And exercise too, but do something fun. I don't know how people can ride stationary bikes or run on treadmills for an hour every day. The boredom kills me. I play racquetball and other active sports
I agree with your basic assertion that we should eat healthy foods and exercise but, add a little warning about exercising.
Aerobic exercise will not make/help you lose weight unless you do an awful lot of it.
It will take almost an hour's strenuous exercise to burn off that Maars bar you wolfed down and burning off the calories from a Big Mac could take half a day or more.
The key to using exercise as a method of helping weight loss is to use resistance training rather than running or other aerobic exercises.
Every time you add an ounce of lean muscle to your body, your resting metabolic rate increases -- ie: you burn more calories without even exerting yourself.
By comparison, aerobic exercise tends to lower the body's "at rest" metabolic rate so you burn less energy.
Resistance exercising has the added advantage (for men) that you'll "bulk up" and get stronger. "What's that? Did you call me a geek? Come here and say that":-)
So, roll out those weights and get working.
You only have to do a 10-15 minute work-out, three times a week to have a really noticeable effect on your strength and your body shape.
You might find this hard to believe but using this machine in New Zealand would be considered a breach of our copyright laws.
That's because under NZ law, the purchasers of copyrighted music have *no* right whatsoever to copy that music.
That's right -- you can't tape your CDs or vinyl, you can't tape music from the radio and you certainly can't rip CDs to MP3.
The head of Sony Music NZ is also at the front of a local campaign titled "Burn and get Burnt" which is trying to convince consumers not to burn CDs.
So on the one hand we have Sony selling its MD players/recorders that claim to be able to rip CDs to MD, and on the other hand you've got the head of Sony standing firm behind a law that says consumers are not allowed to rip CDs to MD or any other format.
Sometimes it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I consider myself to be one of the pioneers of news aggregation and linking -- having done this on a number of my own sites since 1995.
Back in 1998 I came into conflict with the Nando Times when my 7am.com news site over the use of their headlines and links on the syndicated Java news ticker and news-aggregation pages.
Nando tried to claim that use of its headlines and links to its pages were a breach of copyright and that anyone wishing to do this would have to pay $100/month for the privilege.
I told them to go take a hike and they threatened to sue for breach of copyright. Suffice to say that once they checked with their legal department as to the validity of their claims they decided to back down.
Although they were one of the first news sites on the Web, Nando simply didn't get the concept that links drive traffic and traffic generates ad revenues -- or at least it did when there were advertisers willing to pay for placements.
The stupid thing about this whole situation was that the 7am.com News Ticker became so popular and drove so much traffic to the various sites included on it that if I decided to remove the links to a particular news site I'd often get an email complaining that I *wasn't* linking.
Around the same time I had similar problems with my Aardvark site and found myself battling a long list of local news publishers who threatened legal action if I continued to deep link to the stories they were carrying.
As with Nando, these sites eventually worked out that traffic = revenues and withdrew their stupid threats.
I should make it clear that I have a very ethical and honest linking policy which I advertise on my sites so that both the linkers and linkees know what I expect and offer. It's a shame that more sites don't do the same so as to avoid confusion and conflict.
I've been deep linking for some seven years, been threatened with law suits over my linking activities by much bigger publishers on no less than six occasions -- but never had to spend a day in court and never backed down.
Some people just take longer to learn that the WWW is *made* from deep links and that to disallow them will effectively destroy the fabric of the web.
No, no, the last thing we need is a slick US-scripted version of Dr Who. We need to carry on the tradition of props that are made from old cardboard packing cartons and hammy actors who fumble their lines -- that's what made the series so great!
I've got a whole heap of Dr Who episodes, right episode #1 of series #1 with Hartnel as the Dr. Right now I'm burning them to VCD because I'm worried that my VHS tapes will start to degrade.
I was going to use Divx but there are still too many uncertainties as to the future and backwards compatibility that don't justify the limited improvement in picture quality that Divx offers over MPEG1 (remember this is old grainy black and white video shot in the 1960's).
Once they're in digital form I can at least copy them to whatever new media comes along without any loss of quality.
I'd like them to keep the Dr "pure" B-grade and hokey in presentation. Half the fun was trying to catch a glimpse of feet beneath the Daleks as they traversed rocky ground -- or watching the walls of a set shake and rock when someone brushed against them.
Please, please don't change the production standards so as to make it "just another slick sci-fi series filled with special effects"
I thought that one of the things America prided itself on was that it was a perfect example of capitalism in action -- individuals and companies that succeed on their merits and markets where consumers benefit by fair and open competition.
Oh dear, how things are changing.
Now we have a few key players in a few industries (RIAA, MPAA) bribing the government to introduce *state-enforced* controls over markets and competition.
The rights that previously protected US citizens from the excesses and over zealous actions of large corporations are gradually being eroded as things such as "fair use" under copyright law is completely wiped by legislation such as the DMCA.
What's more, it becomes patently obvious that when industries such as the RIAA and MPAA conspire to defeat the principles of capitalism and free-market competition, the government seems interested only in slapping wrists on the one hand while handing them more power (via the DMCA) on the other.
Shouldn't citizens be asking -- why are we allowing big business to buy-off the government?
And, above all else, citizens should remember that governments are elected to SERVE and REPRESENT *all* citizens, not just those with big wallets.
Go talk to your elected representitive and tell him he's not getting your vote unless he shapes up and restores the USA to its former caplitalist glory!
I recently found myself in a similar situation when my Daily self-published internet column finally became just too much of a drain on my finances and I was faced with shutting it down after seven years of work.
The subscription option was considered but in the end, just 2% of the regular audience said they would subscribe -- a number far too low to support the site.
However, I was very lucky insomuch as I managed to obtain a 12-month sponsorship from a local ISP which, while not covering all the costs, at least pays for the cofee, power, phone and some of the other outgoings.
Given the sad fate of so many great online publications, it strikes me that perhaps the secret to longevity and (ultimately?) profit may well be KISS - that's Keep It Small & Sponsored.
It strikes me that too many online publications focus on building empires rather than simply creating and publishing good content at minimal cost.
For example -- does Salon rent office space?
Why?
Surely a "new media" publisher would realize the enormous savings to be made by having writers work from home and email in their copy.
When I launched 7am.com, I ran the entire operation (2 million hits per day and a network of 200,000 third-party websites) on a completely virtual basis. No rented offices, no conference room, no company cars, no scooters -- just a group of hard-working people staying in touch and coordinating their efforts over the Net.
The Net may be a great medium for publishing content -- but it's an even greater way to slash your operating costs -- if you use it properly!
.if that were the case, turning it off and on every day like that might actually make it work [i]better[/i]
Oh come on -- if it *were* a Microsoft satellite then the hAkre d00dzE would have already taken it over and used it to knock all the government-owned satellites out of orbit:-)
Microsoft would have responded by issuing a "Trustworthy Orbiting" initiative and advised everyone to upgrade to "Satellite XP" -- but only if they're prepare to sign the new licensing agreement that includes something about ownership of your firstborn child.
At one end of the spectrum you have the RIAA who have the ball and won't share unless you pay them a fistfull of cash (repeatedly in the case of streaming audio).
At the other end of the spectrum you have those who think that copying music without payment doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
Neither perspective is really rational in today's world where people deserve to be compensated for the value they create and the creators an marketers have to realise that the value of their product has changed significantly due to advances in technology.
The sensible people here aren't pro-piracy, they're simply advocating that the recording companies wake up to the fact that if they don't start to see sense pretty soon, the pirates will overwhelm them.
What we have here is a typical case of supply and demand demanding an adustment to pricing.
Thanks to digital duplication, the (illegal) supply is now endless. That means the price must drop if sales of (legal) products are to be maintained.
"Wake up or die" must be the message drummed into the thick skulls of the RIAA.
I'm not in favor of piracy -- I'm in favor of paying a fair price for a good product. Unfortunately that seems to conflict with the RIAA's agenda right now.
If the RIAA doesn't like the idea of CD-burning kiosks then they should compete rather than litigate.
If they had half a brain (which they must surely be able to put together by scraping the craniums of all their members) they'd place the following in every record store in the country:
A kiosk that allows customers to "build their own" CD compilations by selecting from a huge list of individual tracks -- paying $0.50 per track or $5 per CD.
I've heard that these kiosks have been trialed elsewhere -- but they were probably shot down by the RIAA who seem intent on forcing us to buy the additional 8-9 tracks of dross that accompany the 1-2 good tracks on most newly released CDs.
But think about it...
This method means that record stores wouldn't need to carry anywhere as much inventory -- they'd be able to store their top 500 albums on a single hard-drive (or two) in the kiosk itself.
By cutting out the packaging, transport, interest on capital tied up in stock, etc, the profit margins could be higher for all concerned, while simultaneously offering a lower sticker-price to the consumer.
It's a win/win situation for everyone - except the freight companies and those who press the CDs we currently buy.
Of course it's such a simple, elegant and great idea that the RIAA are bound to think it must be a trick and therefore they'll never go for it.
Look for a new bill to appear before congress that specifically outlaws such kiosks -- after all, the US government is just another arm of the RIAA isn't it?
Hey, if I were flogging these kiosks I'd have one outside every music store in the country.
Customer walks in to music store, looks for suitably copy-protected CD, pays his money, leaves the store, turns left at the doorway, pays his $5 walks back into the store with original CD in one hand, the dupicate in his left, steps up to the counter and says "I want my money back, it won't play in my CD player."
Money changes hands, customer walks out with his new $5 CD.
Six months later the RIAA can't understand why the guy who operates these kiosks now has a bigger house, faster car and larger boat than any of the recording company bosses:-)
Now, if this thing works, and if enough slashdotters got together and funded another orbital launch, I wonder whether we could get a functioning 802.11b node up there in space.
From it, we could then run nultiple streaming radio shows without paying a cent to the RIAA.
Of course, since it would be in a LEO, it could be configured to provide total global coverage -- albeit just one area at a time.
Add a webserver and we'd finally have total freedom of speech -- Until Georgie boy shot it out of the heavens with one of his THAAD missiles at it that is:-)
After all, it's bound to be a threat to national security -- at least that's what the RIAA would probably say.
I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered -- should we not look a little more closely at the systems that allowed them to get this far?
It's a brave (or stupid) businessman who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity when it comes along -- and in the case of a listed company, management has a responsibility to stockholders to ensure that they get the maximum return on their investment.
If this means taking full advantage of the capitalist environment and using all of ones abilities to gain a dominant position within a competitive marketplace then so be it.
Gates & co have only done what thousands of other companies would love to have done. We hate M$ but we don't hate the others. The only difference is that Bill got lucky or was better at exploiting the opportunities that came along.
And ultimately -- you've got to apportion some of the blame to stupid consumers. If people are prepared to pay the prices that MS charges for the products they sell then if they find themselves in the merciless grip of a monopolistic tyrant then who do they really have to blame?
Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?
No -- over the past 20 years or so, people have chosen to buy Billy-Boy's products because they thought they were getting a good deal (even if perhaps they weren't).
Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them -- but many have simply dropped the ball.
Anyone remember Digital Research? They once owned the OS marketplace with CP/M and had a good slice of the languages marketplace with CBASIC and Pascal/MT+ Both of these products were superior to Bill's pathetic Basic80 and MS Pascal equivalents.
Then Gary Kildall dropped the ball and MS took over the OS marketplace.
And what about Borland? After the demise of Digital Research, they owned the most popular structured programming language in the world -- Turbo Pascal. Now, even though Delphi retains a band of loyal followers, Microsoft has effectively eclipsed Borland as the main vendor of PC-based computer languages (Java not withstanding).
Then there was Ashton Tate and their dBase products. They owned the PC-based database marketplace -- and then they dropped the ball, allowing MS products such as Access and MS-SQL to take up the slack.
Or what about Visicalc? When the IBM PC launched, Visicalc was the number-one spreadsheet. Look who owns that market now -- who dropped the ball?
Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.
Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.
If we chose to all flock like lemmings to the abys that is Microsoft then we get what we deserve.
However, there's now some light at the end of the tunnel. OSS such as Linux and its growing number of applications gives us the chance to break free of this self-induced addiction to MS products.
But once again, nobody can force consumers to go the OSS way -- it's a choice they have to be make for themselves. Unfortunately, the consumer has already proven that they're none too bright when it comes to choosing the best long-term option eh?
So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Hey, nice to see the Osborne in there -- I wrote my first accounting suite in Pascal MT+ for the Osborne. Managed to get an entire invoicing, stock control and debtors ledger on a single floppy disk and ended up selling several thousand copies.
But what about the earlier machines that broke new ground:
The CompuColor. This was a great machine. It only had an 8080 processor but was one of the very first "off the shelf" machines to come with amazing (from memory) 128x128 8-color graphics. It also had the disk-drive built into the color screen with a whole 84Kbytes of formatted storage.
The Commodore Pet. Just as every movie ever made to day has an apple of some flavor in it, the Commodore Pet used to be the favorite choice of movie makers when they needed to show a microcomputer somewhere. It's very distinctive looks made it instantly recognizable -- but its lackuster performance and monochrome character-based graphics was a disappointment
The TRS80 model 1. This was the main competition to the Apple II in the late 1970's. I actually preferred it to the Apple as it had a much more powerful BASIC interpreter (double-precision math!) and could be easily converted to display proper lower-case characters. It also had a decidedly flakey expansion unit that could hold up to 32 or 48K of RAM and from which up to four floppy drives could be daisy chained. Add some double-sided, double-density 80-track drives plus a copy of NewDos80 and you could get up to 1.6MB per drive for a whopping total of 6.4MB of online storage!!! Woah, be still my beating heart.
The Intertec SuperBrain. This was a really odd box that looked just like a mainfraime terminal with keyboard, screen and drives all integrated into one whopping great case. It had two 4MHZ Z80 processors -- but only one was ever processing at a time because the second was dedicated solely to the task of polled disk I/O. Looking at the schematics and firmware it appears very much as if the designers used this method because they were too stupid to write good software for a single CPU. Its real claim to fame was that it was one of the first microcomputers with any real networking capability. If you bought one of their enormous 8MB server boxes (with a 8" hard drive) you could then connect up to 255 SuperBrain computers to it using a star topography network that ran over an inflexible and awkward 40-way ribbon cable.
There were numerous other very popular machines out there such as the Ohio Superboard -- a real hacker's delight. For your money you got a built-up circuit board with a full QWERTY keyboard right their on the PCB. You had to add your own power supply, case, monitor, etc -- but they were dirt cheap.
I used to love going to computer shows back in the late 1970's and early 1980s because there was always something *radically* different to see.
These days everything's just a slightly different flavor of IBM PC:-(
Of course I'm a *real* hacker from way-back who built my first computer from scratch back in 1977 and then had to write and hand-assemble my own macro assembler before I could write a BASIC interpreter.
The processor was a Signetics 2650 CPU running at a whopping 1MHZ.
I started with just 1KB of of static ram and when I spent a small fortune to 4Kbytes I thought I was in heaven.
Believe it or not, I actually made some money from programming way back then. I'd hire out my computer to various shops where it would display a scrolling message I'd programmed (in my own BASIC) on a computer screen in the store Window.
In those days, the whole idea of a small computer and computer-generated scrolling text on a screen was so unusual that people would stop and look for many minutes. Great advertising for the stores which hired my little box and paid me to program in their message.
Geez I feel old:-)
It's faster than light teleportation too!
on
Laser Beam Teleported
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The article says:
Using a process known as quantum entanglement, the researchers, led by 34-year-old physicist Ping Koy Lam, have disassembled a laser at one end of an optical communications system and recreated a replica a metre away
and
But the radio signal survives and is sent electronically to a receiving station, where within a nanosecond an exact replica of the beam - with the radio signal intact - is retrieved and decoded.
I'm having trouble working out whether that nano-second is the elapsed time from when the original beam is destroyed and the new one is created, or whether it's the amount of time required to recreate the beam from the received radio signal.
If it's the former then we're talking faster-than-light teleportation here because it takes light 3 nanoseconds to travel a yard.
I've been saying this for many years but nobody really seems to listen...
Governments of the world need to wake up and realize that cyberspace (I hate that word) is just as real as the USA, Britain, Australia or any other country on the face of the planet.
What's needed are some "cyberspace treaties" that would work in much the same way as the various treaties that cover issues such as copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.
These treaties need only lay down the basic framework of laws needed to restrict users actions and preserve their rights while in "cyberspace."
If a country's right to connect to the Net was conditional on signing to such an treaty then we'd have a method of producing and enforcing consistent laws related to the Net and its (ab)use.
Stomping on spam would be a great start -- imagine if there were a set of basic anti-spamming laws to which all Net-connected countries had to agree to be bound (under threat of excommunication). When you got a spam from Korea -- you report the offense and if the Korean authorities were found to not be enforcing the law, they'd be in jeopardy of having the entire country disconnected.
Other important issues such as kiddy porn, defamation, etc could also be covered by such a treaty -- making it far easier to track down and arrest or extradite offenders.
Hey... the RIAA and MPAA seem to have been able to unofficially create just such a global network of enforcement -- so why can't the world's authorities and legislators watch and learn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much opposed to the introduction of bureaucracy and regulation in respect to Internet use. However, I'm also a realist and I acknowledge that there are some areas (kiddy-porn, spamming, etc) where we simply have to do something because not to act is to endorse the action of those who choose to spoil the Net for everyone.
It seems that the RIAA are trying to tell us that we're not *buying* the music, only renting or leasing it.
Under this proposed new system, when you sell your lease, the new tenant has to pay a fee to the RIAA for the privelege.
Okay, if that's the way they want it, perhaps it's time we stood up for our tenant's rights.
When a CD stops working (like the plumbing or the heating in your rented apartment) then it must be the job of the RIAA (landlord) to put it right -- at no cost to you!
If the RIAA wants to collect what amounts to a security deposit from the new tenant when a CD is resold, then they are surely obliged to refund the component of your initial purchase that represented that same security deposit.
If we could establish a precedent that the music was being leased and that there were analogies with other lease contracts then we'd open up a whole new front on which to teach these profiteering fools a lesson or two;-)
The article says "A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, said it is especially concerned that many used CDs are being bought by people who "rip" the music using widely available CD-burner devices, then sell the used CDs back to the secondhand stores where they were originally purchased"
Don't these turkeys understand that copy protection makes that situation worse?
Instead of buying a CD for $12 (giving the recording company its full entitlement), copying it, and then selling it back for $6, the smart cookies will now buy a copy-protected CD, rip it using whatever technique works on that particular system -- then take it back and demand a refund because it doesn't play properly on their equipment.
Instead of earning the full royalty on the CD sale the recording industry loses every penny!
And with such shortsightedness being demonstrated on an almost daily basis they wonder why they're losing money??
A perfect example of the difficulties facing online publishers is the fate of Aardvark in New Zealand.
This is one of the longest-running online Net-news and commentary publications on the web, having started in 1995 and been published without a break ever since. During that time it has developed an enviable reputation for frankness and insight, and scooping important stories, while attracting an audience that is the "who's who" of the NZ Internet and IT marketplace.
At one time in the late 1990s it was even profitable -- but that was when advertising dollars flowed like water.
Now, despite having a regular readership of around 5,000 people (mainly IT/Net workers and decision-makers) and scoring over 80,000 visits to the front-page every month (not too bad in a country of just 3.8 million people), the crunch point has been reached.
It costs more than $30K a year (mainly the writer/publisher's time) to produce on a daily basis and, given the general downturn in the Net marketplace since 2000, that's a figure which has become hard to justify.
Attempts to generate revenues by soliciting donations produced no more than a few hundred dollars over a period of several months and finding a corporate sponsor appeared impossible. The very blunt and uncompromising nature of the commentaries may well have contributed to this -- after all, who wants to sponsor a publication that will jump all over you if you mess up?:-)
Once it was announced that publication would cease, almost 100 readers came forward and offered to pay a subscription -- but that would still only return an hourly rate of less than $6 (US$3) on the time invested in its writing and publication.
Since late 2000, advertising hasn't been an option. The low prices, cost of soliciting, scheduling, reporting and chasing debtors means that there's no profit to be had even if advertisers can be found.
So, who's going to work for US$3/hr?
Who can afford to work for US$3/hr?
Despite the fact that publishing to the web is a whole lot cheaper than print or broadcast, it's still a difficult medium in which to turn a profit.
If these lightbulbs are emitting RF in the 2.4GHz spectrum then when will some smart-assed entrepreneur come up with the dual-function lightbulb/WiFi node?
Half the guts is already there -- the transmitter.
If every household and business had these bulbs, think of the massive 802.11 network we could build!
Each bulb could become a node in a new, better, "brighter" Internet.
Okay so I'm kidding!
Of course if that doesn't work -- why can't they just use some sheilding on these bulbs? A very thin (transparent) metal-film conductive coating (of the type they use on LCDs) should do the trick quite nicely and at minimal cost.
Hey, the government punishes people when they do stuff against the government. It should punish itself for doing stuff against the people
I think you're more than a little confused. It's not possible to punish the government.
If you try and inflict a fiscal penalty -- the money doesn't come from "the government" it comes from YOU -- the taxpayer!
Remember, bureaucrats have an incredible ability to accept bouquets whenever they're passing by -- but pass on brickbats to whoever is too slow to avoid them.
If Sony and the other labels had offered this low-cost downloadable music option a year or two ago I think it would have revolutionized their business model and been a roaring success.
Unfortunately, they've left it so late that I fear (like others who have posted here) that it will fail.
Why?
Simply because music theft has become an "acceptable" activity in the eyes of too many Net users.
Pirates have learned to justify their activities by citing figures that indicate the recording artist sees only a tiny percentage of the sticker price for CDs.
If the recording companies had moved in while there were still pangs of guilt associated with the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted music then they could have pulled it off.
I predict that some people will opt to buy legal downloads (just like some have signed up to the subscription-based online services offered by record labels) - but the vast majority will continue to get their music for free.
This is unfortunate for all concerned because it means that we'll all end up paying more for our music.
Just watch the demise of the audio CD within the next two years.
The recording companies will force everyone to move to a new format with built-in DRM. Okay, so it won't affect hardened pirate (nothing ever will) but the recording industry will go ahead and do it anyway -- and we'll all end up having to buy new players just to gain (legal) access to the latest releases and paying the premium required to offset those development costs.
The solution?
The recording companies should give the damned music away for free!
No, I'm not kidding.
Let's face it -- they're effectively doing that every time a music vid screens on TV or when an FM station plays a track. Sure, there's a fee paid for each public performance -- but there's nothing to stop people from recording those broadcasts and burning them to disk or CD. Hell, I've got a great (and growing) collection of MPEGs containing all my favourite music videos. When it comes to "pop" music, I just capture what I want from free-to-air broadcasts and burn it to VCD or SVCD. I don't have to download MP3s -- I just record the audio and video track.
Artists and recording companies should put all the music on the Net for free and switch to other revenue streams.
What other streams?
1. Product endorsement (how much does Britney Spears make from her Pepsi commercials??)
2. Live concerts. Let's face it -- how does any recording artist justify earning millions of dollars for a few weeks in the studio cutting a new album?? Perhaps they could do some *real* work for their money -- just like the rest of us have to.
And there are an armful of other revenue streams that could be generated by giving away free music.
Perhaps it's time that the recording industry realized (just as the manufacturers of carbon-paper, horse-shoes and vacuum tubes had to) that the market has changed and old products and business models may no longer be valid.
The MPAA will have to take the same long look at itself -- and perhaps actors will have to realize that a couple of months work simply isn't worth tens of millions of dollars.
I've just finished my own version of the experiment.
I took a tin pie tray and stuck it in the freezer for a couple of hours.
Then I rummaged through the attic and found that old turntable that used to scratch all my Barry Manilow LPs back in the '70s.
After running an extension lead from the socket on the kitchen bench over to the freezer, I stuck the plate on the turntable, set it to 78RPMs and let her rip.
The inital results were somewhat disappointing. Several spiders and a rodent that was either a very large mouse or a small rat ran out the back of the turntable and disappeared into a bag of frozen mince -- but the pie tray didn't lift up an inch.
Not to be discouraged, I figured that perhaps the reduced gravitational field only appeared above the pie tray -- so I grabbed the cat (which just happened to be passing by at the time) and pressed its warm little bottom onto the frozen pie tray.
I guess it was a little cold for him because he didn't half get excited -- or maybe I should have taken that spindle out of the center of the turntable first -- oh well.
Anyway, after a bit of hissing, growling and some bleeding (my blood not his), the cat eventually settled down enough for me to release him.
He sat their with a glazed look in his eyes and once again I flicked the switch to 78 RPMs.
Horray -- Success!
The cat lept several feet into the air, schrieking, hissing, wailing and spinning wildly at what I figured was probably 78RPMs.
But alas, the effect was short lived.
No sooner had this levitated feline lifted into the air than he crashed back down onto the rotating pie tray.
Ah, what the hell -- I slammed down the freezer lid and sat down in front of the TV with a beer.
I'll go back later and see whether he's settled down. Maybe tomorrow.
Anyway -- it looks as if there is some effect there but measuring it requires the use of protective garments and probably a more cooperative cat.
Now there's some guy called Schrodinger at the door asking whether the cat in my freezer is dead but telling me not to open the lid.
Since gravity is a manifestation of a warpage of space-time, does this also mean that he is claiming superconductors are equivalent to gravity wells?
Cause or effect?
Does mass produce gravity that produces a distortion in space-time..
or is it a distortion in space-time that produces the illusion of the gravity associated with a mass?
Can we exceed the speed of light? Of course we can -- just combine the theories of Einstein with the observations of Gallileo...
Einstein tells us that the mass of an object increases infinitely as we approach the speed of light. This has been taken by most to mean that accelerating a mass beyond the speed of light would therefore require infinite energy.
But hang on -- Gallileo correctly determined that the acceleration of an object when acted on by a gravitational field is independent of its mass (air resistance not withstanding).
So -- if we use an external gravitational field to accelerate an object, the fact that it will gain infinite mass is irrelevant -- because it will maintain the same acceleration regardless.
Hence -- black holes and their immense gravitational pull are our secret to faster-than-light travel.
Now if I could just hitch one up to my mountain bike I'd be away:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I've just seen an Australian news broadcast with interviews of the parties involved and they say that the model separated from the rocket at lift off.
The indication was that the model fell back onto the launch pad and the rocket then went out of control.
And the winner on the day was: Sir Isac Newton!
And exercise too, but do something fun. I don't know how people can ride stationary bikes or run on treadmills for an hour every day. The boredom kills me. I play racquetball and other active sports
:-)
I agree with your basic assertion that we should eat healthy foods and exercise but, add a little warning about exercising.
Aerobic exercise will not make/help you lose weight unless you do an awful lot of it.
It will take almost an hour's strenuous exercise to burn off that Maars bar you wolfed down and burning off the calories from a Big Mac could take half a day or more.
The key to using exercise as a method of helping weight loss is to use resistance training rather than running or other aerobic exercises.
Every time you add an ounce of lean muscle to your body, your resting metabolic rate increases -- ie: you burn more calories without even exerting yourself.
By comparison, aerobic exercise tends to lower the body's "at rest" metabolic rate so you burn less energy.
Resistance exercising has the added advantage (for men) that you'll "bulk up" and get stronger. "What's that? Did you call me a geek? Come here and say that"
So, roll out those weights and get working.
You only have to do a 10-15 minute work-out, three times a week to have a really noticeable effect on your strength and your body shape.
You might find this hard to believe but using this machine in New Zealand would be considered a breach of our copyright laws.
That's because under NZ law, the purchasers of copyrighted music have *no* right whatsoever to copy that music.
That's right -- you can't tape your CDs or vinyl, you can't tape music from the radio and you certainly can't rip CDs to MP3.
The head of Sony Music NZ is also at the front of a local campaign titled "Burn and get Burnt" which is trying to convince consumers not to burn CDs.
So on the one hand we have Sony selling its MD players/recorders that claim to be able to rip CDs to MD, and on the other hand you've got the head of Sony standing firm behind a law that says consumers are not allowed to rip CDs to MD or any other format.
Talk about two-faced!
Sometimes it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I consider myself to be one of the pioneers of news aggregation and linking -- having done this on a number of my own sites since 1995.
Back in 1998 I came into conflict with the Nando Times when my 7am.com news site over the use of their headlines and links on the syndicated Java news ticker and news-aggregation pages.
Nando tried to claim that use of its headlines and links to its pages were a breach of copyright and that anyone wishing to do this would have to pay $100/month for
the privilege.
I told them to go take a hike and they threatened to sue for breach of copyright. Suffice to say that once they checked with their legal department as to the validity of their claims they decided to back down.
Although they were one of the first news sites on the Web, Nando simply didn't get the concept that links drive traffic and traffic generates ad revenues -- or at least it did when there were advertisers willing to pay for placements.
The stupid thing about this whole situation was that the 7am.com News Ticker became so popular and drove so much traffic to the various sites included on it that if I decided to remove the links to a particular news site I'd often get an email complaining that I *wasn't* linking.
Around the same time I had similar problems with my Aardvark site and found myself battling a long list of local news publishers who threatened legal action if I continued to deep link to the stories they were carrying.
As with Nando, these sites eventually worked out that traffic = revenues and withdrew their stupid threats.
I should make it clear that I have a very ethical and honest linking policy which I advertise on my sites so that both the linkers and linkees know what I expect and offer. It's a shame that more sites don't do the same so as to avoid confusion and conflict.
I've been deep linking for some seven years, been threatened with law suits over my linking activities by much bigger publishers on no less than six occasions -- but never had to spend a day in court and never backed down.
Some people just take longer to learn that the WWW is *made* from deep links and that to disallow them will effectively destroy the fabric of the web.
No, no, the last thing we need is a slick US-scripted version of Dr Who. We need to carry on the tradition of props that are made from old cardboard packing cartons and hammy actors who fumble their lines -- that's what made the series so great!
I've got a whole heap of Dr Who episodes, right episode #1 of series #1 with Hartnel as the Dr. Right now I'm burning them to VCD because I'm worried that my VHS tapes will start to degrade.
I was going to use Divx but there are still too many uncertainties as to the future and backwards compatibility that don't justify the limited improvement in picture quality that Divx offers over MPEG1 (remember this is old grainy black and white video shot in the 1960's).
Once they're in digital form I can at least copy them to whatever new media comes along without any loss of quality.
I'd like them to keep the Dr "pure" B-grade and hokey in presentation. Half the fun was trying to catch a glimpse of feet beneath the Daleks as they traversed rocky ground -- or watching the walls of a set shake and rock when someone brushed against them.
Please, please don't change the production standards so as to make it "just another slick sci-fi series filled with special effects"
I thought that one of the things America prided itself on was that it was a perfect example of capitalism in action -- individuals and companies that succeed on their merits and markets where consumers benefit by fair and open competition.
Oh dear, how things are changing.
Now we have a few key players in a few industries (RIAA, MPAA) bribing the government to introduce *state-enforced* controls over markets and competition.
The rights that previously protected US citizens from the excesses and over zealous actions of large corporations are gradually being eroded as things such as "fair use" under copyright law is completely wiped by legislation such as the DMCA.
What's more, it becomes patently obvious that when industries such as the RIAA and MPAA conspire to defeat the principles of capitalism and free-market competition, the government seems interested only in slapping wrists on the one hand while handing them more power (via the DMCA) on the other.
Shouldn't citizens be asking -- why are we allowing big business to buy-off the government?
And, above all else, citizens should remember that governments are elected to SERVE and REPRESENT *all* citizens, not just those with big wallets.
Go talk to your elected representitive and tell him he's not getting your vote unless he shapes up and restores the USA to its former caplitalist glory!
I recently found myself in a similar situation when my Daily self-published internet column finally became just too much of a drain on my finances and I was faced with shutting it down after seven years of work.
The subscription option was considered but in the end, just 2% of the regular audience said they would subscribe -- a number far too low to support the site.
However, I was very lucky insomuch as I managed to obtain a 12-month sponsorship from a local ISP which, while not covering all the costs, at least pays for the cofee, power, phone and some of the other outgoings.
Given the sad fate of so many great online publications, it strikes me that perhaps the secret to longevity and (ultimately?) profit may well be KISS - that's Keep It Small & Sponsored.
It strikes me that too many online publications focus on building empires rather than simply creating and publishing good content at minimal cost.
For example -- does Salon rent office space?
Why?
Surely a "new media" publisher would realize the enormous savings to be made by having writers work from home and email in their copy.
When I launched 7am.com, I ran the entire operation (2 million hits per day and a network of 200,000 third-party websites) on a completely virtual basis. No rented offices, no conference room, no company cars, no scooters -- just a group of hard-working people staying in touch and coordinating their efforts over the Net.
The Net may be a great medium for publishing content -- but it's an even greater way to slash your operating costs -- if you use it properly!
.if that were the case, turning it off and on every day like that might actually make it work [i]better[/i]
:-)
Oh come on -- if it *were* a Microsoft satellite then the hAkre d00dzE would have already taken it over and used it to knock all the government-owned satellites out of orbit
Microsoft would have responded by issuing a "Trustworthy Orbiting" initiative and advised everyone to upgrade to "Satellite XP" -- but only if they're prepare to sign the new licensing agreement that includes something about ownership of your firstborn child.
There are always extremes.
At one end of the spectrum you have the RIAA who have the ball and won't share unless you pay them a fistfull of cash (repeatedly in the case of streaming audio).
At the other end of the spectrum you have those who think that copying music without payment doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
Neither perspective is really rational in today's world where people deserve to be compensated for the value they create and the creators an marketers have to realise that the value of their product has changed significantly due to advances in technology.
The sensible people here aren't pro-piracy, they're simply advocating that the recording companies wake up to the fact that if they don't start to see sense pretty soon, the pirates will overwhelm them.
What we have here is a typical case of supply and demand demanding an adustment to pricing.
Thanks to digital duplication, the (illegal) supply is now endless. That means the price must drop if sales of (legal) products are to be maintained.
"Wake up or die" must be the message drummed into the thick skulls of the RIAA.
I'm not in favor of piracy -- I'm in favor of paying a fair price for a good product. Unfortunately that seems to conflict with the RIAA's agenda right now.
If the RIAA doesn't like the idea of CD-burning kiosks then they should compete rather than litigate.
If they had half a brain (which they must surely be able to put together by scraping the craniums of all their members) they'd place the following in every record store in the country:
A kiosk that allows customers to "build their own" CD compilations by selecting from a huge list of individual tracks -- paying $0.50 per track or $5 per CD.
I've heard that these kiosks have been trialed elsewhere -- but they were probably shot down by the RIAA who seem intent on forcing us to buy the additional 8-9 tracks of dross that accompany the 1-2 good tracks on most newly released CDs.
But think about it...
This method means that record stores wouldn't need to carry anywhere as much inventory -- they'd be able to store their top 500 albums on a single hard-drive (or two) in the kiosk itself.
By cutting out the packaging, transport, interest on capital tied up in stock, etc, the profit margins could be higher for all concerned, while simultaneously offering a lower sticker-price to the consumer.
It's a win/win situation for everyone - except the freight companies and those who press the CDs we currently buy.
Of course it's such a simple, elegant and great idea that the RIAA are bound to think it must be a trick and therefore they'll never go for it.
Look for a new bill to appear before congress that specifically outlaws such kiosks -- after all, the US government is just another arm of the RIAA isn't it?
Hey, if I were flogging these kiosks I'd have one outside every music store in the country.
:-)
Customer walks in to music store, looks for suitably copy-protected CD, pays his money, leaves the store, turns left at the doorway, pays his $5 walks back into the store with original CD in one hand, the dupicate in his left, steps up to the counter and says "I want my money back, it won't play in my CD player."
Money changes hands, customer walks out with his new $5 CD.
Six months later the RIAA can't understand why the guy who operates these kiosks now has a bigger house, faster car and larger boat than any of the recording company bosses
Now, if this thing works, and if enough slashdotters got together and funded another orbital launch, I wonder whether we could get a functioning 802.11b node up there in space.
:-)
From it, we could then run nultiple streaming radio shows without paying a cent to the RIAA.
Of course, since it would be in a LEO, it could be configured to provide total global coverage -- albeit just one area at a time.
Add a webserver and we'd finally have total freedom of speech -- Until Georgie boy shot it out of the heavens with one of his THAAD missiles at it that is
After all, it's bound to be a threat to national security -- at least that's what the RIAA would probably say.
I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered -- should we not look a little more closely at the systems that allowed them to get this far?
It's a brave (or stupid) businessman who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity when it comes along -- and in the case of a listed company, management has a responsibility to stockholders to ensure that they get the maximum return on their investment.
If this means taking full advantage of the capitalist environment and using all of ones abilities to gain a dominant position within a competitive marketplace then so be it.
Gates & co have only done what thousands of other companies would love to have done. We hate M$ but we don't hate the others. The only difference is that Bill got lucky or was better at exploiting the opportunities that came along.
And ultimately -- you've got to apportion some of the blame to stupid consumers. If people are prepared to pay the prices that MS charges for the products they sell then if they find themselves in the merciless grip of a monopolistic tyrant then who do they really have to blame?
Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?
No -- over the past 20 years or so, people have chosen to buy Billy-Boy's products because they thought they were getting a good deal (even if perhaps they weren't).
Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them -- but many have simply dropped the ball.
Anyone remember Digital Research? They once owned the OS marketplace with CP/M and had a good slice of the languages marketplace with CBASIC and Pascal/MT+ Both of these products were superior to Bill's pathetic Basic80 and MS Pascal equivalents.
Then Gary Kildall dropped the ball and MS took over the OS marketplace.
And what about Borland? After the demise of Digital Research, they owned the most popular structured programming language in the world -- Turbo Pascal. Now, even though Delphi retains a band of loyal followers, Microsoft has effectively eclipsed Borland as the main vendor of PC-based computer languages (Java not withstanding).
Then there was Ashton Tate and their dBase products. They owned the PC-based database marketplace -- and then they dropped the ball, allowing MS products such as Access and MS-SQL to take up the slack.
Or what about Visicalc? When the IBM PC launched, Visicalc was the number-one spreadsheet. Look who owns that market now -- who dropped the ball?
Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.
Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.
If we chose to all flock like lemmings to the abys that is Microsoft then we get what we deserve.
However, there's now some light at the end of the tunnel. OSS such as Linux and its growing number of applications gives us the chance to break free of this self-induced addiction to MS products.
But once again, nobody can force consumers to go the OSS way -- it's a choice they have to be make for themselves. Unfortunately, the consumer has already proven that they're none too bright when it comes to choosing the best long-term option eh?
So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Hey, nice to see the Osborne in there -- I wrote my first accounting suite in Pascal MT+ for the Osborne. Managed to get an entire invoicing, stock control and debtors ledger on a single floppy disk and ended up selling several thousand copies.
:-(
:-)
But what about the earlier machines that broke new ground:
The CompuColor. This was a great machine. It only had an 8080 processor but was one of the very first "off the shelf" machines to come with amazing (from memory) 128x128 8-color graphics. It also had the disk-drive built into the color screen with a whole 84Kbytes of formatted storage.
The Commodore Pet. Just as every movie ever made to day has an apple of some flavor in it, the Commodore Pet used to be the favorite choice of movie makers when they needed to show a microcomputer somewhere. It's very distinctive looks made it instantly recognizable -- but its lackuster performance and monochrome character-based graphics was a disappointment
The TRS80 model 1. This was the main competition to the Apple II in the late 1970's. I actually preferred it to the Apple as it had a much more powerful BASIC interpreter (double-precision math!) and could be easily converted to display proper lower-case characters. It also had a decidedly flakey expansion unit that could hold up to 32 or 48K of RAM and from which up to four floppy drives could be daisy chained. Add some double-sided, double-density 80-track drives plus a copy of NewDos80 and you could get up to 1.6MB per drive for a whopping total of 6.4MB of online storage!!! Woah, be still my beating heart.
The Intertec SuperBrain. This was a really odd box that looked just like a mainfraime terminal with keyboard, screen and drives all integrated into one whopping great case. It had two 4MHZ Z80 processors -- but only one was ever processing at a time because the second was dedicated solely to the task of polled disk I/O. Looking at the schematics and firmware it appears very much as if the designers used this method because they were too stupid to write good software for a single CPU. Its real claim to fame was that it was one of the first microcomputers with any real networking capability. If you bought one of their enormous 8MB server boxes (with a 8" hard drive) you could then connect up to 255 SuperBrain computers to it using a star topography network that ran over an inflexible and awkward 40-way ribbon cable.
There were numerous other very popular machines out there such as the Ohio Superboard -- a real hacker's delight. For your money you got a built-up circuit board with a full QWERTY keyboard right their on the PCB. You had to add your own power supply, case, monitor, etc -- but they were dirt cheap.
I used to love going to computer shows back in the late 1970's and early 1980s because there was always something *radically* different to see.
These days everything's just a slightly different flavor of IBM PC
Of course I'm a *real* hacker from way-back who built my first computer from scratch back in 1977 and then had to write and hand-assemble my own macro assembler before I could write a BASIC interpreter.
The processor was a Signetics 2650 CPU running at a whopping 1MHZ.
I started with just 1KB of of static ram and when I spent a small fortune to 4Kbytes I thought I was in heaven.
Believe it or not, I actually made some money from programming way back then. I'd hire out my computer to various shops where it would display a scrolling message I'd programmed (in my own BASIC) on a computer screen in the store Window.
In those days, the whole idea of a small computer and computer-generated scrolling text on a screen was so unusual that people would stop and look for many minutes. Great advertising for the stores which hired my little box and paid me to program in their message.
Geez I feel old
The article says:
Using a process known as quantum entanglement, the researchers, led by 34-year-old physicist Ping Koy Lam, have disassembled a laser at one end of an optical communications system and recreated a replica a metre away
and
But the radio signal survives and is sent electronically to a receiving station, where within a nanosecond an exact replica of the beam - with the radio signal intact - is retrieved and decoded.
I'm having trouble working out whether that nano-second is the elapsed time from when the original beam is destroyed and the new one is created, or whether it's the amount of time required to recreate the beam from the received radio signal.
If it's the former then we're talking faster-than-light teleportation here because it takes light 3 nanoseconds to travel a yard.
I've been saying this for many years but nobody really seems to listen...
Governments of the world need to wake up and realize that cyberspace (I hate that word) is just as real as the USA, Britain, Australia or any other country on the face of the planet.
What's needed are some "cyberspace treaties" that would work in much the same way as the various treaties that cover issues such as copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.
These treaties need only lay down the basic framework of laws needed to restrict users actions and preserve their rights while in "cyberspace."
If a country's right to connect to the Net was conditional on signing to such an treaty then we'd have a method of producing and enforcing consistent laws related to the Net and its (ab)use.
Stomping on spam would be a great start -- imagine if there were a set of basic anti-spamming laws to which all Net-connected countries had to agree to be bound (under threat of excommunication). When you got a spam from Korea -- you report the offense and if the Korean authorities were found to not be enforcing the law, they'd be in jeopardy of having the entire country disconnected.
Other important issues such as kiddy porn, defamation, etc could also be covered by such a treaty -- making it far easier to track down and arrest or extradite offenders.
Hey... the RIAA and MPAA seem to have been able to unofficially create just such a global network of enforcement -- so why can't the world's authorities and legislators watch and learn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much opposed to the introduction of bureaucracy and regulation in respect to Internet use. However, I'm also a realist and I acknowledge that there are some areas (kiddy-porn, spamming, etc) where we simply have to do something because not to act is to endorse the action of those who choose to spoil the Net for everyone.
It seems that the RIAA are trying to tell us that we're not *buying* the music, only renting or leasing it.
;-)
Under this proposed new system, when you sell your lease, the new tenant has to pay a fee to the RIAA for the privelege.
Okay, if that's the way they want it, perhaps it's time we stood up for our tenant's rights.
When a CD stops working (like the plumbing or the heating in your rented apartment) then it must be the job of the RIAA (landlord) to put it right -- at no cost to you!
If the RIAA wants to collect what amounts to a security deposit from the new tenant when a CD is resold, then they are surely obliged to refund the component of your initial purchase that represented that same security deposit.
If we could establish a precedent that the music was being leased and that there were analogies with other lease contracts then we'd open up a whole new front on which to teach these profiteering fools a lesson or two
The article says "A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, said it is especially concerned that many used CDs are being bought by people who "rip" the music using widely available CD-burner devices, then sell the used CDs back to the secondhand stores where they were originally purchased"
Don't these turkeys understand that copy protection makes that situation worse?
Instead of buying a CD for $12 (giving the recording company its full entitlement), copying it, and then selling it back for $6, the smart cookies will now buy a copy-protected CD, rip it using whatever technique works on that particular system -- then take it back and demand a refund because it doesn't play properly on their equipment.
Instead of earning the full royalty on the CD sale the recording industry loses every penny!
And with such shortsightedness being demonstrated on an almost daily basis they wonder why they're losing money??
A perfect example of the difficulties facing online publishers is the fate of Aardvark in New Zealand.
:-)
This is one of the longest-running online Net-news and commentary publications on the web, having started in 1995 and been published without a break ever since. During that time it has developed an enviable reputation for frankness and insight, and scooping important stories, while attracting an audience that is the "who's who" of the NZ Internet and IT marketplace.
At one time in the late 1990s it was even profitable -- but that was when advertising dollars flowed like water.
Now, despite having a regular readership of around 5,000 people (mainly IT/Net workers and decision-makers) and scoring over 80,000 visits to the front-page every month (not too bad in a country of just 3.8 million people), the crunch point has been reached.
It costs more than $30K a year (mainly the writer/publisher's time) to produce on a daily basis and, given the general downturn in the Net marketplace since 2000, that's a figure which has become hard to justify.
Attempts to generate revenues by soliciting donations produced no more than a few hundred dollars over a period of several months and finding a corporate sponsor appeared impossible. The very blunt and uncompromising nature of the commentaries may well have contributed to this -- after all, who wants to sponsor a publication that will jump all over you if you mess up?
Once it was announced that publication would cease, almost 100 readers came forward and offered to pay a subscription -- but that would still only return an hourly rate of less than $6 (US$3) on the time invested in its writing and publication.
Since late 2000, advertising hasn't been an option. The low prices, cost of soliciting, scheduling, reporting and chasing debtors means that there's no profit to be had even if advertisers can be found.
So, who's going to work for US$3/hr?
Who can afford to work for US$3/hr?
Despite the fact that publishing to the web is a whole lot cheaper than print or broadcast, it's still a difficult medium in which to turn a profit.
Well the answer appears very simple to me.
If these lightbulbs are emitting RF in the 2.4GHz spectrum then when will some smart-assed entrepreneur come up with the dual-function lightbulb/WiFi node?
Half the guts is already there -- the transmitter.
If every household and business had these bulbs, think of the massive 802.11 network we could build!
Each bulb could become a node in a new, better, "brighter" Internet.
Okay so I'm kidding!
Of course if that doesn't work -- why can't they just use some sheilding on these bulbs? A very thin (transparent) metal-film conductive coating (of the type they use on LCDs) should do the trick quite nicely and at minimal cost.
Hey, the government punishes people when they do stuff against the government. It should punish itself for doing stuff against the people
I think you're more than a little confused. It's not possible to punish the government.
If you try and inflict a fiscal penalty -- the money doesn't come from "the government" it comes from YOU -- the taxpayer!
Remember, bureaucrats have an incredible ability to accept bouquets whenever they're passing by -- but pass on brickbats to whoever is too slow to avoid them.
At last, some real competition to Rupert Murdoch's crappy satellite-based PayTV service!
Now if they can just get a good looking weather-babe the military might be on a winner here!
If Sony and the other labels had offered this low-cost downloadable music option a year or two ago I think it would have revolutionized their business model and been a roaring success.
Unfortunately, they've left it so late that I fear (like others who have posted here) that it will fail.
Why?
Simply because music theft has become an "acceptable" activity in the eyes of too many Net users.
Pirates have learned to justify their activities by citing figures that indicate the recording artist sees only a tiny percentage of the sticker price for CDs.
If the recording companies had moved in while there were still pangs of guilt associated with the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted music then they could have pulled it off.
I predict that some people will opt to buy legal downloads (just like some have signed up to the subscription-based online services offered by record labels) - but the vast majority will continue to get their music for free.
This is unfortunate for all concerned because it means that we'll all end up paying more for our music.
Just watch the demise of the audio CD within the next two years.
The recording companies will force everyone to move to a new format with built-in DRM. Okay, so it won't affect hardened pirate (nothing ever will) but the recording industry will go ahead and do it anyway -- and we'll all end up having to buy new players just to gain (legal) access to the latest releases and paying the premium required to offset those development costs.
The solution?
The recording companies should give the damned music away for free!
No, I'm not kidding.
Let's face it -- they're effectively doing that every time a music vid screens on TV or when an FM station plays a track. Sure, there's a fee paid for each public performance -- but there's nothing to stop people from recording those broadcasts and burning them to disk or CD. Hell, I've got a great (and growing) collection of MPEGs containing all my favourite music videos. When it comes to "pop" music, I just capture what I want from free-to-air broadcasts and burn it to VCD or SVCD. I don't have to download MP3s -- I just record the audio and video track.
Artists and recording companies should put all the music on the Net for free and switch to other revenue streams.
What other streams?
1. Product endorsement (how much does Britney Spears make from her Pepsi commercials??)
2. Live concerts. Let's face it -- how does any recording artist justify earning millions of dollars for a few weeks in the studio cutting a new album?? Perhaps they could do some *real* work for their money -- just like the rest of us have to.
And there are an armful of other revenue streams that could be generated by giving away free music.
Perhaps it's time that the recording industry realized (just as the manufacturers of carbon-paper, horse-shoes and vacuum tubes had to) that the market has changed and old products and business models may no longer be valid.
The MPAA will have to take the same long look at itself -- and perhaps actors will have to realize that a couple of months work simply isn't worth tens of millions of dollars.
I've just finished my own version of the experiment.
I took a tin pie tray and stuck it in the freezer for a couple of hours.
Then I rummaged through the attic and found that old turntable that used to scratch all my Barry Manilow LPs back in the '70s.
After running an extension lead from the socket on the kitchen bench over to the freezer, I stuck the plate on the turntable, set it to 78RPMs and let her rip.
The inital results were somewhat disappointing. Several spiders and a rodent that was either a very large mouse or a small rat ran out the back of the turntable and disappeared into a bag of frozen mince -- but the pie tray didn't lift up an inch.
Not to be discouraged, I figured that perhaps the reduced gravitational field only appeared above the pie tray -- so I grabbed the cat (which just happened to be passing by at the time) and pressed its warm little bottom onto the frozen pie tray.
I guess it was a little cold for him because he didn't half get excited -- or maybe I should have taken that spindle out of the center of the turntable first -- oh well.
Anyway, after a bit of hissing, growling and some bleeding (my blood not his), the cat eventually settled down enough for me to release him.
He sat their with a glazed look in his eyes and once again I flicked the switch to 78 RPMs.
Horray -- Success!
The cat lept several feet into the air, schrieking, hissing, wailing and spinning wildly at what I figured was probably 78RPMs.
But alas, the effect was short lived.
No sooner had this levitated feline lifted into the air than he crashed back down onto the rotating pie tray.
Ah, what the hell -- I slammed down the freezer lid and sat down in front of the TV with a beer.
I'll go back later and see whether he's settled down. Maybe tomorrow.
Anyway -- it looks as if there is some effect there but measuring it requires the use of protective garments and probably a more cooperative cat.
Now there's some guy called Schrodinger at the door asking whether the cat in my freezer is dead but telling me not to open the lid.
What the hell's going on there I wonder?
Since gravity is a manifestation of a warpage of space-time, does this also mean that he is claiming superconductors are equivalent to gravity wells?
:-)
Cause or effect?
Does mass produce gravity that produces a distortion in space-time..
or is it a distortion in space-time that produces the illusion of the gravity associated with a mass?
Can we exceed the speed of light? Of course we can -- just combine the theories of Einstein with the observations of Gallileo...
Einstein tells us that the mass of an object increases infinitely as we approach the speed of light. This has been taken by most to mean that accelerating a mass beyond the speed of light would therefore require infinite energy.
But hang on -- Gallileo correctly determined that the acceleration of an object when acted on by a gravitational field is independent of its mass (air resistance not withstanding).
So -- if we use an external gravitational field to accelerate an object, the fact that it will gain infinite mass is irrelevant -- because it will maintain the same acceleration regardless.
Hence -- black holes and their immense gravitational pull are our secret to faster-than-light travel.
Now if I could just hitch one up to my mountain bike I'd be away