As far as I know, this is no different from other performance rights organizations like ASCAP/BMI/etc. right? They collect money for everyone, whether the artist is registered with them or not. The only question is whether we need yet another performance rights organization...
I'm not remotely an expert, but I'm guessing that oxygen isn't valuable enough to go to the effort of putting energy into it to split the oxygen off. If you do everything but the splitting, then it sounds like you're describing the mineral storage method of capture [1][2].
I guess it comes down to whether the current method (fractional distillation of air) of producing oxygen uses less energy and requires less extra carbon dioxide to be produced as a side-effect. Without knowing more, I'd guess that just because fractional distillation is what's currently used, and because it doesn't involve splitting chemical bonds, that it uses less energy than splitting CO2, but that's just a guess.
There's a market for 11 billion tons of CO2?? Even if there were a market for that much CO2, the point of carbon capture isn't to use the carbon in a way that will be re-released into the atmosphere, the point is to store it away for as long of a time as possible (millions of years, preferably).
The very specific problem with burning fossil fuels is that it's liberating carbon dioxide that hasn't been part of the natural carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years... it hasn't been in the atmosphere or part of plants or anything like that... it's been buried underground. By burning the fossil fuels, humans are introducing that carbon back into the atmosphere at a very rapid rate, and the only way to make sure we don't increase the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is to semi-permanently store as much carbon as we're mining from underground in the form of oil.
As someone else said, you're probably not the target audience. Wikipedia's benefits not only include the fact that it's constantly updated, but also that it's free as in beer, and free as in speech, both of which are designed to try to spread the wealth of knowledge to places that couldn't otherwise afford many textbooks or commercial encyclopedias, including third-world countries. Wikipedia also will be distributed on the One Laptop Per Child, another way that Wikipedia hopes to distribute the knowledge to far-flung areas.
Also, Jimmy Wales is trying very hard to encourage the growth of native-language Wikipedias in third-world countries, to make sure it's accessible to nearly everyone, but that's slower going since network infrastructure is still in its infancy in those places.
Since when has any proposal from a telecommunications company, especially the companies who own the broadly-installed infrastructure, ever encouraged competition or innovation? It just doesn't happen. The only possible way to make a "third way" happen is if the government put in some basic and strict groundrules... eg. that prevent telcos from using packet shaping to give their own services a significant advantage over competitors. Unfortunately, government performance on this in the past has been spotty, especially under Republican leadership.
This came from the newly-Democratic House of Representatives... so can we get a third party in there that isn't so technologically inept, and that isn't so beholden to corporate interests?
Have you used the 360 controller? It's not hard to make a PC game compatible with it, many come close already. If the PC world had to standardize around a reasonably cheap and reasonably well-designed normal controller, you could do much worse than standardizing around the 360 controller.
So work in TeX or PDF or PS, or any of the other formats that are designed to be used with a single specific font and a specific page size, that can be tweaked endlessly.
The tunnel wouldn't really be planned to transport many people. Currently, even using just the standard airplane/ferry options, very few passengers take the route that the tunnel is planned for. [1] Presumably, the tunnel (or bridge) would be used primarily for transporting oil/gas/electricity (and possibly some containerized transport as well?).
Here's a video of a human-sized vehicle that operates on the same principle, generally called a dicycle/diwheel. If it accelerates or brakes too hard, it just flips over, with no harm done. (though the alarm clock seems to do more flipping than actual moving... does it have any sort of sense of how much forward momentum it's got?)
That specific royalty is only because "HD Radio" isn't a generic standard that anyone can use, but is instead a proprietary format that iBiquity licenses out to people. There are other digital radio formats that don't have to pay this fee.
The article summary doesn't give the right impression... the proposed policy would allow machines to target military machines. (see p.15-16 of the PDF) Page 23 is the most interesting, saying that anti-personnel landmines are looked down upon in the international community because they linger after war and kill civilians, whereas anti-tank mines aren't looked down upon so much, because they can only misfire during an armed conflict. So the policy is mostly intended to address international political responses to war, not to prevent sentient machines from taking over the human race.
Though, it would limit somewhat the extent to which machines could enslave the human race... if humans never took up arms, machines could never take lethal action against humans. That doesn't mean machines couldn't control humans politically/economically/socially (eg. deny food, deny housing), but it does mean they couldn't take up a policy of overt extermination of all humans, unless humans decided to fight to the last.
"Actually, the use of marijuana only makes a musician think he is playing better"? Was that from the 1966 World Book? It sounds pretty unprofessional, and I suppose it doesn't cite any sources to back the claim up...
Heck, Wikipedia is just as eurocentric as many textbooks (far far more is written about western television shows than is written about the long history of non-western culture). It's only due to the fact that non-native English speakers can edit Wikipedia that articles like Chinese art have a chance of growing.
There's a very big difference between "May I review that study to make sure your empirical evidence has been collected properly, and that the evidence supports the conclusions drawn?" and "*puts fingers in ears* Lalalala. What empirical evidence? I don't see any empirical evidence."
Can't Slashdot do a minimal amount of copyediting to stories before posting them?
An update posted for Intervideo WinDVD 8 confirms that it's AACS key has been possibly revoked. WinDVD 8 is the software which had it's device key compromised,
"Possibly" "confirmed" appears on its face as a likely contradiction, and it is... the linked article says "please be aware that failure to apply the update will result in AACS-protected HD DVD and BD playback being disabled".
There are companies with bigger pockets who make money off of connecting VoIP calls to the legacy voice network (eg. Comcast, Time Warner, in combination with their cablemodem service), and presumably they're concerned about the patent. Is it ever the case that a larger company provides legal assistance to a smaller company in cases like this? Or would Verizon never go after Comcast/Time Warner if they think they'd lose, and therefore it's actually in Comcast/TimeWarner's best interests to stand back and let Verizon knock out the smaller guys so they can take the rest of the VoIP market?
iTunes Store does not offer DRM-free music despite the fact that many artists have requested it
iTunes does carry indie music, so Apple does have lots of people they can negotiate with without the major labels getting in the way. For instance, all of CDBaby's catalog is available on iTunes. [1][2]
Setting up the technical and support structures for interoperability is a huge deal though, and it's not the sort of thing you can try on a limited basis, or back out of shortly after, without pissing off a lot of people and organizations who have put a lot of effort into setting up new code and new organizational structures.
On the other hand, allowing selected tracks to go DRM-free is less of a big deal. It probably requires some code changes to iTunes, and requires some legal discussions with the specific artists and their labels, but it's easy to do for a small set of tracks, and they can always back out if they want to.
So, if Apple does steadfastly refuses to take even the smallest steps towards removing DRM for a few select tracks, then that means Apple's exhortations on the downsides of DRM was either hot air, or just another chess move as part of the back-room negotiations with the music companies (along the lines of Viacom suing YouTube).
So why doesn't Apple do this? They talk the talk, saying they think DRM is harmful, yet all of their music is DRM'd, even from artists who don't want their music to be. And the article also says Musicload did this specifically because it's in heavy competition with iTunes, and thought it would give them an advantage (which it has). So when will Apple step up and allow specific artists to go DRM-free too?
You're probably the "application driven" profile... "Places application needs ahead of platform decisions", "Will support whatever platform best fits the application", "Application needs are driven by business needs".
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, this is no different from other performance rights organizations like ASCAP/BMI/etc. right? They collect money for everyone, whether the artist is registered with them or not. The only question is whether we need yet another performance rights organization...
The XBMC can't decode HD content. (it can decode SD content and upscale it to HD, but doesn't have enough CPU to decode HD source material)
I'm not remotely an expert, but I'm guessing that oxygen isn't valuable enough to go to the effort of putting energy into it to split the oxygen off. If you do everything but the splitting, then it sounds like you're describing the mineral storage method of capture [1] [2].
I guess it comes down to whether the current method (fractional distillation of air) of producing oxygen uses less energy and requires less extra carbon dioxide to be produced as a side-effect. Without knowing more, I'd guess that just because fractional distillation is what's currently used, and because it doesn't involve splitting chemical bonds, that it uses less energy than splitting CO2, but that's just a guess.
There's a market for 11 billion tons of CO2?? Even if there were a market for that much CO2, the point of carbon capture isn't to use the carbon in a way that will be re-released into the atmosphere, the point is to store it away for as long of a time as possible (millions of years, preferably).
The very specific problem with burning fossil fuels is that it's liberating carbon dioxide that hasn't been part of the natural carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years... it hasn't been in the atmosphere or part of plants or anything like that... it's been buried underground. By burning the fossil fuels, humans are introducing that carbon back into the atmosphere at a very rapid rate, and the only way to make sure we don't increase the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is to semi-permanently store as much carbon as we're mining from underground in the form of oil.
As someone else said, you're probably not the target audience. Wikipedia's benefits not only include the fact that it's constantly updated, but also that it's free as in beer, and free as in speech, both of which are designed to try to spread the wealth of knowledge to places that couldn't otherwise afford many textbooks or commercial encyclopedias, including third-world countries. Wikipedia also will be distributed on the One Laptop Per Child, another way that Wikipedia hopes to distribute the knowledge to far-flung areas.
Also, Jimmy Wales is trying very hard to encourage the growth of native-language Wikipedias in third-world countries, to make sure it's accessible to nearly everyone, but that's slower going since network infrastructure is still in its infancy in those places.
Since when has any proposal from a telecommunications company, especially the companies who own the broadly-installed infrastructure, ever encouraged competition or innovation? It just doesn't happen. The only possible way to make a "third way" happen is if the government put in some basic and strict groundrules... eg. that prevent telcos from using packet shaping to give their own services a significant advantage over competitors. Unfortunately, government performance on this in the past has been spotty, especially under Republican leadership.
This came from the newly-Democratic House of Representatives... so can we get a third party in there that isn't so technologically inept, and that isn't so beholden to corporate interests?
Oh, there a number of lawsuits and attorney general investigations too.
Have you used the 360 controller? It's not hard to make a PC game compatible with it, many come close already. If the PC world had to standardize around a reasonably cheap and reasonably well-designed normal controller, you could do much worse than standardizing around the 360 controller.
So work in TeX or PDF or PS, or any of the other formats that are designed to be used with a single specific font and a specific page size, that can be tweaked endlessly.
The tunnel wouldn't really be planned to transport many people. Currently, even using just the standard airplane/ferry options, very few passengers take the route that the tunnel is planned for. [1] Presumably, the tunnel (or bridge) would be used primarily for transporting oil/gas/electricity (and possibly some containerized transport as well?).
Here's a video of a human-sized vehicle that operates on the same principle, generally called a dicycle/diwheel. If it accelerates or brakes too hard, it just flips over, with no harm done. (though the alarm clock seems to do more flipping than actual moving... does it have any sort of sense of how much forward momentum it's got?)
That specific royalty is only because "HD Radio" isn't a generic standard that anyone can use, but is instead a proprietary format that iBiquity licenses out to people. There are other digital radio formats that don't have to pay this fee.
The article summary doesn't give the right impression... the proposed policy would allow machines to target military machines. (see p.15-16 of the PDF) Page 23 is the most interesting, saying that anti-personnel landmines are looked down upon in the international community because they linger after war and kill civilians, whereas anti-tank mines aren't looked down upon so much, because they can only misfire during an armed conflict. So the policy is mostly intended to address international political responses to war, not to prevent sentient machines from taking over the human race.
Though, it would limit somewhat the extent to which machines could enslave the human race... if humans never took up arms, machines could never take lethal action against humans. That doesn't mean machines couldn't control humans politically/economically/socially (eg. deny food, deny housing), but it does mean they couldn't take up a policy of overt extermination of all humans, unless humans decided to fight to the last.
"Actually, the use of marijuana only makes a musician think he is playing better"? Was that from the 1966 World Book? It sounds pretty unprofessional, and I suppose it doesn't cite any sources to back the claim up...
Heck, Wikipedia is just as eurocentric as many textbooks (far far more is written about western television shows than is written about the long history of non-western culture). It's only due to the fact that non-native English speakers can edit Wikipedia that articles like Chinese art have a chance of growing.
There's a very big difference between "May I review that study to make sure your empirical evidence has been collected properly, and that the evidence supports the conclusions drawn?" and "*puts fingers in ears* Lalalala. What empirical evidence? I don't see any empirical evidence."
Don't let anybody tell you the illegal immigrants don't have a few benefits.
Coincidentally or not, immigration increases as a country becomes more wealthy, while at the same time total fertility rate falls.
There are companies with bigger pockets who make money off of connecting VoIP calls to the legacy voice network (eg. Comcast, Time Warner, in combination with their cablemodem service), and presumably they're concerned about the patent. Is it ever the case that a larger company provides legal assistance to a smaller company in cases like this? Or would Verizon never go after Comcast/Time Warner if they think they'd lose, and therefore it's actually in Comcast/TimeWarner's best interests to stand back and let Verizon knock out the smaller guys so they can take the rest of the VoIP market?
Here's the original 7 patents... #6,430,275, #6,137,869, #6,104,711, #6,282,574, #6,128,304, #6,298,062, and #6,359,880.
It sounds like #6,430,275 (tiff, pdf, text/png) is the one that's the VOIP/POTS bit.
From TFA:
iTunes does carry indie music, so Apple does have lots of people they can negotiate with without the major labels getting in the way. For instance, all of CDBaby's catalog is available on iTunes. [1] [2]
Setting up the technical and support structures for interoperability is a huge deal though, and it's not the sort of thing you can try on a limited basis, or back out of shortly after, without pissing off a lot of people and organizations who have put a lot of effort into setting up new code and new organizational structures.
On the other hand, allowing selected tracks to go DRM-free is less of a big deal. It probably requires some code changes to iTunes, and requires some legal discussions with the specific artists and their labels, but it's easy to do for a small set of tracks, and they can always back out if they want to.
So, if Apple does steadfastly refuses to take even the smallest steps towards removing DRM for a few select tracks, then that means Apple's exhortations on the downsides of DRM was either hot air, or just another chess move as part of the back-room negotiations with the music companies (along the lines of Viacom suing YouTube).
So why doesn't Apple do this? They talk the talk, saying they think DRM is harmful, yet all of their music is DRM'd, even from artists who don't want their music to be. And the article also says Musicload did this specifically because it's in heavy competition with iTunes, and thought it would give them an advantage (which it has). So when will Apple step up and allow specific artists to go DRM-free too?
You're probably the "application driven" profile... "Places application needs ahead of platform decisions", "Will support whatever platform best fits the application", "Application needs are driven by business needs".