for many reasons, those who control the technology of media consumption are not the same companies that create media. sony, even though it makes hdtvs and studio films, does not sell you your cable modem access
the reason for this is that those who sell you access make more money as independent business entities. there are many reasons for this, but a quick reason is that locking yourself into the exclusive broadcast or exclusive arrangements of only one content creator is very risky, and dramatically reduces your audience, because people want to partake of many studio's product
and so the business space of media distribution is always dominated by companies that are independent of the companies that produce media
when you realize this, you realize those who create media will never, and can never, control how you consume media. the chain of control is broken. even with all the legal pressure they can mount, the loopholes will always exist, and savvy programmers will release apps that get around the media creator's attempt to control your consumption
now, if you want to get absurd, and assume we live in a complete fascist corporatocracy, even THEN they cannot control your consumption. why? beause to get at the level of control needed to ensure no media is being broadcast on the internet surreptitiously (via obfuscation, encryption, bizarre protocols and ports and channels, etc.) they have to break what makes the internet interesting in the first place
did you get that? to establish the level of control needed to ensure their product isn't being traded without their approval (and profit), those who create media need to break that which makes the internet interesting
they would turn it into this ridiculous sprawling series of checkpoints. nothing would be fluid and seamless and easy. everything would be a bureacratic life choking nightmare
this will never happen. it is a legal nightmare, a tremendous financial burden, and, when implemented, nothing more than a way to shut down the net. all protocols, apps, everything must be broken in order to "fix" the internet to allow for this absurd level of control
so the media creators they would wind up controlling a ghost town, because we simply wouldn't use the net anymore anymore. no one can kill progress like that. the desire for what was lost and the anger at those who took it away would be too strong from all sectors of society. the media creators lose
television and radio has been beaming free media content on the airwaves for decades, and they are very profitable. why? how?
because charging someone to buy your book/ software/ cd/ dvd is not, and never has been, the only way money is made in media. the advertising that radio and tv sell is but one of dozens of other ways you can make $ with free software
free software represets an upside to: zero resistance to widespread implementation. if you sold your package for $100, you might have 100 customers. if you sell the same package for $0, now you might have 100,000 customers
so if you have an ancillary business model that makes, say for example, an average of $1 per customer per year (such as advertising, among many other real and speculative secondary revenue streams), you can see your free software actually makes you more money in the end than charging your customers, thereby drastically limiting your reach
in other words, you can control access to a venue in the real world, such as a concert hall. so you can't control your mp3 of your song anymore. but you will still make a rich living, have tons of fame and eager female fans. your mp3 becomes advertising, and your source of revenue becomes your journeyman concerts
"Why put the time in when you can't make money off it, so instead I would be forced to do something else to support my family."
oh, you mean like every struggling musician who ever existed? what a crock. what you mean to say is "i recorded a song once, now society owes it to me, my children, and my greatgrandchildre that they never have to work a day in their lives". you see copyright as a path to entitlement. sorry, fuck you, consider this notice that your sense of entitlement is hereby revoked. yes, you DO have to work like the rest of us, sorry asshole
furthermore, this observation of still making $ in a world without copyright can be extrapolated to any other media, even book writers. jk rowling would still be very rich in a world without copyright because she would sell all sorts of ancillary products and sell her script to hollywood. how can you sell a script in a world without copyright? my observation on copyright being dead only applies to media that is consumed electronically, because the internet represents zero distribution costs and infinite reach. anything in the realworld, such as a hollywood production, represents a choke point that doesn't exist on the internet. since cost is involved, control can be exerted. another studio can be sued for making a harry potter movie without the studio who owns the rights' permission. you simply can't do that on the internet. you can do that in the real world, and you will always be able to do that. so notice the qualitification: the copyright is dead in regard to anything that can consumed on the internet, and only in that regard
hollywood itself would still make lots of money because people still like going to theatres. watching the dark knight on a 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself does not compete. television was supposed to kill hollywood in the 1950s. now the internet is supposed to kill hollywood. the entire time, theatre attendance and revenues keep going up. conclusion: people like going to the theatre, and always will, regardless of all the constant doomsayers. a theater is a venue where you charge attendance, because yu can CONTROL attendance, so we will have $100 million production budgets for decades to come
btw, hollywood will still make money on dvds. people will still buy them to guarantee organization, ease of use, quality. likewise, bertelsmann will still sell cds. its just that they won't stop, or be able to stop, the free trade of dvd and cd content on the web (where most of it will be distributed and consumed for free, granted)
meanwhile, penguin will still sell plenty of books, because nothing competes with woodpulp in terms of cost and convenience and ease of use (sorry kindle)
that someone in the justice system has noticed that the rabid dog has no right to go around just randomly biting people
but a lot of us are still waiting for someone in the justice system to notice that we need to put the rabid dog out of its misery
there is no more life in copyright for products that can be consumed electronically (music, text, movies, etc.) because there is no way to enforce the legal concept of copyright in an environment where there is zero distribution cost for infinite distribution abilities
the internet killed copyright. the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined. i can share a file with someone in buenos aires, wellington, seoul, and vancouver. my distribution costs are zero. my reach is infinite. there is no such thing as copyright in this environment
there are no checkpoints where a rogue printing press, pirate cd presser, or renegade vcr duplicator can be located by the authorities and shut down. who are you going to shutdown on the internet? traffic can be obscured in such a way that you can't monitor it, and these methods can be encapsulated in code so the clueless end user need not know any special technical abilities to trrde files discreetly, and find anything they want
game over dude
a lot of time now must be spent waiting for everyone else to wake up to this realization
you are asking the question "what is the best way to build applications on the internet?"
you should be asking the question "how can i do {xyz} without needing an application at all?"
Browsers are great for online brochures, and terrible for anything more complicated than that.
you are 100% correct. but in that observation of yours is not the weakness of the internet, but the reason the internet is as popular as it is, its strength: anyone can get on there and build something. low barrier to entry. thats why it so popular
you assume the internet exists so that developers can write applications easily in their ivory towers of clean and robust code. wrong. the internet exists so joe shmoe in his rec room pc can paste something up there in mangled html without closing tags
in other words, get used to the tower of babel. it rankles that wing of the developer community which is extremely anal retentive. now, being very anal retentive is a very useful skill when being a programmer. but its not a very useful tool for figuring out why the world is as messy at is
so let me explain it to you one more time: sure, you can build some sort of application interface that you infer is the "superior" way to go in your comment above, but this will be an esoteric niche development environment not many people familiarize themselves with, while everyone else keeps cranking out html. such that, when it comes time to finally build a large complicated application, the developers will be catering to the most popular environment in the house, the html one, even though they would have a much easier time of it in your specialized environment. your "superior" interface will remain dusty and forgotten and unused
repeat after me: low barrier to entry is a more important consideration than writing clean code
low barrier to entry creates popularity. popularity establishes dominance. domainance dictates the environment in which you code. that's why
if they screw up the release schedule, fox reaps massive ill will from the distributors
if they cancel, fox won't make any money on their claim
what will happen is the lawyers will argue about numbers, fox will get $25 million, and fox will walk away
this happened on the johnny knoxville/ jessica simpson dukes of hazzard movie. the legal wrangling left some producers with a claim on the property with $17 million
someone looks red faced in wb legal, they screwed up
I will, however, reiterate that, no matter how dire the situation looks (per the filing - which, at 112 pages, is probably longer than the shooting script for X-MEN: THE LAST STAND), you will have your WATCHMEN on March 6, 2009. Fox may be able to get away with mugging a rival studio for eight figures, but they're not going to actively impede the rollout of a $100 million-plus motion picture. Though Rupert Murdoch and his garbage-greenlighting toady Tom Rothman are certainly a pair of ruthless operators, knocking a potential blockbuster off the spring release schedule would be bad, bad, bad for the movie business in general (e.g. I can't imagine the exhibitors, who've been cycling through tepidly performing Fox releases all year, would be terribly pleased).
The question right now is whether Fox will settle for a lump sum buyout or a percentage of the gross. My guess is that they'll gladly take the former - and I'm quite sure they've already a number in mind. $10 million? Too low. $50 million? Too high. $25 million? If David Poland's numbers make sense, The House of Rothman should be happy with that haul - especially since there's no guarantee that WATCHMEN will catch on with rank-and-file moviegoers. (I might've been one of those dipshits who lowballed THE DARK KNIGHT's domestic take, but there was still no doubt it would make more than BATMAN BEGINS. WATCHMEN isn't a franchise; it's a standalone gamble. And an R-rated one at that. There's no telling at the moment if it'll bomb or hit.)
from people who still don't understand how the fundamentals have changed
recorded music is now nothing more than an advertising vehicle for artists. if some old timers have a problem conceptualizing that, imagine the business model of radio: it gave music away for free in order to sell ad spots and create buzz. got that? apply that concept to recorded music now. welcome to present day reality
artists: no more coasting on royalties. you'll have to do regular work, concert gigs, to make a living like the rest of us mortals, or be spokesman for advertisers. you'll still be disgustingly rich and get lots of blow jobs from eager female fans. i don't exactly empathize with your plight of losing royalties
distributors: the internet has replaced you. you can't compete with free, sorry, enjoy your extinction
who built a tabletop farnsworth reactor a few years ago
its technically challenging to build one of these, but not beyond the skillset and material list of a committed and persevering amateur science buff
however, saying that once you build one you can work towards self-sustaining fusion is like saying after playing with legos you can go build a pyramid. well yea, you have the conceptualization down, but you still need to move heaven and earth and invest trillions
having said that, what these guys are doing is still important in terms of awareness and getting the good word out. we NEED fusion power. to save us from pollution, global warming, petrodollar funded russian neoimperialism and islamic fundamentalism, etc.
and one of these guys just one day may provide the mental spark to get working a real breakthrough in the field, or inspire a kid somewhere to wonder in awe, and he grows up to provide that mental spark of a breakthrough. anyone who doubts that is just way too jaded
his investigation of manipulation of the placement of cannon balls in a photo from the crimean war- yes, the crimean war, that far back, is thoroughly engrossing if you are mentally predisposed to highly detailed anal retentive visual forensics
for everyone else, the shocking historically manipulated propaganda photos are worth the visit
and seattle, the home of starbucks, should have known that
i'm dead serious. i live in midtown manhattan, and finding a toilet for a tourist, nevermind a resident, is near impossible were it not for a certain chain of coffee shops that monopolize every street corner. and they always have a restroom (unless they are those tiny stores), and those restrooms are open to the public without fail. there are some starbucks nearby subway entrances where if you go sit, you'll notice there is a regular stream of visitors... to the commode, and no one even pretends to want to buy a coffee
you really have to understand what a blessing this is. it really is unique to starbucks: every other establishment, including mcdonalds and other fast food places, are usually hostile to making its restrooms available. but i guess coffee chases away vagrants, as the unstable and stinky always seem to congregate to mcdonalds for their restroom needs, bothering the grumbling manager behind the counter for a key rather than shuffling a few more steps around the corner to go to a keyless starbucks restroom. why the homeless do this, i don't know, but that is 100% true. habit? familiarity?
i used to think the city made starbucks keep their restrooms open for this very reason, as it is such a huge boon in convenience for midtown visitors, workers, and residents. or perhaps a marketing droid at starbucks headquarters noticed a correlation between sales and restroom availability? who knows, but for a non-new york city resident, it is hard to understand what a blessing starbucks restrooms have been for the city
whatever the reason for the mana from heaven of bum-free starbucks commodes in midtown, i'd like to thank starbucks with my very own original marketing slogan, they can use it free of charge:
"if you are thinking of something steaming and brown, think starbucks in midtown";-)
taste like, since you obviously suck on it so hard
oh great apologist for russian neoimperialism
russia invades a tiny neighbor, and its tha usa's fault
amazing!
did you know that usa's invasion of irag is russia's fault for arms sales to hussein?
that sentence is complete bullshit, i don't believe it, it is just an example of the kind of bullshit you believe in
and yes, bush, that retarded moron, was elected by propaganda victims. people who think just like you about the usa's motivations, who swallow the most incredible bullshit
like you swallow incredible bullshit about russia's intents and purposes
you're a braindead partisan zombie
apologise some more for moscow retard, see if you can keep talking with your mouth full of putin's penis so firmly implanted in it
because i have no respect for you. i am not talking to an open minded person concerned with right and wrong. you are a propaganda victim, your mind is not clearly thinking
you honestly think that russia invading georgia is america's fault
which, you have to understand is completely absurd. i don't support america. i repeat, i do not support the usa. i am not for the usa, i am not for the usa, i am not for the usa
my criticism of russia comes from a neutral point of view. my criticism of russia come s a neutral morality. my ciricism of russia is not pro-american, or anti-american, or anything about america, because thinking about the crime russia committed by violating georgian territorial integrity does not involve anything america ever did. it is russia's decision, it is russia's crime
you apparently do not understand that, because you are so prejudiced, so partisan, you cannot even view the world without pro- or anti-american blinders. when some things that happen in this world honestly do not have anything to do with the usa
can be said of about a dozen incidents about russian abuses in chechnya
chechnya doesn't want to be a part of russia, russia committed abuses to keep chechnya
ossetia doesn't want to be a part of georgia, georgia committed abuses to keep ossetia
so, based on your logic and reasoning above, you support chechnya being free and independent from russia, right?
answer the question: everything georgia does bad in ossetia, russia did 10x worse in chechnya
so, BASED ON YOUR LOGIC, russia has 10x more reason to be kicked out of chechnya
if you say no, russia should keep chechnya, then you are a propagandized partisan, you have no independent thought, you are like a tribal gang member. you have no morality on your side, just chest thumping at a retarded football game: who has the most territory, turf war
you are empty pointless apologist mouthpiece for russian neoimperialism
as i do, about all the different dhtml and javascript implementations across different browsers, be very scared
here is a vision of the future where different browsers use different script languages
its as if internet explorer never decided to support javascript in the mid1990s but still gained massive market share, forcing us in the industry to code for sites in javascript and vbscript
when the georgians engage in genocide, we can talk about splitting up georgia
meanwhile, georgia go after bandits on their own territory, and russia uses this as an excuse to invade the territorial integrity of another country (the west worked throung the united nations to engage the balkans, btw, it didn't act on its own)
and its just hilarious how you keep talking about the usa being the blame for this
1. you tell me not ride my skateboard in front of your house or you will beat me with a baseball bat 2. my friend gives me a skateboard and i ride it in front of your house, knowing it will make you angry 3. you come out of your house, and beat me bloody with a baseball bat
who is wrong? no matter what i did, beating someone with a baseball bat is worse, even though you warned me. get that? this is the same as above:
1. russia tells georgia not to try to police your own territories within your internationally recognized borders 2. usa gives georgia weapons to dow hat georgia wants to, in its own borders 3. russia invaes the territorial integrity of georgia
your conclusion? its the usa's fault. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
if a guy warns his girlfriend not to wear a slutty dress or he will beat her, and the girlfriend's best friend tells er to wear the dress any way, you blame the best friend. me? i blame the boyfriend for being an asshole
you want to say the usa is wrong for baiting russia to do great evil. i say rusia has done great evil, SO ATTACK RUSSIA
furthermore, i know what you are going to say: usa invaded iraq, so russia can do that to. so two wrong makes a right? how about the usa invading iraq is wrong AND russia invading georgia is wrong
this is your problem: pick which view is right:
1. russia good, america evil 2. america evil, russia good
which do you believe?
BZZZZZZZZZ
your wrong, trick question, both choices are wrong. the correct answer is:
1. russia evil, america evil
so you can't use what america does as an excuse to excuse russia. you can't use what russia does as an excuse to excuse america. YOU CALL THEM BOTH EVIL
and CLEARLY on the isue of invading georgia, RUSSIA IS BY FAR THE MOST EVIL BY ANY MEASURE OF THE SITUATION
but if you continue to blame the usa for the evil russia does, it just means you are a propagandized moron
and notice, I AM NOT SUPPORTING THE USA, so i am not a propaganda victim on the other side. i am calling you a propagandzied moron because i hate the usa AND russia. BOTH ARE EVIL. wake up you retard
so your position is that russia is an unthinking alien force, like lightning strikes or a mass of angry bees. to you, russia is not composed of human beigns that can be reasoned with, or responsibility or accountability can be expected of
to you, the only responsible human beings ont he planet are americans. all other peoples and cultures in the world are composed of inscrutable forces that can only be avoided. only the usa is a responsible human being that must bear responsibility for whatever happens
this is what oyu are trying to tell us
see, i have a funny idea. my funny idea is that russian policy is set by russians. who, as human beings like americans, can bear responsibility for their actions, just like americans can
isn't that a crazy wack idea?
so, for example, when a woman wears a mini skirt and gets raped, i blame the rapist. you, apparently, would rather blame the woman, because she wore a miniskirt. THATS YOUR THINKING ON THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF GEORGIA
so the georgians took american assistance. therefore, all the evil the russians did or ever could do, is the fault of the americans
"Russia's response was predictable, and almost unavoidable and USA knew this."
is like saying " a mowan is respnsible for being raped because she wore a miniskirt. she knew she would attract bad men, so what bad men do is her fault" gee, maybe we should blame BAD MEN for what BAD MEN do? isn't that a crazy idea?
so if the RUSSIANS invade a country, the RUSSIANS are responsible for that
that's the weird alien bizarre thinking i have to offer you
Slashdot Mirror
for many reasons, those who control the technology of media consumption are not the same companies that create media. sony, even though it makes hdtvs and studio films, does not sell you your cable modem access
the reason for this is that those who sell you access make more money as independent business entities. there are many reasons for this, but a quick reason is that locking yourself into the exclusive broadcast or exclusive arrangements of only one content creator is very risky, and dramatically reduces your audience, because people want to partake of many studio's product
and so the business space of media distribution is always dominated by companies that are independent of the companies that produce media
when you realize this, you realize those who create media will never, and can never, control how you consume media. the chain of control is broken. even with all the legal pressure they can mount, the loopholes will always exist, and savvy programmers will release apps that get around the media creator's attempt to control your consumption
now, if you want to get absurd, and assume we live in a complete fascist corporatocracy, even THEN they cannot control your consumption. why? beause to get at the level of control needed to ensure no media is being broadcast on the internet surreptitiously (via obfuscation, encryption, bizarre protocols and ports and channels, etc.) they have to break what makes the internet interesting in the first place
did you get that? to establish the level of control needed to ensure their product isn't being traded without their approval (and profit), those who create media need to break that which makes the internet interesting
they would turn it into this ridiculous sprawling series of checkpoints. nothing would be fluid and seamless and easy. everything would be a bureacratic life choking nightmare
this will never happen. it is a legal nightmare, a tremendous financial burden, and, when implemented, nothing more than a way to shut down the net. all protocols, apps, everything must be broken in order to "fix" the internet to allow for this absurd level of control
so the media creators they would wind up controlling a ghost town, because we simply wouldn't use the net anymore anymore. no one can kill progress like that. the desire for what was lost and the anger at those who took it away would be too strong from all sectors of society. the media creators lose
television and radio has been beaming free media content on the airwaves for decades, and they are very profitable. why? how?
because charging someone to buy your book/ software/ cd/ dvd is not, and never has been, the only way money is made in media. the advertising that radio and tv sell is but one of dozens of other ways you can make $ with free software
free software represets an upside to: zero resistance to widespread implementation. if you sold your package for $100, you might have 100 customers. if you sell the same package for $0, now you might have 100,000 customers
so if you have an ancillary business model that makes, say for example, an average of $1 per customer per year (such as advertising, among many other real and speculative secondary revenue streams), you can see your free software actually makes you more money in the end than charging your customers, thereby drastically limiting your reach
in other words, you can control access to a venue in the real world, such as a concert hall. so you can't control your mp3 of your song anymore. but you will still make a rich living, have tons of fame and eager female fans. your mp3 becomes advertising, and your source of revenue becomes your journeyman concerts
"Why put the time in when you can't make money off it, so instead I would be forced to do something else to support my family."
oh, you mean like every struggling musician who ever existed? what a crock. what you mean to say is "i recorded a song once, now society owes it to me, my children, and my greatgrandchildre that they never have to work a day in their lives". you see copyright as a path to entitlement. sorry, fuck you, consider this notice that your sense of entitlement is hereby revoked. yes, you DO have to work like the rest of us, sorry asshole
furthermore, this observation of still making $ in a world without copyright can be extrapolated to any other media, even book writers. jk rowling would still be very rich in a world without copyright because she would sell all sorts of ancillary products and sell her script to hollywood. how can you sell a script in a world without copyright? my observation on copyright being dead only applies to media that is consumed electronically, because the internet represents zero distribution costs and infinite reach. anything in the realworld, such as a hollywood production, represents a choke point that doesn't exist on the internet. since cost is involved, control can be exerted. another studio can be sued for making a harry potter movie without the studio who owns the rights' permission. you simply can't do that on the internet. you can do that in the real world, and you will always be able to do that. so notice the qualitification: the copyright is dead in regard to anything that can consumed on the internet, and only in that regard
hollywood itself would still make lots of money because people still like going to theatres. watching the dark knight on a 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself does not compete. television was supposed to kill hollywood in the 1950s. now the internet is supposed to kill hollywood. the entire time, theatre attendance and revenues keep going up. conclusion: people like going to the theatre, and always will, regardless of all the constant doomsayers. a theater is a venue where you charge attendance, because yu can CONTROL attendance, so we will have $100 million production budgets for decades to come
btw, hollywood will still make money on dvds. people will still buy them to guarantee organization, ease of use, quality. likewise, bertelsmann will still sell cds. its just that they won't stop, or be able to stop, the free trade of dvd and cd content on the web (where most of it will be distributed and consumed for free, granted)
meanwhile, penguin will still sell plenty of books, because nothing competes with woodpulp in terms of cost and convenience and ease of use (sorry kindle)
that someone in the justice system has noticed that the rabid dog has no right to go around just randomly biting people
but a lot of us are still waiting for someone in the justice system to notice that we need to put the rabid dog out of its misery
there is no more life in copyright for products that can be consumed electronically (music, text, movies, etc.) because there is no way to enforce the legal concept of copyright in an environment where there is zero distribution cost for infinite distribution abilities
the internet killed copyright. the internet lets everyone be a publisher with greater reach than all the most powerful media companies combined. i can share a file with someone in buenos aires, wellington, seoul, and vancouver. my distribution costs are zero. my reach is infinite. there is no such thing as copyright in this environment
there are no checkpoints where a rogue printing press, pirate cd presser, or renegade vcr duplicator can be located by the authorities and shut down. who are you going to shutdown on the internet? traffic can be obscured in such a way that you can't monitor it, and these methods can be encapsulated in code so the clueless end user need not know any special technical abilities to trrde files discreetly, and find anything they want
game over dude
a lot of time now must be spent waiting for everyone else to wake up to this realization
the internet killed copyright
you are asking the question "what is the best way to build applications on the internet?"
you should be asking the question "how can i do {xyz} without needing an application at all?"
Browsers are great for online brochures, and terrible for anything more complicated than that.
you are 100% correct. but in that observation of yours is not the weakness of the internet, but the reason the internet is as popular as it is, its strength: anyone can get on there and build something. low barrier to entry. thats why it so popular
you assume the internet exists so that developers can write applications easily in their ivory towers of clean and robust code. wrong. the internet exists so joe shmoe in his rec room pc can paste something up there in mangled html without closing tags
in other words, get used to the tower of babel. it rankles that wing of the developer community which is extremely anal retentive. now, being very anal retentive is a very useful skill when being a programmer. but its not a very useful tool for figuring out why the world is as messy at is
so let me explain it to you one more time: sure, you can build some sort of application interface that you infer is the "superior" way to go in your comment above, but this will be an esoteric niche development environment not many people familiarize themselves with, while everyone else keeps cranking out html. such that, when it comes time to finally build a large complicated application, the developers will be catering to the most popular environment in the house, the html one, even though they would have a much easier time of it in your specialized environment. your "superior" interface will remain dusty and forgotten and unused
repeat after me: low barrier to entry is a more important consideration than writing clean code
low barrier to entry creates popularity. popularity establishes dominance. domainance dictates the environment in which you code. that's why
if they screw up the release schedule, fox reaps massive ill will from the distributors
if they cancel, fox won't make any money on their claim
what will happen is the lawyers will argue about numbers, fox will get $25 million, and fox will walk away
this happened on the johnny knoxville/ jessica simpson dukes of hazzard movie. the legal wrangling left some producers with a claim on the property with $17 million
someone looks red faced in wb legal, they screwed up
better analysis at aintitcool.com
from people who still don't understand how the fundamentals have changed
recorded music is now nothing more than an advertising vehicle for artists. if some old timers have a problem conceptualizing that, imagine the business model of radio: it gave music away for free in order to sell ad spots and create buzz. got that? apply that concept to recorded music now. welcome to present day reality
artists: no more coasting on royalties. you'll have to do regular work, concert gigs, to make a living like the rest of us mortals, or be spokesman for advertisers. you'll still be disgustingly rich and get lots of blow jobs from eager female fans. i don't exactly empathize with your plight of losing royalties
distributors: the internet has replaced you. you can't compete with free, sorry, enjoy your extinction
launch day:
"ok we're suited up and ready to go"
"see you on mars guys! t minus ten minutes now"
"say... this rocket looks kind a small... where's the return module?"
"oh, it's hidden under that booster over there, don't worry about that"
"no, i'm certain this craft is way smaller than schematics i've been shown... and it looks like we have enough fuel to only get to mars"
"tick tock, tick tock, times a wasting guys, better get inside now"
"look, here's the manifest, my gosh, we only have half the amount of oxygen we need to get here and back, someone alert command"
"ok, i told them, we'll get back to you once you've passed the moon. chop chop, get inside now fellas..."
"hmmm"
we won't ever run out of helium and hydrogen (deutrium, tritium, etc.)
but short term, yes: use breeder fission reactors
was found by using a pringles can!
wait, what?
oh sorry, i'm on the wrong forum frequency...
who built a tabletop farnsworth reactor a few years ago
its technically challenging to build one of these, but not beyond the skillset and material list of a committed and persevering amateur science buff
however, saying that once you build one you can work towards self-sustaining fusion is like saying after playing with legos you can go build a pyramid. well yea, you have the conceptualization down, but you still need to move heaven and earth and invest trillions
having said that, what these guys are doing is still important in terms of awareness and getting the good word out. we NEED fusion power. to save us from pollution, global warming, petrodollar funded russian neoimperialism and islamic fundamentalism, etc.
and one of these guys just one day may provide the mental spark to get working a real breakthrough in the field, or inspire a kid somewhere to wonder in awe, and he grows up to provide that mental spark of a breakthrough. anyone who doubts that is just way too jaded
so i salute you amateur fusion researchers
keep hope alive
would make good fodder for an xkcd comic
perhaps someone already has the relevant comic to paste under your comment?
there is an assumption in the story synopsis that photo manipulation is somehow new
read this engrossing blog by errol morris at the nyt, it's an extremely anal retentive take on photo manipulation throughout the ages
his investigation of manipulation of the placement of cannon balls in a photo from the crimean war- yes, the crimean war, that far back, is thoroughly engrossing if you are mentally predisposed to highly detailed anal retentive visual forensics
for everyone else, the shocking historically manipulated propaganda photos are worth the visit
and seattle, the home of starbucks, should have known that
i'm dead serious. i live in midtown manhattan, and finding a toilet for a tourist, nevermind a resident, is near impossible were it not for a certain chain of coffee shops that monopolize every street corner. and they always have a restroom (unless they are those tiny stores), and those restrooms are open to the public without fail. there are some starbucks nearby subway entrances where if you go sit, you'll notice there is a regular stream of visitors... to the commode, and no one even pretends to want to buy a coffee
you really have to understand what a blessing this is. it really is unique to starbucks: every other establishment, including mcdonalds and other fast food places, are usually hostile to making its restrooms available. but i guess coffee chases away vagrants, as the unstable and stinky always seem to congregate to mcdonalds for their restroom needs, bothering the grumbling manager behind the counter for a key rather than shuffling a few more steps around the corner to go to a keyless starbucks restroom. why the homeless do this, i don't know, but that is 100% true. habit? familiarity?
i used to think the city made starbucks keep their restrooms open for this very reason, as it is such a huge boon in convenience for midtown visitors, workers, and residents. or perhaps a marketing droid at starbucks headquarters noticed a correlation between sales and restroom availability? who knows, but for a non-new york city resident, it is hard to understand what a blessing starbucks restrooms have been for the city
whatever the reason for the mana from heaven of bum-free starbucks commodes in midtown, i'd like to thank starbucks with my very own original marketing slogan, they can use it free of charge:
"if you are thinking of something steaming and brown, think starbucks in midtown" ;-)
taste like, since you obviously suck on it so hard
oh great apologist for russian neoimperialism
russia invades a tiny neighbor, and its tha usa's fault
amazing!
did you know that usa's invasion of irag is russia's fault for arms sales to hussein?
that sentence is complete bullshit, i don't believe it, it is just an example of the kind of bullshit you believe in
and yes, bush, that retarded moron, was elected by propaganda victims. people who think just like you about the usa's motivations, who swallow the most incredible bullshit
like you swallow incredible bullshit about russia's intents and purposes
you're a braindead partisan zombie
apologise some more for moscow retard, see if you can keep talking with your mouth full of putin's penis so firmly implanted in it
because i have no respect for you. i am not talking to an open minded person concerned with right and wrong. you are a propaganda victim, your mind is not clearly thinking
you honestly think that russia invading georgia is america's fault
which, you have to understand is completely absurd. i don't support america. i repeat, i do not support the usa. i am not for the usa, i am not for the usa, i am not for the usa
my criticism of russia comes from a neutral point of view. my criticism of russia come s a neutral morality. my ciricism of russia is not pro-american, or anti-american, or anything about america, because thinking about the crime russia committed by violating georgian territorial integrity does not involve anything america ever did. it is russia's decision, it is russia's crime
you apparently do not understand that, because you are so prejudiced, so partisan, you cannot even view the world without pro- or anti-american blinders. when some things that happen in this world honestly do not have anything to do with the usa
rape the little girls of iran, swallow the hearts of north korean toddlers, drink blood from the skulls of iraqi children
that makes america pretty evil
and doesn't in any way make anything evil russia does somehow better, or somehow worse, or modifies it in anyway
therefore, when russia does something evil, you say "russia did something evil"
you don't say "yeah but america..."
america what?
america can do 1,000,000x worse than anything russia did
and?
so i'm going to go next door to my neighbors house, knock on his door, and shoot him the face
then when someone says "you're evil"
i'll say "yeah but stalin killed millions, which is worse, so that means i'm ok"
what the fuck does anything stalin did have to do with me shooting my neighbor in the face?
what the fuck does anything the usa ever did have to do with a RUSSIAN decision to defy the territorial integrity of another country?
the usa defied the territorial integrity of 10 countries? 1,000 countries? ok, america sucks
AND HOW DOES THAT EXUCSE WHAT RUSSIA JUST DID?
i don't fucking care about america. fuck america. america is evil, evil evil, evil
understand me?
AMERICA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIL RUSSIA IS DOING IN GEORGIE RIGHT NOW RETARD
i expect you to reply to me by saying "yeah but america..."
THIS IS SOMETHING RUSSIA DID
HELLO?????
do you have morality? a sense of human conscience?
or are you just obsessed with one stupid country?
if you have morality, when someone does something wrong, you chastise him
WHO invaded goergia?
WHO decided to invade georgia
therefore WHO did something wrong?
everything you wrote above
can be said of about a dozen incidents about russian abuses in chechnya
chechnya doesn't want to be a part of russia, russia committed abuses to keep chechnya
ossetia doesn't want to be a part of georgia, georgia committed abuses to keep ossetia
so, based on your logic and reasoning above, you support chechnya being free and independent from russia, right?
answer the question: everything georgia does bad in ossetia, russia did 10x worse in chechnya
so, BASED ON YOUR LOGIC, russia has 10x more reason to be kicked out of chechnya
if you say no, russia should keep chechnya, then you are a propagandized partisan, you have no independent thought, you are like a tribal gang member. you have no morality on your side, just chest thumping at a retarded football game: who has the most territory, turf war
you are empty pointless apologist mouthpiece for russian neoimperialism
you are a loser
zzz
as i do, about all the different dhtml and javascript implementations across different browsers, be very scared
here is a vision of the future where different browsers use different script languages
its as if internet explorer never decided to support javascript in the mid1990s but still gained massive market share, forcing us in the industry to code for sites in javascript and vbscript
(shudder)
engage in genocide like the serbians did?
when the georgians engage in genocide, we can talk about splitting up georgia
meanwhile, georgia go after bandits on their own territory, and russia uses this as an excuse to invade the territorial integrity of another country (the west worked throung the united nations to engage the balkans, btw, it didn't act on its own)
and its just hilarious how you keep talking about the usa being the blame for this
1. you tell me not ride my skateboard in front of your house or you will beat me with a baseball bat
2. my friend gives me a skateboard and i ride it in front of your house, knowing it will make you angry
3. you come out of your house, and beat me bloody with a baseball bat
who is wrong? no matter what i did, beating someone with a baseball bat is worse, even though you warned me. get that? this is the same as above:
1. russia tells georgia not to try to police your own territories within your internationally recognized borders
2. usa gives georgia weapons to dow hat georgia wants to, in its own borders
3. russia invaes the territorial integrity of georgia
your conclusion? its the usa's fault. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
if a guy warns his girlfriend not to wear a slutty dress or he will beat her, and the girlfriend's best friend tells er to wear the dress any way, you blame the best friend. me? i blame the boyfriend for being an asshole
you want to say the usa is wrong for baiting russia to do great evil. i say rusia has done great evil, SO ATTACK RUSSIA
furthermore, i know what you are going to say: usa invaded iraq, so russia can do that to. so two wrong makes a right? how about the usa invading iraq is wrong AND russia invading georgia is wrong
this is your problem: pick which view is right:
1. russia good, america evil
2. america evil, russia good
which do you believe?
BZZZZZZZZZ
your wrong, trick question, both choices are wrong. the correct answer is:
1. russia evil, america evil
so you can't use what america does as an excuse to excuse russia. you can't use what russia does as an excuse to excuse america. YOU CALL THEM BOTH EVIL
and CLEARLY on the isue of invading georgia, RUSSIA IS BY FAR THE MOST EVIL BY ANY MEASURE OF THE SITUATION
but if you continue to blame the usa for the evil russia does, it just means you are a propagandized moron
and notice, I AM NOT SUPPORTING THE USA, so i am not a propaganda victim on the other side. i am calling you a propagandzied moron because i hate the usa AND russia. BOTH ARE EVIL. wake up you retard
of america
america is evil. evil, evil evil
do you hear me clearly?
however, in georgia, right now, the actions of the russians are far more evil
do you understand?
the usa is not good
russia is not good
and right now, in georgia, russia is being far more evil than the usa ever could be
south ossetia, btw darling, IS GEORGIAN TERRITORY
THEY DONT NEED ANYONES PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING THERE
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
"stop the nukes"
"yeah yeah right on!"
"save the whales"
"you got that right brother!"
"bomb the moon"
"right... i mean, what?"
"bomb the moon with love, man"
"oh right, right, bomb the moon with love!"
"nuke the whales"
"ummm..."
so your position is that russia is an unthinking alien force, like lightning strikes or a mass of angry bees. to you, russia is not composed of human beigns that can be reasoned with, or responsibility or accountability can be expected of
to you, the only responsible human beings ont he planet are americans. all other peoples and cultures in the world are composed of inscrutable forces that can only be avoided. only the usa is a responsible human being that must bear responsibility for whatever happens
this is what oyu are trying to tell us
see, i have a funny idea. my funny idea is that russian policy is set by russians. who, as human beings like americans, can bear responsibility for their actions, just like americans can
isn't that a crazy wack idea?
so, for example, when a woman wears a mini skirt and gets raped, i blame the rapist. you, apparently, would rather blame the woman, because she wore a miniskirt. THATS YOUR THINKING ON THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF GEORGIA
so the georgians took american assistance. therefore, all the evil the russians did or ever could do, is the fault of the americans
"Russia's response was predictable, and almost unavoidable and USA knew this."
is like saying " a mowan is respnsible for being raped because she wore a miniskirt. she knew she would attract bad men, so what bad men do is her fault" gee, maybe we should blame BAD MEN for what BAD MEN do? isn't that a crazy idea?
so if the RUSSIANS invade a country, the RUSSIANS are responsible for that
that's the weird alien bizarre thinking i have to offer you
pfffffft
they need the botnet resources for ddosing georgia
you said
the "terrorists have all our oil" argument needs to be put in perspective
under my argument
when i obviously did not make that argument
have a nice day