See Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc. It's basically a license subscription service. I can easily imagine a world where the studios and music publishers concentrate their sales through streaming services. Currently they are clinging for dear life to their anachronistic physical media revenue streams, because no executive likes to see a decline in any segment of revenue (even if it's more than offset by gains elsewhere), but as someone in the physical and digital media industry I can assure you that physical media are not long for this world.
Only read TFS, but isn't the idea that they would have a warrant? They are talking about extending current wiretap laws to be able to deal with current communications technology.
Is the slashmind saying that the government doesn't have a compelling interest to listen in on phone calls when a judge approves a warrant? I presume that it is illegal for a landline phone company to offer a service which would allow you to encrypt your voice traffic at the front and back ends. Is it unreasonable to extend that status quo to VOIP calls?
It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.
So if I don't purchase a McAfee subscription, McAfee will infect my computer?
Throwing people around and suddenly slamming them to a stop causes brain damage
The interesting part about this is that it doesn't even have to be a *-to-head hit. Simply getting "stood up" by a hip or chest level tackle that results in you going from full sprint speed forward to a stop or backwards is going to cause your brain to slosh around in your skull and probably causes not insignificant damage.
I have the hard bound three volume complete set on the bottom shelf of my bookcase. I should pull it out to show my 4 and 3 year old (though I'm afraid they'd rip the pages, fighting over turning the pages).
That is an interesting hypothesis, and I think it holds for a lot of 4-color comics. But even "new" comics (which are now pretty old) like X-Men counteract that idea. Sure they are heroes by accident of birth, but if Professor X doesn't embody the virtue of knowledge I don't know who does. And of course there is the whole bigotry parable that makes it much more interesting than the "classics." And then there is stuff like Watchmen which completely twist the genre stereotypes around.
Today's exchange rate: 1 Euro = 1.31 US dollars. Pretty much where it has always been. Certainly it's off its all time highs. Certainly it's not at its all time lows. But yes, let's play the popular press's game of "The Euro is Dying!".
How do you look at that graph and conclude that the Euro has "pretty much... always been" at $1.31? The 12 month hi is $1.48 and the 12 month low is $1.26. 10 years ago it was under $0.90. Over the past 5 years there are a lot of peaks and valleys, but the general trend is downward. The peak in July, 2008 was higher than the peak in Nov, 2009, which was higher than Apr, 2011, which is higher than anything since.
Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline
Of course. Taxation is one of the best and oldest business models EVER. Just one problem. I didn't vote for FaceBook and various mobile providers to tax me. Not only do I see no benefit in requiring people to have privacy-stealing mobile plans to pay for things, I see it for what it is: taxation without representation.
What are you blathering about? Did you vote for Visa to tax you at ~3%? No, but you likely use them.
If Facebook (or PayPal) offer a competitive service (i.e. facilitating financial transactions in a secure manner) there will be plenty of people willing to pay for it. I could easily see them creating a plug-in that would allow an e-commerce site to let you log in with your FB ID and purchase using your FB credits (or billing it through to a CC you set up on your FB account). I'm not saying I would use it, but I bet a couple hundred million would.
Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race.
Yeah, I looked for it too, didn't see it. I can't remember which comedian said it, but it's not a race thing. Fried chicken is delicious. If you don't like fried chicken, there's something wrong with you.
Dave Chapelle has a bit where he "discovers" the fried chicken stereotype. "Oh man... all this time I thought I liked it because it was delicious. No they tell me it's because I'm black. Good to know." (Paraphrasing of course.)
I'd disagree about their growth potential. Certainly their user growth will slow down, but there are plenty of untapped revenue streams - for example mobile ads.
But as for the rest I think you're pretty spot on. I took a quick scan of GOOGs 2011 numbers and they have about the same profit margin and a better debt ratio than Facebook, so it's hard for me to see the justification for having 1/2 the market cap of GOOG with ~1/10th the revenue and 1/10th the net income.
I wouldn't bill Twitter as a general communication tool, anymore than I would bill the telephone, Skype or email as a general communication tool. Each serves a slightly different communication purpose, and both have their pros and cons.
Twitter is very effective as a link aggregator; I follow a collection of news outlets and journalists and it provides me with a nice, custom news feed. Incidents like the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement (and I'm sure there are other, better examples) show that it can be effectively used by strangers to coordinate and organize via hash- and geotags.
One way of looking at it is Twitter is user-friendly RSS.
Replace "Twitter" with "Wikileaks." They're not *exactly* the same, as there is presumably a human editor in the Wikileaks process, but it is nonetheless an interesting comparison.
Moral of the story, if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
I think the more valuable data they get is: 1) Who you're "friends" are (both real people and show/band/product pages). 2) What links you click on. 3) What links your friends click on. 4) The overlap of 2 and 3.
I live in a part of Los Angeles county that is not part of the city of LA (or any of the large cities like Glendale, Pasadena, or Santa Monica, which have their own Police Departments), but is still part of the contiguous urban area. The LA Sheriff's Department is responsible for the normal police duties in these types of areas (patrolling, responding to calls, etc.).
With google, what happens? Straight up honesty. 100% un-redacted other than the user's names.
Shouldn't/Isn't the FCC report publicly available even if Google doesn't release it? I mean, we can give props to Google if they link to it from their blog or otherwise increase the visibility of the report, but it seems to me that the FCC report should be public regardless of what the investigatee wants or does.
Well, the report confirms what was in the summary and title of this story.
How so? Read the 3rd bullet point on page 22 of the report.
"The record also shows that Google's supervision of the Wi-Fi data collection project was minimal. In October 2006, Engineer Doe shared the software code and a "design document" explaining his plans with other members of the Street View project. The design document identified "Privacy Considerations" and recommended review by counsel, but that never occurred. Indeed, it appears that no one at the Company carefully reviewed the substance of Engineer Doe's software code or the design document."
if you take the extra CO2 and other man made gasses out of the air
Do you know how incredibly hard and expensive that is? Much more so than dismantling (or simply turning off) turbines.
Anyways, the turbines appear to only be causing relatively minor alterations to local climate. They are operating on a vastly different scale than CO2 and methane.
I don't think the WoT is the correct approach, but neither do I think complete disengagement from the ME ( and breaking of ties with Israel) is realistic nor like to stop terrorist activity. Spain got bombed too. They weren't nearly as involved as US or UK.
Really, the only way to make it stop is to completely leave the Middle East alone, in which case they'll probably go bother someone else or each other.
Terrorists are not rational, and their hatred for the West runs too deep for such a strategy to work.
The only other alternative is to make sure they know that if they bomb our airports, we'll hit them back with one hundred times as much force and an equal disregard for human life.
We tries/are trying that. It's not really working. They still blew up London in 2007.
TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.
Citation needed. I'm well aware of the problems with seizure laws being abused by police, but I'm unaware of these laws applying to the TSA. Link please.
Slashdot Mirror
This won't work for music or movies, though.
See Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc. It's basically a license subscription service. I can easily imagine a world where the studios and music publishers concentrate their sales through streaming services. Currently they are clinging for dear life to their anachronistic physical media revenue streams, because no executive likes to see a decline in any segment of revenue (even if it's more than offset by gains elsewhere), but as someone in the physical and digital media industry I can assure you that physical media are not long for this world.
Only read TFS, but isn't the idea that they would have a warrant? They are talking about extending current wiretap laws to be able to deal with current communications technology.
Is the slashmind saying that the government doesn't have a compelling interest to listen in on phone calls when a judge approves a warrant? I presume that it is illegal for a landline phone company to offer a service which would allow you to encrypt your voice traffic at the front and back ends. Is it unreasonable to extend that status quo to VOIP calls?
It's ironic that a man who works for an organization that uses the same business model: paying protection money so nothing bad happens to himself or his property, just had something bad happen to him for not paying a different organization protection money.
So if I don't purchase a McAfee subscription, McAfee will infect my computer?
Your analogy fails.
Throwing people around and suddenly slamming them to a stop causes brain damage
The interesting part about this is that it doesn't even have to be a *-to-head hit. Simply getting "stood up" by a hip or chest level tackle that results in you going from full sprint speed forward to a stop or backwards is going to cause your brain to slosh around in your skull and probably causes not insignificant damage.
Calvin and Hobbes
I have the hard bound three volume complete set on the bottom shelf of my bookcase. I should pull it out to show my 4 and 3 year old (though I'm afraid they'd rip the pages, fighting over turning the pages).
That is an interesting hypothesis, and I think it holds for a lot of 4-color comics. But even "new" comics (which are now pretty old) like X-Men counteract that idea. Sure they are heroes by accident of birth, but if Professor X doesn't embody the virtue of knowledge I don't know who does. And of course there is the whole bigotry parable that makes it much more interesting than the "classics." And then there is stuff like Watchmen which completely twist the genre stereotypes around.
Today's exchange rate: 1 Euro = 1.31 US dollars. Pretty much where it has always been. Certainly it's off its all time highs. Certainly it's not at its all time lows. But yes, let's play the popular press's game of "The Euro is Dying!".
How do you look at that graph and conclude that the Euro has "pretty much ... always been" at $1.31? The 12 month hi is $1.48 and the 12 month low is $1.26. 10 years ago it was under $0.90. Over the past 5 years there are a lot of peaks and valleys, but the general trend is downward. The peak in July, 2008 was higher than the peak in Nov, 2009, which was higher than Apr, 2011, which is higher than anything since.
mostly family or family allies.
What are you, a Lannister?
Your Facebook ID becomes the way you pay for everything online and offline
Of course. Taxation is one of the best and oldest business models EVER. Just one problem. I didn't vote for FaceBook and various mobile providers to tax me. Not only do I see no benefit in requiring people to have privacy-stealing mobile plans to pay for things, I see it for what it is: taxation without representation.
What are you blathering about? Did you vote for Visa to tax you at ~3%? No, but you likely use them.
If Facebook (or PayPal) offer a competitive service (i.e. facilitating financial transactions in a secure manner) there will be plenty of people willing to pay for it. I could easily see them creating a plug-in that would allow an e-commerce site to let you log in with your FB ID and purchase using your FB credits (or billing it through to a CC you set up on your FB account). I'm not saying I would use it, but I bet a couple hundred million would.
Struggling to find where the grandparent mentioned race.
Yeah, I looked for it too, didn't see it. I can't remember which comedian said it, but it's not a race thing. Fried chicken is delicious. If you don't like fried chicken, there's something wrong with you.
Dave Chapelle has a bit where he "discovers" the fried chicken stereotype. "Oh man... all this time I thought I liked it because it was delicious. No they tell me it's because I'm black. Good to know." (Paraphrasing of course.)
$1B of net income on $3.7B of revenue in 2011. About the same ratio as Google (but at 1/10th the scale).
I'd disagree about their growth potential. Certainly their user growth will slow down, but there are plenty of untapped revenue streams - for example mobile ads.
But as for the rest I think you're pretty spot on. I took a quick scan of GOOGs 2011 numbers and they have about the same profit margin and a better debt ratio than Facebook, so it's hard for me to see the justification for having 1/2 the market cap of GOOG with ~1/10th the revenue and 1/10th the net income.
I wouldn't bill Twitter as a general communication tool, anymore than I would bill the telephone, Skype or email as a general communication tool. Each serves a slightly different communication purpose, and both have their pros and cons.
Twitter is very effective as a link aggregator; I follow a collection of news outlets and journalists and it provides me with a nice, custom news feed. Incidents like the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement (and I'm sure there are other, better examples) show that it can be effectively used by strangers to coordinate and organize via hash- and geotags.
One way of looking at it is Twitter is user-friendly RSS.
Of course, one of the drawbacks is the fact that it's centralized, US based, and not-private-even-if-it's-private.
Replace "Twitter" with "Wikileaks." They're not *exactly* the same, as there is presumably a human editor in the Wikileaks process, but it is nonetheless an interesting comparison.
Moral of the story, if you're a marketer and you're using FB for data mining pupsoses - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
I think the more valuable data they get is:
1) Who you're "friends" are (both real people and show/band/product pages).
2) What links you click on.
3) What links your friends click on.
4) The overlap of 2 and 3.
I live in a part of Los Angeles county that is not part of the city of LA (or any of the large cities like Glendale, Pasadena, or Santa Monica, which have their own Police Departments), but is still part of the contiguous urban area. The LA Sheriff's Department is responsible for the normal police duties in these types of areas (patrolling, responding to calls, etc.).
With google, what happens? Straight up honesty. 100% un-redacted other than the user's names.
Shouldn't/Isn't the FCC report publicly available even if Google doesn't release it? I mean, we can give props to Google if they link to it from their blog or otherwise increase the visibility of the report, but it seems to me that the FCC report should be public regardless of what the investigatee wants or does.
Full underacted text
I'll wait for the Shatner reading.
Well, the report confirms what was in the summary and title of this story.
How so? Read the 3rd bullet point on page 22 of the report.
"The record also shows that Google's supervision of the Wi-Fi data collection project was minimal. In October 2006, Engineer Doe shared the software code and a "design document" explaining his plans with other members of the Street View project. The design document identified "Privacy Considerations" and recommended review by counsel, but that never occurred. Indeed, it appears that no one at the Company carefully reviewed the substance of Engineer Doe's software code or the design document."
But by my ancestors I swear, there will be one someday...
You're gonna need more Pylons.
T3K3L1-L1
I immediately read that as TK-421.
if you take the extra CO2 and other man made gasses out of the air
Do you know how incredibly hard and expensive that is? Much more so than dismantling (or simply turning off) turbines.
Anyways, the turbines appear to only be causing relatively minor alterations to local climate. They are operating on a vastly different scale than CO2 and methane.
I don't think the WoT is the correct approach, but neither do I think complete disengagement from the ME ( and breaking of ties with Israel) is realistic nor like to stop terrorist activity. Spain got bombed too. They weren't nearly as involved as US or UK.
Really, the only way to make it stop is to completely leave the Middle East alone, in which case they'll probably go bother someone else or each other.
Terrorists are not rational, and their hatred for the West runs too deep for such a strategy to work.
The only other alternative is to make sure they know that if they bomb our airports, we'll hit them back with one hundred times as much force and an equal disregard for human life.
We tries/are trying that. It's not really working. They still blew up London in 2007.
TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.
Citation needed. I'm well aware of the problems with seizure laws being abused by police, but I'm unaware of these laws applying to the TSA. Link please.