Most running shoes I've tried have been weighted such that it's easier to put your foot down on your heel than on the front of your feet, which is likely to cause long-term injury.
I thought the intention was to land on your heel and absorb the impact in the roll towards your toes. That is to say that your heel is the first thing to touch the ground, but it does not take anything like your full weight.
I love running barefoot. If you keep an eye on where you're going, you won't step on anything you shouldn't. And once you get calluses built up you can take a bit more than 'normal'.
Can I assume you're talking about running on pavement? Maybe some mown grass? A sandy beach? A running track!
I can imagine all of these being OK -- I spent a couple of weeks in my youth nurturing the affectation of wandering around the city centre barefoot, and it was fine -- but I can think of plenty of running routes I wouldn't fancy barefoot. Canal towpaths, gravel, rocky beaches, mountain paths etc.
I believe there is a process in place whereby music uploaded by the public is taken down, when the copyright owner notices it.
Someone I know puts iPhoto slideshows of football away-days on YouTube, with music from his MP3 library in the background. He got an email from YouTube saying "We've noticed that your video contains music belonging to Time Warner, so we've put an advert on that video's page, and will be paying royalties to the content owner. If you don't like it, please remove the video."
Or words to that effect. This was long before the current debacle.
Personally I think musicians should be paid for performances
The PRS represents the authors of songs, not performers (obviously one person can be both). I think it's an open question how much a song (as opposed to a performance) is worth, in monetary terms.
FOSS coders have jobs. They do FOSS programming as a hobby.
A lot of FOSS software is written by software professionals as part of their job.
But let's put that aside, and think only of the hobbyist FOSS writers. Many people when they first learn about free software, instinctively decide that it must be second rate. "OK, so I can't afford the good stuff, I can make do with free software." It's quite a leap for these people to realise that non-free software is frequently poor quality, and that free software is frequently of a very high quality.
So it is with music. Some amateur music is better than some professional music.
Could society get on with only amateur music? I doubt we'll ever find out. But I don't think there's a case the argument that if we don#t protect musicians' revenue streams we'll have to live in a world without music.
Google was already paying royalties. The issue at hand is, how high should those royalties be.
The PRS argument seems to percieve that a 'view' is worth a lot more than makes sense (see the comment on the page about getting 25,000 views and expecting more than a couple of pounds in royalties).
Google does make billions, but it makes those billions by serving trillions of pages. 1000 video views might result in one ad click. One ad click is only worth a few pence.
If they paid what the PRS is asking, Google would make a loss. So, they said "no thanks".
Music videos started off as promotion, but I don't think that's the case any more. Some people who consider themselves music fans don't buy CDs (downloads, whatever), but they leave a video jukebox TV channel on all day.
I had a video that had about 25,000 views in total and when I got my PRS for Music cheque through, I think I made two or three pounds off that maximum... Sam Isaac, songwriter
So let's be generous and say 1% of those views resulted in an ad click-through. This guy wants to make serious money out of 250 ad clicks?
If, as the summary says, this guy churns out code that 'saves the company millions', that seems to justify what he does.
To offset that, you've got to demonstrate that his deficiencies cost the company millions. Lack of documentation; personal abuse in the workplace; those mount up.
From now on, the only music we in the UK are allowed to show our friends is the music NOT controlled by these people?
The problem is, as unpleasantly monopolistic as these organisations are, if you want to get paid royalties for a musical composition, they're your only realistic option.
Licensees want a one-stop clearing house. They don't want to negotiate a license soup.
It's easy to roll your own license and sell downloads to private customers. But claiming royalties for public performances, radio play etc. is something you really have to go to the PRS for.
However, if I was a producer, I'd probably be rather upset by the PRS's actions (although given the spin the PRS is putting on this, the producers are probably blaming Google).
Everything you write is correct in spirit. But to nitpick - I think PRS represents songwriters, not producers. I think they license songs rather than recordings.
MTV/VH1 are paying the copyright holders the licensing fees they demand. So is "some other site" (unless it is breaking copyright law)
Simplified it goes like this:
PRS: You are currently paying $0.001 per play of our videos. Now we want $0.01. YouTube: Since we get less than $0.01 per play in average revenue, we can't pay you that much. What's your next offer? PRS: If you want the videos, that's what you have to pay YouTube: OK, we won't have the videos then PRS: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I thought basic microeconomics said price depends on both.
True, but slightly less basic and less micro than mine:)
The equilibrium price comes into play when there is competition driving supply and demand. I suspect that demand for MMORPGs would drop off sharply with increasing prices. A MMORPG tax could therefore kill off the industry. In the absence of a tax, I suspect production costs can be pushed very low indeed (with outsourcing, community driven content, etc.)
You're joking. It's bad enough the UK makes you "rent" your television set, but now you have a license on radio too???
Actually I support the TV license. Most people get more value back for that than they get in return - not only BBC TV, but also its web content, radio, podcasts etc.
The PRS radio-in-the-workplace thing is another matter. They consider that if a customer hears music coming from a radio (or CD player, whatever) that it counts as a 'public performance'.
The insulting thing with radio in particular is that they've already been paid for the content by the broadcaster.
Looking on the bright side, PRS is doing what it's meant to do: lobbying for those it represents; copyright holders. It's government's job to slap them down when they ask too much.
And back on topic: it's Google's right as their customer to say "no thanks, the price is too high, come back when you're cheaper".
It's quite common to see PRS stickers on the instrument cases of amateur musicians. Presumably the logic is "I'm a performer. I support the society that protects my right to perform.". The "Performing Rights Society", right? PRS encourages that misunderstanding with the slogan "keep music live".
So it's good to spread the word that that is not what this organisation is about. This is the organisation that lobbies for more grasping application of copyright law. They're the ones that want you to buy a license just to have a radio in your workplace. They're the ones want it to be illegal to perform Happy Birthday in a public place without the premises having a license.
They campaign to restrict the rights of performers, not protect them.
Children often do not understand what is involved with making the game ("but XYZ does it for free!?")
Seems to me the children understand perfectly. If XYZ offers people a better value proposition, then people will go for XYZ.
Basic microeconomics says that production cost doesn't dictate price: what dictates price is what consumers are willing to pay. If you can't turn a profit under those conditions, get out of the game. If other people seem to be managing - work out why they can produce to that budget while you can't.
I don't like to think of it as a rule, so much a convention - like all language. But it's a convention worth preserving because without it you lose expressiveness.
'Less' and 'fewer' have different meanings, although the difference is eroding as people increasingly substitute 'less' for 'fewer' (never the other way around. You don't hear 'give it fewer power'.)
If you're telling me that until 'very recently', the two words conventionally had the same meaning, and that a difference was 'invented', I need you to provide me with a reference.
Do you also contend that the difference between 'many' and 'much' is 'invented recently'?
Secunia states that Firefox3 has less critical issues
Sometimes I correct people on 'less' vs 'fewer', and I get the response that it's obvious what was meant.
This is one of those occasions when using the wrong word really does change the meaning. And by golly, I checked the page, and you really did not mean 'fewer' as I had expected.
What Secunia says about Firefox is that the most severe unpatched Firefox bug they know of, they rate as 'less critical'. Whatever that means.
Slashdot Mirror
Most running shoes I've tried have been weighted such that it's easier to put your foot down on your heel than on the front of your feet, which is likely to cause long-term injury.
I thought the intention was to land on your heel and absorb the impact in the roll towards your toes. That is to say that your heel is the first thing to touch the ground, but it does not take anything like your full weight.
I love running barefoot. If you keep an eye on where you're going, you won't step on anything you shouldn't. And once you get calluses built up you can take a bit more than 'normal'.
Can I assume you're talking about running on pavement? Maybe some mown grass? A sandy beach? A running track!
I can imagine all of these being OK -- I spent a couple of weeks in my youth nurturing the affectation of wandering around the city centre barefoot, and it was fine -- but I can think of plenty of running routes I wouldn't fancy barefoot. Canal towpaths, gravel, rocky beaches, mountain paths etc.
Only the official videos have been taken down
I believe there is a process in place whereby music uploaded by the public is taken down, when the copyright owner notices it.
Someone I know puts iPhoto slideshows of football away-days on YouTube, with music from his MP3 library in the background. He got an email from YouTube saying "We've noticed that your video contains music belonging to Time Warner, so we've put an advert on that video's page, and will be paying royalties to the content owner. If you don't like it, please remove the video."
Or words to that effect. This was long before the current debacle.
Personally I think musicians should be paid for performances
The PRS represents the authors of songs, not performers (obviously one person can be both). I think it's an open question how much a song (as opposed to a performance) is worth, in monetary terms.
FOSS coders have jobs. They do FOSS programming as a hobby.
A lot of FOSS software is written by software professionals as part of their job.
But let's put that aside, and think only of the hobbyist FOSS writers. Many people when they first learn about free software, instinctively decide that it must be second rate. "OK, so I can't afford the good stuff, I can make do with free software." It's quite a leap for these people to realise that non-free software is frequently poor quality, and that free software is frequently of a very high quality.
So it is with music. Some amateur music is better than some professional music.
Could society get on with only amateur music? I doubt we'll ever find out. But I don't think there's a case the argument that if we don#t protect musicians' revenue streams we'll have to live in a world without music.
Google was already paying royalties. The issue at hand is, how high should those royalties be.
The PRS argument seems to percieve that a 'view' is worth a lot more than makes sense (see the comment on the page about getting 25,000 views and expecting more than a couple of pounds in royalties).
Google does make billions, but it makes those billions by serving trillions of pages. 1000 video views might result in one ad click. One ad click is only worth a few pence.
If they paid what the PRS is asking, Google would make a loss. So, they said "no thanks".
Music videos started off as promotion, but I don't think that's the case any more. Some people who consider themselves music fans don't buy CDs (downloads, whatever), but they leave a video jukebox TV channel on all day.
Clueless or not, they have the IP rights and they can ask them to be taken down.
The material has been taken down. The PRS is most upset about it. Effectively Google has demonstrated that it can manage without this content.
I had a video that had about 25,000 views in total and when I got my PRS for Music cheque through, I think I made two or three pounds off that maximum ...
Sam Isaac, songwriter
So let's be generous and say 1% of those views resulted in an ad click-through. This guy wants to make serious money out of 250 ad clicks?
If, as the summary says, this guy churns out code that 'saves the company millions', that seems to justify what he does.
To offset that, you've got to demonstrate that his deficiencies cost the company millions. Lack of documentation; personal abuse in the workplace; those mount up.
He probably doesn't save millions after all.
Except that the logos are completely dissimilar, and it's seen on violin cases as well as guitar-like instruments.
From now on, the only music we in the UK are allowed to show our friends is the music NOT controlled by these people?
The problem is, as unpleasantly monopolistic as these organisations are, if you want to get paid royalties for a musical composition, they're your only realistic option.
Licensees want a one-stop clearing house. They don't want to negotiate a license soup.
It's easy to roll your own license and sell downloads to private customers. But claiming royalties for public performances, radio play etc. is something you really have to go to the PRS for.
However, if I was a producer, I'd probably be rather upset by the PRS's actions (although given the spin the PRS is putting on this, the producers are probably blaming Google).
Everything you write is correct in spirit. But to nitpick - I think PRS represents songwriters, not producers. I think they license songs rather than recordings.
MTV/VH1 are paying the copyright holders the licensing fees they demand.
So is "some other site" (unless it is breaking copyright law)
Simplified it goes like this:
PRS: You are currently paying $0.001 per play of our videos. Now we want $0.01.
YouTube: Since we get less than $0.01 per play in average revenue, we can't pay you that much. What's your next offer?
PRS: If you want the videos, that's what you have to pay
YouTube: OK, we won't have the videos then
PRS: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I thought basic microeconomics said price depends on both.
True, but slightly less basic and less micro than mine :)
The equilibrium price comes into play when there is competition driving supply and demand. I suspect that demand for MMORPGs would drop off sharply with increasing prices. A MMORPG tax could therefore kill off the industry. In the absence of a tax, I suspect production costs can be pushed very low indeed (with outsourcing, community driven content, etc.)
You're joking. It's bad enough the UK makes you "rent" your television set, but now you have a license on radio too???
Actually I support the TV license. Most people get more value back for that than they get in return - not only BBC TV, but also its web content, radio, podcasts etc.
The PRS radio-in-the-workplace thing is another matter. They consider that if a customer hears music coming from a radio (or CD player, whatever) that it counts as a 'public performance'.
The insulting thing with radio in particular is that they've already been paid for the content by the broadcaster.
Looking on the bright side, PRS is doing what it's meant to do: lobbying for those it represents; copyright holders. It's government's job to slap them down when they ask too much.
And back on topic: it's Google's right as their customer to say "no thanks, the price is too high, come back when you're cheaper".
Public awareness might well be a good thing.
It's quite common to see PRS stickers on the instrument cases of amateur musicians. Presumably the logic is "I'm a performer. I support the society that protects my right to perform.". The "Performing Rights Society", right? PRS encourages that misunderstanding with the slogan "keep music live".
So it's good to spread the word that that is not what this organisation is about. This is the organisation that lobbies for more grasping application of copyright law. They're the ones that want you to buy a license just to have a radio in your workplace. They're the ones want it to be illegal to perform Happy Birthday in a public place without the premises having a license.
They campaign to restrict the rights of performers, not protect them.
Children often do not understand what is involved with making the game ("but XYZ does it for free!?")
Seems to me the children understand perfectly. If XYZ offers people a better value proposition, then people will go for XYZ.
Basic microeconomics says that production cost doesn't dictate price: what dictates price is what consumers are willing to pay. If you can't turn a profit under those conditions, get out of the game. If other people seem to be managing - work out why they can produce to that budget while you can't.
[citation needed].
I don't like to think of it as a rule, so much a convention - like all language. But it's a convention worth preserving because without it you lose expressiveness.
'Less' and 'fewer' have different meanings, although the difference is eroding as people increasingly substitute 'less' for 'fewer' (never the other way around. You don't hear 'give it fewer power'.)
If you're telling me that until 'very recently', the two words conventionally had the same meaning, and that a difference was 'invented', I need you to provide me with a reference.
Do you also contend that the difference between 'many' and 'much' is 'invented recently'?
Secunia states that Firefox3 has less critical issues
Sometimes I correct people on 'less' vs 'fewer', and I get the response that it's obvious what was meant.
This is one of those occasions when using the wrong word really does change the meaning. And by golly, I checked the page, and you really did not mean 'fewer' as I had expected.
What Secunia says about Firefox is that the most severe unpatched Firefox bug they know of, they rate as 'less critical'. Whatever that means.
Here's the SLA.
0.1% of 1 month is ~44 mins. 1% of 1 month is ~7.3 hours.
So it looks like you're entitled to 3 days of free service. W00T!
Did you know that you can pay Google money for Google Apps for Business? $50 per account per year guarantees you 99.9% uptime.
That said, I bet todays outage for free accounts was less than 0.1% of a year (which would be a tad under 9 hours).
"Do you trust that the site of your web-based e-mail provider will never go down?"
No, you trust that it'll never go down *for long*, and that when it comes back, your data will still be there.
Over the years, GMail has had way better uptime than anything I could have constructed myself, and the cost to me has been negligible.
What do you think was used to compile GCC?
Of course you can retain your fleet of buses, and only run them at peak times, letting the PRT system handle the road the rest of the time.