So you are projecting your own sense and presumption of greed onto other people you don't know?
Think about the fact that you're commenting in a thread about a kid with zero profit motive has created something better than prosthetics makers sell for tens fo thousands of dollars.
No one needs to promote the arts. The arts are a natural human interest. The promotion part is about marketing -- making it a for-profit enteprise and we all know all too well that enterprise isn't about the artist, but about the artist's output.
These arguments have been rehashed over and over again. First you presume artists want the same thing the publishers want. And then that they actually get a share of what the publishers get. Reality is really very different.
You have clearly never been a creator before. You do not demonstrate an understanding that people actually have a natural interest in creating and learning. Does a 5 year old with crayons seek perpetual royalties? No. He just wants to draw something he likes and share it with his parents and teachers. F/OSS is more about creating sometihng good than anything else and it shows. Worse, it's growing in the face of the for-profit motives you are applying to people you don't know or understand.
Sure, some people want to get famous. Some people want to live luxurious and flamboyant lifestyles. But when they do, what happens to their work?
I just love the bit you added about "artists are theives" though. You seriously don't understand what it takes to create and invent. Tesla was an inventor. He wanted to invent devices that would give everyone free energy. Industry wouldn't allow it. And there are thousands of little stories like this along the way as industry has managed to corrupt and limit the efforts of empassioned individuals.
Once again, this article thread is about a guy who completely disproves the motives you are asserting.
So let's say for the sake of argument that insurance companies didn't turn medical practice into medical industry. Are you saying that medical advances we see today simply wouldn't happen?
I'm sorry but if that's the case, I heartily disagree with you. Lately, the more the factors of research and production are put into homes of common people, we are seeing more an more "great things" emerge from sources which disprove the "big money only" theory. Certainly the demand brought on by public need was recognized and brought on by industrialists. That can't be disputed. But one of the things the industrialists brought with them is a way to protect their business model by making it more exclusive to them and their kind. Patents. Patents in medicine, I believe, result in more suffering than it helps to resolve. But that's not my point -- just a kind of tragic side-effect. But medical schools, publicly funded medical schools also do research into medical science. So instead of industry, I believe a tiny, tiny portion of our ridiculous defense spending could be placed in the hands of these researchers instead of industrialists to achieve the same results if not better as they wouldn't be quite so exclusive.
Medical practice should not be industry. That's what helps it to be so expensive, out of control and so incredibly dominating.
Every time I hear someone say that artists won't create without being paid. That's a lie. It's the publishers who want to be paid. Artists just want to create and not die of starvation but artists don't need to be paid -- they can get jobs too.
This guy is an artist. A brilliant artist, but an artist just the same. He doesn't just engineer things. He creates things.
My heart will sink when I see some giant company snatch this guy up and the things he makes get marked back up to that $80,000 mark again.
We see what's wrong with the world and "the system" (we say the system so we don't have to blame people directly right?) and we just go on without saying anything about it. I hope people start saying things. You don't have to do anything -- just say something. Say something to businesses out there. They might ignore you or me, but they won't ignore everyone -- they can't.
That's a great observation -- that the consumers of medical services never know the prices they are paying. That begs the question of whether or not this has always been the case. I would argue it didn't happen until after the insurance industry effectively took control of medicine as a practice and transforming it into an industry.
Once again, when one is out of balance, it takes regulation to reign things in. For example, in the case of digital content, there is an unlimited supply. It requires the force of government to enforce limits in the form of penalties when the limits are exceeded. (The content distributor sets the limits, but the government enforces.) In the case of unlimited demand, there are many. Energy products/services, medical care, water, air just to name a few. They are what we consider to be fundamental needs for survival in this world. This is already recognized by most government as there is almost always a utilities commission to regulate utilities. We don't, however, have a medical care commission to regulate the costs of medical care and since insurance companies have established and become the system, trying to undo the damage seems to be pretty impossible despite the numerous examples we have in other nations. And hilariously, people STILL believe the myth that the US healthcare system is better than any other even if it is more expensive. That's bullshit. I've seen some extremely attrocious things in the US medical systems not the least of which is the veterans medical system and those often frequented by people who cannot afford to pay anything. Even those who operate on insurance payments are pretty crappy a lot of the time failing to properly diagnose and treat people and all. It comes down to the money and the greed of those who would deny quality care to those who don't have excessive funding. And it isn't the doctors who are most motivated by the money, it's the administrators who make so many critical decisions based on costs and profits. These motives have no place in an environment which requires a Hippocratic oath to enter that line of work.
Believe it or not, most people don't care to be super rich. They just want to get by comfortably and not have to worry about things. It is only a select few sick and greedy individuals who ruin everything they control.
Unlimited demand meaning that the need for it would exist at all prices. The whole point of supply and demand is that as the price goes up, the demand drops. The demand for energy would not drop it's just that people wouldn't be able to afford it. The same is true of medical care.
Prices ALWAYS go up when people are spending "OPM." (Other Peoples Money.) Insurance and loans are invariably considered by consumers to be other people's money and so they will spend it without a second thought. Meanwhile the people who sell things respond by maximizing their income exploiting the obvious mental weakness exhibited by the masses.
Re:LEFTIST MARXIST EXTERMIST JIHADIST S.T.O.R.Y. !
on
The College-Loan Scandal
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Get real. Just look at other nations and how they handle their education systems. It is precisely because there is so much profit motive involved that things are the worst anywhere in the [first] world. And the patterns are plain for all to see. It's not a "free market" compatible situation. What do I mean by that?
Simple. We talk about supply and demand as key factors in the free market. But in cases where there is unlimited demand there is massive exploitation by business unless regulation is present. Take power for example. Most states understand that power has unlimited demand and that utilities must be regulated. California and Texas went with deregulation ostensibly to increase competition and lower prices while increasing quality -- free market thought. What happened? The highest energy prices in the nation. And medical costs are another example. The system grew from a pay the provider system where multiple providers can compete for your business into one where consumers pay using "someone else's money." (The insurance system) Once medical insurance became a virtual requirement for having access to healthcare, competition all but disapepared and prices went crazy. And consumers didn't care because they paid seemingly reasonable monthy costs for something only a small percentage of people were using. (Paying for something they MIGHT need under terms which they don't understand instead of simply paying for something in exchange for something.)
The problem is that free market capitalism can never exist in its purest form because human corruption will always creep in with every form of bait and switch imaginable. They are actively redefining words, terms and expressions so people don't get what they think they are paying for. ("Unlimited"? Really?) And the same free-market people are lobbying and standing in line for their government subsidies all day long while complaining they want government out of their lives.
So you can go on trolling with your right-wing nonsense because it doesn't work any better than left-wing nonsense. Everything has practical limits in one direction or another and those limits should be defined at the point where peoples' worst natures are activated and massive exploitation begins to occur. And it's precisely the goal of preventing massive harm and exploitation which government should exist for. Obviously, this means business lobbies should be forbidden but that can't happen without a massive revolution so I wouldn't look for it to happen. But the next best thing is for people to wake up and start caring about what goes on in government at all levels. These days, most corruption is done in plain sight. People just have to look and care about it.
Some honest cable internet installers weened me from TV long ago. In the past, I used to bribe the cable internet installers to leave the TV signal unblocked. But the last two time they refused. I ended up with no TV. I've been without TV for about four years now. I download and watch things occasionally, but that's it. I'm simply weened.
My company's policy is demonstrably variable on the issue of giving notice to employees on layoff situations. None has been given quite often for both hourly and salary employees in many cases, while in others, it appeared that the company let them stay until they could find other work. (It all depends on who you know I suppose)
But the policy on paper is that notice should be given but it is at the company's discretion. But in the event you are notified, you are required to stay the full time and perform normally until that time. If that agreement is violated, all the benefits would be forfeit which includes continue medical insurance, two weeks of pay for each year with the company and payment for unused vacation and stuff like that. Of course termination "with cause" precludes all of that and violation of the agreement, in whatever sketchy causes that may be, of course screws the employee pretty badly.
I'm just going to say that it's pretty hard to trust the employer no matter where you are. If I were given notice, I would seek work immediately elsewhere (as would anyone else I suppose) and attempt to start my new job ASAP even if it meant forfeit of the benefits. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush as they say. (If you don't know what that means, it mean something you have now is worth more than something you might have down in the [near] future.)
I dislike this topic, but it's a reality that employers have long since given up on their notion of loyalty to the employee while it somehow, unrealistically, expects loyalty from the employee. It's ridiculous if you ask me.
Yes it does. Because this approach is an open and inclusive approach as opposed to one which is exclusive. Microsoft's market share stats once included "pirated copies" and still might as far as I know.
He may not have and could not have succeeded in his purpose and goal single-handedly. The goal and purpose can only happen as others join in exposing the criminal and dangerous behaviour or those in control of government. Manning did great, but we need MORE of them to be effective.
I think it's pretty important to recognize that people are scum often enough that you can predict when a popular service is out there, someone will attempt to game it in some way to defraud or otherwise deceive others for personal gain.
Sadly, some people call this "doing business." I simply can't agree with the morality, but I can't reject the reality of the situation.
Not hard to imagine setting up a spying agreement with some 3rd world nation where the US spends a lot of money to upgrade their infrastructure and train their cyber warrriors to do the spying for us. "It wasn't us! It was THEM!!" You know... sort of an Al Qaeda that hacks, cracks and tracks? And of course the US will always be able to control them just as they have Al Qaeda.
By my logic, we know that our energy lust leads to all sorts of environmental damage and serious health problems and we know that private enterprise which is largely responsible for all of it in one way or many require government oversight and limiting. We know that the same private enterprise lobbies with much success to have limits raised and lifted to futher their own interests at the expense of everyone else.
We know what people do -- especially business people. And to presume that we're not talking about private enterprise making these things happen is ridiculous. We know already that private enterprise will destroy the planet for profit. Hell, in Texas, environmentalists were using drones to take pictures of pollution and damage to the environment many businesses were engaged in. What'd they do? they lobbied to have a law restricting the civilian use of drones.
You're attempting to deny everything you already understand of human nature and especially of "corporate nature" which is really just human nature with "limited liability."
Arguably, they are not beholden to unconstitutional law and/or illegal acts of government. They had the right to challenge the government in court when they were requested to play ball.
It is unquestionable that Microsoft's compromise by the US government has threatened Microsoft's position in the global marketplace. There may not be an obvious reflection of this damage right now, but things are in motion even now to move away from Microsoft products all over the world. In the past, when governments and business sought to move away from Microsoft, they were drawn back in with special pricing or other deals. And specifically, when the initiatives to move away were pushed by specific individuals, those individuals found themselves attacked and discredited in some way. And when the initiatives were a matter of policy or law, such as a requirement to favor ISO standards compliance products, the Microsoft had set about changing law, policy or forcing through new ISO standards which aren't even being complied with.
None of these tactics are expected to work against the current cause for Microsoft mistrust.
It doesn't have to hit Earth to affect it. Consider the tides. Our global eco system has evolved to expect tides. It would be difficult if not impossible to predict the full extent of the harm that could result if tidal patterns are altered. All sorts of life could flourish or die under such changes.
I'm not exactly a tree-hugger, but I certainly appreciate the factors and influences over life on this planet. This would affect the oceans in all sorts of ways. That which affects the oceans and the life within them will affect us and possibly even global weather patterns.
Long ago, before the VCR, people scheduled their lives around the TV schedule for their favorite shows. If you missed it, you missed it and couldn't get the opportunity back again until it was playing again during off-season re-runs.
The VCR enabled more freedom for the people and some people became extremely serious about them. (My mother, before she died, had four VCRs all set for her favorite shows and had more tapes than she could watch... well, she went a little overboard but I completely understand her mentality.) These days, we all have a similar mentality. We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it. Scheduling our lives around a TV broadcast is a thing of the past. It's good and fun to be among the first to see a premier of whatever, but lots of people, perhaps even most people, simply do not see this as a priority in their lives. I think the last true holdout of having the "now" experience is live broadcast events such as concerts, sporting events and political rallys. After all, there's money to be made in sports and live performances and the desire of people to gamble on sports will probably maintain the old model. However, with just about everything else? Not so much.
People are downloading their TV because they know they have it and can watch it any time they are ready. It's still about scheduling life on one's own terms.
The energy density of ethanol is just not high enough and the alcohol isn't particularly friendly to plastic material often used in auto parts.
They are just trying too hard to push their endless uses for government (tax payer) subsidized corn. I'm surprised they haven't found a ridiculous and wasteful way to make paper out of corn yet.
There are a whole lot better things they can do to improve matters. Among them are to focus as much on efficiency as they do on sources. I want DC wiring for my light fixtures. LED bulbs can be pretty good but they all have their own AC to DC converters and that's not so great. Just put light fixture circuis on their own breakers and replace those breakers with AC to DC power converters and now you have good light with very little waste.
I've got a couple of these things at the office. It works okay I guess. It detects where the sound is coming from and angles the view in that direction.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are projecting your own sense and presumption of greed onto other people you don't know?
Think about the fact that you're commenting in a thread about a kid with zero profit motive has created something better than prosthetics makers sell for tens fo thousands of dollars.
No one needs to promote the arts. The arts are a natural human interest. The promotion part is about marketing -- making it a for-profit enteprise and we all know all too well that enterprise isn't about the artist, but about the artist's output.
These arguments have been rehashed over and over again. First you presume artists want the same thing the publishers want. And then that they actually get a share of what the publishers get. Reality is really very different.
You have clearly never been a creator before. You do not demonstrate an understanding that people actually have a natural interest in creating and learning. Does a 5 year old with crayons seek perpetual royalties? No. He just wants to draw something he likes and share it with his parents and teachers. F/OSS is more about creating sometihng good than anything else and it shows. Worse, it's growing in the face of the for-profit motives you are applying to people you don't know or understand.
Sure, some people want to get famous. Some people want to live luxurious and flamboyant lifestyles. But when they do, what happens to their work?
I just love the bit you added about "artists are theives" though. You seriously don't understand what it takes to create and invent. Tesla was an inventor. He wanted to invent devices that would give everyone free energy. Industry wouldn't allow it. And there are thousands of little stories like this along the way as industry has managed to corrupt and limit the efforts of empassioned individuals.
Once again, this article thread is about a guy who completely disproves the motives you are asserting.
So let's say for the sake of argument that insurance companies didn't turn medical practice into medical industry. Are you saying that medical advances we see today simply wouldn't happen?
I'm sorry but if that's the case, I heartily disagree with you. Lately, the more the factors of research and production are put into homes of common people, we are seeing more an more "great things" emerge from sources which disprove the "big money only" theory. Certainly the demand brought on by public need was recognized and brought on by industrialists. That can't be disputed. But one of the things the industrialists brought with them is a way to protect their business model by making it more exclusive to them and their kind. Patents. Patents in medicine, I believe, result in more suffering than it helps to resolve. But that's not my point -- just a kind of tragic side-effect. But medical schools, publicly funded medical schools also do research into medical science. So instead of industry, I believe a tiny, tiny portion of our ridiculous defense spending could be placed in the hands of these researchers instead of industrialists to achieve the same results if not better as they wouldn't be quite so exclusive.
Medical practice should not be industry. That's what helps it to be so expensive, out of control and so incredibly dominating.
yes. Not a gun. Not a figurine of some anime-sex-thing. But so what?
3D printing is a means of creation. This guy would have resorted to wood work if he didn't have 3D printing.
Every time I hear someone say that artists won't create without being paid. That's a lie. It's the publishers who want to be paid. Artists just want to create and not die of starvation but artists don't need to be paid -- they can get jobs too.
This guy is an artist. A brilliant artist, but an artist just the same. He doesn't just engineer things. He creates things.
My heart will sink when I see some giant company snatch this guy up and the things he makes get marked back up to that $80,000 mark again.
We see what's wrong with the world and "the system" (we say the system so we don't have to blame people directly right?) and we just go on without saying anything about it. I hope people start saying things. You don't have to do anything -- just say something. Say something to businesses out there. They might ignore you or me, but they won't ignore everyone -- they can't.
Change the world. Just say something.
That's a great observation -- that the consumers of medical services never know the prices they are paying. That begs the question of whether or not this has always been the case. I would argue it didn't happen until after the insurance industry effectively took control of medicine as a practice and transforming it into an industry.
Once again, when one is out of balance, it takes regulation to reign things in. For example, in the case of digital content, there is an unlimited supply. It requires the force of government to enforce limits in the form of penalties when the limits are exceeded. (The content distributor sets the limits, but the government enforces.) In the case of unlimited demand, there are many. Energy products/services, medical care, water, air just to name a few. They are what we consider to be fundamental needs for survival in this world. This is already recognized by most government as there is almost always a utilities commission to regulate utilities. We don't, however, have a medical care commission to regulate the costs of medical care and since insurance companies have established and become the system, trying to undo the damage seems to be pretty impossible despite the numerous examples we have in other nations. And hilariously, people STILL believe the myth that the US healthcare system is better than any other even if it is more expensive. That's bullshit. I've seen some extremely attrocious things in the US medical systems not the least of which is the veterans medical system and those often frequented by people who cannot afford to pay anything. Even those who operate on insurance payments are pretty crappy a lot of the time failing to properly diagnose and treat people and all. It comes down to the money and the greed of those who would deny quality care to those who don't have excessive funding. And it isn't the doctors who are most motivated by the money, it's the administrators who make so many critical decisions based on costs and profits. These motives have no place in an environment which requires a Hippocratic oath to enter that line of work.
Believe it or not, most people don't care to be super rich. They just want to get by comfortably and not have to worry about things. It is only a select few sick and greedy individuals who ruin everything they control.
Unlimited demand meaning that the need for it would exist at all prices. The whole point of supply and demand is that as the price goes up, the demand drops. The demand for energy would not drop it's just that people wouldn't be able to afford it. The same is true of medical care.
Prices ALWAYS go up when people are spending "OPM." (Other Peoples Money.) Insurance and loans are invariably considered by consumers to be other people's money and so they will spend it without a second thought. Meanwhile the people who sell things respond by maximizing their income exploiting the obvious mental weakness exhibited by the masses.
Get real. Just look at other nations and how they handle their education systems. It is precisely because there is so much profit motive involved that things are the worst anywhere in the [first] world. And the patterns are plain for all to see. It's not a "free market" compatible situation. What do I mean by that?
Simple. We talk about supply and demand as key factors in the free market. But in cases where there is unlimited demand there is massive exploitation by business unless regulation is present. Take power for example. Most states understand that power has unlimited demand and that utilities must be regulated. California and Texas went with deregulation ostensibly to increase competition and lower prices while increasing quality -- free market thought. What happened? The highest energy prices in the nation. And medical costs are another example. The system grew from a pay the provider system where multiple providers can compete for your business into one where consumers pay using "someone else's money." (The insurance system) Once medical insurance became a virtual requirement for having access to healthcare, competition all but disapepared and prices went crazy. And consumers didn't care because they paid seemingly reasonable monthy costs for something only a small percentage of people were using. (Paying for something they MIGHT need under terms which they don't understand instead of simply paying for something in exchange for something.)
The problem is that free market capitalism can never exist in its purest form because human corruption will always creep in with every form of bait and switch imaginable. They are actively redefining words, terms and expressions so people don't get what they think they are paying for. ("Unlimited"? Really?) And the same free-market people are lobbying and standing in line for their government subsidies all day long while complaining they want government out of their lives.
So you can go on trolling with your right-wing nonsense because it doesn't work any better than left-wing nonsense. Everything has practical limits in one direction or another and those limits should be defined at the point where peoples' worst natures are activated and massive exploitation begins to occur. And it's precisely the goal of preventing massive harm and exploitation which government should exist for. Obviously, this means business lobbies should be forbidden but that can't happen without a massive revolution so I wouldn't look for it to happen. But the next best thing is for people to wake up and start caring about what goes on in government at all levels. These days, most corruption is done in plain sight. People just have to look and care about it.
Some honest cable internet installers weened me from TV long ago. In the past, I used to bribe the cable internet installers to leave the TV signal unblocked. But the last two time they refused. I ended up with no TV. I've been without TV for about four years now. I download and watch things occasionally, but that's it. I'm simply weened.
My company's policy is demonstrably variable on the issue of giving notice to employees on layoff situations. None has been given quite often for both hourly and salary employees in many cases, while in others, it appeared that the company let them stay until they could find other work. (It all depends on who you know I suppose)
But the policy on paper is that notice should be given but it is at the company's discretion. But in the event you are notified, you are required to stay the full time and perform normally until that time. If that agreement is violated, all the benefits would be forfeit which includes continue medical insurance, two weeks of pay for each year with the company and payment for unused vacation and stuff like that. Of course termination "with cause" precludes all of that and violation of the agreement, in whatever sketchy causes that may be, of course screws the employee pretty badly.
I'm just going to say that it's pretty hard to trust the employer no matter where you are. If I were given notice, I would seek work immediately elsewhere (as would anyone else I suppose) and attempt to start my new job ASAP even if it meant forfeit of the benefits. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush as they say. (If you don't know what that means, it mean something you have now is worth more than something you might have down in the [near] future.)
I dislike this topic, but it's a reality that employers have long since given up on their notion of loyalty to the employee while it somehow, unrealistically, expects loyalty from the employee. It's ridiculous if you ask me.
Yes it does. Because this approach is an open and inclusive approach as opposed to one which is exclusive. Microsoft's market share stats once included "pirated copies" and still might as far as I know.
He may not have and could not have succeeded in his purpose and goal single-handedly. The goal and purpose can only happen as others join in exposing the criminal and dangerous behaviour or those in control of government. Manning did great, but we need MORE of them to be effective.
I think it's pretty important to recognize that people are scum often enough that you can predict when a popular service is out there, someone will attempt to game it in some way to defraud or otherwise deceive others for personal gain.
Sadly, some people call this "doing business." I simply can't agree with the morality, but I can't reject the reality of the situation.
yes... built by robots.
I think this is more about everyone scrambling to squeeze more money from their incoming streams as the global financial crises are continuing.
Not hard to imagine setting up a spying agreement with some 3rd world nation where the US spends a lot of money to upgrade their infrastructure and train their cyber warrriors to do the spying for us. "It wasn't us! It was THEM!!" You know... sort of an Al Qaeda that hacks, cracks and tracks? And of course the US will always be able to control them just as they have Al Qaeda.
By my logic, we know that our energy lust leads to all sorts of environmental damage and serious health problems and we know that private enterprise which is largely responsible for all of it in one way or many require government oversight and limiting. We know that the same private enterprise lobbies with much success to have limits raised and lifted to futher their own interests at the expense of everyone else.
We know what people do -- especially business people. And to presume that we're not talking about private enterprise making these things happen is ridiculous. We know already that private enterprise will destroy the planet for profit. Hell, in Texas, environmentalists were using drones to take pictures of pollution and damage to the environment many businesses were engaged in. What'd they do? they lobbied to have a law restricting the civilian use of drones.
You're attempting to deny everything you already understand of human nature and especially of "corporate nature" which is really just human nature with "limited liability."
Arguably, they are not beholden to unconstitutional law and/or illegal acts of government. They had the right to challenge the government in court when they were requested to play ball.
1. What makes you think they would stop at 60m?
2. What makes you think they would not collectively accumulate a lot more?
More than that it seems to me attempting to harvest large space rocks is a big pot-luck.
It is unquestionable that Microsoft's compromise by the US government has threatened Microsoft's position in the global marketplace. There may not be an obvious reflection of this damage right now, but things are in motion even now to move away from Microsoft products all over the world. In the past, when governments and business sought to move away from Microsoft, they were drawn back in with special pricing or other deals. And specifically, when the initiatives to move away were pushed by specific individuals, those individuals found themselves attacked and discredited in some way. And when the initiatives were a matter of policy or law, such as a requirement to favor ISO standards compliance products, the Microsoft had set about changing law, policy or forcing through new ISO standards which aren't even being complied with.
None of these tactics are expected to work against the current cause for Microsoft mistrust.
It doesn't have to hit Earth to affect it. Consider the tides. Our global eco system has evolved to expect tides. It would be difficult if not impossible to predict the full extent of the harm that could result if tidal patterns are altered. All sorts of life could flourish or die under such changes.
I'm not exactly a tree-hugger, but I certainly appreciate the factors and influences over life on this planet. This would affect the oceans in all sorts of ways. That which affects the oceans and the life within them will affect us and possibly even global weather patterns.
Long ago, before the VCR, people scheduled their lives around the TV schedule for their favorite shows. If you missed it, you missed it and couldn't get the opportunity back again until it was playing again during off-season re-runs.
The VCR enabled more freedom for the people and some people became extremely serious about them. (My mother, before she died, had four VCRs all set for her favorite shows and had more tapes than she could watch... well, she went a little overboard but I completely understand her mentality.) These days, we all have a similar mentality. We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it. Scheduling our lives around a TV broadcast is a thing of the past. It's good and fun to be among the first to see a premier of whatever, but lots of people, perhaps even most people, simply do not see this as a priority in their lives. I think the last true holdout of having the "now" experience is live broadcast events such as concerts, sporting events and political rallys. After all, there's money to be made in sports and live performances and the desire of people to gamble on sports will probably maintain the old model. However, with just about everything else? Not so much.
People are downloading their TV because they know they have it and can watch it any time they are ready. It's still about scheduling life on one's own terms.
Make sure the bootloader is available to be unlocked and the devices are compatible with Android.
People will buy them knowing that if they hate the Windows mobile experience, they can always load Android and be reasonably happy with the device.
The energy density of ethanol is just not high enough and the alcohol isn't particularly friendly to plastic material often used in auto parts.
They are just trying too hard to push their endless uses for government (tax payer) subsidized corn. I'm surprised they haven't found a ridiculous and wasteful way to make paper out of corn yet.
There are a whole lot better things they can do to improve matters. Among them are to focus as much on efficiency as they do on sources. I want DC wiring for my light fixtures. LED bulbs can be pretty good but they all have their own AC to DC converters and that's not so great. Just put light fixture circuis on their own breakers and replace those breakers with AC to DC power converters and now you have good light with very little waste.
Oh yes, I know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_RoundTable
I've got a couple of these things at the office. It works okay I guess. It detects where the sound is coming from and angles the view in that direction.