in its test, set fire to two cars, one with hydrogen and the other gasoline. While both created fires when ignited, the gasoline fire engulfed the entire car causing total damage, whereas the hydrogen flame vented vertically and failed to spread to the rest of the vehicle....Similarly, in 1997, a vehicle safety study by the automaker Ford concluded hydrogen is potentially a better fuel source than gasoline when proper controls are built into the vehicle.
If we're going to think of the children, think of what they will be doing in the future instead of the past. We should switch to base 16 since that makes it easiest to work with computers.
Besides, it doesn't matter if there are 24 or 10 or 64 hours in a day. Real geeks use seconds. As in, "I'll see you at 28,800 seconds sharp. Don't be late, we've got to finish before my meeting at 39,600."
Question: if the beam doesn't hit the dosimeter, will it read anything at all? As in, if the spot bounces off the inside of the machine and always hits the agent's calf because of where he's standing, and he gets skin cancer in his calf, would the dosimeter have detected that at all? Or is the reflection a wider beam than that?
I agree there are lots of interesting questions to work out with robotic cars. Your first point, though, is easily handled by a standard GPS map database. It would only have to read temporary speed limit signs.
For your second case, my hope is that it would find another route (right turn, U turn, etc), which is what a safe human driver would do. I don't think you'd ever want them making an unsafe dart through cross traffic. Unless of course you want to put an AI for frogger into your car, which has the potential to be better than the human equivalent.
So? Are you defending a system that relies on a single person's single argument to save the entire society from an unconstitutional law that should never have been passed in the first place? Sounds like there's a bit of a weak link in the chain.
The correct answer is that the organization should absorb the costs and have internal disciplinary rules to penalize or terminate the employees in question. This is what any organization would do if they took the problem seriously.
At least with kiddie porn the law says that any match, whether you paid for it or not, constitutes a violation. That's not the case with music--how are they supposed to know what files are legally downloaded copies and what are illegally downloaded copies? The only way is to keep a database of invoices for everything you have ever paid for, ready for when they come to audit you. But when are they going to search your files? At border crossings? Airports? Now you have to carry this bunch of invoices around with you all the time. It's akin to the proverbial "papers" you need to travel in a repressive regime. You see where i"m going with this.
...just kidding. Sorry, but there is *no way* to automagically determine what the license status of a file is. The only way is for you to make a list of every song you actually own and compare it against the library. But track names, file sizes, etc could all be different so an automated diff won't cut it. And don't forget that even if you own the CD it's illegal to download a copy of the songs on it, so even if it's on your list you still could be "illegal". The only way to be sure is to start from scratch and rip all your CDs again, saving maybe the few songs that you can find Amazon or iTunes download invoices for.
Of course, the fact that such a task is IMPOSSIBLE to automate is precisely why the RIAA is advocating it and why it will never go anywhere (or will be a massive flop when it does). Copyright CANNOT be enforced in an automated fashion--any system will inevitably revert to "all copies are bad", which is a VIOLATION of fair-use copyright law, among other things. This is why all attempts to automate copyright violation enforcement must be killed without mercy.
(I am not disputing that "detection" can be automated. It is perfectly reasonable to make a system to look for likely cases of infringement. It is completely wrong, however, to take the output of such a system at face value and sanction the material en masse without human review, which is what a lot of companies seem to be doing these days.)
If they get it then Dilbert, XKCD, FunnyOrDie, Failblog.. should receive one also. Some great journalism there../s
I don't think those are quite the same thing as The Onion. They are mostly just humor for humor's sake, or satirizing specific subcultures (office life, geeks, internet). The Onion has a lot of political satire, which is more relevant on the stage of national journalism. It that material on which they would be judged, not the comics about dismembered zombies and middle-school-cyber-bully-style movie reviews.
I think "non-profit" is supposed to mean any organization whose stated goal is something other than making as much money as possible, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Yes, people who work in non-profits can sometimes make good money, and have an incentive to do well so they can earn more money, and sometimes corrupt the organization to enrich themselves, but by and large they still have to deliver on the purpose of the organization itself or get ousted.
In a for-profit media company, the consumers of the media are the product they sell to advertisers. Each listener/reader/viewer has a certain value in the eyes of the advertiser (how much they are likely to profit from them seeing the ad) that drives how much they pay for advertisement. The interesting thing is that in a non-profit, the value of each listener (for example) in the eyes of the station is how much that consumer is willing to contribute toward the content, a figure completely unrelated to what the advertisers would pay for that same listener. Commercial radio stations typically have large but apathetic audiences, so they have to drive up audience numbers to get any advertising revenue at all. Public radio stations, on the other hand, have smaller but much more interested (including many intellectual and wealthy) audiences and so can raise money more easily. As a result, it is those engaged listeners who control the content, not the advertisers, and the quality of the content goes up. (source)
You raise an interesting question about the opposite extreme: I don't know if rewarding individual pieces is a good idea. It could drive a different sort of dynamic--would you contribute as much to a good investigative piece if it contradicted your beliefs even though it was true? Would reporters shy away from important but risky stories if there was more money to be made on other topics? A large organization can absorb the risk involved in writing controversial stories for the public good in a way that an independent reporter might not be willing or able to do.
I know Apple pays them, but wondered if the "genius bar" was like free for Apple customers as a complementary service, con-man style service gouging like BB, or somewhere in between.
Slashdot Mirror
...except with Watson the supercomputer instead of Samantha Morton. Just remember that when he says "Toronto" it means he doesn't know the answer.
It makes it harder to let go without a new, better, faster, inspiring vehicle to latch on to.
Then join me in latching on to the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule. They are the next big thing in human spaceflight, and probably the only new manned craft that will come online by the end of the decade. Yes, it is only designed for LEO, but with a ferry that cheap we'll be able to afford something bigger to go farther out.
Nothing to do with how many people read, and everything to do with WHAT they read. The Internet provides a far more personalized (read: segregated) world than print media ever could, and it does very little to widen people's perspectives.
The price you pay for the boxset of a television series is for the convenience and without the adverts.
This would be true if the DVDs were (a) convenient and (b) without ads. While boxsets do have less adverts than broadcast, movie DVDs have plenty of annoying trailers for things I don't want to watch, and neither make it convenient to watch on the device of your choice.
There's a difference between a rocket based on tried-and-true technology updated for the 21st century and bleeding-edge never-been-done-before space telescope. A large part of the problem with JWST is that the ambitious requirements called for instruments with materials that literally did not yet exist and had to be researched before they could even be designed. Unfortunately management did not understand this and built the instruments before we knew if they would even work, and they didn't, so the last minute scramble to fix everything was totally inefficient and entirely predictable.
SpaceX has proven itself capable of tackling problems of efficiency and cost, but I don't think they would want to incur the amount of risk involved in this kind of research. Of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that they would do a great job, but I don't think its within their core competencies at this time, if you'll forgive the buzzword.
This has been the cycle for many years, as projects low-ball their estimates to beat other projects on the review desk. Then they have to low-ball even further to beat the other low-ballers. Basically, Congress is saying that this has gone too far and has got to stop. There are gears grinding in the bureaucracy to start producing more accurate estimates.
Exactly right. I was involved in one of the instruments on JWST, and we had no end of trouble because half the engineering work was done before they had even done the research to see if it would work at all. After they did figure out how to make it work, it turned out the engineering was done to essentially nonsense specs. That took a lot of jury-rigging and overtime to deliver, just one of many examples I'm sure.
If it doesn't work, they won't sell any.
When was the last time we heard about the FBI asking a credit card company to stop payments to someone? Oh yeah, Wikileaks. We all know how well that turned out.
Miami, in its test, set fire to two cars, one with hydrogen and the other gasoline. While both created fires when ignited, the gasoline fire engulfed the entire car causing total damage, whereas the hydrogen flame vented vertically and failed to spread to the rest of the vehicle....Similarly, in 1997, a vehicle safety study by the automaker Ford concluded hydrogen is potentially a better fuel source than gasoline when proper controls are built into the vehicle.
If we're going to think of the children, think of what they will be doing in the future instead of the past. We should switch to base 16 since that makes it easiest to work with computers.
Besides, it doesn't matter if there are 24 or 10 or 64 hours in a day. Real geeks use seconds. As in, "I'll see you at 28,800 seconds sharp. Don't be late, we've got to finish before my meeting at 39,600."
Question: if the beam doesn't hit the dosimeter, will it read anything at all? As in, if the spot bounces off the inside of the machine and always hits the agent's calf because of where he's standing, and he gets skin cancer in his calf, would the dosimeter have detected that at all? Or is the reflection a wider beam than that?
Counting on the manufacturer to sell you a solution to a problem that actually exists, and care whether they work or not: what could go wrong?
This wouldn't do much since Congress doesn't have to approve wars anymore...
Living increases the risk of dying.
I agree there are lots of interesting questions to work out with robotic cars. Your first point, though, is easily handled by a standard GPS map database. It would only have to read temporary speed limit signs.
For your second case, my hope is that it would find another route (right turn, U turn, etc), which is what a safe human driver would do. I don't think you'd ever want them making an unsafe dart through cross traffic. Unless of course you want to put an AI for frogger into your car, which has the potential to be better than the human equivalent.
So? Are you defending a system that relies on a single person's single argument to save the entire society from an unconstitutional law that should never have been passed in the first place? Sounds like there's a bit of a weak link in the chain.
The correct answer is that the organization should absorb the costs and have internal disciplinary rules to penalize or terminate the employees in question. This is what any organization would do if they took the problem seriously.
At least with kiddie porn the law says that any match, whether you paid for it or not, constitutes a violation. That's not the case with music--how are they supposed to know what files are legally downloaded copies and what are illegally downloaded copies? The only way is to keep a database of invoices for everything you have ever paid for, ready for when they come to audit you. But when are they going to search your files? At border crossings? Airports? Now you have to carry this bunch of invoices around with you all the time. It's akin to the proverbial "papers" you need to travel in a repressive regime. You see where i"m going with this.
...just kidding. Sorry, but there is *no way* to automagically determine what the license status of a file is. The only way is for you to make a list of every song you actually own and compare it against the library. But track names, file sizes, etc could all be different so an automated diff won't cut it. And don't forget that even if you own the CD it's illegal to download a copy of the songs on it, so even if it's on your list you still could be "illegal". The only way to be sure is to start from scratch and rip all your CDs again, saving maybe the few songs that you can find Amazon or iTunes download invoices for.
Of course, the fact that such a task is IMPOSSIBLE to automate is precisely why the RIAA is advocating it and why it will never go anywhere (or will be a massive flop when it does). Copyright CANNOT be enforced in an automated fashion--any system will inevitably revert to "all copies are bad", which is a VIOLATION of fair-use copyright law, among other things. This is why all attempts to automate copyright violation enforcement must be killed without mercy.
(I am not disputing that "detection" can be automated. It is perfectly reasonable to make a system to look for likely cases of infringement. It is completely wrong, however, to take the output of such a system at face value and sanction the material en masse without human review, which is what a lot of companies seem to be doing these days.)
Actually, I would kinda like to know what wavelength they are using, but that might be top secret information...
If they get it then Dilbert, XKCD, FunnyOrDie, Failblog.. should receive one also. Some great journalism there.. /s
I don't think those are quite the same thing as The Onion. They are mostly just humor for humor's sake, or satirizing specific subcultures (office life, geeks, internet). The Onion has a lot of political satire, which is more relevant on the stage of national journalism. It that material on which they would be judged, not the comics about dismembered zombies and middle-school-cyber-bully-style movie reviews.
I'm sure somebody would appreciate a TLD for condoms...
I think "non-profit" is supposed to mean any organization whose stated goal is something other than making as much money as possible, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Yes, people who work in non-profits can sometimes make good money, and have an incentive to do well so they can earn more money, and sometimes corrupt the organization to enrich themselves, but by and large they still have to deliver on the purpose of the organization itself or get ousted.
In a for-profit media company, the consumers of the media are the product they sell to advertisers. Each listener/reader/viewer has a certain value in the eyes of the advertiser (how much they are likely to profit from them seeing the ad) that drives how much they pay for advertisement. The interesting thing is that in a non-profit, the value of each listener (for example) in the eyes of the station is how much that consumer is willing to contribute toward the content, a figure completely unrelated to what the advertisers would pay for that same listener. Commercial radio stations typically have large but apathetic audiences, so they have to drive up audience numbers to get any advertising revenue at all. Public radio stations, on the other hand, have smaller but much more interested (including many intellectual and wealthy) audiences and so can raise money more easily. As a result, it is those engaged listeners who control the content, not the advertisers, and the quality of the content goes up. (source)
You raise an interesting question about the opposite extreme: I don't know if rewarding individual pieces is a good idea. It could drive a different sort of dynamic--would you contribute as much to a good investigative piece if it contradicted your beliefs even though it was true? Would reporters shy away from important but risky stories if there was more money to be made on other topics? A large organization can absorb the risk involved in writing controversial stories for the public good in a way that an independent reporter might not be willing or able to do.
I know Apple pays them, but wondered if the "genius bar" was like free for Apple customers as a complementary service, con-man style service gouging like BB, or somewhere in between.