So the BBC is doing this for free http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/ and these companies think there is a market to charge? How many adverts are they going to send with the actual content?
Its about time to face facts, people in general do not consider content to have the value that the companies would like to claim. I would suggest that a rough acceptable tariff for downloadable content would look like:
Music tracks (timeshift): free
Music tracks (to own): 70-99c (depending on quality)
TV shows (timeshift): free
TV shows (to own): 99c-$1.50 (depending on quality)
CD (10 or greater songs): $10
DVD (with extras): $12
DVD (movie, simultanous theatre release):$15
Movie ticket : $5-7
In addition I would suggest that people expect a licence to the content to mean they have a right to that content in any form with no extra licence costs. DRM might exist, but it can never interfere with the customer enjoying their property.
I'll guess that there are rewards for the first company to realise where the market is going and act accordingly. People expect that the quality will not be there, and are unwilling to pay up on spec. Its a mass product market, not a premium product market.
How about just addressing a niche in a country or region without dumb software patent rules? Part of the point is having the right environment.
Many people have dumped from a great height on this, but in essence it probably right. Most businesses, even the 'long' lasting ones, are essentially only their immediate product. By not growing a huge hierarchy a business setup and limited around that one product is probably going to be best and more efficient than a typical business model. Nothing says you can't do one after another.
Take the example of the Crazy Frog ringtone - hit, make money, then move on as people tire of the product. Hell, with the mergers and 'redefined corporate directions', what is the half life of a technology company anyway - 2 years?
You might like to reconsider that statement; quite alot.
From a technical standpoint, the EU is at least the equal of the US - some would say better in some matters.
From a free speech standpoint, the EU was there first and has a much longer history of knowing what 'free' means and what the consequences are. Lessons learnt the hard way.
In that vein you might like to remember this little phrase about freedom from Europe of 2000 years ago, it would serve the present day US well - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I think at the heart of all the many discussions about this subject is a problem of perception. Many of those in the US tend to consider themselves to be part of a 'special' country, one which is unique and able to do what it likes. Their mental model has the US account for 80% of the world, with a few quaint countries allowed to continue as tourist destinations. They have been taught since early school years that they really do live in a free society, a shinning pinnacle for others to look up to. The idea that others might say 'no' strikes them as peculiar and wrong.
Those outside the US tend to view the US as a single country, strange in many of its habits and with a track record of dangerous mistimed interference. They recognise its problems, as well as what it can do well, and are quite happy for it to be 'one-of-the-crowd', but with no special position. Recent events have shown it currently cannot be trusted, and they therefore are preparing to take back some of the reins of power it currently holds.
Where these two viewpoints clash is in who can make things happen as they see fit. As others have pointed out, the change to a UN control function requires no US agreement. From the 'world is US' perspective, they are creating a small offshoot, nothing to worry about. From the 'real world' perspective they will essentially partition off the US from the rest of the world, allowing it to diverge from the real internet under its own steam.
In the end the real impact is in how any change separates and isolates the US, if only in a small way. Combine this with the inherent US viewpoint of CONUS and its just one more step along the line towards a point where the world takes action against the US to prevent it undertaking some action it attempts, because the 'real world' cannot accept it crossing a line. When you take into account the US is essentially in debt to that world, if becomes akin to the bank manager withdrawing your credit because of your 'strange' behaviour - its very swift, very destructive, and causes a significant shock to the psyche. Here's hoping that the US realises its in its interest to reach a compromise on this issue, akin to the one the EU is attempting to broker. It will be easier to reach a UN hosted solution where no one country can censor free speech/tax commerce if the US plays its part; rather than acting as a young child, unable to recognise others as complete independent entities.
As far as I can see the only thing being included in the price side is the price of the processor. However to get something that is of any use, say in a rendering farm, you need to add motherboard, memory, disk, case, PSU etc. to that. Even if this cost can be minimised, and can remain constant (in the case of the Athlon64s), it can be enough to swing the performance/price graphs around significantly.
A 3000+ might be cheap, but factor in other costs and it might not be the fastest (indeed a quick check suggests the 3500+ or 3800+ can win out).
It would be nice to see these calculations redone to take the real world into account.
But we do get OTA broadcasts for free, the converters ain't cheap, and digital television requires a strong signal, which most of us can't get with those $20 rabbit ears. I get 17 channels on my 10 year old TV for free. Many channels are snowy, but watchable. A poor-quality digital signal is like watching a scratched DVD.
Digital TV presents few signal strength problems, providing your antenna isn't a joke and they switch across the full power of the existing transmitters. If signal strength is a problem then the cost of buying a new one isn't high (manufactured in China).
Converters ARE cheap, probably about $50 by the time you'll need one. HDTV isn't required for digital TV, so expect a base service that excludes that. Even so, the standard of that base level is far above the existing setup, with widescreen, reproducable colours, programme guide, etc. that the small outlay is easily justifiable.
There's a lot of hand wringing and noisy vested interests - but in reality they could switch next year and few problems would result. Bigger problem is getting some worthwhile content on those channels.
Hmm, I have to wonder if this might be a shot across the bows of the movie industry. Consider that Bill wants the PC (and Media Centre) to be at the heart of the future home. As it stands the PC will be at best an expensive HD delivery mechanism, since they are trying to prevent you downloading and storing the HD disk on your hard disk.
Bill is not happy.
However, he has WMV9, DRM and high bandwidth broadband connections to play with. If he launches a solution that will enable you to encode and replay HD content via your PC - with say a movie at 720p in 10-15Gb then he can say to content providers "sell your content with my DRM, in my store, to replay on this system". They will say no, but he doesn't care, he just waits for the hackers to create a system to extract and replay Blu-Ray content via the new system. They can distribute it in the same way they distribute DVDs - at the same time fixing the existing holes that RIAA exploit.
People then have a choice of paying lots for a new system, and new content - or just a HD capable PC and the file sharing that people are already happy with. Cue movie industry meltdown.
This looks to be very much "play nice or I'll get nasty". He can make it so that the easiest HD solution is one based on file sharing. Expect to see secure download to your PC as part of an updated Blu-Ray and HD-DVD spec.
In my experience people don't leave because someone hasn't defined a 'transparent career path', but rather because there is NO career path, because their efforts aren't recognised and rewarded, and because they smell the stench of collapse just around the corner.
Forget 'industry best practice'. Forget asking Slashdot. Try asking those concerned what really matters, then delivering on it.
You won't find the answer in the failures of others, chart a new path that is in some way true. If you can't, resign.
Maybe, but these people (at least the UK parts) are about as close to establishment as you are going to get. They are the type of people that can talk to people. Don't underestimate the influence they can have, quietly, to bring about change. Best thing you can do is support them and push this charter where you can.
They do, they call themselves the Royal Society of Arts (, Manufactures and Commerce) or RSA. Its an accident of history that the Royal Society isn't called the Royal Society of Science but since both organisations have been going for over two hundred years I don't think things are going to change now.
A bit more detail, together with an image can be found here.
It looks like at the moment its B&W, but colour is probably quite a quick upgrade. Resolution looks high, but with the electrode approach there will be a tradeoff I'm sure. Since it looks like the aim is a totally printed technology it should be possible to bring the cost right down.
The main market they seem to be targeting is the fast moving packaging market - fast moving so that printed batteries don't wear out. I would guess that they will seriously be looking at those large billboards as well. However, if you really let your imagination go to town there are many more opportunities for a cheap, large scale, printed display technology. When paired with the other devices which can be printed (chips, antenna, batteries, solar cells, keyboards, and flat panel speakers) you have the possibility of really putting computers anywhere and everywhere for the cost of the materials and a bit of printing. Think smart environment that your PAN interacts with as you move through it.
Why are we seeing this story AGAIN, nothing has changed since the last time.
And in answer to your "no ISP in their right mind" take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/icann_2buc k_fee/ and consider what would happen if this hypothetical set of new root servers didn't charge a tax payable to ICANN and approved the backlog of new domain names which are waiting around.
The real story here is very different to the one being pushed. I suggest you read up on it before making comments - and then send an email to the lazy reporters to start earning their fees by asking some hard questions.
A good, reasoned, and informed comment - in marked contrast to most of pointless diatribes here. A few points though, following on from my comment to the last dupe posted.
ICANN isn't viewed particularly fondly by those outside the US, most because it takes almost no notice of the view of the various gTLDs; and because it looks like it wants to tax those gTLD to pay for its existance. You won't have heard this in the US media of course, but are you surprised? You may have heard of the phrase "no taxation without representation" before?
The US had agreed to get the US governments hands off the decision making process, then back tracked and said that no, on balance they would like to go back on that and ignore agreements, keeping the 'authorisation' role. This pissed off lots of people who were waiting for Sept 2006 with gritted teeth. The US misjudged their position.
The US government, and its religious nuts, have already interfered (with.XXX). Most consider this a taste of what it might do in future (eg axis of evil = delete the gTLD from the root so they 'disappear'). In short, nobody trusts them.
A proportion of the root servers are already outside the geographic US. Its not difficult to setup a forum to discuss policy, give an automated mechanism to allow gTLD and other non-gTLD controllers the ability to update the root servers, and cut the US gov out of the process.
The root DNS maybe at the root of everything, but a change of who says what is served and how is not going to bring the walls crumbling down. Nobody is likely to say that.COM DNS is now provided by someone else; unless someone does something stupid. However the ability to opt out of that stupidity is what is being taken and there isn't really much that the US can do to stop it, short of threatening force.
Oh yes, and the reporting on this is really, really bad.
They may be fighting to win over content providers by providing more and more objectionable DRM. However once they are actually manufacturing they win by providing consumers with the means to get around that annoyance.
Look at region coding and the hidden codes/menus that allow you to remove it on real world players. People buy particular players because they are better at giving the customer the control they want.
Just refuse to buy until
a) you can make copies of the disk at home
b) players exist that bypass the restrictions
You might as well, the mass of the general public will, so I won't take off until the companies wise up.
The thing to realise is that this has been on the cards for a long time. The problem is not a unilateral action from the EU and the UN - but rather the US going back on stated agreements.
I expect that given the preceeding agreement, and the relative simplicity of changing control of the root servers that live outside the US, the UN, EU, and the rest of the world expected negotiation at the recent PrepCom3 conference. What they got however was arrogance and statements that made it clear the US failed to understand they didn't have the choice to ignore past agreements.
So, the timetable is clear. ICANNs contract ends between March-Sept 2006 and during that time the new body will take control. Given the likelihood that they won't charge the registrar tax (remember that automated system), just about everyone will switch and Bush will end up with egg on his face. Thus I'll bet that in the real summit in November he will have to give in an acceptable change, since he really has no control of the matter.
This is just the next step along a path to the distribution of experience. Originally entertainment required you to be physically present at the performance, in the theatre. Film allowed the replication of the experience countrywide, at the same standard. It also allowed more expansive epics to be produced than would have been the case in the theartre. You couldn't get the same level of experience at home with the TV, and hence there was a reason for the movie theatre. With home theatre approaching the standard that the customer sees in the movie theatre, its only natural that there will be another sea change in the business.
To survive the movie theatres have to take a leaf out of the book of the stage theatres and make the total experience something that is worthwhile - something that you can't get at home. There are a few approaches they could take:
- 3D on large immersive screens, to put you in the middle of the action in a way that home cinema can't. We can already see that on the starting blocks.
- lower cost and closer. Reduce the barriers to attendance by making it easier to attend.
- improve the total experience. Turn some of the space over to dining, include discussions and explainations, competitions, free DVD copies - making the film part of a larger event that people are more likely to stump up for. This is akin to the way the stage theatre has become an 'event' rather than a norm.
Whichever direction is taken, its obvious that the status quo has no hope of continuing. Within five years the distribution model will have switched, and with it will go a blurring of the line between TV and movie. Smart theatre owners will be starting to shift now.
Mod up, this is much closer to a useful emergency pack than most of the comments.
A few suggestions of improvements:
- wind up AM/FM radios are cheap and easily available. Be honest, what chance is there that you are going to want to call someone on a walkie-talkie. Listening may be useful, particularly in a city.
- duct tape, tarpaulin, bin bags, rope, etc. are all useful and cheap
- bleach/disinfectant
- suitable clothes (usually means tough and waterproof)
And don't forget the toilet paper and a shovel, gotta have the luxuries.
I'm sick of the MS marketing department trying to hold hostage key bits of functionality to make new versions at higher prices.
In an age of freely available OS, and the threat that Google will pose with their eventual OS, I want the Windows 10% version - which is guaranteed to cost only 10% of the cost of the system hardware (one off fee). You get, and can use, whatever functionality you want.
That would ensure that the Windows tax was affordable, and its simple to implement as well.
This doesn't actually look like new ideas, even for Intel. If you take the Pentium III \ AMD Athlon \ Pentium M as the main sequence for x86 processor design - then this is just a simple evolution of the normal situation, with the Pentium 4 as an aberation.
Look at what's not there - no hyperthreading, no integrated memory controller, no interprocessor hypertransport comms, no vector processing - in short no real innovation.
Now I want lower energy requirements the same as the next man, but this isn't a solid basis for the future or an answer to a world of cell processors and intelligent devices. Its still a stop gap until they can find something that can be their winning edge for the future.
Not sure where you got that one from. If you want to be a minicab driver in the UK you have to be licenced, regulated, etc. including having to pass a police check.
If you want to be a taxi driver in London (with the iconic black taxi) and be able to pick up passengers in the street, you need to do 'the knowledge' - and know a vast amount about how to get from any A to any B in London.
In my experience, the prime qualification for a cab driver in Aus is to have an opinion about the 'abbos', and not know where you are going most of the time (asking me to find it in the A to Z).
Sure-- it's the formula for "Energy to matter" or something. But why does this matter? How does this relate to Einstein's theories about gravity wells, speed of light, etc.
First thing to realise is that there are two theories of relativity - special and general. Special came first, is much easier to get your head around, and concerns motion, energy and that equation. The second, general theory came after, concerns gravity and is a complete pig to work with (Riemann curvature tensors anyone?)
As to why does it matter, the equation shows how you can convert one to the other, how things get screwy as you approach c, and tends to come up and bite you when you follow a perfectly reasonable line of Newtonian reasoning forward and find it ends up complete gibberish. In such circumstances you learn that yes, it does occur in real life, and it helps if you understand it.
London is home to some of the most innovative, morally corrupt and downright weird advertising agencies in the world (watch 'Absolute Power' for a clue).
I have great faith in their ability to find a way past any such restrictions, and indeed to make them backfire spectacularly.
I predict the chasm between the 'Olympic Ideals' and the reality of the professional, advertising led, jigoism of the current Olympics will be thrown into sharp relief to gain 'authenticity' points for certain products.
Stupidity is everywhere, but having had quite a few contacts with US citizens over the years there is a higher level of unreality and perverse logic in the US than virtually anywhere else. The only ones that really win out over the US are the french.
If the US were the size of Belgium; if you didn't elect those with similar perverse views, and if you didn't as a country go around trying to enforce those views on the rest of the world - well nobody would really care. However, as it is you have to bear some of the responsibility for what is done in you're name, whatever your personal views.
Stereotyping doesn't arise from nowhere, and when you are talking about populations, not individuals, it can be a useful aid to questioning the world and its problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Its about time to face facts, people in general do not consider content to have the value that the companies would like to claim. I would suggest that a rough acceptable tariff for downloadable content would look like:
In addition I would suggest that people expect a licence to the content to mean they have a right to that content in any form with no extra licence costs. DRM might exist, but it can never interfere with the customer enjoying their property.I'll guess that there are rewards for the first company to realise where the market is going and act accordingly. People expect that the quality will not be there, and are unwilling to pay up on spec. Its a mass product market, not a premium product market.
Many people have dumped from a great height on this, but in essence it probably right. Most businesses, even the 'long' lasting ones, are essentially only their immediate product. By not growing a huge hierarchy a business setup and limited around that one product is probably going to be best and more efficient than a typical business model. Nothing says you can't do one after another.
Take the example of the Crazy Frog ringtone - hit, make money, then move on as people tire of the product. Hell, with the mergers and 'redefined corporate directions', what is the half life of a technology company anyway - 2 years?
From a technical standpoint, the EU is at least the equal of the US - some would say better in some matters.
From a free speech standpoint, the EU was there first and has a much longer history of knowing what 'free' means and what the consequences are. Lessons learnt the hard way.
In that vein you might like to remember this little phrase about freedom from Europe of 2000 years ago, it would serve the present day US well - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Those outside the US tend to view the US as a single country, strange in many of its habits and with a track record of dangerous mistimed interference. They recognise its problems, as well as what it can do well, and are quite happy for it to be 'one-of-the-crowd', but with no special position. Recent events have shown it currently cannot be trusted, and they therefore are preparing to take back some of the reins of power it currently holds.
Where these two viewpoints clash is in who can make things happen as they see fit. As others have pointed out, the change to a UN control function requires no US agreement. From the 'world is US' perspective, they are creating a small offshoot, nothing to worry about. From the 'real world' perspective they will essentially partition off the US from the rest of the world, allowing it to diverge from the real internet under its own steam.
In the end the real impact is in how any change separates and isolates the US, if only in a small way. Combine this with the inherent US viewpoint of CONUS and its just one more step along the line towards a point where the world takes action against the US to prevent it undertaking some action it attempts, because the 'real world' cannot accept it crossing a line. When you take into account the US is essentially in debt to that world, if becomes akin to the bank manager withdrawing your credit because of your 'strange' behaviour - its very swift, very destructive, and causes a significant shock to the psyche. Here's hoping that the US realises its in its interest to reach a compromise on this issue, akin to the one the EU is attempting to broker. It will be easier to reach a UN hosted solution where no one country can censor free speech/tax commerce if the US plays its part; rather than acting as a young child, unable to recognise others as complete independent entities.
A 3000+ might be cheap, but factor in other costs and it might not be the fastest (indeed a quick check suggests the 3500+ or 3800+ can win out).
It would be nice to see these calculations redone to take the real world into account.
Digital TV presents few signal strength problems, providing your antenna isn't a joke and they switch across the full power of the existing transmitters. If signal strength is a problem then the cost of buying a new one isn't high (manufactured in China).
Converters ARE cheap, probably about $50 by the time you'll need one. HDTV isn't required for digital TV, so expect a base service that excludes that. Even so, the standard of that base level is far above the existing setup, with widescreen, reproducable colours, programme guide, etc. that the small outlay is easily justifiable.
There's a lot of hand wringing and noisy vested interests - but in reality they could switch next year and few problems would result. Bigger problem is getting some worthwhile content on those channels.
Bill is not happy.
However, he has WMV9, DRM and high bandwidth broadband connections to play with. If he launches a solution that will enable you to encode and replay HD content via your PC - with say a movie at 720p in 10-15Gb then he can say to content providers "sell your content with my DRM, in my store, to replay on this system". They will say no, but he doesn't care, he just waits for the hackers to create a system to extract and replay Blu-Ray content via the new system. They can distribute it in the same way they distribute DVDs - at the same time fixing the existing holes that RIAA exploit.
People then have a choice of paying lots for a new system, and new content - or just a HD capable PC and the file sharing that people are already happy with. Cue movie industry meltdown.
This looks to be very much "play nice or I'll get nasty". He can make it so that the easiest HD solution is one based on file sharing. Expect to see secure download to your PC as part of an updated Blu-Ray and HD-DVD spec.
In my experience people don't leave because someone hasn't defined a 'transparent career path', but rather because there is NO career path, because their efforts aren't recognised and rewarded, and because they smell the stench of collapse just around the corner.
Forget 'industry best practice'. Forget asking Slashdot. Try asking those concerned what really matters, then delivering on it.
You won't find the answer in the failures of others, chart a new path that is in some way true. If you can't, resign.
Maybe, but these people (at least the UK parts) are about as close to establishment as you are going to get. They are the type of people that can talk to people. Don't underestimate the influence they can have, quietly, to bring about change. Best thing you can do is support them and push this charter where you can.
They do, they call themselves the Royal Society of Arts (, Manufactures and Commerce) or RSA. Its an accident of history that the Royal Society isn't called the Royal Society of Science but since both organisations have been going for over two hundred years I don't think things are going to change now.
It looks like at the moment its B&W, but colour is probably quite a quick upgrade. Resolution looks high, but with the electrode approach there will be a tradeoff I'm sure. Since it looks like the aim is a totally printed technology it should be possible to bring the cost right down.
The main market they seem to be targeting is the fast moving packaging market - fast moving so that printed batteries don't wear out. I would guess that they will seriously be looking at those large billboards as well. However, if you really let your imagination go to town there are many more opportunities for a cheap, large scale, printed display technology. When paired with the other devices which can be printed (chips, antenna, batteries, solar cells, keyboards, and flat panel speakers) you have the possibility of really putting computers anywhere and everywhere for the cost of the materials and a bit of printing. Think smart environment that your PAN interacts with as you move through it.
Techie heaven
Why are we seeing this story AGAIN, nothing has changed since the last time.
And in answer to your "no ISP in their right mind" take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/icann_2buc k_fee/ and consider what would happen if this hypothetical set of new root servers didn't charge a tax payable to ICANN and approved the backlog of new domain names which are waiting around.
The real story here is very different to the one being pushed. I suggest you read up on it before making comments - and then send an email to the lazy reporters to start earning their fees by asking some hard questions.
Journalists are those that investigate and report events in the public good, paid or unpaid.
ICANN isn't viewed particularly fondly by those outside the US, most because it takes almost no notice of the view of the various gTLDs; and because it looks like it wants to tax those gTLD to pay for its existance. You won't have heard this in the US media of course, but are you surprised? You may have heard of the phrase "no taxation without representation" before?
The US had agreed to get the US governments hands off the decision making process, then back tracked and said that no, on balance they would like to go back on that and ignore agreements, keeping the 'authorisation' role. This pissed off lots of people who were waiting for Sept 2006 with gritted teeth. The US misjudged their position.
The US government, and its religious nuts, have already interfered (with .XXX). Most consider this a taste of what it might do in future (eg axis of evil = delete the gTLD from the root so they 'disappear'). In short, nobody trusts them.
A proportion of the root servers are already outside the geographic US. Its not difficult to setup a forum to discuss policy, give an automated mechanism to allow gTLD and other non-gTLD controllers the ability to update the root servers, and cut the US gov out of the process.
The root DNS maybe at the root of everything, but a change of who says what is served and how is not going to bring the walls crumbling down. Nobody is likely to say that .COM DNS is now provided by someone else; unless someone does something stupid. However the ability to opt out of that stupidity is what is being taken and there isn't really much that the US can do to stop it, short of threatening force.
Oh yes, and the reporting on this is really, really bad.
Look at region coding and the hidden codes/menus that allow you to remove it on real world players. People buy particular players because they are better at giving the customer the control they want.
Just refuse to buy until
a) you can make copies of the disk at home
b) players exist that bypass the restrictions
You might as well, the mass of the general public will, so I won't take off until the companies wise up.
Back in July the US surprised everyone by saying that despite the previous agreement that ICANN control of root servers would end in Sept 2006, they would instead keep control into the future, not matter what everyone else thought.
Everyone else was understandable miffed, particularly when they saw it was being driven politically, by Bush, and that ICANN continued to be ICANN and were trying to tax domain registrations, including country specific domain registrations (.de, .uk, etc.)
Work was ongoing to redefine things on the run up to the expected ending of ICANN control, including automated management functions and working groups to define future structure. I'm sure Bush and his fundamentalist Christian take on the .XXX domain was just the last straw.
I expect that given the preceeding agreement, and the relative simplicity of changing control of the root servers that live outside the US, the UN, EU, and the rest of the world expected negotiation at the recent PrepCom3 conference. What they got however was arrogance and statements that made it clear the US failed to understand they didn't have the choice to ignore past agreements.
So, the timetable is clear. ICANNs contract ends between March-Sept 2006 and during that time the new body will take control. Given the likelihood that they won't charge the registrar tax (remember that automated system), just about everyone will switch and Bush will end up with egg on his face. Thus I'll bet that in the real summit in November he will have to give in an acceptable change, since he really has no control of the matter.
To survive the movie theatres have to take a leaf out of the book of the stage theatres and make the total experience something that is worthwhile - something that you can't get at home. There are a few approaches they could take:
- 3D on large immersive screens, to put you in the middle of the action in a way that home cinema can't. We can already see that on the starting blocks.
- lower cost and closer. Reduce the barriers to attendance by making it easier to attend.
- improve the total experience. Turn some of the space over to dining, include discussions and explainations, competitions, free DVD copies - making the film part of a larger event that people are more likely to stump up for. This is akin to the way the stage theatre has become an 'event' rather than a norm.
Whichever direction is taken, its obvious that the status quo has no hope of continuing. Within five years the distribution model will have switched, and with it will go a blurring of the line between TV and movie. Smart theatre owners will be starting to shift now.
A few suggestions of improvements:
- wind up AM/FM radios are cheap and easily available. Be honest, what chance is there that you are going to want to call someone on a walkie-talkie. Listening may be useful, particularly in a city.
- duct tape, tarpaulin, bin bags, rope, etc. are all useful and cheap
- bleach/disinfectant
- suitable clothes (usually means tough and waterproof)
And don't forget the toilet paper and a shovel, gotta have the luxuries.
In an age of freely available OS, and the threat that Google will pose with their eventual OS, I want the Windows 10% version - which is guaranteed to cost only 10% of the cost of the system hardware (one off fee). You get, and can use, whatever functionality you want.
That would ensure that the Windows tax was affordable, and its simple to implement as well.
Someone in a marketing company is going in for a little viral support to a relaunch.
Look at what's not there - no hyperthreading, no integrated memory controller, no interprocessor hypertransport comms, no vector processing - in short no real innovation.
Now I want lower energy requirements the same as the next man, but this isn't a solid basis for the future or an answer to a world of cell processors and intelligent devices. Its still a stop gap until they can find something that can be their winning edge for the future.
If you want to be a taxi driver in London (with the iconic black taxi) and be able to pick up passengers in the street, you need to do 'the knowledge' - and know a vast amount about how to get from any A to any B in London.
In my experience, the prime qualification for a cab driver in Aus is to have an opinion about the 'abbos', and not know where you are going most of the time (asking me to find it in the A to Z).
First thing to realise is that there are two theories of relativity - special and general. Special came first, is much easier to get your head around, and concerns motion, energy and that equation. The second, general theory came after, concerns gravity and is a complete pig to work with (Riemann curvature tensors anyone?)
As to why does it matter, the equation shows how you can convert one to the other, how things get screwy as you approach c, and tends to come up and bite you when you follow a perfectly reasonable line of Newtonian reasoning forward and find it ends up complete gibberish. In such circumstances you learn that yes, it does occur in real life, and it helps if you understand it.
I have great faith in their ability to find a way past any such restrictions, and indeed to make them backfire spectacularly.
I predict the chasm between the 'Olympic Ideals' and the reality of the professional, advertising led, jigoism of the current Olympics will be thrown into sharp relief to gain 'authenticity' points for certain products.
If the US were the size of Belgium; if you didn't elect those with similar perverse views, and if you didn't as a country go around trying to enforce those views on the rest of the world - well nobody would really care. However, as it is you have to bear some of the responsibility for what is done in you're name, whatever your personal views.
Stereotyping doesn't arise from nowhere, and when you are talking about populations, not individuals, it can be a useful aid to questioning the world and its problems.