Every two months this topic comes up and every two months I point out the fairly obvious point of Hydrogen economies, and every two months I get more karma for it.
The point of the Hydrogen Economy is not to free you from fossil fuels. Of course Fossil Fuels are the easiest way to get hydrogen.
The point of the Hydrogen Economy is to provide a generic and highly portable form of energy storage which can be generated from any other energy source. Essentialy, H2 allows you to run your car on fossil fuels, nuclear power, fusion power, or a beowulf cluster of hampsters in wheels.
H2 won't do squat today, the idea is to have the infrastrucure in place so that when/if a more useful source of power comes into play we can convert easily and rapidly.
Yea, but it gets me thinking about canned salmon. Which is a step in the right direction. The brand name you mention jumps immediately to mind now that I see it in print, which is all they need. If I'm looking at a shelf full of canned salmon, the only name I'll recognise is John West.
Of course not, which is why it isn't happening. The 2006 change over is to DIGITAL not HD. All HDTV signals are digital, but not all digital signals are hd.
Example: If you get DBS Satelite (Dish Network, DirecTv) you are getting a digital signal. If you have digital cable you're getting a partialy digitial signal.
The reason this is happening is because the FCC wants to get the Analog bands back. My understanding of this (which may be flawed, you network gurus can feel free to chime in on this) is that a digital broadcast requires less bandwidth now than the equivilient quality signal in analog. The result is that the digitial spectrum can be smaller for the same amount of content.
This gives the FCC more bandwidth to allocate for other uses, many of which may be found in emerging markets such as wireless networking devieces, particularly in the PAN and MAN arenas.
The receivers matter a great deal less here, because most TVs sold within the last 7 years or so allready have a digital tuner. The difference between HD and SD is huge, but if you're not a TV buff the only measureable advantage you'll have is that the bandwidth previously reserved for TV will be reallocated by the government for other purposes, some of which might benefit you.
Hell of a lot more powerful than you realize. There are a number of factors that make a commercial powerfull (these are in ascending order).
1 - Brand Recognition: Just putting that Nike Swoosh on the screen reminds me who Nike is, why I should buy their product, and brings to mind decades of advertising and social conditioning.
2 - Rational Argument: Our product costs less, our product does X. Statments of fact leading a consumer to choose one product over another. Informing the customer about the product. These are key, particulary for large purchases.
3 - Irrational Argument: Warm "feel good" images cause people to associate a product with an emotion or set of desired circumstances. You see this most in prepackaged food ads. Note the family sitting down to dinner together, note the wholsome looking meal, everyone smiling, etc. The families these ads are targed at genrealy don't have the time for this, and frequently mom and dad desire it.
4 - Coolness Factor: Product endorsements fit in here. This is particularly influential over children. Be like Mike anyone?
5 - Social Impact: The most powerfull advertising weapon of all and the hardest to tame. The creation of a commericial that gets people talking about the commercial means that people must necessary talk about the product. The honda element commercial? The Salmon commercial (with the bear that does kung foo... don't remember the name). The Cat Hearders commercial. Pepsi through the Generations Commercial. If people remember and can discuss your ads years later you've had a lasting impact on them.
So the Nissan 350Z managed to hit the Social Impact meter pretty hard. How many hundreds of thousands who've never seen that add just read your comment? I for one didn't even realize that Nissan made a high end sports car, now I know not only that they do, I know the name of it, and I know there's probably video of it out on the net of it zipping about Prague. Now I haven't a red cent to buy the blasted thing with, but now its in my head, and that's the point of advertising.
Something like 95% of the desktop market is dominated by MS products.
Given that, does Dell need or want to buy MS products for its systems?
Does your local University need or want to buy MS products for its students to use in labs?
Indeed, does your typical University student need or want an MS product according to entrance requirements?
The answer is need. If Dell is going to continue to exist as a company, it needs MS products. If your local colleges are going to continue to produce graduates who have a snowballs chance in hell of getting a job, it needs MS products. Most colleges require a MS OS on computers at entry.
Need or want? If you want to mince words the only things you need are food, water, and shelter. Under that definition there is no such thing as a steel monopoly, an electric monopoly, phone monopoly, or any number of other monopolies. Of course that's hogwash, it is possible to have a monopoly over a luxury.
In your unquestioning accecptance of your coporate overlords you have unsuccessfuly attempted to define "need." Not to say that there isn't a dictionary defnition of need, but that needs are defined by the individual at the time. You, and your kids, are welcome to return to 18th century corporate wage slavery at any time.
No, my argument is that due to issues of compatability, market penetration, and conversion time, MS operating systems are a standard so entrenched that it is virtualy suicide for a PC company to cut ties with them. Consequently MS holds monopolistic power over the OS market.
This was in responce to the assertion that there was no limit on the supply of software.
Yes, MS can sell its product to whomever it wants at whatever price it wants. UNLESS IT HOLDS A MONOPOLY.
That's the key, that's where the rules change. That's the price of monopoly.... because you see, Dell does have to buy from Microsoft. There really isn't (as much as we Linux people would like there to be) an alternitive OS for the overwhelming majority of the world. That makes the OS market a monopolistic one, and that makes MS a monopoly.
Read your history. You could buy steel from people other than Carnigie. You could buy oil from people other than Rockafeller. Of course, you couldn't buy much of it, and you'd be screwed by those companies in the long run. This is what Sherman Anti Trust was supposed to prevent. This is what the rejection of unregulated capitalism was all about.
If one company has a product you need to buy and there is no real competition against this product than you get screwed unless the government steps in. It's that simple.
There are, admittedly, some crazy people out there who think that all the wrongs in the world are the fault of Mr. Bush.
The more rational elements of the left repudiate these people, and appologise for their claims. All the wrongs in the world are not, in fact, the fault of President Bush.
Not if they have a decent credit card. In fact, federal laws prevent the credit card holder from being liable for more than $50 in fraudulent charges.
I may be off on that number; it's off the top of my head. I know it's two digits.
Now the company itself may be out the difference, but given that, it's a lot harder to feel sorry for them, since they are the ones that set the security up in the first place.
I mean, how much sympathy do you have for the police station that gets robbed?
The only two things these ideas have in common are the following.
1.) People end up where they didn't mean to 2.) The word is the same.
Ignoring the second one, which is just a matter of semantics, you could then liken the following to the hijacking of an aircraft.
1.) Getting bad directions 2.) Being lost 3.) Having a car break down 4.) URL Forwarding
But it is stupidity bordering on insanity to say that these are at all equivilent. The use of hijacking instead of something substantily more mundane such as giving bad directions is alarmist. You're trying to intensify your point by using a violent and terrifying crime rather than something much closer to the truth.
The definition of analogy most pertinant to this discussion is as follows.
A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
Thus, it is very reasonable of me to assert that while hijacking and aircraft and hijacking a google search phrase both land people places they don't intend to go, the analogy fails because the two ideas are not in fact alike in any other way.
There is a reason one of them is a topic of discussion on Slashdot and the other is a federal crime.
No, that's a logical falacy called extending the point.
You can't seriously be telling me that you see no moral, logical, or functional difference between posting a link with a certain title to associate an innocuous phrase with a public figures name and the violent hijacking of an aircraft, usualy involving the execution of one or more passengers. Can you?
As for Amazon, Epinions, etc, a large number of sites link to these places for information on products they discuss. If I put a book review up on my website, you can be damn sure I'll link to either Amazon or the LOC. Given that you can't buy the book from the LOC I don't see a reason to do that.
Because of the infection rates on some of those bugs. BSL4 is terrifying stuff, it's like working with plutonium that can breed.
If I remember correctly, to be a BSL4 pathogen a bug must have a high lethality in humans, unresponsive to treatment and vaccine, and a high infection rate.
Aids, for example, is BSL3 (or is it 2?). Now, HIV if frightening stuff, and while treatment has come a long way recently, its still the stuff of nightmares.
BSL4 is the stuff of the kind of nightmares you get after watching a Hannibal Lecter marathon while dropping acid.
Personaly I'd be much happier of BSL4 labs had some sort of fail safe, such that if all proverbial hell broke loose the doors would just shut and seal, and if everyone inside died horribly, well... so be it.
Perhaps a portion of your argument that was left out would go as follows.
Alcohol and many other legalized drugs have been around not just for decades but for centuries. We have a solid and firm knowledge of the health risks these drugs present and how to manage those health risks.
MDMA [Ecstasy] has been in common usage for only the past few decades at the outside. There have not yet been adequate tests preformed to gauge the effect MDMA will have on users over a long period of time, particularly recreational users as opposed to prescription users.
One strong argument against many kinds of drug legalization is that it is well and truly possible to kill yourself with an overdose without trying very hard. The only legal RECREATIONAL drug this is possible with at the moment is alcohol, which requires a fair bit of effort to actually induce alcohol poisoning.
Note -- I am aware that impaired judgment can kill and that Alcohol may cause judgment to be impaired. Of course, getting a blowjob can also cause judgment to be impaired. Neither is really safe while driving. Care should be exercised when under the influence of any mind altering susbstance (booze, pot, sorority chicks, Bawls, etc)
Replace "bread" with "malto-glutenous human food product" and this would be a hell of a lot more effective.
Hell, replace it with "gluten varient ribonucleic acid" and you can probably get it banned nationaly before anyone works out that you're talking about the primary protein in all grains.
Dish's CEO publicly announced over channel 101, Dish's informational channel, that if Viacom presented a contract that amounted to a $0.06 increase per customer per year he would sign it immediately.
For the record that would amount to (rounding up) $600,000. Viacom's initial offer came to about $500,000,000 more, not $600,000.
Again, source for that is the Dish 101 channel, so I'd split the difference. $250,000,000 isn't small change either though.
Stolen from Google's cashe, since Dish isn't hosting it anymore.
For MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and other cable networks Call 212-258-8000. For Viacom Corporate Call 212-258-6000.
For CBS Corporate Call 212-975-4321 or email them at audsvcs@cbs.com
Also some CBS info
Austin CBS KEYE Gary Schneider General Manager 512-835-0042 Baltimore CBS WJZ Jay Newman VP/General Manager 410-466-0013 Boston CBS WBZ Ed Goldman VP/General Manager 617-787-7000 Chicago CBS WBBM Joe Ahern President/GM 312-944-6000 Dallas-Ft. Worth CBS KTVT Steve Mauldin President/GM 214-750-1111 Denver CBS KCNC Walt Dehaven General Manager 303-861-4444 Detroit CBS WWJ Linda Danna VP/General Manager 248-350-5050 Greenbay-Appleton CBS WFRV Perry Kidder Station Manager 920-437-5411 Los Angeles CBS KCBS Don Corsini President/General Manager 323-460-3000 Miami CBS WFOR Michael A. Colleran VP/General Manager 305-591-4444 Minneapolis CBS WCCO Ed Piette VP/General Manager 612-339-4444 New York CBS WCBS Lew Leone President/General Manager 212-975-4321 Philadelphia CBS KYW Peter Dunn VP/General Manager 267-671-1000 Pittsburgh CBS KDKA Gary Cozen VP/General Manager 412-575-2200 Salt Lake City CBS KUTV Dave Phillips General Manager 801-973-3000 San Francisco CBS KPIX Ron Longinotti VP/General Manager 415-362-5550
I'd give those people a call. Now that the channels are back up they might consider answering the phone.
DirecTV's TiVos are all dual turner as suggested here. However, (and this is the part that confuses me), they also appears to have about 35 hours of record time, which really isn't that much.
Dish Network's DVR units come in both varieties. The 510, 508, and 501 are all single tuner, but have 100, 80, and 40 hours of record time respectively.
The 522 Receiver is dual tuner with a 100 hours of record time. It can serve two rooms with DVR capability or you can tell it to record on the TV2 location while you watch something else on the TV1 location.
The DirecTiVo units generaly cost about $99 a pop. Dish's 522 doesn't cost any extra in a Digital Home Advantage Install (at least not according to the website, I'm a tech person).
The 522 doesn't have TiVo name based recording, it only does time slot recording. For some people, that's a deal breaker.
DirecTv doesn't offer a new customer promotion with more than one DVR unit. Dish kind of does, since the 522 will do two rooms as a DVR. (though we're splitting hairs there)
The first post I wrote on this was a tossed off comment. This is more solidly researched. If you have any further questions feel free to contact me.
I'm actualy kind of supprised at the lengths Viacom has been willing to go on this one.
They recently did an add in which Sponge Bob Square Pants told kids that they would never see him again if they didn't get their parrents to drop Dish Network.
Second Disclaimer: I really don't have any loyalty to the company.
The channels you'll be missing are basicly Nick, Commedy Central, BET, VH1, MTV(1 & 2), Nick GAS, and a few others of little consequence.
DirecTV and Dish are functionaly interchangable as far as service, channels (at least normaly), and price are concerned (Dish is only significanly cheeper at its lowest tier).
Equipment wise it's a tough call. Personaly, I prefer Dish's DVR522. The reason is that it is a PVR/DVR unit available through the Digital Home Advantage plan with dual tuner capability. Dual Tuner DVRs are hard to find in the satelite industry. A recent software upgrade allows you to actualy set up a recording on the TV2 location from the TV1 location, thereby effectively making this a poor mans substitute for the 721 recevier.
If you don't qualify for DHA though, it's more or less a draw. Your choice, but I'd look into the equipment etc that you're installing to make that call.
Re:It's too bad we don't hear things like....
on
TV Losing to Video Games
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I concur.
My wife teaches 10th and 12th grade Social Studies. Most of the kids she teaches have never read a book for fun in their lives. Every peice of reading they do that comes on dead tree media is assigned to them by a teacher.
This astounds me. I have been working on one book or another since I could read simple sentances. Here these kids are, about to go to college, and they've never read anything just for the hell of it!
The Internet argument is well and good, but that raises another problem. Because these kids haven't read much of anything, they are totaly unable to determine which sites are legitimate resources and which are some half cocked crackpot spewing his dimwited theories about whatever the topic at hand happens to be.
Years spent in chat rooms and expecting instant answers to all questions leads these children to trust whatever source pops up first from their yahoo search, and if the text is too in depth for them, rather than puzzeling it out, they find someplace where it is presented in simpler terms. In short, they're more likely to cite something from geocities than a.gov domain.
These children of the internet age are approaching the greatest informational tool in human history with no reservations whatsoever. Unfortunately, everythig you read on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt [except of course this post].
I think that while the internet and chat rooms do encourage reading to a point, the net result is that your average child is damaged more than helped by the content and format these places encourage. My wife has graded papers, formal papers, with LOL, OMG, ROFL, WTF, and STFU written as if they were actual words used in human conversation.
When your child's history papers can trigger a spam filter there's something wrong with your child and what you've done to educate that child. If this is happening in high school it is probably too late for your child's teachers to save him or her. I'd like to say we're learning from our mistakes, but I don't think we are.
Note: I'm posting from a public terminal. Spell check I hath not. Mis-spell things I have. Write my disclaimers as Yoda would I shall.
Since I moved my site over to a php bases sytem, nothing beyond my index page gets a second look from google. As web content moves away from static pages to more dynamic solutions (particularly XML) a more sophisticated crawler is neeeded, one that can read over this bewildering malstrom of data and extract form it meaning and content.
While I find it highly unlikely that this system will do well with large databases (or even databases at all for that matter) it is a step in the right direction. Google will probably have their version up on labs inside a month.
Slashdot Mirror
Every two months this topic comes up and every two months I point out the fairly obvious point of Hydrogen economies, and every two months I get more karma for it.
The point of the Hydrogen Economy is not to free you from fossil fuels. Of course Fossil Fuels are the easiest way to get hydrogen.
The point of the Hydrogen Economy is to provide a generic and highly portable form of energy storage which can be generated from any other energy source. Essentialy, H2 allows you to run your car on fossil fuels, nuclear power, fusion power, or a beowulf cluster of hampsters in wheels.
H2 won't do squat today, the idea is to have the infrastrucure in place so that when/if a more useful source of power comes into play we can convert easily and rapidly.
Yea, but it gets me thinking about canned salmon. Which is a step in the right direction. The brand name you mention jumps immediately to mind now that I see it in print, which is all they need. If I'm looking at a shelf full of canned salmon, the only name I'll recognise is John West.
Of course not, which is why it isn't happening. The 2006 change over is to DIGITAL not HD. All HDTV signals are digital, but not all digital signals are hd.
Example: If you get DBS Satelite (Dish Network, DirecTv) you are getting a digital signal. If you have digital cable you're getting a partialy digitial signal.
The reason this is happening is because the FCC wants to get the Analog bands back. My understanding of this (which may be flawed, you network gurus can feel free to chime in on this) is that a digital broadcast requires less bandwidth now than the equivilient quality signal in analog. The result is that the digitial spectrum can be smaller for the same amount of content.
This gives the FCC more bandwidth to allocate for other uses, many of which may be found in emerging markets such as wireless networking devieces, particularly in the PAN and MAN arenas.
The receivers matter a great deal less here, because most TVs sold within the last 7 years or so allready have a digital tuner. The difference between HD and SD is huge, but if you're not a TV buff the only measureable advantage you'll have is that the bandwidth previously reserved for TV will be reallocated by the government for other purposes, some of which might benefit you.
Hell of a lot more powerful than you realize. There are a number of factors that make a commercial powerfull (these are in ascending order).
1 - Brand Recognition: Just putting that Nike Swoosh on the screen reminds me who Nike is, why I should buy their product, and brings to mind decades of advertising and social conditioning.
2 - Rational Argument: Our product costs less, our product does X. Statments of fact leading a consumer to choose one product over another. Informing the customer about the product. These are key, particulary for large purchases.
3 - Irrational Argument: Warm "feel good" images cause people to associate a product with an emotion or set of desired circumstances. You see this most in prepackaged food ads. Note the family sitting down to dinner together, note the wholsome looking meal, everyone smiling, etc. The families these ads are targed at genrealy don't have the time for this, and frequently mom and dad desire it.
4 - Coolness Factor: Product endorsements fit in here. This is particularly influential over children. Be like Mike anyone?
5 - Social Impact: The most powerfull advertising weapon of all and the hardest to tame. The creation of a commericial that gets people talking about the commercial means that people must necessary talk about the product. The honda element commercial? The Salmon commercial (with the bear that does kung foo... don't remember the name). The Cat Hearders commercial. Pepsi through the Generations Commercial. If people remember and can discuss your ads years later you've had a lasting impact on them.
So the Nissan 350Z managed to hit the Social Impact meter pretty hard. How many hundreds of thousands who've never seen that add just read your comment? I for one didn't even realize that Nissan made a high end sports car, now I know not only that they do, I know the name of it, and I know there's probably video of it out on the net of it zipping about Prague. Now I haven't a red cent to buy the blasted thing with, but now its in my head, and that's the point of advertising.
Something like 95% of the desktop market is dominated by MS products.
Given that, does Dell need or want to buy MS products for its systems?
Does your local University need or want to buy MS products for its students to use in labs?
Indeed, does your typical University student need or want an MS product according to entrance requirements?
The answer is need. If Dell is going to continue to exist as a company, it needs MS products. If your local colleges are going to continue to produce graduates who have a snowballs chance in hell of getting a job, it needs MS products. Most colleges require a MS OS on computers at entry.
Need or want? If you want to mince words the only things you need are food, water, and shelter. Under that definition there is no such thing as a steel monopoly, an electric monopoly, phone monopoly, or any number of other monopolies. Of course that's hogwash, it is possible to have a monopoly over a luxury.
In your unquestioning accecptance of your coporate overlords you have unsuccessfuly attempted to define "need." Not to say that there isn't a dictionary defnition of need, but that needs are defined by the individual at the time. You, and your kids, are welcome to return to 18th century corporate wage slavery at any time.
No, my argument is that due to issues of compatability, market penetration, and conversion time, MS operating systems are a standard so entrenched that it is virtualy suicide for a PC company to cut ties with them. Consequently MS holds monopolistic power over the OS market.
This was in responce to the assertion that there was no limit on the supply of software.
Read the rest of the thread.
Microsoft defines a limited number of valid licences for a product.
These licences can not legaly be produced by any other company.
Consequently, there are a limited number of licences for every Microsoft product.
Thus there is a limited supply of these products.
And here you've hit the crux of the issue.
Yes, MS can sell its product to whomever it wants at whatever price it wants. UNLESS IT HOLDS A MONOPOLY.
That's the key, that's where the rules change. That's the price of monopoly.... because you see, Dell does have to buy from Microsoft. There really isn't (as much as we Linux people would like there to be) an alternitive OS for the overwhelming majority of the world. That makes the OS market a monopolistic one, and that makes MS a monopoly.
Read your history. You could buy steel from people other than Carnigie. You could buy oil from people other than Rockafeller. Of course, you couldn't buy much of it, and you'd be screwed by those companies in the long run. This is what Sherman Anti Trust was supposed to prevent. This is what the rejection of unregulated capitalism was all about.
If one company has a product you need to buy and there is no real competition against this product than you get screwed unless the government steps in. It's that simple.
There are, admittedly, some crazy people out there who think that all the wrongs in the world are the fault of Mr. Bush.
:)
The more rational elements of the left repudiate these people, and appologise for their claims. All the wrongs in the world are not, in fact, the fault of President Bush.
But the overwhelming majority are
Not if they have a decent credit card. In fact, federal laws prevent the credit card holder from being liable for more than $50 in fraudulent charges.
I may be off on that number; it's off the top of my head. I know it's two digits.
Now the company itself may be out the difference, but given that, it's a lot harder to feel sorry for them, since they are the ones that set the security up in the first place.
I mean, how much sympathy do you have for the police station that gets robbed?
1.) People end up where they didn't mean to
2.) The word is the same.
Ignoring the second one, which is just a matter of semantics, you could then liken the following to the hijacking of an aircraft.
1.) Getting bad directions
2.) Being lost
3.) Having a car break down
4.) URL Forwarding
But it is stupidity bordering on insanity to say that these are at all equivilent. The use of hijacking instead of something substantily more mundane such as giving bad directions is alarmist. You're trying to intensify your point by using a violent and terrifying crime rather than something much closer to the truth.
The definition of analogy most pertinant to this discussion is as follows.
Thus, it is very reasonable of me to assert that while hijacking and aircraft and hijacking a google search phrase both land people places they don't intend to go, the analogy fails because the two ideas are not in fact alike in any other way.
There is a reason one of them is a topic of discussion on Slashdot and the other is a federal crime.
No, that's a logical falacy called extending the point.
You can't seriously be telling me that you see no moral, logical, or functional difference between posting a link with a certain title to associate an innocuous phrase with a public figures name and the violent hijacking of an aircraft, usualy involving the execution of one or more passengers. Can you?
As for Amazon, Epinions, etc, a large number of sites link to these places for information on products they discuss. If I put a book review up on my website, you can be damn sure I'll link to either Amazon or the LOC. Given that you can't buy the book from the LOC I don't see a reason to do that.
My understanding was that the virus in question was the BSL4 agent Ebola Reston, which first appeared in the monkey houses in Reston VA.
The agent manifests flu like symptoms in the worst human cases. Generaly doing nothing at all in most cases.
I belive they also put her in quarentine for 24 hours while the ran the blood work to make certain it was Reston.
Because of the infection rates on some of those bugs. BSL4 is terrifying stuff, it's like working with plutonium that can breed.
If I remember correctly, to be a BSL4 pathogen a bug must have a high lethality in humans, unresponsive to treatment and vaccine, and a high infection rate.
Aids, for example, is BSL3 (or is it 2?). Now, HIV if frightening stuff, and while treatment has come a long way recently, its still the stuff of nightmares.
BSL4 is the stuff of the kind of nightmares you get after watching a Hannibal Lecter marathon while dropping acid.
Personaly I'd be much happier of BSL4 labs had some sort of fail safe, such that if all proverbial hell broke loose the doors would just shut and seal, and if everyone inside died horribly, well... so be it.
Er.... volume is 4/3 pi r^3. pi r ^ 2 is area.
Perhaps a portion of your argument that was left out would go as follows.
Alcohol and many other legalized drugs have been around not just for decades but for centuries. We have a solid and firm knowledge of the health risks these drugs present and how to manage those health risks.
MDMA [Ecstasy] has been in common usage for only the past few decades at the outside. There have not yet been adequate tests preformed to gauge the effect MDMA will have on users over a long period of time, particularly recreational users as opposed to prescription users.
One strong argument against many kinds of drug legalization is that it is well and truly possible to kill yourself with an overdose without trying very hard. The only legal RECREATIONAL drug this is possible with at the moment is alcohol, which requires a fair bit of effort to actually induce alcohol poisoning.
Note -- I am aware that impaired judgment can kill and that Alcohol may cause judgment to be impaired. Of course, getting a blowjob can also cause judgment to be impaired. Neither is really safe while driving. Care should be exercised when under the influence of any mind altering susbstance (booze, pot, sorority chicks, Bawls, etc)
Replace "bread" with "malto-glutenous human food product" and this would be a hell of a lot more effective.
Hell, replace it with "gluten varient ribonucleic acid" and you can probably get it banned nationaly before anyone works out that you're talking about the primary protein in all grains.
Technicaly Switzerland is a 3rd world country if you really want to split hairs.
1st World -- Allied With the US during the cold war
2nd World -- Allied with USSR during cold war
3rd World -- Unallied during cold war
Dish's CEO publicly announced over channel 101, Dish's informational channel, that if Viacom presented a contract that amounted to a $0.06 increase per customer per year he would sign it immediately.
For the record that would amount to (rounding up) $600,000. Viacom's initial offer came to about $500,000,000 more, not $600,000.
Again, source for that is the Dish 101 channel, so I'd split the difference. $250,000,000 isn't small change either though.
Stolen from Google's cashe, since Dish isn't hosting it anymore.
For MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and other cable networks
Call 212-258-8000.
For Viacom Corporate
Call 212-258-6000.
For CBS Corporate
Call 212-975-4321 or email them at audsvcs@cbs.com
Also some CBS info
Austin CBS KEYE Gary Schneider General Manager 512-835-0042
Baltimore CBS WJZ Jay Newman VP/General Manager 410-466-0013
Boston CBS WBZ Ed Goldman VP/General Manager 617-787-7000
Chicago CBS WBBM Joe Ahern President/GM 312-944-6000
Dallas-Ft. Worth CBS KTVT Steve Mauldin President/GM 214-750-1111
Denver CBS KCNC Walt Dehaven General Manager 303-861-4444
Detroit CBS WWJ Linda Danna VP/General Manager 248-350-5050
Greenbay-Appleton CBS WFRV Perry Kidder Station Manager 920-437-5411
Los Angeles CBS KCBS Don Corsini President/General Manager 323-460-3000
Miami CBS WFOR Michael A. Colleran VP/General Manager 305-591-4444
Minneapolis CBS WCCO Ed Piette VP/General Manager 612-339-4444
New York CBS WCBS Lew Leone President/General Manager 212-975-4321
Philadelphia CBS KYW Peter Dunn VP/General Manager 267-671-1000
Pittsburgh CBS KDKA Gary Cozen VP/General Manager 412-575-2200
Salt Lake City CBS KUTV Dave Phillips General Manager 801-973-3000
San Francisco CBS KPIX Ron Longinotti VP/General Manager 415-362-5550
I'd give those people a call. Now that the channels are back up they might consider answering the phone.
Ok, clarification....
DirecTV's TiVos are all dual turner as suggested here. However, (and this is the part that confuses me), they also appears to have about 35 hours of record time, which really isn't that much.
Dish Network's DVR units come in both varieties. The 510, 508, and 501 are all single tuner, but have 100, 80, and 40 hours of record time respectively.
The 522 Receiver is dual tuner with a 100 hours of record time. It can serve two rooms with DVR capability or you can tell it to record on the TV2 location while you watch something else on the TV1 location.
The DirecTiVo units generaly cost about $99 a pop. Dish's 522 doesn't cost any extra in a Digital Home Advantage Install (at least not according to the website, I'm a tech person).
The 522 doesn't have TiVo name based recording, it only does time slot recording. For some people, that's a deal breaker.
DirecTv doesn't offer a new customer promotion with more than one DVR unit. Dish kind of does, since the 522 will do two rooms as a DVR. (though we're splitting hairs there)
The first post I wrote on this was a tossed off comment. This is more solidly researched. If you have any further questions feel free to contact me.
I'm actualy kind of supprised at the lengths Viacom has been willing to go on this one.
They recently did an add in which Sponge Bob Square Pants told kids that they would never see him again if they didn't get their parrents to drop Dish Network.
That's just hard core.
Disclaimer: I work for Dish Network
Second Disclaimer: I really don't have any loyalty to the company.
The channels you'll be missing are basicly Nick, Commedy Central, BET, VH1, MTV(1 & 2), Nick GAS, and a few others of little consequence.
DirecTV and Dish are functionaly interchangable as far as service, channels (at least normaly), and price are concerned (Dish is only significanly cheeper at its lowest tier).
Equipment wise it's a tough call. Personaly, I prefer Dish's DVR522. The reason is that it is a PVR/DVR unit available through the Digital Home Advantage plan with dual tuner capability. Dual Tuner DVRs are hard to find in the satelite industry. A recent software upgrade allows you to actualy set up a recording on the TV2 location from the TV1 location, thereby effectively making this a poor mans substitute for the 721 recevier.
If you don't qualify for DHA though, it's more or less a draw. Your choice, but I'd look into the equipment etc that you're installing to make that call.
I concur.
.gov domain.
My wife teaches 10th and 12th grade Social Studies. Most of the kids she teaches have never read a book for fun in their lives. Every peice of reading they do that comes on dead tree media is assigned to them by a teacher.
This astounds me. I have been working on one book or another since I could read simple sentances. Here these kids are, about to go to college, and they've never read anything just for the hell of it!
The Internet argument is well and good, but that raises another problem. Because these kids haven't read much of anything, they are totaly unable to determine which sites are legitimate resources and which are some half cocked crackpot spewing his dimwited theories about whatever the topic at hand happens to be.
Years spent in chat rooms and expecting instant answers to all questions leads these children to trust whatever source pops up first from their yahoo search, and if the text is too in depth for them, rather than puzzeling it out, they find someplace where it is presented in simpler terms. In short, they're more likely to cite something from geocities than a
These children of the internet age are approaching the greatest informational tool in human history with no reservations whatsoever. Unfortunately, everythig you read on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt [except of course this post].
I think that while the internet and chat rooms do encourage reading to a point, the net result is that your average child is damaged more than helped by the content and format these places encourage. My wife has graded papers, formal papers, with LOL, OMG, ROFL, WTF, and STFU written as if they were actual words used in human conversation.
When your child's history papers can trigger a spam filter there's something wrong with your child and what you've done to educate that child. If this is happening in high school it is probably too late for your child's teachers to save him or her. I'd like to say we're learning from our mistakes, but I don't think we are.
Note: I'm posting from a public terminal. Spell check I hath not. Mis-spell things I have. Write my disclaimers as Yoda would I shall.
Since I moved my site over to a php bases sytem, nothing beyond my index page gets a second look from google. As web content moves away from static pages to more dynamic solutions (particularly XML) a more sophisticated crawler is neeeded, one that can read over this bewildering malstrom of data and extract form it meaning and content.
While I find it highly unlikely that this system will do well with large databases (or even databases at all for that matter) it is a step in the right direction. Google will probably have their version up on labs inside a month.