Imeem might have gotten away with not paying artists for a year because it didn't have the money to pay. Even if the artists sued Imeem, there was no money in Imeem to get.
But now Imeem has money from the MySpace deal. The artists should get it. A single lawsuit should be an open and shut case.
But what Imeem got is said to be "less than $1M", whatever that is. If there's 110,000 unpaid artists, that's under $9 to pay each artist. The best way to use the money taken from Imeem would be to pay to set up other storefronts. Perhaps pay an ecommerce corp to create top-notch MySpace storefronts and promote them on TV/radio/streams/email and social networks.
MySpace has done nothing wrong, has only given some money in a legit purchase of assets from the bad guy that could reboot the artists' businesses. Imeem did wrong, but Imeem turned out to be unable to generate enough money to pay the artists anyway: a failed attempt by the artists to sell, because they bet on Imeem, the wrong horse.
But this could be turned around. However, it's the music business. Therefore I expect it will only get worse.
Voting on facts doesn't change whether they're true or not, regardless of what the majority chooses.
Third world countries don't have any greater chance of the stupid dying while the smart live and outbreed them. Entirely the opposite is universally observable. In all countries, but in third world ones even more.
But the photos and videos are from a wide variety of angles (looks like within at least 20 degrees span), yet the spiral looks like a spiral in a plane from all those angles. Not like a complex 3D helix that projects to a spiral on-axis, but which wouldn't look like a 2D spiral from 10 degrees or more off-axis.
The spiral started off with a green ray of light, then the spiral around where the ray pointed in the sky. There's also a very big beam of white light pointing from the ground/water up into the spiral for the duration. How does the missile explain these light beams?
And how doe every photo of the formation, from all kinds of different angles, all see the same spiral that the 3D twisting project into to the observer? Someone watching on-axis would see that perfect spiral, but not all the observers at all the angles.
Until those other pieces of actual evidence seen by many people and appearing in many photos and videos are explained, I don't believe it's a missile. And since the Russians have said it's a missile, compromising a secret military test to do so, what happened that also explains the Russians saying that, especially if it's not a missile?
Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually.
That claim of failure says:
Consumer carbon offset schemes do not lead people to change their behaviour, the first holiday firm to run such a scheme has argued.
But that "argument" is a strawman. Those carbon offsets are not primarily designed to change behavior by making them more expensive. They're designed to charge money for polluting behavior that is then spent reducing pollution:
Money raised under the schemes is used to pay for carbon reduction projects in developing countries, such as installing solar power or capturing methane gas released by farm animals.
Economics says that the extra charge will also tend to curb the more expensive behavior. But if that's not happening, it's capitalism that's wrong. The carbon offsets are still funding the carbon reduction projects. Until there's proof that those projects don't reduce carbon, that argument against carbon offsets is a fallacy.
Now, it's possible that the carbon reduction projects funded by carbon offsets don't reduce as much carbon as the offsets pay to keep producing. Which just means that the carbon offsets should be more expensive (or offset less carbon for the same price, and make it up in volume). It's also certain that carbon pollution is subsidized in many ways that mask the true cost (which generally comes when cleaning up the mess that carbon pollution eventually makes, which is vastly more expensive than the polluting system cost to operate, but which others pay for). The carbon offset prices might just be too small and get lost in the much larger economics of the subsidies, and indeed in artificial costs making carbon reduction project prices higher (droughts in Africa interfering with solar projects, for example).
But just because some travel outfit tried and failed to make money on a carbon offset program doesn't mean that its fallacious arguments for dropping the program are worth repeating.
Can't the user delete the proprietary apps? AFAIK, the entire Android phone can be wiped and replaced with a different Android distro, some of which have no proprietary apps or code.
There's no "tapping" of the phone except a phone app reading its GPS HW (or a SW API to it), or a server app snooping data transferred over the WAN by apps exposing GPS data. If there's no phone app sending GPS data over the WAN, there's nothing to snoop.
Common commercial devices for homes already use heat exchangers to recover 66% or more of heat from vented air, heating the incoming fresh air with it. During heating seasons, machinery's inefficiency generating heat can replace heat that would have consumed more energy. Bathroom fan vents cost under $300.
What we need is good heat storage devices. If a lot of heat can be stored during the cooling season, and released during the heating season, these electrical devices become close to 100% efficient. Places like Helsinki have much longer heating than cooling seasons, so they're good places for datacenters that can recover heat for use.
The problem is that water is about the densest heat storage material we have, but it doesn't store very much. And even the most cutting edge insulators, aerogels, are only about 2x as insulating as the current common top performers, closed cell foams, and only about 4x as insulating as the earlier common stuff like fiberglass and cellulose. If we could store in similar volume the energy that fuels like oil store in chemical covalent bonds instead in physical materials like high specific heat fluids that don't get that hot, we'd have a lot more options in engineering efficiency. If we could regenerate chemical fuel from heat at very high cycle efficiency, we'd have something of a miracle cure for many of the worst of our industrial ills.
Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source, locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened?
I've been trying to buy a few dozen bulbs for my home since June. CFLs actually for sale rate up to about 83lm:W, in 1900lm/23W bulbs for about $3ea in quantities of 12 (non-dimmable). LEDs actually for sale rate up to about 75lm:W, in 900lm/12W bulbs for about $12ea (no volume discount), but none at 1800-2000lm and lower than 12W quickly drop in efficiency. The prices are all over the place, but Home Depot's prices are about as good as they get in stores for either CFL or LEDs, and Internet/mailorder aren't a lot better.
If you can prove me wrong and point me to LEDs that beat that 1900lm/23W @$3ea, I'd love to see it.
That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies. But the article consistently pushed LEDs. The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production). The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.
Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet. The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents. Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs. And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.
LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs. Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs. They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard. Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get. But not yet. This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now. It's marketing disguised as reporting. Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.
Google gets lots of free value from the Linux community. Its whole $BILLION server system runs on a version of Linux that it doesn't have to pay for (except its own in-house improvements), nor depend on a vendor that might compete with it. It's moving heavily into the telephone biz with a mobile Linux that's competing with the iPhone by capturing lots of Linux developers already cultivated into productive position by the community.
Google has released some SW into the community, but it's getting notorious for bundling proprietary apps with its distros (like the apps in Android). And while producing new distros and variants like Android is giving back to the community, Google benefits more than the community does, $BILLIONS more.
Google's got the resources, both financial and personnel, to maintain Linux versions of SW Google produces (or acquires and continues to produce). But Gizmo5 isn't the only extinct Linux species Google could instead be injecting new life into. Google's main content production suite is SketchUp, the 3D modeling app and related integrated tools. But no Linux version, though the app is well into version 7. It runs unevenly at best under Wine, and cannot integrate with Google Earth in that mode.
It's evil to build your huge business on a technology made from community contributions, then take more than you give back while shutting down some community projects. It looks like the "Don't Be Evil" days are long gone at Google. Pretty scary considering the power it has, with its money, info and essential role every microsecond.
Faith is not religion. Faith accepting info as knowledge without that info being provable, or disprovable. It's different from fact, because facts are disprovable, or proven.
Religion is content, which includes both faith and proven (or disprovable) knowledge. It's not directly comparable to faith, because it's a large package of behavior other than accepting unprovable statements.
Religion is an effective way to organize people. But not because its ideas are accurate, at least not about how the world works apart from organizing people. The evidence shows that religions kill lots of people to stay the same, yet change anyway to cope with the larger world in which they operate.
Plenty of people are dead who believed in old religions. Half the Jews alive in the 1930s were dead by the mid 1940s, but that didn't exactly mean their old religion's beliefs were wrong, any more than the explosion in Chinese buddhists after that means their religion's beliefs were right. These things are a lot more complicated.
All the current religions were cooked up after humans became more an influence on our environment than vice versa. Natural selection doesn't have as much to do with their survival as is necessary to make the "memes = genes" model accurate. Powerful religions can change the world around them to suit the religion's survival, as for example Christianity did for at least a millennium, and as Islam has done for about as long in some places.
There's more at work than the relatively simple process of natural selection in genetic evolution.
Intel's planning on releasing x86 CPUs with GPUs on the die. Why can't nVidia? Besides, there are plenty of Pentiums out there doing all graphics in the CPU (and NSP, etc), without melting.
Yes, that is why the GPU is on there. The x86 is there for everything else: OS and application processing, managing devices, etc. A single chip with both CPU and GPU for maximum total performance. An x86 because that's where the most SW runs.
Einstein was an Eastern European. As were most of the other scientists coming up with what Einstein brought together in Relativity. Soviet physicists were mostly Eastern European, and came up with quite a lot of advances in physics.
The difference between science and faith is whether the statement could possibly be disproved. If it can, it's science. If it can't, it's faith.
That's a tiny difference in length of description. But the difference between what can be disproved and what can't is a very big difference. While faith statements could be the most important if true, like a diety, afterlife, consequences of pure morals, without proof or disproof those statements are the most unreliable to be true.
Does nVidia sell any of these top-end GPU chips with a full x86 core on the die with it? A CPU that's maybe as powerful as a single core P3/2.4GHz, tightly coupled for throughput to GPU and VRAM, going out to the PC bus (PCI-e) just for final interface to a video display (or saving to a file, or streaming to a network).
Back in the earlier days of the less popular Internet, I used to get a kick out of pining mcmurdo.gov , the US base in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, because it was as far as I could reach on the Net (ping times usually about 800ms). Before I'd traveled very much around the physical globe, I'd stretch my imagination to the scale spanning "me to McMurdo".
I'm really psyched to look forward to pinging Jupiter.
I'm sure Google had to promise the telcos adopting Android phones that the telcos could "own" their version of the OS. Which means releasing ChromeOS to the public, untied to a given HW platform, vendor or distributor as a "different" OS lets the telco cartel keep plodding down that smug path. Especially now, in the first few years while telcos are just gearing up to sell and support Android phones, telcos could just drop it if their monopolies seem threatened.
But Google gets to release upgrades to each OS. Over time, Google can release converging versions of ChromeOS and Android. Within a couple years, the two OS'es can be identical except for their brands (and perhaps their bundled drivers, if indeed different kinds of HW tend to prefer one OS or the other). A single API for a single developer pool. Indeed, if that API has enough in common with the base GNU/Linux such that Android and ChromeOS are just another distro (or two flavors of one, like Ubuntu server vs desktop vs notebook) that developers can use third party libraries tools for a single target, Google will have run circles around the telcos. And Microsoft, and Apple, and Red Hat, and Ubuntu, and everyone else competing in the oddly rebootable OS market.
Google's already got an OS, Android. It's already shipping, it's FOSS, it's got a huge developer base with tools since it's really Linux programmed in Java with a different compiler generating different bytecode for a different JM (Dalvik). It runs on mobile phones and netbooks, and probably PCs, too - and will soon probably run on anything Linux runs on.
What possible strategy could come from also releasing a ChromeOS that is different from Android? Does Google expect lots of people to develop for both Android and ChromeOS? Google surely realizes there are only so many developers, even if ChromeOS is easy and more new developers spring up for it.
Launching one new OS is gutsy, and succeeds about once every couple of decades. Launching two within a couple years is foolhardy, and undercuts each of them.
Copyright should protect everyone from any copying of their DNA except as expressly permitted by the person, other than ordered by a court after due process.
If the US government protected our personal data, including our most personal data: our DNA, nearly as vigorously as it protects the most expendible commercial copyrights, we'd all be a lot safer.
I just listened to some Grateful Dead archives remastered by some of the highest end audiophile collectors and audio engineers that also had some specially generated MP3 versions. The two were easily different.
Even through 5 year old $50 5.1 PC speakers. Through the motherboard codec of a 5 year old PC.
Maybe because I actually know the difference between good and bad audio quality. Because I care enough to do what it takes to get the good stuff. Most people don't know, maybe because they don't care.
Most people also can't tell the difference between the computer science blather they see in science fiction shows and what they'd have to deal with in an actual geek argument.
Who cares what they think? Let them settle for crap. I want the good stuff. It's too late for me to pretend I can't tell the difference.
Right - momentum is equal in trajectory and recoil, not energy. There's not a lot of momentum in even a high powered laser beam compared to the inertia of the laser machine firing it, absorbing the recoil.
Slashdot Mirror
Imeem might have gotten away with not paying artists for a year because it didn't have the money to pay. Even if the artists sued Imeem, there was no money in Imeem to get.
But now Imeem has money from the MySpace deal. The artists should get it. A single lawsuit should be an open and shut case.
But what Imeem got is said to be "less than $1M", whatever that is. If there's 110,000 unpaid artists, that's under $9 to pay each artist. The best way to use the money taken from Imeem would be to pay to set up other storefronts. Perhaps pay an ecommerce corp to create top-notch MySpace storefronts and promote them on TV/radio/streams/email and social networks.
MySpace has done nothing wrong, has only given some money in a legit purchase of assets from the bad guy that could reboot the artists' businesses. Imeem did wrong, but Imeem turned out to be unable to generate enough money to pay the artists anyway: a failed attempt by the artists to sell, because they bet on Imeem, the wrong horse.
But this could be turned around. However, it's the music business. Therefore I expect it will only get worse.
Voting on facts doesn't change whether they're true or not, regardless of what the majority chooses.
Third world countries don't have any greater chance of the stupid dying while the smart live and outbreed them. Entirely the opposite is universally observable. In all countries, but in third world ones even more.
But the photos and videos are from a wide variety of angles (looks like within at least 20 degrees span), yet the spiral looks like a spiral in a plane from all those angles. Not like a complex 3D helix that projects to a spiral on-axis, but which wouldn't look like a 2D spiral from 10 degrees or more off-axis.
The spiral started off with a green ray of light, then the spiral around where the ray pointed in the sky. There's also a very big beam of white light pointing from the ground/water up into the spiral for the duration. How does the missile explain these light beams?
And how doe every photo of the formation, from all kinds of different angles, all see the same spiral that the 3D twisting project into to the observer? Someone watching on-axis would see that perfect spiral, but not all the observers at all the angles.
Until those other pieces of actual evidence seen by many people and appearing in many photos and videos are explained, I don't believe it's a missile. And since the Russians have said it's a missile, compromising a secret military test to do so, what happened that also explains the Russians saying that, especially if it's not a missile?
That claim of failure says:
But that "argument" is a strawman. Those carbon offsets are not primarily designed to change behavior by making them more expensive. They're designed to charge money for polluting behavior that is then spent reducing pollution:
Economics says that the extra charge will also tend to curb the more expensive behavior. But if that's not happening, it's capitalism that's wrong. The carbon offsets are still funding the carbon reduction projects. Until there's proof that those projects don't reduce carbon, that argument against carbon offsets is a fallacy.
Now, it's possible that the carbon reduction projects funded by carbon offsets don't reduce as much carbon as the offsets pay to keep producing. Which just means that the carbon offsets should be more expensive (or offset less carbon for the same price, and make it up in volume). It's also certain that carbon pollution is subsidized in many ways that mask the true cost (which generally comes when cleaning up the mess that carbon pollution eventually makes, which is vastly more expensive than the polluting system cost to operate, but which others pay for). The carbon offset prices might just be too small and get lost in the much larger economics of the subsidies, and indeed in artificial costs making carbon reduction project prices higher (droughts in Africa interfering with solar projects, for example).
But just because some travel outfit tried and failed to make money on a carbon offset program doesn't mean that its fallacious arguments for dropping the program are worth repeating.
Can't the user delete the proprietary apps? AFAIK, the entire Android phone can be wiped and replaced with a different Android distro, some of which have no proprietary apps or code.
There's no "tapping" of the phone except a phone app reading its GPS HW (or a SW API to it), or a server app snooping data transferred over the WAN by apps exposing GPS data. If there's no phone app sending GPS data over the WAN, there's nothing to snoop.
Common commercial devices for homes already use heat exchangers to recover 66% or more of heat from vented air, heating the incoming fresh air with it. During heating seasons, machinery's inefficiency generating heat can replace heat that would have consumed more energy. Bathroom fan vents cost under $300.
What we need is good heat storage devices. If a lot of heat can be stored during the cooling season, and released during the heating season, these electrical devices become close to 100% efficient. Places like Helsinki have much longer heating than cooling seasons, so they're good places for datacenters that can recover heat for use.
The problem is that water is about the densest heat storage material we have, but it doesn't store very much. And even the most cutting edge insulators, aerogels, are only about 2x as insulating as the current common top performers, closed cell foams, and only about 4x as insulating as the earlier common stuff like fiberglass and cellulose. If we could store in similar volume the energy that fuels like oil store in chemical covalent bonds instead in physical materials like high specific heat fluids that don't get that hot, we'd have a lot more options in engineering efficiency. If we could regenerate chemical fuel from heat at very high cycle efficiency, we'd have something of a miracle cure for many of the worst of our industrial ills.
Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source, locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened?
I've been trying to buy a few dozen bulbs for my home since June. CFLs actually for sale rate up to about 83lm:W, in 1900lm/23W bulbs for about $3ea in quantities of 12 (non-dimmable). LEDs actually for sale rate up to about 75lm:W, in 900lm/12W bulbs for about $12ea (no volume discount), but none at 1800-2000lm and lower than 12W quickly drop in efficiency. The prices are all over the place, but Home Depot's prices are about as good as they get in stores for either CFL or LEDs, and Internet/mailorder aren't a lot better.
If you can prove me wrong and point me to LEDs that beat that 1900lm/23W @$3ea, I'd love to see it.
That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies. But the article consistently pushed LEDs. The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production). The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.
Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet. The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents. Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs. And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.
LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs. Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs. They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard. Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get. But not yet. This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now. It's marketing disguised as reporting. Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.
Google gets lots of free value from the Linux community. Its whole $BILLION server system runs on a version of Linux that it doesn't have to pay for (except its own in-house improvements), nor depend on a vendor that might compete with it. It's moving heavily into the telephone biz with a mobile Linux that's competing with the iPhone by capturing lots of Linux developers already cultivated into productive position by the community.
Google has released some SW into the community, but it's getting notorious for bundling proprietary apps with its distros (like the apps in Android). And while producing new distros and variants like Android is giving back to the community, Google benefits more than the community does, $BILLIONS more.
Google's got the resources, both financial and personnel, to maintain Linux versions of SW Google produces (or acquires and continues to produce). But Gizmo5 isn't the only extinct Linux species Google could instead be injecting new life into. Google's main content production suite is SketchUp, the 3D modeling app and related integrated tools. But no Linux version, though the app is well into version 7. It runs unevenly at best under Wine, and cannot integrate with Google Earth in that mode.
It's evil to build your huge business on a technology made from community contributions, then take more than you give back while shutting down some community projects. It looks like the "Don't Be Evil" days are long gone at Google. Pretty scary considering the power it has, with its money, info and essential role every microsecond.
Faith is not religion. Faith accepting info as knowledge without that info being provable, or disprovable. It's different from fact, because facts are disprovable, or proven.
Religion is content, which includes both faith and proven (or disprovable) knowledge. It's not directly comparable to faith, because it's a large package of behavior other than accepting unprovable statements.
Religion is an effective way to organize people. But not because its ideas are accurate, at least not about how the world works apart from organizing people. The evidence shows that religions kill lots of people to stay the same, yet change anyway to cope with the larger world in which they operate.
Plenty of people are dead who believed in old religions. Half the Jews alive in the 1930s were dead by the mid 1940s, but that didn't exactly mean their old religion's beliefs were wrong, any more than the explosion in Chinese buddhists after that means their religion's beliefs were right. These things are a lot more complicated.
All the current religions were cooked up after humans became more an influence on our environment than vice versa. Natural selection doesn't have as much to do with their survival as is necessary to make the "memes = genes" model accurate. Powerful religions can change the world around them to suit the religion's survival, as for example Christianity did for at least a millennium, and as Islam has done for about as long in some places.
There's more at work than the relatively simple process of natural selection in genetic evolution.
Intel's planning on releasing x86 CPUs with GPUs on the die. Why can't nVidia? Besides, there are plenty of Pentiums out there doing all graphics in the CPU (and NSP, etc), without melting.
Yes, that is why the GPU is on there. The x86 is there for everything else: OS and application processing, managing devices, etc. A single chip with both CPU and GPU for maximum total performance. An x86 because that's where the most SW runs.
Einstein was an Eastern European. As were most of the other scientists coming up with what Einstein brought together in Relativity. Soviet physicists were mostly Eastern European, and came up with quite a lot of advances in physics.
The difference between science and faith is whether the statement could possibly be disproved. If it can, it's science. If it can't, it's faith.
That's a tiny difference in length of description. But the difference between what can be disproved and what can't is a very big difference. While faith statements could be the most important if true, like a diety, afterlife, consequences of pure morals, without proof or disproof those statements are the most unreliable to be true.
Does nVidia sell any of these top-end GPU chips with a full x86 core on the die with it? A CPU that's maybe as powerful as a single core P3/2.4GHz, tightly coupled for throughput to GPU and VRAM, going out to the PC bus (PCI-e) just for final interface to a video display (or saving to a file, or streaming to a network).
The host I pinged was mcmvax.mcmurdo.gov . But that FQDN, and indeed the mcmurdo.gov domain, have been gone for years.
All the more reason to get to ping Jupiter ASAP.
Back in the earlier days of the less popular Internet, I used to get a kick out of pining mcmurdo.gov , the US base in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, because it was as far as I could reach on the Net (ping times usually about 800ms). Before I'd traveled very much around the physical globe, I'd stretch my imagination to the scale spanning "me to McMurdo".
I'm really psyched to look forward to pinging Jupiter.
I'm sure Google had to promise the telcos adopting Android phones that the telcos could "own" their version of the OS. Which means releasing ChromeOS to the public, untied to a given HW platform, vendor or distributor as a "different" OS lets the telco cartel keep plodding down that smug path. Especially now, in the first few years while telcos are just gearing up to sell and support Android phones, telcos could just drop it if their monopolies seem threatened.
But Google gets to release upgrades to each OS. Over time, Google can release converging versions of ChromeOS and Android. Within a couple years, the two OS'es can be identical except for their brands (and perhaps their bundled drivers, if indeed different kinds of HW tend to prefer one OS or the other). A single API for a single developer pool. Indeed, if that API has enough in common with the base GNU/Linux such that Android and ChromeOS are just another distro (or two flavors of one, like Ubuntu server vs desktop vs notebook) that developers can use third party libraries tools for a single target, Google will have run circles around the telcos. And Microsoft, and Apple, and Red Hat, and Ubuntu, and everyone else competing in the oddly rebootable OS market.
Google's already got an OS, Android. It's already shipping, it's FOSS, it's got a huge developer base with tools since it's really Linux programmed in Java with a different compiler generating different bytecode for a different JM (Dalvik). It runs on mobile phones and netbooks, and probably PCs, too - and will soon probably run on anything Linux runs on.
What possible strategy could come from also releasing a ChromeOS that is different from Android? Does Google expect lots of people to develop for both Android and ChromeOS? Google surely realizes there are only so many developers, even if ChromeOS is easy and more new developers spring up for it.
Launching one new OS is gutsy, and succeeds about once every couple of decades. Launching two within a couple years is foolhardy, and undercuts each of them.
Copyright should protect everyone from any copying of their DNA except as expressly permitted by the person, other than ordered by a court after due process.
If the US government protected our personal data, including our most personal data: our DNA, nearly as vigorously as it protects the most expendible commercial copyrights, we'd all be a lot safer.
I just listened to some Grateful Dead archives remastered by some of the highest end audiophile collectors and audio engineers that also had some specially generated MP3 versions. The two were easily different.
Even through 5 year old $50 5.1 PC speakers. Through the motherboard codec of a 5 year old PC.
Maybe because I actually know the difference between good and bad audio quality. Because I care enough to do what it takes to get the good stuff. Most people don't know, maybe because they don't care.
Most people also can't tell the difference between the computer science blather they see in science fiction shows and what they'd have to deal with in an actual geek argument.
Who cares what they think? Let them settle for crap. I want the good stuff. It's too late for me to pretend I can't tell the difference.
Any 1080p30FPS boards/PCs with no fan at all, and an SSD, therefore silent?
Right - momentum is equal in trajectory and recoil, not energy. There's not a lot of momentum in even a high powered laser beam compared to the inertia of the laser machine firing it, absorbing the recoil.