I don't blame you, but none of the actual Canadian record companies are for the Canadian version of a DMCA and have come out publicly against it.
It has been reported that the US trade people basically threatened Canada with a trade war if Canada didn't crack down on the "rampant" piracy in our country. As well, apparently many US professional lobbyists are in Ottawa cozying up to our federal politicians.
There is very little broadcast or newspaper coverage about it since the traditional Canadian news media is also owned by the same media giants who are promoting this mess.
You might argue successfully that the way they divide up the money is reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an unfair tax/welfare system that gives signed musicians special status over other industries in Canada.
It also presumes guilt on the part of anyone who buys a blank CD, which is also just plain wrong.
We can chose a path of tax and spend to support obsolete industries and business models, or we could let them die and make way for new business models.
There is nothing in anyone's charter of rights that says we have to have a world where big media makes millions of dollars from a megastar artist (and usually screws said artist in the process).
The internet has decentralized information making broadcasting only one method of content distribution, and as a result has wiped out the broadcast industry's ability to control western culture.
Ask all the teens you know if they even know, never mind care what the radio top 20 songs are. Most teens I know have a far more widespread and eclectic taste in music than ever before, and this is a healthy thing.
The problem is the broadcast media industry still has a lot of cash and they are using it to subvert democracy in every western nation, through massive paid lobbyist efforts, and very likely other means of financial benefit to the politicians involved.
There are far fewer CDs being solde these days, therefore less truck drivers are needed to ship them.
Blame Brittany Spears, Blame ITunes.
What an inane argument by a clueless government. Shipping data digitally is so much more cost effective, cheaper, lowers gas consumption (which both lowers emissions, and the pressure on the price of gas).
If the government actually wants to help the citizens who (barely) voted them in, they should ban the physical shipment of anything that could otherwise be sent digitally.
But no, they are clearly in the sway of the media megacorps (none of which are Canadian) for some unknown reason (kickbacks) that they plan to set Canada back years to protect an obsolete business model.
Indeed, it's also used in Hong Kong to build skyscrapers. An amazing site to see an incredibly tall building construction site with bamboo all the way up.
Because I can put far more Arm chips on a wafer than 820 million transistor Intel CPUs, and sell them for a nickel, and power it for three days off of a tiny battery.
A higher transistor count = higher cost, higher power, higher failure rate at the fab.
Well, no not really, even the atom with 47 million transistors would not be able to fit into any reasonable amount of space if the transistors had not shrunk down to the current sub micron sizes (40 nm now, 30 nm next year?) therefore would have to run at an incredibly slow clock rate, literally due to the speed of light limitations.
Light travels ballpark about 1 ns per foot, so if your CPU is a hundred feet across, guess what your clock rate has to be less than?
Luxury! I used to DREAM about programming the 8086 in assembly. In my day we had to program the Z80 in assembly, a totally bizzare non orthagonal instruction set, where each register had a special purpose, since it wasn't a microcoded architecture!
And kids these days, well they just won't believe a word!
And one of the lead Arm designers launched PA Semiconductor who then released a 2 ghz dual core power pc processor, consuming around 25 watts in system. Intel don't have anything even close to that power per watt, two years on. Trouble is (for people who built product based on it) , Apple bought them, and pretty much ended that product line. (Apple wanted the design team, not that particular CPU).
It is an example of why we need competition in the computer world. Wintel has dominated for a very long time now..
I agree with everything you're saying, and I'm also convinced human activity is behind both the rise in CO2 and the predicted global warming, and the extreme weather that would result.
Yet we can't let the ideologists/extremists turn the global warming scientific debate into a religious argument, that's not going to get everyone on board for a range of potential solutions.
It does seem that many in the climate research field are not being open minded about the many conclusions made so far, so it's not a bad thing that Dyson is challenging them to do a better job of proving the theories.
No scientist should ever say, "trust me, I'm right".
If your information was true you might have had a point.
I've never heard that the oceans might be a source of Chlorofluorocarbons. A little surprising considering how contrary to the debate your claim would be.
A quick google on the subject did not find a single reference to your claim, in fact quite the opposite.
Many articles mentions techniques for the use of the absorption of CFC's into ocean currents as one possible tracer. If your claim was true then this would never work, the human generated ones would be swamped by the alleged ocean made ones.
Another article also states there are no natural sources of Chlorofluorocarbons.
So I call bullshit. I don't need reminding that correlation is not causation. You need reminding that you should stick to the facts in a debate about science.
Indeed, skepticism is the one thing Science has going for it!
I'm (just inside) the global warming belief camp, and I believ Dyson is doing a good thing by challenging the Global Warming scientists.
Even if we had 100% agreement in a conclusion of global warming, we don't want a bunch of poorly thought out crackpot "solutions" to global warming, which could turn out far worse than the disease.
Actually there is far more money in denying global warming than in promoting it.
Take the net worth of all the big oil companies divided by the total income of all the global warming scientists.
Actually, that would be too low of an estimate, since it doesn't include all the industries which have an interest in cheap energy, which is most cheaply generated by CO2 emitting power plants.
1970's smog: Pollution laws changed car emissions drastically 1980's Ozone layer: Pollution laws got rid of CFCs 1990's Acid rain: Pollution laws put scrubbers in factory exaust pipes
2000's Global Warming? remains to be seen where this goes. Dyson seems to be a very bright guy, and he is doing good service to science by being skeptical. He's not denying the global warming issue outright, he's saying there is not enough data to conclude either way, and that he's doubtful.
The article states he was also against the Hubble telescope, arguing against the cost. There's no question that Hubble has advanced the science of astronomy greatly, it's his judgment that the money could have been spent on more important things, which is also his concern on expensive solutions to the global warming issue.
It doesn't mean that Dyson is standing up for the antienvironmentalists who don't want to be held responsible for their own actions.
Actually I seriously don't think subscriber fees come even close to paying the bills at the newspaper.
Locally, our Vancouver Sun has published at least 3 "sympathetic" articles about how great Ticketmaster is, and how such a large monopoly reduces costs for consumers.
When you see how much ad space Ticketmaster buys to promote their shows, it becomes clear what's going on.
I would go so far as to say he better spend some time on his own to work out how to actually do the hardware part, at least to the point where he will be able to tell if a contractor or potential hw oriented business partner is bullshitting him.
It doesn't sound like he's at the point where real money needs to be thrown around, this feels like a garage shop startup concept. Silicon is practically free these days.
Reading between the lines I get the feeling he has almost no clue at all about the hardware side. I think that leads to some of the negative comments - if he's really that ignorant of hardware design, perhaps his concept is physically impossible, kind of like all those garage shop mechanics who don't understand basic thermodynamics and try to invent perpetual motion machines.
If he's passionate about his product idea, he should warm up to it by say grabbing a few issues of "Make" magazine, try his hand at actually building some basic hardware. Many of the embedded micro firms have free reference designs, with schematics. There are a ton of hobbyist level free projects all over the web..
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
I also work at a tech firm, age is not a problem for our office either. If someone is passionate about their career, they will stay up to date and relevant their whole life.
Good point! So, what percentage of carbon intake is converted into fish, vs what they exhale as CO2?
I guess a longer term experiment might find whether an overpopulation event further up the food chain would result in a die off, and send that carbon to the bottom of the ocean..
It still might be better than growing trees to cut down and bury, in that the fish do the work for you, without using fossil fuels in the process..
Exactly! As long as the damn stuff isn't in the air reflecting infrared back down, who cares if it is floating around as fish, instead of sitting on the bottom?
It seems to have a beneficial effect of creating more food. Since we already overharvest the oceans, it sounds like a good idea to carefully investigate methods for increasing food production in the oceans, IE striking a balance between demand and destruction of ocean environments.
And in North America, The Ticketmaster monopoly gets a big slice of the live performance pie.
It is surprising how many people here are totally against the artist making a cent, when youtube gets 200 million views (and the corresponding benefit of adsense, and direct google marketing).
I think many are confusing the actions of the RIAA and the big corporate music distribution companies with the artists that are regularly screwed by the same..
As a Canadian I am totally against a flat fee welfare system for music.
People should be able to vote with their wallets, not have some bureaucrats dispense cash to the most politically astute members of a professional musicians club.
We have a flat tax on blank CDROMS here, and only signed artists can be exempted from paying it. Independent artists are stuck paying it. Now that it's easy to distribute your music on the internet, this is a moot point.
I do agree that the musicians who create what we enjoy (or parody!) should benefit financially. We need a better system than a flat fee model.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't blame you, but none of the actual Canadian record companies are for the Canadian version of a DMCA and have come out publicly against it.
It has been reported that the US trade people basically threatened Canada with a trade war if Canada didn't crack down on the "rampant" piracy in our country. As well, apparently many US professional lobbyists are in Ottawa cozying up to our federal politicians.
There is very little broadcast or newspaper coverage about it since the traditional Canadian news media is also owned by the same media giants who are promoting this mess.
You might argue successfully that the way they divide up the money is reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an unfair tax/welfare system that gives signed musicians special status over other industries in Canada.
It also presumes guilt on the part of anyone who buys a blank CD, which is also just plain wrong.
We can chose a path of tax and spend to support obsolete industries and business models, or we could let them die and make way for new business models.
There is nothing in anyone's charter of rights that says we have to have a world where big media makes millions of dollars from a megastar artist (and usually screws said artist in the process).
The internet has decentralized information making broadcasting only one method of content distribution, and as a result has wiped out the broadcast industry's ability to control western culture.
Ask all the teens you know if they even know, never mind care what the radio top 20 songs are.
Most teens I know have a far more widespread and eclectic taste in music than ever before, and this is a healthy thing.
The problem is the broadcast media industry still has a lot of cash and they are using it to subvert democracy in every western nation, through massive paid lobbyist efforts, and very likely other means of financial benefit to the politicians involved.
Actually our tubes are made from hollowed out pine beetle infested logs, so they tend to leak bits on the ground.
Unfortunately those bits have combined with woodbugs and become self aware..
There are far fewer CDs being solde these days,
therefore less truck drivers are needed to ship them.
Blame Brittany Spears, Blame ITunes.
What an inane argument by a clueless government.
Shipping data digitally is so much more cost effective, cheaper, lowers gas consumption (which both lowers emissions, and the pressure on the price of gas).
If the government actually wants to help the citizens who (barely) voted them in, they should ban the physical shipment of anything that could otherwise be sent digitally.
But no, they are clearly in the sway of the media megacorps (none of which are Canadian) for some unknown reason (kickbacks) that they plan to set Canada back years to protect an obsolete business model.
You forgot the obligatory "Blame Canada" !
Good point, the wording of the main tag line implies that very concept, where the official rules state the actual method of choosing a winner..
Indeed, it's also used in Hong Kong to build skyscrapers. An amazing site to see an incredibly tall building construction site with bamboo all the way up.
An example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76504836@N00/209169446
Makes far more sense than using steel, for many different reasons..
Because I can put far more Arm chips on a wafer than 820 million transistor Intel CPUs, and sell them for a nickel, and power it for three days off of a tiny battery.
A higher transistor count = higher cost, higher power, higher failure rate at the fab.
Well, no not really, even the atom with 47 million transistors would not be able to fit into any reasonable amount of space if the transistors had not shrunk down to the current sub micron sizes (40 nm now, 30 nm next year?) therefore would have to run at an incredibly slow clock rate, literally due to the speed of light limitations.
Light travels ballpark about 1 ns per foot,
so if your CPU is a hundred feet across, guess what your clock rate has to be less than?
The biggest number I found here:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm
was 820 million transistors.
You really want those to be small, so size is a BIG part of the cost of an IC.
The basic unit cost of Silicon is the wafer. The more parts you can jam on a wafer, the cheaper each individual part is.
Interestingly enough, these days, the transistors are practically free, and software development costs are becoming the bottleneck.
And the ipod touch/iphone as well.
Luxury!
I used to DREAM about programming the 8086 in assembly. In my day we had to program the Z80 in assembly, a totally bizzare non orthagonal instruction set, where each register had a special purpose, since it wasn't a microcoded architecture!
And kids these days, well they just won't believe a word!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JK5kChbRw&feature=channel_page
And one of the lead Arm designers launched PA Semiconductor who then released a 2 ghz dual core power pc processor, consuming around 25 watts in system.
Intel don't have anything even close to that power per watt, two years on.
Trouble is (for people who built product based on it) , Apple bought them, and pretty much ended that product line. (Apple wanted the design team, not that particular CPU).
It is an example of why we need competition in the computer world. Wintel has dominated for a very long time now..
I agree with everything you're saying, and I'm also convinced human activity is behind both the rise in CO2 and the predicted global warming, and the extreme weather that would result.
Yet we can't let the ideologists/extremists turn the global warming scientific debate into a religious argument, that's not going to get everyone on board for a range of potential solutions.
It does seem that many in the climate research field are not being open minded about the many conclusions made so far, so it's not a bad thing that Dyson is challenging them to do a better job of proving the theories.
No scientist should ever say, "trust me, I'm right".
If your information was true you might have had a point.
I've never heard that the oceans might be a source of Chlorofluorocarbons. A little surprising considering how contrary to the debate your claim would be.
A quick google on the subject did not find a single reference to your claim, in fact quite the opposite.
Many articles mentions techniques for the use of the absorption of CFC's into ocean currents as one possible tracer. If your claim was true then this would never work, the human generated ones would be swamped by the alleged ocean made ones.
Another article also states there are no natural sources of Chlorofluorocarbons.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=tFJRLhSez_YC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=are+the+oceans+a+source+of+Chlorofluorocarbons&source=bl&ots=NQ_LTh4Zra&sig=d953hZLC8Pc8YRPnDo0bihSAp1g&hl=en&ei=FcfPSZmyGJCusQOu6cygAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
So I call bullshit. I don't need reminding that correlation is not causation. You need reminding that you should stick to the facts in a debate about science.
Indeed, skepticism is the one thing Science has going for it!
I'm (just inside) the global warming belief camp, and I believ Dyson is doing a good thing by challenging the Global Warming scientists.
Even if we had 100% agreement in a conclusion of global warming, we don't want a bunch of poorly thought out crackpot "solutions" to global warming, which could turn out far worse than the disease.
Actually there is far more money in denying global warming than in promoting it.
Take the net worth of all the big oil companies divided by the total income of all the global warming scientists.
Actually, that would be too low of an estimate, since it doesn't include all the industries which have an interest in cheap energy, which is most cheaply generated by CO2 emitting power plants.
1970's smog: Pollution laws changed car emissions drastically
1980's Ozone layer: Pollution laws got rid of CFCs
1990's Acid rain: Pollution laws put scrubbers in factory exaust pipes
2000's Global Warming? remains to be seen where this goes. Dyson seems to be a very bright guy, and he is doing good service to science by being skeptical. He's not denying the global warming issue outright, he's saying there is not enough data to conclude either way, and that he's doubtful.
The article states he was also against the Hubble telescope, arguing against the cost. There's no question that Hubble has advanced the science of astronomy greatly, it's his judgment that the money could have been spent on more important things, which is also his concern on expensive solutions to the global warming issue.
It doesn't mean that Dyson is standing up for the antienvironmentalists who don't want to be held responsible for their own actions.
Actually I seriously don't think subscriber fees come even close to paying the bills at the newspaper.
Locally, our Vancouver Sun has published at least 3 "sympathetic" articles about how great Ticketmaster is, and how such a large monopoly reduces costs for consumers.
When you see how much ad space Ticketmaster buys to promote their shows, it becomes clear what's going on.
I would go so far as to say he better spend some time on his own to work out how to actually do the hardware part, at least to the point where he will be able to tell if a contractor or potential hw oriented business partner is bullshitting him.
It doesn't sound like he's at the point where real money needs to be thrown around, this feels like a garage shop startup concept.
Silicon is practically free these days.
Reading between the lines I get the feeling he has almost no clue at all about the hardware side.
I think that leads to some of the negative comments - if he's really that ignorant of hardware design, perhaps his concept is physically impossible, kind of like all those garage shop mechanics who don't understand basic thermodynamics and try to invent perpetual motion machines.
If he's passionate about his product idea, he should warm up to it by say grabbing a few issues of "Make" magazine, try his hand at actually building some basic hardware. Many of the embedded micro firms have free reference designs, with schematics.
There are a ton of hobbyist level free projects all over the web..
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
I also work at a tech firm, age is not a problem for our office either. If someone is passionate about their career, they will stay up to date and relevant their whole life.
Good point!
So, what percentage of carbon intake is converted into fish, vs what they exhale as CO2?
I guess a longer term experiment might find whether an overpopulation event further up the food chain would result in a die off, and send that carbon to the bottom of the ocean..
It still might be better than growing trees to cut down and bury, in that the fish do the work for you, without using fossil fuels in the process..
Wasn't it: "Whale Oil Be Fooked" ?
Exactly! As long as the damn stuff isn't in the air reflecting infrared back down, who cares if it is floating around as fish, instead of sitting on the bottom?
It seems to have a beneficial effect of creating more food. Since we already overharvest the oceans, it sounds like a good idea to carefully investigate methods for increasing food production in the oceans, IE striking a balance between demand and destruction of ocean environments.
And in North America, The Ticketmaster monopoly gets a big slice of the live performance pie.
It is surprising how many people here are totally against the artist making a cent, when youtube gets 200 million views (and the corresponding benefit of adsense, and direct google marketing).
I think many are confusing the actions of the RIAA and the big corporate music distribution companies with the artists that are regularly screwed by the same..
As a Canadian I am totally against a flat fee welfare system for music.
People should be able to vote with their wallets, not have some bureaucrats dispense cash to the most politically astute members of a professional musicians club.
We have a flat tax on blank CDROMS here, and only signed artists can be exempted from paying it.
Independent artists are stuck paying it.
Now that it's easy to distribute your music on the internet, this is a moot point.
I do agree that the musicians who create what we enjoy (or parody!) should benefit financially.
We need a better system than a flat fee model.