That said, I'm not sure how long all of this free content will last. Given my choice of browser, I don't view any ads. How long can the "system" support this leeching of content?
The way I see it, people who use ad blockers are less common than TV watchers who use the mute button during commercial breaks. Mute buttons haven't killed TV ad revenue, so I reckon ad blockers won't affect online ad revenue either. That being said, I suspect that this is just the beginning of a shift from "old" media to new. I think we're going to see online ad revenue increase in the future. Madison Avenue is only concerned with getting its ad copy in front of as many eyeballs as it can, and if those eyeballs are online, that's where they'll go.
This is the flaw in your analogy. "Bandwidth" is not a consumable like gas, water, or electricity. It is a measurement of capacity, like the size of the [gas/water] pipe or the amperage rating of your electrical service. You don't pay extra for a bigger gas pipe or larger electrical panel. Bandwidth doesn't get "used up", it only gets saturated.
"Digital Rights Management and micro-payments are becoming 'make or break' issues for the whole of the broadband value chain," said Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, in a statement.
The value of broadband isn't determined by which businesses deign to offer pay services requiring a high speed pipe. The value of broadband is based entirely on what the end user is willing to pay for a high-speed pipe to their house. I'm sick of these rat-bastard marketroids who keep trying to redefine the utility of internet connectivity based on their [TV/radio/other mass-media] mindset: "we talk, you listen (and buy)". Broadband is doomed unless they can sell stuff to us? Broadband is doomed unless they can force us to pay-per-[view/listen/read] for the media we "buy"? Broadband is doomed unless they get to keep our credit card number on file to make paying them [easy/automatic/mandatory]? Please...
They also have IQs around room temperature. It's mostly dumbos like this that will USE in-car computers when moving because they are insufficiently intelligent to assess risk.
Yep, this is the root of the problem. People want to ban cell phones (for example) but cell phones aren't the problem. An insurance company did a study recently and found that it's not that cell phones make people drive badly, but that "inattentive" drivers are the ones who use cell phones while driving. They found that these same inattentive drivers would pull almost as many bullshit driving maneuvers when not on the phone because they were eating, reading, shaving, putting on makeup, or just thinking about something else.
I agree. The last thing we need to give those fools is a computer to play with.
it is my understanding that the voting machines used can be set to either reject a vote if it is spoiled (and let the voter try again), or to silently eat it.
What? "Eat it" as in like "shred" or "destroy"? What kind of crap is that? What possible reason would there ever be for even making a ballot tabulation machine capable of destroying ballots? Where do you get your "understanding"? Got any links?
He interfaced it using the printer port. Instead of running the stepper motors directly through custom electronics, let the printer's own electronics do it. All you'd need to send is print commands.
That's all well and good for moving the thing, but that leaves the non-trivial problem of trying to interface the grabbing and lifting circuits to something. The way he did it was by far easier.
looking at this guy's wooden assembly and all I could think was, why didn't he use an used dot matrix/ink printer for the carriage.
He got the slider bar assembly from an IBM Selectric typewriter. And besides, as he explains, he didn't want to deal with the complex timing required to get stepper motors working. Printers use stepper motors. I you're not going to use the motors from the printer/typewriter, that leaves you with the slider bar assembly thing. Which is what he used.
Yes, people are getting screwed alright: by the Republicans, who think little of wasting enormous amounts of state money because they think it is advantageous for them to have the election take place on a different day.
$30 Million for a recall election, vs. keeping a governor that gave us a $30 billion+ defecit and show no promise of doing any better. $30 million sounds like a deal to me.
All one needs to do to get rid of these charges is to bring some shread of proof for their legit use of a smartcard system
Actually, you don't have to prove anything. DirecTV has to meet the burden of proof. If they come to court and say "most people use these to hack our system", one need only counter with "I'm not one of those people". A statistical probability isn't evidence of anything.
My guess is they're virtually all guilty. All this talk about barratry and misuse of the legal system doesn't make sense if DirecTV actually has a legal case against almost everyone they are suing.
You say it yourself: "virtually all are guilty". Even if we accept that as a given, we still have DirecTV threatening lawsuits based on statistical probability. You can't do that. You have to have proof. It doesnt matter if the person is guilty or innocent if they can't prove it.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here, this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case...
Incorrect. "Innocent until proven guilty" does/b> apply to civil court. The difference is that in a civil cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to a criminal case, which requires guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Doesn't Arianne operate out of some nowhere place in Central America for that very reason?
Ummm....no, Arianne launches from FRENCH GUIANA (which is in south america) because they are a FRENCH COMPANY. French Guiana is essentially a colony France has held on to for the purpose of launching space vehicles. They used to have a nasty prison there too.
The necessary good is 'enforcing the IP laws' which are an extension of 'enforcing the right to private property'
This is incorrect. Laws regarding real property have a totally seperate origin from laws regarding copyright. The term "intellectual property" was actually created in an attempt to philosophically elevate copyright to the same level as property rights. Unfortunately, most people have bought into the scam (like you have, obviously).
Well, since Einstein says that gravity "is" the curvature of space-time, I don't think it is all that bad. See my other reply.
Regardless of what Einstein said, curvature of spacetime alone doesn't explain how gravity works. A large mass may "pull" the spacetime sheet down into a funnel shape, but it doesn't address why an smaller mass placed within that funnel slides downhill into it. The rubber sheet illustration still depends on a gravity-like force pulling "down". It seems to me to be a redefinition of "gravity" in terms of...well..gravity.
Of course. It is useless from a practical standpoint. But which is more insane -- the clueless manager who stands up and says "we should cut costs and increase productivity", or the clueless manager who stands up and says that isn't possible and makes no sense?:)
Heh. Inane, not insane. Saying "why don't we pull the sheet UP?" isn't irrational, it's just a restatement of the problem presented as a solution. As such, it's totally devoid of substance.
Okay, so the Vulan gun can take out a missile. So I better fire ten simultaneously. Missiles are cheap, I can just keep firing them until they start getting through.
The Phalanx CIWS can take out more than one missile each. Additionally, when the "vampire" call (anti-ship missiles inbound) comes in, they aren't going to sit around waiting for them to come within range of the CIWS. They're going to be shooting at them with AMRAAM's from F-18's and F-14's first.
Also, what are you going to be launching them from, mister smart guy? You think your launch platform is going to survive more than five minutes after you launch the first missile? Think again. ASM's may be "cheap", but launching them isn't like firing an SA-14 SAM. Take, for example, the Exocet. It's over 17 feet long and weighs over 1800 pounds! You have 3 choices: air, land, or ship launch. Air launch? You can have 2 per plane and those will be military aircraft, not Cessnas. Also, you will lose those planes soon after launch, as an AEGIS will be wiping out anything without a good IFF ID seconds thereafter. Ship? ain't gonna be no rowboat you launch from- it's going to be an expensive craft and likely military in origin. And again, you will lose whatever sea assets you field to an AEGIS (or whatever else is handy). Ground? Sorry, you'll never be able to get close enough to hit a carrier group without them 1) taking out your first wave of missiles, then 2) pounding the snot out of you with whatever assets are handy.
Honestly, do you really think the US Navy hasn't already run a bazillion variations of your scenario? They've been working with ASM threats since the freakin' sixties. Nothing you can think of would ever surprise them. Armchair tacticians...
No - you're missing the entire point of the rubber-sheet analogy if you think that the point is that the objects are drawn to the hole. It most definitely does explain why gravity works.
It does nothing of the kind! The rubber sheet analogy is a mapping of 3D space to a 2D plane, which frees up a dimension to illustrate a "real" 4th dimension. The analogy requires that one assume some sort of "gravity" to pull the mass on the sheet down. Also, objects moving along the sheet require some sort of "gravity" to be assumed in order to be pulled down the pocket in the rubber sheet. The rubber sheet analogy is an illustration of the mechanics of gravitational attraction, but does not offer ANY additional information as to what gravity is.
Relativity doesn't say -why- gravity works, just -how-. The rubber sheet simply analogizes the "how" into the world we know. 4D space-time is converted into a 2D sheet whose deformation makes sense to us.
Sorry, what I meant to say was "People's use of the rubber sheet analogy in the context of 'what is gravity' has always puzzled me."
The parent was saying that anti-gravity would be "inverse curvature", which makes no sense. However, "curvature in the opposite direction from normal" does, and while not something we know how to do, is not necessarily impossible.
This is true. I was merely pointing out that saying "hey, why don't we just pull the sheet UP to get antigravity" is as inane a statement as standing up in a board of directors meeting and saying "I've got it! If we reduce costs and increase productivity, we'll make more money!" (apologies to Scott Adams)
To use the old rubber-sheet analogy: if a mass is a weight that pulls the sheet down causing objects to be drawn into the hole
The rubber sheet analogy has always puzzled me. What force is causing objects to be "drawn into the hole"? Gravity? The analogy does nothing to explain why gravity works-- it just illustrates the mechanics in a way that's easier to understand. Saying "if we could pull the rubber sheet up" is just a different way of saying "if we could create antigravity".
Want to locate fiber optics? Follow the rail system, the high tension power lines, and the highways.
Yep. And for any other location, dial up the number on the "call before you dig" sign and you can sometimes even get a telco to send you a fairly detailed map.
Yea, just like how building the first atomic pile was simple. Why hand out Ph.Ds for that?
Because no one had ever done it before successfully. Maps, however have been around for quite some time. An infrastructure map is hardly revolutionary or unprecedented.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, people who use ad blockers are less common than TV watchers who use the mute button during commercial breaks. Mute buttons haven't killed TV ad revenue, so I reckon ad blockers won't affect online ad revenue either. That being said, I suspect that this is just the beginning of a shift from "old" media to new. I think we're going to see online ad revenue increase in the future. Madison Avenue is only concerned with getting its ad copy in front of as many eyeballs as it can, and if those eyeballs are online, that's where they'll go.
This is the flaw in your analogy. "Bandwidth" is not a consumable like gas, water, or electricity. It is a measurement of capacity, like the size of the [gas/water] pipe or the amperage rating of your electrical service. You don't pay extra for a bigger gas pipe or larger electrical panel. Bandwidth doesn't get "used up", it only gets saturated.
"Digital Rights Management and micro-payments are becoming 'make or break' issues for the whole of the broadband value chain," said Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, in a statement.
The value of broadband isn't determined by which businesses deign to offer pay services requiring a high speed pipe. The value of broadband is based entirely on what the end user is willing to pay for a high-speed pipe to their house. I'm sick of these rat-bastard marketroids who keep trying to redefine the utility of internet connectivity based on their [TV/radio/other mass-media] mindset: "we talk, you listen (and buy)". Broadband is doomed unless they can sell stuff to us? Broadband is doomed unless they can force us to pay-per-[view/listen/read] for the media we "buy"? Broadband is doomed unless they get to keep our credit card number on file to make paying them [easy/automatic/mandatory]? Please...
Yep, this is the root of the problem. People want to ban cell phones (for example) but cell phones aren't the problem. An insurance company did a study recently and found that it's not that cell phones make people drive badly, but that "inattentive" drivers are the ones who use cell phones while driving. They found that these same inattentive drivers would pull almost as many bullshit driving maneuvers when not on the phone because they were eating, reading, shaving, putting on makeup, or just thinking about something else.
I agree. The last thing we need to give those fools is a computer to play with.
What? "Eat it" as in like "shred" or "destroy"? What kind of crap is that? What possible reason would there ever be for even making a ballot tabulation machine capable of destroying ballots? Where do you get your "understanding"? Got any links?
And anyone who can't spell "taxes" shouldn't vote.
That's all well and good for moving the thing, but that leaves the non-trivial problem of trying to interface the grabbing and lifting circuits to something. The way he did it was by far easier.
He got the slider bar assembly from an IBM Selectric typewriter. And besides, as he explains, he didn't want to deal with the complex timing required to get stepper motors working. Printers use stepper motors. I you're not going to use the motors from the printer/typewriter, that leaves you with the slider bar assembly thing. Which is what he used.
$30 Million for a recall election, vs. keeping a governor that gave us a $30 billion+ defecit and show no promise of doing any better. $30 million sounds like a deal to me.
That's true only if the other 9 candidates split the other 90% - 1 evenly nine ways. Not likely if Schwarzenegger runs.
Actually, you don't have to prove anything. DirecTV has to meet the burden of proof. If they come to court and say "most people use these to hack our system", one need only counter with "I'm not one of those people". A statistical probability isn't evidence of anything.
You say it yourself: "virtually all are guilty". Even if we accept that as a given, we still have DirecTV threatening lawsuits based on statistical probability. You can't do that. You have to have proof. It doesnt matter if the person is guilty or innocent if they can't prove it.
precedent, not "prescendence".
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
Incorrect. "Innocent until proven guilty" does/b> apply to civil court. The difference is that in a civil cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to a criminal case, which requires guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ummm....no, Arianne launches from FRENCH GUIANA (which is in south america) because they are a FRENCH COMPANY. French Guiana is essentially a colony France has held on to for the purpose of launching space vehicles. They used to have a nasty prison there too.
Hah! They also don't seem to understand contract law, copyright and patent law, and the difference between microwaves and gamma radiation!
This is incorrect. Laws regarding real property have a totally seperate origin from laws regarding copyright. The term "intellectual property" was actually created in an attempt to philosophically elevate copyright to the same level as property rights. Unfortunately, most people have bought into the scam (like you have, obviously).
Regardless of what Einstein said, curvature of spacetime alone doesn't explain how gravity works. A large mass may "pull" the spacetime sheet down into a funnel shape, but it doesn't address why an smaller mass placed within that funnel slides downhill into it. The rubber sheet illustration still depends on a gravity-like force pulling "down". It seems to me to be a redefinition of "gravity" in terms of...well..gravity.
Of course. It is useless from a practical standpoint. But which is more insane -- the clueless manager who stands up and says "we should cut costs and increase productivity", or the clueless manager who stands up and says that isn't possible and makes no sense? :)
Heh. Inane, not insane. Saying "why don't we pull the sheet UP?" isn't irrational, it's just a restatement of the problem presented as a solution. As such, it's totally devoid of substance.
The Phalanx CIWS can take out more than one missile each. Additionally, when the "vampire" call (anti-ship missiles inbound) comes in, they aren't going to sit around waiting for them to come within range of the CIWS. They're going to be shooting at them with AMRAAM's from F-18's and F-14's first.
Also, what are you going to be launching them from, mister smart guy? You think your launch platform is going to survive more than five minutes after you launch the first missile? Think again. ASM's may be "cheap", but launching them isn't like firing an SA-14 SAM. Take, for example, the Exocet. It's over 17 feet long and weighs over 1800 pounds! You have 3 choices: air, land, or ship launch. Air launch? You can have 2 per plane and those will be military aircraft, not Cessnas. Also, you will lose those planes soon after launch, as an AEGIS will be wiping out anything without a good IFF ID seconds thereafter. Ship? ain't gonna be no rowboat you launch from- it's going to be an expensive craft and likely military in origin. And again, you will lose whatever sea assets you field to an AEGIS (or whatever else is handy). Ground? Sorry, you'll never be able to get close enough to hit a carrier group without them 1) taking out your first wave of missiles, then 2) pounding the snot out of you with whatever assets are handy.
Honestly, do you really think the US Navy hasn't already run a bazillion variations of your scenario? They've been working with ASM threats since the freakin' sixties. Nothing you can think of would ever surprise them. Armchair tacticians...
It does nothing of the kind! The rubber sheet analogy is a mapping of 3D space to a 2D plane, which frees up a dimension to illustrate a "real" 4th dimension. The analogy requires that one assume some sort of "gravity" to pull the mass on the sheet down. Also, objects moving along the sheet require some sort of "gravity" to be assumed in order to be pulled down the pocket in the rubber sheet. The rubber sheet analogy is an illustration of the mechanics of gravitational attraction, but does not offer ANY additional information as to what gravity is.
Sorry, what I meant to say was "People's use of the rubber sheet analogy in the context of 'what is gravity' has always puzzled me."
The parent was saying that anti-gravity would be "inverse curvature", which makes no sense. However, "curvature in the opposite direction from normal" does, and while not something we know how to do, is not necessarily impossible.
This is true. I was merely pointing out that saying "hey, why don't we just pull the sheet UP to get antigravity" is as inane a statement as standing up in a board of directors meeting and saying "I've got it! If we reduce costs and increase productivity, we'll make more money!" (apologies to Scott Adams)
The rubber sheet analogy has always puzzled me. What force is causing objects to be "drawn into the hole"? Gravity? The analogy does nothing to explain why gravity works-- it just illustrates the mechanics in a way that's easier to understand. Saying "if we could pull the rubber sheet up" is just a different way of saying "if we could create antigravity".
Yep. And for any other location, dial up the number on the "call before you dig" sign and you can sometimes even get a telco to send you a fairly detailed map.
Because no one had ever done it before successfully. Maps, however have been around for quite some time. An infrastructure map is hardly revolutionary or unprecedented.