I didn't read your link (somethingawful.com and work computer don't mix). Would someone mind explaining what they did. I would think that it should be fairly easy to get any format that has a Quicktime plugin (like from flip4mac or Perian) to work with the AppleTV.
What are the actions of people who hate the RIAA? If they do anything, it will be to stop listening to the radio, and stop buying CD's, choosing to pirate and/or buy independant music instead. If they do nothing then it will be out of appathy, or lack of backbone, not misdirection over the name of the company. The fact is that people are pissed off at the music industry as it exists now, and their actions are directed towards that industry. Whether they call it by the right name or not is largly irrelevant.
I think the biggest form of misdirection that you will be seeing in the future isn't confusing RIAA with EMI/Sony/Warner but "independant" artists and labels that really aren't. For example, half of the people I talked to at the last Modest Mouse concert brought up how cool it was that they were supporting independant musicians, clueless to the fact that MM had signed with EMI (Sony/BMG).
In this country, the law exists only as it interpreted by the Judiciary. Every session congress enacts law after law that conflict with one another, and with existing laws. Until precedent is set in court, the people of this country are left to make their best guess as to which seemingly conflicting laws will prevail. It is my firm belief that the specific powers granted to you by PATRIOT act, by which you are making this request, are unconstitutional. Therefore, as a law abiding citizen, it is my duty to uphold the law and deny your request until such time as you provide a warrant.
PEOPLE DON'T SIT AT THE COMPUTER TO WATCH HALF-HOUR SHOWS.
Full-length shows constantly being posted to YouTube, and have a large number of visitors. The shows made available at the networks website have also had a very large number of visitors despite technical difficulties. People don't prefer to watch 40 minute or even 20 minute shows on their computer, but if they missed an episode of $FAVORITE_SHOW, being able to catch it online is the next best thing (until IP-TV becomes mainstream).
As slashdoters have been saying for years, not making your content available in a convenient form is the best way to guarantee it will be pirated. This is not trying to replace YouTube, it is trying to curb the illegitimate uses of it, by providing an alternative that brings in some revenue.
-Can't store content for future use. -Windows/Explorer ONLY -Advertising -Crappy format
We'll see how well they do, but I wouldn't write it off that quickly. None of the people that I have talked to really care about the ads that are in the shows at nbc.com and abc.com (when the player works properly) - they know the company has to make money, and are happy that the ads are shorter than on TV. In fact they prefer the short ads over the low quality of the YouTube videos. They don't care about being able to download it to their computer, just watching the episode they missed. If it truely is Explorer/Windows only than that would suck, but I don't see where you are getting that from. The fact that they are allowing embedding would strongly suggest that it is going to be flash-based, as it would give them more control with regards to showing ads.
I think this could be very successful at achieving it's goals - which is not to be YouTube killer.
From a first glance it looks like they may be double counting. They go into all the things that they considered in the cost of the car, but apart from gas and maintanance, all of them should already be included purchace price of the vehicle (plus subsidies). So I don't see why they would even need to look at those other factors, at least as far as price goes - they would be relevant in the total energy calculations.
Furthermore, the fact that this study was done by a student marketing group at the university, rather than say an engineering department sends up big flags to me. It is possible that they actually found and listened to people who knew what they were talking about, rather than just cherry picking whatever facts are convienient for the conclusion they are trying to sell, but it would be a first for marketing:)
I certainly don't doubt that hybrids are more expensive and use more energy overall than a regular economy car would. And given that this energy probably came from a coal plant, they may not even be better when it comes to overall emmisions. But to say that they are worse than a Hummer (even the new plastic power-wheel Hummers), is a fairly big claim, and there are many areas of their study that I would like look at with a close eye before comming to any conclusion.
No it isn't. And if it was they wouldn't want to use it.
This is brought up in every slashdot article about returning to the moon and it is a really bad idea. First off the Saturn was designed to use 1960's technology. Now there is nothing wrong with that, except that you can't get it anymore. And the manufacturing techniques are different than the techniques we use today. So right off the bat you'd have to rework the design to be updated with modern components and manufacturing capability. Now you need someone who understands the rocket in order to make these changes. Unfortunately, those people aren't around anymore. This is something that far too many managers don't get - designs themselves are not nearly as useful without the working knowledge as to why the design is the way it is, and all the small little lessons learned while creating and building the design. Furthermore, we have learned a lot since then. We are much better at making lightweight materials, which is a big deal since the amount of fuel and thrust needed increases exponentially with weight. We are better at designing engines to operate more efficiently, again saving even more weight for payload.
Lastly, as much as people like to ditch on the shuttle, it's boosters are incredibly safe and reliable, and they are fairly powerful too. The problem is that overweight, poorly positioned excuse for a crew module. I have to agree with NASA that it is a much better idea to build off of the portions of a currently flying system such as the shuttle or Delta IV, than to start over from scratch, which is effectively what they would be doing with the Saturn. We are not wasting time and money reinventing something new, we are saving money by adapting a known good design, and wasting time by doing it on a small yearly budget, and by continuing with the ISS.
As for Space X it would be an even worse idea to them to use the Saturn design for the Falcon 1, as they are planning on using it for completely different reasons. As an entrant into the launcher business, it makes sense for them to start with LEO capability and work up from there. The Saturn was created as a no expense spared, get to the moon as quickly as possible, arm-race machine. Space X is trying to decrease the cost of getting to orbit by an order of magnitude over current launchers which are already significantly less expensive than the Saturn was. And they are trying to do it without sacrificing reliability. The way they are doing this is by decreasing the complexity of the rocket as much as possible. The engineering on the Saturn V was incredibly impressive and complex. It had five engines on the first stage, another 5 engines on the second, and one more on the third. This is complete overkill for what Falcon 1 is trying to achieve.
The Falcon 9 on the other hand, does pretty much what I explained above. It takes the overall architecture of the Saturn V (redundant engines etc), updates it with modern manufacturing, new efficient engines, and improves upon the simplicity of it's construction and design. It is a smart way to go about building a rocket.
Unlike hydrogen, the electricity needed to run the compressors is easy, efficient and cost effective to generate and distribute. And India is moving forward on nuclear power plants which would generate that electricity with very little emissions (although not without waste).
Those goals are too large for anyone to meet with private investor funding, and the prizes are too small for tasks that don't have other profit motive behind them (and don't go off about space mining - it is not economically viable). I mean really, a prize managed to provide some tipping point motivation for a (very cool) suborbital rocket plane, and now people think that can scale to sending someone to Mars?
Both NASA and the military are giving SpaceX serious consideration for their future contracts and that will do more to shake up the launcher industry than a silly competition ever will.
Yeah, especially with the creation of UAC, err I mean ULA. I love how politicians constantly praise the benifits of the "free market" while all of our interactions with private industry result in a government monopoly propping up a private one.
To elaborate on my previous post and provied some examples:
Mars Rovers were launched with a Delta II built by Boeing. Cassini probe was launched with a Titan IV-B built by Lockheed-Martin. New Horizons was launched with an Atlas V built by Lockheed-Martin. Many satellites, including the latest GPS satellites are launched using Delta IIs by Boeing.
The Minotaur rocket is built by Orbital Sciences using decommisioned Minutemen ICBM engines and are used to launch some military satelites. They also build many of the rockets used for missile-defense tests.
At least at first, SpaceX would most directly compete with the Pegasus rocket by Orbital Sciences, and hopefully would help to expand the market to include new cliental that can't afford current prices. If they show themselves to be reliable they could also go on to challenge the bigger launchers.
This is something that the general public is fairly misinformed about. The majority of rocket launches in the US are using rockets designed and build by private companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. This includes NASA launches. Space X would be competing with these companies, not with NASA.
That's because your fuel doesn't need higher concentrations of oxygen to ignite. With other materials that is not necessarily the case.
That is definately not the correct explaination, as wood and plastic cables burn just fine at 6000 feet. I grew up at 7000+ feet, and had just as much fun with magnifying glass as any other kid.
AFAIK, the percentage of oxygen is no different at altitude than at sea level, it is just the pressure of atmosphere is lower. So if I had to wager a guess, I would say that combustion is dependant on concentration of O2 per mass, and respiration is dependant on concentration of O2 per volume, which is why a smaller percentage of O2 has a greater effect on combustion then on respiration.
IIRC, last time I had a CPR refresher, where they told us to increase compressions from 15 to 30, one of the things they mentioned is that the chest compressions themselves help to bring in a minimal amount of air, provided the air cavity is not blocked. Right now, it isn't a sure thing that the breathing should be gotten rid of entirely, but it definitely isn't as important as we once thought it was.
No, it is true even if they have stopped breathing. Basically, it does no good to get more oxygen into the blood if it isn't being circulated, and it takes a lot of chest compressions to get it circulated properly. This is an issue that has been slowly unfolding over the last several years. The Red Cross already decreased the recommended number of breaths to chest compressions a couple years ago, and people are debating whether to get rid of the breathing altogether. One additional argument in favor of the breaths is that it allows the person giving CPR a small break, which is important if they are the only one around to provide CPR.
I agree with you that there is no silver bullet, and that includes nuclear, but strongly disagree that nuclear is less viable than coal.
If we allowed breeder reactor and burner reactors then we could cut the amount of nuclear waste in tenth. At least one of these two technologies has been proven through extensive use in france. It is safe and cost effective. Studies have concluded that the resulting waste from burning all the (estimated) uranium in the US could be stored in a single Yucca mountain type project, if we recycle the waste on site first.
The other thing that people need to remember, is that we have no clue how to store the waste (C02) from coal plants safely. Sequestration takes out such a minor amount of CO2, that it is not a viable solution just a nice supplemental tool. In other words sequestration decreases the waste by 10% breader/burner reactors decrease their waste to 10% (or something along those lines - the number are not exact). I don't know about you but I'd much rather have a small permanently contaminated spot in the desert than to make huge areas of the globe uninhabitable by humans due to climate change, not to mention the changes in crop viability.
I also take issue your requirement for a "proven" technology - no technology will every become proven until it is tried, so demanding that a technology be proven before it is tried is tantamount to banning progress.
As for other countries - the two fastest growing economies (and thus the two most in need of large amounts of clean energy) are India and China, and they are allowed to develop nuclear power. And the way they got to be the fastest growing economies is that the first world chose to trade with them. The countries that have the biggest restrictions with regard to nuclear power also have trade sanctions levied on them and thus cannot grow large economies, so it doesn't really matter (environmentally) if they stick with burning coal. As long as the first world continues to trade only with countries we trust, or rather as long as we continue to trust the countries we trade with, then this problem will take care of itself.
If someone spent a month or so as a tourist in another country, would you consider them to be a hobo? That is basically what this is, a backpack is just easier to lug around than a suitcase, especially if you are using lots of public transportation. He might not be doing much hiking at all. This phenomenum/terminology may be odd to Americans, as we don't have the public transportation or cheap lodging to support it, but it is extremely common pretty much anywhere else.
So neither of those situations are completely applicable. He isn't trying to get away from it all, just trying to be mobile. And while he probably wouldn't want to bring highly valuable stuff that is easily stolen, he definately is going to have more niceties than a hobo would.
They are the ones that are pushing the drive to digital TV, so that they can use the frequencies that have been allocated to TV for the last 50 years, so they should foot the bill for migrating people.
The page loaded for me (but wouldn't submit). Here are the questions, for the curious. And yes the first line was really at the top of the page - an unexpected joy of automation:)
Dell recommends Windows Vista(TM) Business.
Linux Learnings: We're Listening
Thanks for visiting the Dell Linux Survey webpage. Please answer the following questions to help us determine how to best prioritize our resources for this effort. (Survey will be open March 13-March 23)
1) Would your Dell system with Linux factory installed be for home or office use?
Home Use
Office Use
Both
2) Which systems should we prioritize on for Linux factory installation? (Rank Order: 1=highest, 6=lowest)
Inspiron notebooks
Dimension desktops
XPS notebooks
XPS desktops
Latitude business notebooks
OptiPlex business desktops
3) What types of activities will you perform on your Dell system with Linux factory installed? (Rank order: 1=highest, 9=lowest if not using for specific listed purpose, leave blank)
Basic productivity
Email
Web browsing
Photo editing and management
Gaming
Music
Video editing
Software development
Other:
4) Which languages should we prioritize on?
English
Japanese
French
German
Spanish
Mandarin
Other:
5) For a tested & validated Linux install, what type of software support would you require?
Existing community support structures for Linux that already exist with Dell participating more
Email and online support forums through Dell
Fee-based OS phone support
Other:
6) Which Linux distribution should Dell prioritize on?
Commercial: Novell/SuSE Linux Desktop
Commercial: Red Hat Enterprise Desktop
Community Supported: Fedora
Community Supported: OpenSUSE
Community Supported: Ubuntu
Other:
H.264 is the closest thing you are going to get to an open codec (apart from Theora which is very sub par). If you don't like the Quicktime software download VideoLAN.
Agreed, although I think a dialog box should also be shown as an annoyance / deterant. Otherwise just imagine what the Web 2.0 folks will do when they realize they can redirect their site to one with cool multi-colored URLs, thus conditioning people to ignore the colored warning. And you thought del.icio.us was overly cute:)
Viacom does get it. Hell, they had Daily Show clips online before YouTube even existed. They just partnered with Joost to make shows available through them.
in other words, the more content you get out there, the cheaper you get it out there (hint: free), the more money you make: more traffic, more ad revenue, more awareness
That is the problem - they aren't getting any more traffic, or ad revenue - YouTube is. And YouTube has never gotten out of the red even though they don't (or didn't until recently) pay a dime to the people making the clips (or entire episodes, as is often the case). You think this is a more viable business model than the current system? Cutting prices to increase volume can increase revenue in some cases, but no amount of volume and no amount of exposure can make up for cutting prices to zero.
Viacom gets it - they see that the internet is both an inevitability and an opportunity, and are actively pursuing online deals now that broadband has become widespread. But they are also businessmen that realize that something that brings in no revenue and decreases the number of people watching their content on TV or on other online venues is not good for business.
Viacom was in talks with YouTube before the google merger about how to resolved the issue in a way that was benificial to both of them. However, Viacom wasn't happy with YouTube (pre or post google) and finally decided that they were perfectly capable of exploring new online distibutions outlets without YouTube. To their credit, the TV studios have been much more reasonable about adjusting to the internet than the music industry has been and do see it as an opportunity and not just a threat.
Anyway, the talks just broke down last month, and a pending lawsuit was expected. So no, I don't think that this is a money grab. I think Viacom wants YouTube to implement at least some type of filtering or be shutdown.
I'll second Vancorps. I have three computers at home running OS X Panther, Ubuntu, and Windows 2000, each with a smb share. If I use OS X to copy a file to a Windows or Linux share it takes forever. If I use the Linux or Windows machine to copy that same file from the Mac share, or if I copy files either direction between Linux and Windows shares I have no problems. On top of that, OS X has the worst user interface for accessing network shares of the three. They need to get their act together on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't read your link (somethingawful.com and work computer don't mix). Would someone mind explaining what they did. I would think that it should be fairly easy to get any format that has a Quicktime plugin (like from flip4mac or Perian) to work with the AppleTV.
What are the actions of people who hate the RIAA? If they do anything, it will be to stop listening to the radio, and stop buying CD's, choosing to pirate and/or buy independant music instead. If they do nothing then it will be out of appathy, or lack of backbone, not misdirection over the name of the company. The fact is that people are pissed off at the music industry as it exists now, and their actions are directed towards that industry. Whether they call it by the right name or not is largly irrelevant.
I think the biggest form of misdirection that you will be seeing in the future isn't confusing RIAA with EMI/Sony/Warner but "independant" artists and labels that really aren't. For example, half of the people I talked to at the last Modest Mouse concert brought up how cool it was that they were supporting independant musicians, clueless to the fact that MM had signed with EMI (Sony/BMG).
This would be my response.
In this country, the law exists only as it interpreted by the Judiciary. Every session congress enacts law after law that conflict with one another, and with existing laws. Until precedent is set in court, the people of this country are left to make their best guess as to which seemingly conflicting laws will prevail. It is my firm belief that the specific powers granted to you by PATRIOT act, by which you are making this request, are unconstitutional. Therefore, as a law abiding citizen, it is my duty to uphold the law and deny your request until such time as you provide a warrant.
As slashdoters have been saying for years, not making your content available in a convenient form is the best way to guarantee it will be pirated. This is not trying to replace YouTube, it is trying to curb the illegitimate uses of it, by providing an alternative that brings in some revenue. We'll see how well they do, but I wouldn't write it off that quickly. None of the people that I have talked to really care about the ads that are in the shows at nbc.com and abc.com (when the player works properly) - they know the company has to make money, and are happy that the ads are shorter than on TV. In fact they prefer the short ads over the low quality of the YouTube videos. They don't care about being able to download it to their computer, just watching the episode they missed. If it truely is Explorer/Windows only than that would suck, but I don't see where you are getting that from. The fact that they are allowing embedding would strongly suggest that it is going to be flash-based, as it would give them more control with regards to showing ads.
I think this could be very successful at achieving it's goals - which is not to be YouTube killer.
That is why he gets the spiffy icon.
From a first glance it looks like they may be double counting. They go into all the things that they considered in the cost of the car, but apart from gas and maintanance, all of them should already be included purchace price of the vehicle (plus subsidies). So I don't see why they would even need to look at those other factors, at least as far as price goes - they would be relevant in the total energy calculations.
:)
Furthermore, the fact that this study was done by a student marketing group at the university, rather than say an engineering department sends up big flags to me. It is possible that they actually found and listened to people who knew what they were talking about, rather than just cherry picking whatever facts are convienient for the conclusion they are trying to sell, but it would be a first for marketing
I certainly don't doubt that hybrids are more expensive and use more energy overall than a regular economy car would. And given that this energy probably came from a coal plant, they may not even be better when it comes to overall emmisions. But to say that they are worse than a Hummer (even the new plastic power-wheel Hummers), is a fairly big claim, and there are many areas of their study that I would like look at with a close eye before comming to any conclusion.
No it isn't. And if it was they wouldn't want to use it.
This is brought up in every slashdot article about returning to the moon and it is a really bad idea. First off the Saturn was designed to use 1960's technology. Now there is nothing wrong with that, except that you can't get it anymore. And the manufacturing techniques are different than the techniques we use today. So right off the bat you'd have to rework the design to be updated with modern components and manufacturing capability. Now you need someone who understands the rocket in order to make these changes. Unfortunately, those people aren't around anymore. This is something that far too many managers don't get - designs themselves are not nearly as useful without the working knowledge as to why the design is the way it is, and all the small little lessons learned while creating and building the design. Furthermore, we have learned a lot since then. We are much better at making lightweight materials, which is a big deal since the amount of fuel and thrust needed increases exponentially with weight. We are better at designing engines to operate more efficiently, again saving even more weight for payload.
Lastly, as much as people like to ditch on the shuttle, it's boosters are incredibly safe and reliable, and they are fairly powerful too. The problem is that overweight, poorly positioned excuse for a crew module. I have to agree with NASA that it is a much better idea to build off of the portions of a currently flying system such as the shuttle or Delta IV, than to start over from scratch, which is effectively what they would be doing with the Saturn. We are not wasting time and money reinventing something new, we are saving money by adapting a known good design, and wasting time by doing it on a small yearly budget, and by continuing with the ISS.
As for Space X it would be an even worse idea to them to use the Saturn design for the Falcon 1, as they are planning on using it for completely different reasons. As an entrant into the launcher business, it makes sense for them to start with LEO capability and work up from there. The Saturn was created as a no expense spared, get to the moon as quickly as possible, arm-race machine. Space X is trying to decrease the cost of getting to orbit by an order of magnitude over current launchers which are already significantly less expensive than the Saturn was. And they are trying to do it without sacrificing reliability. The way they are doing this is by decreasing the complexity of the rocket as much as possible. The engineering on the Saturn V was incredibly impressive and complex. It had five engines on the first stage, another 5 engines on the second, and one more on the third. This is complete overkill for what Falcon 1 is trying to achieve.
The Falcon 9 on the other hand, does pretty much what I explained above. It takes the overall architecture of the Saturn V (redundant engines etc), updates it with modern manufacturing, new efficient engines, and improves upon the simplicity of it's construction and design. It is a smart way to go about building a rocket.
Unlike hydrogen, the electricity needed to run the compressors is easy, efficient and cost effective to generate and distribute. And India is moving forward on nuclear power plants which would generate that electricity with very little emissions (although not without waste).
Those goals are too large for anyone to meet with private investor funding, and the prizes are too small for tasks that don't have other profit motive behind them (and don't go off about space mining - it is not economically viable). I mean really, a prize managed to provide some tipping point motivation for a (very cool) suborbital rocket plane, and now people think that can scale to sending someone to Mars?
Both NASA and the military are giving SpaceX serious consideration for their future contracts and that will do more to shake up the launcher industry than a silly competition ever will.
Yeah, especially with the creation of UAC, err I mean ULA. I love how politicians constantly praise the benifits of the "free market" while all of our interactions with private industry result in a government monopoly propping up a private one.
To elaborate on my previous post and provied some examples:
Mars Rovers were launched with a Delta II built by Boeing.
Cassini probe was launched with a Titan IV-B built by Lockheed-Martin.
New Horizons was launched with an Atlas V built by Lockheed-Martin.
Many satellites, including the latest GPS satellites are launched using Delta IIs by Boeing.
The Minotaur rocket is built by Orbital Sciences using decommisioned Minutemen ICBM engines and are used to launch some military satelites. They also build many of the rockets used for missile-defense tests.
At least at first, SpaceX would most directly compete with the Pegasus rocket by Orbital Sciences, and hopefully would help to expand the market to include new cliental that can't afford current prices. If they show themselves to be reliable they could also go on to challenge the bigger launchers.
This is something that the general public is fairly misinformed about. The majority of rocket launches in the US are using rockets designed and build by private companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences. This includes NASA launches. Space X would be competing with these companies, not with NASA.
AFAIK, the percentage of oxygen is no different at altitude than at sea level, it is just the pressure of atmosphere is lower. So if I had to wager a guess, I would say that combustion is dependant on concentration of O2 per mass, and respiration is dependant on concentration of O2 per volume, which is why a smaller percentage of O2 has a greater effect on combustion then on respiration.
IIRC, last time I had a CPR refresher, where they told us to increase compressions from 15 to 30, one of the things they mentioned is that the chest compressions themselves help to bring in a minimal amount of air, provided the air cavity is not blocked. Right now, it isn't a sure thing that the breathing should be gotten rid of entirely, but it definitely isn't as important as we once thought it was.
No, it is true even if they have stopped breathing. Basically, it does no good to get more oxygen into the blood if it isn't being circulated, and it takes a lot of chest compressions to get it circulated properly. This is an issue that has been slowly unfolding over the last several years. The Red Cross already decreased the recommended number of breaths to chest compressions a couple years ago, and people are debating whether to get rid of the breathing altogether. One additional argument in favor of the breaths is that it allows the person giving CPR a small break, which is important if they are the only one around to provide CPR.
I agree with you that there is no silver bullet, and that includes nuclear, but strongly disagree that nuclear is less viable than coal.
If we allowed breeder reactor and burner reactors then we could cut the amount of nuclear waste in tenth. At least one of these two technologies has been proven through extensive use in france. It is safe and cost effective. Studies have concluded that the resulting waste from burning all the (estimated) uranium in the US could be stored in a single Yucca mountain type project, if we recycle the waste on site first.
The other thing that people need to remember, is that we have no clue how to store the waste (C02) from coal plants safely. Sequestration takes out such a minor amount of CO2, that it is not a viable solution just a nice supplemental tool. In other words sequestration decreases the waste by 10% breader/burner reactors decrease their waste to 10% (or something along those lines - the number are not exact). I don't know about you but I'd much rather have a small permanently contaminated spot in the desert than to make huge areas of the globe uninhabitable by humans due to climate change, not to mention the changes in crop viability.
I also take issue your requirement for a "proven" technology - no technology will every become proven until it is tried, so demanding that a technology be proven before it is tried is tantamount to banning progress.
As for other countries - the two fastest growing economies (and thus the two most in need of large amounts of clean energy) are India and China, and they are allowed to develop nuclear power. And the way they got to be the fastest growing economies is that the first world chose to trade with them. The countries that have the biggest restrictions with regard to nuclear power also have trade sanctions levied on them and thus cannot grow large economies, so it doesn't really matter (environmentally) if they stick with burning coal. As long as the first world continues to trade only with countries we trust, or rather as long as we continue to trust the countries we trade with, then this problem will take care of itself.
If someone spent a month or so as a tourist in another country, would you consider them to be a hobo? That is basically what this is, a backpack is just easier to lug around than a suitcase, especially if you are using lots of public transportation. He might not be doing much hiking at all. This phenomenum/terminology may be odd to Americans, as we don't have the public transportation or cheap lodging to support it, but it is extremely common pretty much anywhere else.
So neither of those situations are completely applicable. He isn't trying to get away from it all, just trying to be mobile. And while he probably wouldn't want to bring highly valuable stuff that is easily stolen, he definately is going to have more niceties than a hobo would.
They are the ones that are pushing the drive to digital TV, so that they can use the frequencies that have been allocated to TV for the last 50 years, so they should foot the bill for migrating people.
H.264 is the closest thing you are going to get to an open codec (apart from Theora which is very sub par). If you don't like the Quicktime software download VideoLAN.
Agreed, although I think a dialog box should also be shown as an annoyance / deterant. Otherwise just imagine what the Web 2.0 folks will do when they realize they can redirect their site to one with cool multi-colored URLs, thus conditioning people to ignore the colored warning. And you thought del.icio.us was overly cute :)
Viacom gets it - they see that the internet is both an inevitability and an opportunity, and are actively pursuing online deals now that broadband has become widespread. But they are also businessmen that realize that something that brings in no revenue and decreases the number of people watching their content on TV or on other online venues is not good for business.
Viacom was in talks with YouTube before the google merger about how to resolved the issue in a way that was benificial to both of them. However, Viacom wasn't happy with YouTube (pre or post google) and finally decided that they were perfectly capable of exploring new online distibutions outlets without YouTube. To their credit, the TV studios have been much more reasonable about adjusting to the internet than the music industry has been and do see it as an opportunity and not just a threat.
Anyway, the talks just broke down last month, and a pending lawsuit was expected. So no, I don't think that this is a money grab. I think Viacom wants YouTube to implement at least some type of filtering or be shutdown.
I'll second Vancorps. I have three computers at home running OS X Panther, Ubuntu, and Windows 2000, each with a smb share. If I use OS X to copy a file to a Windows or Linux share it takes forever. If I use the Linux or Windows machine to copy that same file from the Mac share, or if I copy files either direction between Linux and Windows shares I have no problems. On top of that, OS X has the worst user interface for accessing network shares of the three. They need to get their act together on this one.
until Fanatical Fascists.