I disagree. Desktop OS and Server OS do not overlap. I know that Linux can and is BOTH but it is not really. A server OS is an OS built on stability and security. A desktop OS is one built on user experience and usability. There is sometimes a fine line, and a server can have a Desktop, but it is typically a trimmed version of a Desktop with many services not running that would be on the "desktop" release.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
The analog here is a brand new Lincoln truck. Sure it looks like a truck, but its very nature says that it cannot be a worktruck without losing its status as a luxury vehicle. You could dis-acknowledge its luxury status and MAKE it a work truck, but then it is no longer a luxury vehicle because there has been consideration to the nice paint job, the chrome, the soft leather seats, etc.
So the point is: Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS. If you add everything to make it a desktop OS, it is now Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop.
I would say that is an occasional side effect but not part of the design. By design, the state would be shaped by the majority of equal peers but we all know that is not the usual outcome.
I think the problem is that communism and socialism is adopted as a front to a dictatorship. Germany, Russian, and China all have done this and those are the most successful examples.
There are states which have a hybrid of democracy and socialism and even some monarchial influences such as Sweden and Denmark that do quite well with their system.
to clarify, there is nothing inherently wrong with all people being guaranteed by law equal provisions from government programs(socialism) or all people in a community being equal in all aspects such as wages and supply(communism). These things have been proven to be successful in small groups such as Mennonite groups which use a form of communism. If you choose to live a life like this then it is possible to have a non-corrupt, functional system. I dont believe that it can be done on a large scale because a primary need of this is that all peoples situation must also be equal, which it never is.
because of this, I dont think that the US Government can handle this. That is why I suggest a hybrid. Let the government empose rules and regulations and only be allowed to oversee those aspects of the healthcare system and not the actual system. The reason that some oversight is needed is that corruption and non-competative practices will control the system if rules are not enforced.
Anything that can be viewed as even slightly socialist is quickly attacked. There is no inherent weakness or flaw in socialism or communism for that matter but every single implementation of either one on a national level in any country in modern history has been bad. Socialized medicine has had this view applied to it.
There are certain truths in the arguements against socialized medicine such as direct government control. All things, when viewed from a very high level must be summarized. Medical costs fall into this category. The management will look at regional expenses but not at individual expenses and coverage will suffer.
What we need is something of a hybrid system. Government oversight and insurance mandates as well as tax incentives for providing insurance. If this is done, the medical industry must compete for patients or rather compete to be on the 'in-network' list for insurance providers.
I'm not for bigger government at all. I think that a well designed oversight agency can create an environment where the industry it serves must self regulate by the rules of capitolism. Many of our government agencies are only necessary because the oversight agency at the top is inefficient.
Key point here is vista. vista is junk. it is so bad that I opened up my websters dictionary and under the work vista it said:
[v-ist-a], noun: term formerly used to describe a beautiful view, please dont use this work in that context any more. Word meaning is now used to describe poor operating with excessive overhead. ex. Wow, did you see that old beater impalla on the highway with the $4000 rims? that was some vista.
That revalation being said, we are comparing XP to linux in battery life, vista is a different beast and linux handly smashes it in all reguards
I suppose that this is comparing oranges to appricots. Windows does need more apps running but if good choices are made they have less impact. McAfee or Norton are not on that list.
agreed to some extent. I just posted a different follow up pointing out that video drivers are much weaker in terms of power management vs windows drivers. That and linux likes to cache and swap a lot which hits the hard disk more than XP does typically.
Also, though Vista has a much much better power management system to XP, it is much much worse on battery because it likes to grind the system pretty much constantly.
Reguardless of the posts that say they get better battery life on linux, there is an overwhelming amount of information on generally poor battery life on linux.
To clarify, I dont think this is some sort of technical weakness but rather a lack of focus on laptops by many linux developers. This is quickly changing also.
One of the big things is that video drivers for linux are not as mature and often lack power saving options or have power saving options that are inferior to the windows driver, again from lack of focus.
I currently have a dell E1505 and a thinkpad t61. The dell has an ATI x1400 and that is the main issue for battery life. It does have some power management options but they are poorly implemented in the linux drivers(both binary and open source). The thinkpad on the other hand has an intel video chip and is very close in battery life to windows AFTER I tweaked a bunch of things like swappiness to avoid hitting the hard drive for cache a lot and a number of other things.
I *WANT* to tell you to put some ubuntu on there and tweak it up a bit.
The only real reason that this isnt the best option is that Linux (and BSD) are heavier on battery life than WindowsXP. I run linux on my laptop and have on other laptops and linux sucks down the battery faster.
For a Tablet, batter life is a pretty big thing I think and this is a major issue. I get as much as 30% less battery life out of linux.
That being said, linux has come a long way on this front and this may be remedied pretty soon.
Also, with ubuntu 8.10 as well as new releases of fedora the wireless management is much better.
If you are not concerned with battery life then definitely grab a newer linux distro. Remember that you need to do a number of tweaks for power such as turning the swapiness down and selecting the proper power states.
If you want to go straight DC, you need to use the economies of scale, not replace AC power supplies with some alternate power scheme that still uses AC on the rack and DC into the server.
Instead, use large, very efficient AC-DC transformers and wire the rack DC.
If you convert AC to DC in bulk with more expensive but highly efficient equipment you will save significant money on the power conversion PLUS you can put that transformer outside in its own enclosure with a big metal heat exchanger for a case.
DC can be stepped down very easily and efficiently so various voltages are available from the transformer or from a seperate step-down box that doesnt create much heat because it is pretty efficient.
Now, you dont have to worry about the heat from the power supply and dont have to cool for it. You gain savings in efficiency and less AC use.
also, the transformer can very easily be cooled but an extremely simple ground loop and small pump can handle that for a few bucks per month.
BS. They must defend the trademark to keep it but they are certainly able to give an unrestricted license for the trademark when it is distributed via offial channels.
Additionally, a EULA implies (expressly implies!) that the use of the program requires some compliance with mozilla.
What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.
I see a number of arguements about how flash helps delivery websites with *rich* *dynamic* content. Why? I am not a proponent of keeping the web at v1.0 but I absolutely hate sites that are drenched in so much flash that you can't see anything but moving, dynamtic, useless junk. Other technologies allow much more usefull dynamic contect(this *AMP) where content can be dynamically loaded from a database and menus can be dynamic and flowing and work on almost every web browser without issue.
Consider that youtube is flash done right. flash is just a powerful COMPONENT of a webpage and not a webpage building platform. It has become a complete platform where the html is just used to load a bunch of flash up but those sites are essentially content free! and are just trying to be flashy!
that being said, if flash was not being pushed to be an entire platform for web contenct delivery, then it would not be so difficult to get flash working on all platforms. The constant evolution of flash is the problem. Flash is not getting better at doing anything that it is really good for, just getting more of the useless stuff. Evolution for the sake of evolution causes extinction!
Ryanair is a budget airline that makes little on each ticket and makes up for that by a couple of methods. one is of course volume but other very important methods are add on sales like car rentals, hotels, money changing, travel credit cards, travel insurance, etc.
Everyone seems to be thinking that these 3rd party bookings help ryanair, when they actually hurt them by removing the possibility of add on sales. this is not some american airline that makes(or tries to) their money almost entirely on ticket sales. Ryanair is much more like a gas station, they make little on gas but rake in their cash on soda and chip sales.
you argue for arguements sake. you are making statements that might be perfectly acceptable and reasonable in a perfect system but this is not a perfect system. facts rule here, the US is a nation of laws, even if those laws are flawed. in the US, the fact is that downloading a song without license or permission is theft. any use of copyrighted things, ideas, plans, etc without prior concentual distribution and license is theft. that means that if you download a song without permission, it is theft. the dictionary doesnt not dictate the definition of a word as far as the law is concerned.
another fact is that human ambition is driven by profit and/or personal gain so that concept of IP must exist or else intelectual advances would not be made, and music could not be made profitably on a national level, but only on a local level where musicians are paid for the performance and not for the song. i wont argue that in some ways that would be better, but in other ways it would stifle innovation and severely limit funds to research organizations. again, the system is flawed but this started as post on how it is now, and how it is now is completely opisite of every single point you have made in your posts.
we cannot live in a world of anarchy, which seems to be what you suggest in your posts. it sure would be nice to do whatever you wanted to do but the huge drawback of rampant disregard of other peoples property undoubtedly leads to chaos.
most importantly, the system needs fixed, not disregarded. my skirting the system you fuel the other sides arguments and make their argument more favorable because they are on the side of the law and you have become the criminal. fix the system, dont ignore it. if you simply ignore the law then you can get punished, and then what will you argue? i guarantee that the judge will sound a whole lot like me.
You are assuming that the downloader would otherwise buy what they downloaded.
That makes zero difference. If you decided not to buy a movie ticket and snuck into the theater, you still break the law. If you decide that you will not pay for dinner but still order and eat the dinner, you still broke the law. If you install a copy of Windows with zero intent of ever buying the software you are still breaking the law. Intent has no place in civil law.
If they instead chose to forego the purchase, then no revenue is lost.
They are using a licensed product, that license must be purchased, theirfore they are not paying for a product they are using which means that revenue is lost. That's like saying that no revenue is lost if you steal windows xp. intent has no place in civil law.
So you are claiming that the theoretical loss of potential future profit is theft, but again, I would refer you to the dictionary
the dictionary has no legal relevance. a license is treated by the law the same as ownership of physical products. I.P. has just as strong of legal precedence as physical property.
You know, the place that lists definitions of words so that we can all agree on what they mean.
m-w is a business, they publish a book that is not authoritative in any way. marriam-webster is not a book of law and has no legal grounds.
Your logic is similar to that governmental logic which calls a smaller increase in spending than previous years a 'reduction in spending'. You and the recording industry may wish to engage in circumlocutory arguments that a theoretical potential future loss of profit is the same thing as physically removing an object, but that doesn't make it true. You can only deprive someone of something that actually exists, theoretical potential profits do not actually
exist, and making a perfect copy while leaving the original intact does not necessarily deprive anyone of anything.
future spending increases that are a reduction of previous years increases has nothing to do with the arguement. though they may be a tiny improvement or an improvement in the runnaway process of out government it is of course not truly a reduction. these are not potential future losses. these are not future losses. these are past losses. these or loss of the sale price of a real thing. ideas in fact do exist, art does exist, and intelecual property does exist. the effort put into and uniqueness of a product can be measured. by your logic, WORK is not in fact real, as you cannot measure WORK on a scale or put it in a jug. The fact is that work is real, and songs are real. why dont you lookup 'song' in m-w dictionary? see if it calls songs 'not-real' or 'imaginary'.
SONG
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English sang; akin to Old English singan to sing
Date:
before 12th century
1: the act or art of singing
2: poetical composition
3 a: a short musical composition of words and music b: a collection of such compositions
4: a distinctive or characteristic sound or series of sounds (as of a bird, insect, or whale)
5 a: a melody for a lyric poem or ballad b: a poem easily set to music
6 a: a habitual or characteristic manner b: a violent, abusive, or noisy reaction
7: a small amount
please read my followup to the last post. It's actually theft of revenue which is as real as stealing physical items. You are using a product that someone sells access/license to without paying that license. that is theft of the revenue on that item. It might be more appropriate to say that you only stole the profits because of the lack of physical product but that isnt really the issue.
the simple fact is that the product is sold and people are not paying the price of the sale and that is theft. If you make the arguement that it is not theft, then you also imply rather directly that it is ok to pirate windows xp because it also is not a physical product. this is just like software piracy. a product normally sold under a specific license and you choose to take and use it skirting that license, and that is theft.
you would absolutely never ever win a court case saying that it is not theft because songs are physical items and that you didnt deprive anyone of that item as the winning arguement would be that you deprived the license holder of real money, and that would land you a big fat fine.
merriam-webster is most certainly not a legal organization and their definition is not what the legal system is bound by.
The legal system in the united states does consider the act of downloading a copyright song without license theft of license fees or theft of revenue. so by dictionary symatics the act of downloading a song without license is not in fact what is illegal, its the theft of related proceeds.
I'd like to add that there should be no doubt that downloading a song without permission of the artist or distributor(in otherwords, not buying a license to it) is theft. Anybody that does not think it is theft has no respect for society.
I think that the problem is that the price for the product has become essentially extortion. Artificially inflated distribution methods, many levels of middleman markups, falsified physical product costs, expectations of becoming a millionaire, and pure greed have distorted 'music' into an industry. No doubt that a record can cost millions of dollar is crooks are cooking the books. I know what the physical process costs and I know what the studio equipment costs. Music that can stand on it's own only needs a studio and a cd-r or a webserver to distribute it with. If it takes $5,000,000 to promote music, it is not music.
Industry is a term used to describe the manufacturing of a product from raw material, MUSIC is the ART of creating WORKS OF ART from thought and emotion. I cannot see how Music can be an industry. I cannot see how one creates music from raw material, unless feelings and emotions are now measurable with scales. How much does a feeling weight? how much volume does it occupy?
It certainly makes no difference if you download or upload copyrighted works that you do not hold a license or copyright on. It does make a substantial difference on realistic losses where downloading should carry a punishment of actual losses plus reasonable penalties. uploading could carry a punishment much higher as each copy of the material will have a value which will count as a loss each time someone downloads that work.
10,000 people downloading a song that is available for $.99 on iTunes would have $10000 is direct losses in sales as well as a first offense, double damages type punishment. a reasonable punishment would be $2000+court costs. for the single infringing work, double damages would likely be trivial so a court would probable rule some punative damage which would be collected by the court and not by the RIAA so downloaders would likely be in for much less, IF the court system would see these cases like they see most other civil suits.
somehow, the RIAA has found a way to convince the court system that their product is worth much much more after is has been stolen. all these songs are.99 on iTunes or something similar on Napster or something, how can they ask $10,000 or whatever per song in damages? that is a 10,000x damages which is well beyond reasonable.
I must point out that $.07/KWh is a one time gain. just over 14 hours of that and you have spent $1. that coal will no longer produce power so $1 gets you 14.29KW of power.(using the parents numbers)
these cells cost $1 for each Watt a panel. That is not a cost of $1/watt for each watt produced, that is $1/panel which produces 1W each hour for 20-30 years. so your initial investment of $1 will net you 58.4-87.6KW of power, or $.017-$.012 per KWh over the lifetime of the panel.
in the us, the average household uses 26KW on average per day. this is typically in the evening so power must be stored so i will use a %50 efficiency handicap for power storage, either to grid, or to batteries. at just 8 hours of collectible solar period during the day, we will need 6.5KW worth of solar @ %50 storage efficiency. so $6500+$2000 for connectivity equipment such as inverters and grid tyeing equip(assuming to grid and not to batteries) means an up front investment of $8500. the average utitily bill of a US home is about $987/year. so the payoff is about 9yrs.
if the panel lasts the advertised period of 20-30 years then solar would be 2.3x-3.5x cheaper with %50 efficient storage.
in many states, power companies must buy power from a consumer at the same rate they charge for it meaning that many people could use the grid for storage, or more accurately, charge the grid and get paid for it and use from the grid when needed. that would 1/2 the cost of the above numbers. this is not taking into account losses on home wiring or transfer to grid etc but their is a good margin here for such things.
consumers only need to break even to lessen our impact on the environment though saving money will be the driving force behind a change.
seriously though, there is still a lot of room to put hydroelectric with minimal strain on the environment and on people. I'm not saying it should be done wrecklesly though.
haha! should i have said 120KG? you are probably that guy that lives 4 houses down that is determined to have his house seen from the International Space Station! I swear i get a brownout as dusk when he flips all the lights on!
since hydropower is really just gravity power generating with a water medium, we can add hydro-electric dams in a series down rivers so long as the bottom of each dam is above the top of the next. gravity doesnt care! it just wants to pull the water down! we could dam the Mississippi river from Billings Montana(the yellowstone) to the Gulf of Mexico and power the nation.
this would reek havoc on the local environments of coarse but diversion dams and capillary river dams could certainly provide power with less environmental impact, especially when compared to coal! they would also provide localized power and eliminate some of the distance loss from transporting power many miles.
FYI, lignite(newer coal, used to power germany) requiers 2 KG of coal to power a lightbulb for a day. that basically means that each house in america needs over 20 KG daily!
this could be handled with a FUSE module pretty easy! have a list of acceptable config files to use tucked away in "fuse-configurator's" settings and have it mount all the acceptable config files that exsist in ~/ to/home/username/Settings. the list is so that some random . file isnt put in the Settings directory.
first of all, even WPA2 is crackable!, no current wireless security model is crack proof or even especially crack resistant. i have worked around this on my wireless network by using it as the interconnect only and using VPN for all traffic. I have a VPN server that has only the appropriate ports open to the 802.11g interface(ethernet to a wireless router) and MAC address filtering on the router. the router also runs WPA2 just to keep a baseline security for machines that might connect that have file sharing enabled. I still feel that i run a risk that if a compromised laptop connects up that it can penetrate the network via the VPN so i also lock down the machines via group policy limiting users.
even 802.11n is slow when compared to modern networking. many networks still run at 100 or even 10 speed but modern tech is 1000, wireless is not ready to deliver gigabit or even comparable.
a micowave oven and a number of other things can accidentally distrupt the wireless network much more easily than it can wired, and wireless runs a higher risk of a intentional disruptions.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Desktop OS and Server OS do not overlap. I know that Linux can and is BOTH but it is not really. A server OS is an OS built on stability and security. A desktop OS is one built on user experience and usability. There is sometimes a fine line, and a server can have a Desktop, but it is typically a trimmed version of a Desktop with many services not running that would be on the "desktop" release.
A desktop OS will have services and programs enabled that specifically disqualify it from being a server OS. Programs that listen on network ports, dont provide any kind of authentication to access devices or write to files, dont have a thorough firewall. A webserver should listen only on webserver specific ports and those necessary for remote admin. I can think of less than 10. (do a `netstat -a|grep LISTEN` and count the ports your desktop is listening on and then do the same on a server(http,ftp,ssh,rsync,and some specifics for server type like imaps or smb).
The analog here is a brand new Lincoln truck. Sure it looks like a truck, but its very nature says that it cannot be a worktruck without losing its status as a luxury vehicle. You could dis-acknowledge its luxury status and MAKE it a work truck, but then it is no longer a luxury vehicle because there has been consideration to the nice paint job, the chrome, the soft leather seats, etc.
So the point is:
Ubuntu 8.04 server is a server OS. If you add everything to make it a desktop OS, it is now Ubuntu 8.04 Desktop.
I would say that is an occasional side effect but not part of the design. By design, the state would be shaped by the majority of equal peers but we all know that is not the usual outcome.
I think the problem is that communism and socialism is adopted as a front to a dictatorship. Germany, Russian, and China all have done this and those are the most successful examples.
There are states which have a hybrid of democracy and socialism and even some monarchial influences such as Sweden and Denmark that do quite well with their system.
to clarify, there is nothing inherently wrong with all people being guaranteed by law equal provisions from government programs(socialism) or all people in a community being equal in all aspects such as wages and supply(communism). These things have been proven to be successful in small groups such as Mennonite groups which use a form of communism. If you choose to live a life like this then it is possible to have a non-corrupt, functional system. I dont believe that it can be done on a large scale because a primary need of this is that all peoples situation must also be equal, which it never is.
because of this, I dont think that the US Government can handle this. That is why I suggest a hybrid. Let the government empose rules and regulations and only be allowed to oversee those aspects of the healthcare system and not the actual system. The reason that some oversight is needed is that corruption and non-competative practices will control the system if rules are not enforced.
Anything that can be viewed as even slightly socialist is quickly attacked. There is no inherent weakness or flaw in socialism or communism for that matter but every single implementation of either one on a national level in any country in modern history has been bad. Socialized medicine has had this view applied to it.
There are certain truths in the arguements against socialized medicine such as direct government control. All things, when viewed from a very high level must be summarized. Medical costs fall into this category. The management will look at regional expenses but not at individual expenses and coverage will suffer.
What we need is something of a hybrid system. Government oversight and insurance mandates as well as tax incentives for providing insurance. If this is done, the medical industry must compete for patients or rather compete to be on the 'in-network' list for insurance providers.
I'm not for bigger government at all. I think that a well designed oversight agency can create an environment where the industry it serves must self regulate by the rules of capitolism. Many of our government agencies are only necessary because the oversight agency at the top is inefficient.
Just my thoughts. Thanks
Key point here is vista. vista is junk. it is so bad that I opened up my websters dictionary and under the work vista it said:
[v-ist-a], noun: term formerly used to describe a beautiful view, please dont use this work in that context any more. Word meaning is now used to describe poor operating with excessive overhead. ex. Wow, did you see that old beater impalla on the highway with the $4000 rims? that was some vista.
That revalation being said, we are comparing XP to linux in battery life, vista is a different beast and linux handly smashes it in all reguards
I suppose that this is comparing oranges to appricots. Windows does need more apps running but if good choices are made they have less impact. McAfee or Norton are not on that list.
agreed to some extent. I just posted a different follow up pointing out that video drivers are much weaker in terms of power management vs windows drivers. That and linux likes to cache and swap a lot which hits the hard disk more than XP does typically.
Also, though Vista has a much much better power management system to XP, it is much much worse on battery because it likes to grind the system pretty much constantly.
Reguardless of the posts that say they get better battery life on linux, there is an overwhelming amount of information on generally poor battery life on linux.
To clarify, I dont think this is some sort of technical weakness but rather a lack of focus on laptops by many linux developers. This is quickly changing also.
One of the big things is that video drivers for linux are not as mature and often lack power saving options or have power saving options that are inferior to the windows driver, again from lack of focus.
I currently have a dell E1505 and a thinkpad t61. The dell has an ATI x1400 and that is the main issue for battery life. It does have some power management options but they are poorly implemented in the linux drivers(both binary and open source). The thinkpad on the other hand has an intel video chip and is very close in battery life to windows AFTER I tweaked a bunch of things like swappiness to avoid hitting the hard drive for cache a lot and a number of other things.
I *WANT* to tell you to put some ubuntu on there and tweak it up a bit.
The only real reason that this isnt the best option is that Linux (and BSD) are heavier on battery life than WindowsXP. I run linux on my laptop and have on other laptops and linux sucks down the battery faster.
For a Tablet, batter life is a pretty big thing I think and this is a major issue. I get as much as 30% less battery life out of linux.
That being said, linux has come a long way on this front and this may be remedied pretty soon.
Also, with ubuntu 8.10 as well as new releases of fedora the wireless management is much better.
If you are not concerned with battery life then definitely grab a newer linux distro. Remember that you need to do a number of tweaks for power such as turning the swapiness down and selecting the proper power states.
If you want to go straight DC, you need to use the economies of scale, not replace AC power supplies with some alternate power scheme that still uses AC on the rack and DC into the server.
Instead, use large, very efficient AC-DC transformers and wire the rack DC.
If you convert AC to DC in bulk with more expensive but highly efficient equipment you will save significant money on the power conversion PLUS you can put that transformer outside in its own enclosure with a big metal heat exchanger for a case.
DC can be stepped down very easily and efficiently so various voltages are available from the transformer or from a seperate step-down box that doesnt create much heat because it is pretty efficient.
Now, you dont have to worry about the heat from the power supply and dont have to cool for it. You gain savings in efficiency and less AC use.
also, the transformer can very easily be cooled but an extremely simple ground loop and small pump can handle that for a few bucks per month.
BS. They must defend the trademark to keep it but they are certainly able to give an unrestricted license for the trademark when it is distributed via offial channels.
Additionally, a EULA implies (expressly implies!) that the use of the program requires some compliance with mozilla.
What a dumb move in light of all the recent activity around webkit based browsers.
I see a number of arguements about how flash helps delivery websites with *rich* *dynamic* content. Why? I am not a proponent of keeping the web at v1.0 but I absolutely hate sites that are drenched in so much flash that you can't see anything but moving, dynamtic, useless junk. Other technologies allow much more usefull dynamic contect(this *AMP) where content can be dynamically loaded from a database and menus can be dynamic and flowing and work on almost every web browser without issue.
Consider that youtube is flash done right. flash is just a powerful COMPONENT of a webpage and not a webpage building platform. It has become a complete platform where the html is just used to load a bunch of flash up but those sites are essentially content free! and are just trying to be flashy!
that being said, if flash was not being pushed to be an entire platform for web contenct delivery, then it would not be so difficult to get flash working on all platforms. The constant evolution of flash is the problem. Flash is not getting better at doing anything that it is really good for, just getting more of the useless stuff. Evolution for the sake of evolution causes extinction!
Ryanair is a budget airline that makes little on each ticket and makes up for that by a couple of methods. one is of course volume but other very important methods are add on sales like car rentals, hotels, money changing, travel credit cards, travel insurance, etc.
Everyone seems to be thinking that these 3rd party bookings help ryanair, when they actually hurt them by removing the possibility of add on sales. this is not some american airline that makes(or tries to) their money almost entirely on ticket sales. Ryanair is much more like a gas station, they make little on gas but rake in their cash on soda and chip sales.
just some food for thought.
you argue for arguements sake. you are making statements that might be perfectly acceptable and reasonable in a perfect system but this is not a perfect system. facts rule here, the US is a nation of laws, even if those laws are flawed. in the US, the fact is that downloading a song without license or permission is theft. any use of copyrighted things, ideas, plans, etc without prior concentual distribution and license is theft. that means that if you download a song without permission, it is theft. the dictionary doesnt not dictate the definition of a word as far as the law is concerned.
another fact is that human ambition is driven by profit and/or personal gain so that concept of IP must exist or else intelectual advances would not be made, and music could not be made profitably on a national level, but only on a local level where musicians are paid for the performance and not for the song. i wont argue that in some ways that would be better, but in other ways it would stifle innovation and severely limit funds to research organizations. again, the system is flawed but this started as post on how it is now, and how it is now is completely opisite of every single point you have made in your posts.
we cannot live in a world of anarchy, which seems to be what you suggest in your posts. it sure would be nice to do whatever you wanted to do but the huge drawback of rampant disregard of other peoples property undoubtedly leads to chaos.
most importantly, the system needs fixed, not disregarded. my skirting the system you fuel the other sides arguments and make their argument more favorable because they are on the side of the law and you have become the criminal. fix the system, dont ignore it. if you simply ignore the law then you can get punished, and then what will you argue? i guarantee that the judge will sound a whole lot like me.
please read my followup to the last post. It's actually theft of revenue which is as real as stealing physical items. You are using a product that someone sells access/license to without paying that license. that is theft of the revenue on that item. It might be more appropriate to say that you only stole the profits because of the lack of physical product but that isnt really the issue.
the simple fact is that the product is sold and people are not paying the price of the sale and that is theft. If you make the arguement that it is not theft, then you also imply rather directly that it is ok to pirate windows xp because it also is not a physical product. this is just like software piracy. a product normally sold under a specific license and you choose to take and use it skirting that license, and that is theft.
you would absolutely never ever win a court case saying that it is not theft because songs are physical items and that you didnt deprive anyone of that item as the winning arguement would be that you deprived the license holder of real money, and that would land you a big fat fine.
merriam-webster is most certainly not a legal organization and their definition is not what the legal system is bound by.
The legal system in the united states does consider the act of downloading a copyright song without license theft of license fees or theft of revenue. so by dictionary symatics the act of downloading a song without license is not in fact what is illegal, its the theft of related proceeds.
I'd like to add that there should be no doubt that downloading a song without permission of the artist or distributor(in otherwords, not buying a license to it) is theft. Anybody that does not think it is theft has no respect for society.
I think that the problem is that the price for the product has become essentially extortion. Artificially inflated distribution methods, many levels of middleman markups, falsified physical product costs, expectations of becoming a millionaire, and pure greed have distorted 'music' into an industry. No doubt that a record can cost millions of dollar is crooks are cooking the books. I know what the physical process costs and I know what the studio equipment costs. Music that can stand on it's own only needs a studio and a cd-r or a webserver to distribute it with. If it takes $5,000,000 to promote music, it is not music.
Industry is a term used to describe the manufacturing of a product from raw material, MUSIC is the ART of creating WORKS OF ART from thought and emotion. I cannot see how Music can be an industry. I cannot see how one creates music from raw material, unless feelings and emotions are now measurable with scales. How much does a feeling weight? how much volume does it occupy?
It certainly makes no difference if you download or upload copyrighted works that you do not hold a license or copyright on. It does make a substantial difference on realistic losses where downloading should carry a punishment of actual losses plus reasonable penalties. uploading could carry a punishment much higher as each copy of the material will have a value which will count as a loss each time someone downloads that work.
.99 on iTunes or something similar on Napster or something, how can they ask $10,000 or whatever per song in damages? that is a 10,000x damages which is well beyond reasonable.
10,000 people downloading a song that is available for $.99 on iTunes would have $10000 is direct losses in sales as well as a first offense, double damages type punishment. a reasonable punishment would be $2000+court costs. for the single infringing work, double damages would likely be trivial so a court would probable rule some punative damage which would be collected by the court and not by the RIAA so downloaders would likely be in for much less, IF the court system would see these cases like they see most other civil suits.
somehow, the RIAA has found a way to convince the court system that their product is worth much much more after is has been stolen. all these songs are
I must point out that $.07/KWh is a one time gain. just over 14 hours of that and you have spent $1. that coal will no longer produce power so $1 gets you 14.29KW of power.(using the parents numbers)
these cells cost $1 for each Watt a panel. That is not a cost of $1/watt for each watt produced, that is $1/panel which produces 1W each hour for 20-30 years. so your initial investment of $1 will net you 58.4-87.6KW of power, or $.017-$.012 per KWh over the lifetime of the panel.
in the us, the average household uses 26KW on average per day. this is typically in the evening so power must be stored so i will use a %50 efficiency handicap for power storage, either to grid, or to batteries. at just 8 hours of collectible solar period during the day, we will need 6.5KW worth of solar @ %50 storage efficiency. so $6500+$2000 for connectivity equipment such as inverters and grid tyeing equip(assuming to grid and not to batteries) means an up front investment of $8500. the average utitily bill of a US home is about $987/year. so the payoff is about 9yrs.
if the panel lasts the advertised period of 20-30 years then solar would be 2.3x-3.5x cheaper with %50 efficient storage.
in many states, power companies must buy power from a consumer at the same rate they charge for it meaning that many people could use the grid for storage, or more accurately, charge the grid and get paid for it and use from the grid when needed. that would 1/2 the cost of the above numbers. this is not taking into account losses on home wiring or transfer to grid etc but their is a good margin here for such things.
consumers only need to break even to lessen our impact on the environment though saving money will be the driving force behind a change.
id live on the shoreline of my brand new lake!
seriously though, there is still a lot of room to put hydroelectric with minimal strain on the environment and on people. I'm not saying it should be done wrecklesly though.
haha! should i have said 120KG? you are probably that guy that lives 4 houses down that is determined to have his house seen from the International Space Station! I swear i get a brownout as dusk when he flips all the lights on!
since hydropower is really just gravity power generating with a water medium, we can add hydro-electric dams in a series down rivers so long as the bottom of each dam is above the top of the next. gravity doesnt care! it just wants to pull the water down! we could dam the Mississippi river from Billings Montana(the yellowstone) to the Gulf of Mexico and power the nation.
this would reek havoc on the local environments of coarse but diversion dams and capillary river dams could certainly provide power with less environmental impact, especially when compared to coal! they would also provide localized power and eliminate some of the distance loss from transporting power many miles.
FYI, lignite(newer coal, used to power germany) requiers 2 KG of coal to power a lightbulb for a day. that basically means that each house in america needs over 20 KG daily!
this could be handled with a FUSE module pretty easy! have a list of acceptable config files to use tucked away in "fuse-configurator's" settings and have it mount all the acceptable config files that exsist in ~/ to /home/username/Settings. the list is so that some random . file isnt put in the Settings directory.
first of all, even WPA2 is crackable!, no current wireless security model is crack proof or even especially crack resistant. i have worked around this on my wireless network by using it as the interconnect only and using VPN for all traffic. I have a VPN server that has only the appropriate ports open to the 802.11g interface(ethernet to a wireless router) and MAC address filtering on the router. the router also runs WPA2 just to keep a baseline security for machines that might connect that have file sharing enabled. I still feel that i run a risk that if a compromised laptop connects up that it can penetrate the network via the VPN so i also lock down the machines via group policy limiting users.
even 802.11n is slow when compared to modern networking. many networks still run at 100 or even 10 speed but modern tech is 1000, wireless is not ready to deliver gigabit or even comparable.
a micowave oven and a number of other things can accidentally distrupt the wireless network much more easily than it can wired, and wireless runs a higher risk of a intentional disruptions.