Why is the western world so utterly addicted to the internal combustion engine? It might be an easy way to get around, but we generate a lot of harmful waste gasses that way. By finding alternative ways to produce diesel and gasoline, we're not addressing the fact that internal combustion is just an outdated technology which we keep clinging on to.
Research should focus on an efficient way to turn energy from a portable source into movement, and an efficient and clean way to produce portable energy sources. We will still be needing huge quantaties of hydrocarbons (read: crude oil, not refined into diesel or anything) for the production of plastics and other artificial materials.
(1) Yeah, yeah, flame away with your pro/contra global warming theories whatever you like. Fact of the matter is: Internal Combustion engines are not an efficient way to extract energy from an energy source. A lot of energy is transferred into heat, which is dissipated. I don't want to go into the global warming issue here, with a dominantly american crowd, but the carbon oxide emissions are a fact, and they're not benificial to the environment in any case.
You can state that crapware subsidizes my purchase, but I wonder to what extend?
Looking at TV-shows for instance, these are riddled with (hidden) commercials already, why do they need to interrupt them every 10 minutes to shove a block of commercials down my throat? And has the quality of TV shows gotten any better because of the inline advertising? No. Through all the ranks it's all dumbing down. When was the last time I actually saw a music video on MTV, you know, with actual musicians in it?
We see the same with computer software. Most software is ad-supported, and the only reason for most of this crapware to be pushed on your new machine is to generate more advertisement revenue stream. It's a self-perpetuating industry, whether anyone actually spends a dime is not important, advertisement has become it's own justification.
And frankly, I'm stunned by the liberties all the marketeers and advertisers allow themselves to be as intrusive as possible. Whenever I am in a public space, I am constantly subjected to communcication aimed not at me but at my wallet. And we let these assholes get away with it.
I'm no great MS fan, but they have my blessing to use all their powers of monopoly to stop these practices, so that when I buy an off-the-shelf product, it's ready for use, and I don't need to spend hours getting it back to basic.
P.S. Not unlike many of you/. crowd, I'm always the one they call when this crapware f*cks up a guys machine and it's 'not working anymore'. Thanks a bunch Dell!
No! You're doing it wrong. Don't be scientific about it, just say: An engine that's not running is not using any fuel. Stick to these kind of logics and people will think you talk in simple truths. Next thing you'll be president of the USA.
OK, sorry, I'll take my pills now and get back to work...
Car companies could drastically reduce emissions is they would would just limit all internal combustion engines at 3000rpm. Think of what this would do for emission levels. Or that the engine would shut itself down if you let it run stationary for 30 seconds.
I think I just solved the entire global warming issue! Onwards to the meaning of life!
Wether it is a criminal case investigating guilt, or a civil case investigating liability, the fact remains that it is easily possible to exploit a difference in resources between Corp. XYZ and Joe Schmoe.
What's happening is that the RIAA's claims about piracy etc. haven't yet been tested in court. Everybody who settles in favor of the RIAA, never mind the money involved, is a little step for the RIAA towards the public view that filesharing is unacceptable. They are using these lawsuits to redefine the public opinion on this issue, not to determine liability.
Until now, the RIAA has put forward the notion that filesharing is illegal, and it has not yet been confronted because everybody settled. Once this case comes before a court of law, this notion will be seriously questioned. Any ruling in favor of the RIAA might set a precedent, but it would render half the internet population a criminal. It will be impossible to consistently enforce regulations on this scale.
Too bad the notion of Civil Disobediance is so unknown to Americans. We claim to live in a 'Free' 'Democracy', which is Greek for 'The ruling of the people'. If everyone thinks that filesharing is a good idea, the RIAA will have to adapt or die. And believe me, it will not kill music and other arts if the big corporate sponsorship of the RIAA would vanish.
The RIAA lawsuits indicate an underlying problem with this legal system. A lot of cases, not only regarding copyright infringement, are being settled out of court, because a defendent hasn't got the capabilities to fight back. Any company with sufficiently deep pockets could launch any bogus case, and leave any defendant powerless to react.
For instance: How many people are presently incarcerated without having had a fair trial (not counting any Guantanamo Bay style prisoners of course, that's a different story).
How many people have ponied up cash to SCO because of their outrageous claims about Linux IP? This sounds a lot like the bullyboy who takes your lunch money.
Yhe RIAA can't honestly think they will stop filesharing because they will have to sue millions for this message to effectively be driven home to Joe User. And the few thousand quid they win on each case will barely cover the administrative and investigative costs they make, so there's a/very/ slim chance any artists will see a penny from that money. It's corporate bullying. Why won't US senators and pressure groups worry about that instead of a computer game (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/11 /000227)?
I haven't really dug into the legal and/or practical aspects of this, but if I were an artist, and I would release my works under a suitable creative commons license, wouldn't that exempt my work from falling under this bill?
Because the trend is that more and more artists are getting fed up with the RIAA way of doing business, and they are seeking alternative ways to get their music out on the street and still be able to make some money off it, and they are succeeding. If artists could abolish the current (federal) copyright legislation and do things their way, the government and the recording industry would have a very restricted system which no one, would be using anymore (exepct for music allready existing where copyrights will probably be maintained for eternity...)
Face it, the only aspect of recording that usually can't be done at home with basic equipment is recording drums. And unless you're serious about doing this kind of thing more often, ask yourself if it is worth the investment.
In the past, I went to a studio with the drummer, recorded all the drums for the tracks in 1 day on their equipment. (We did 6 tracks in 1 day), and take these recording home. Jammed in all into cubase, and recorded all bass, guitars and vocals through my soundcard. Worked like a charm.
And depending on the sound quality you're after (and the way your drummer uses his toms), you might even record your drumkit by placing 2 overhead mics over it, and maybe an extra mic for the kick and the snare. That requires only 4 tracks, and leaves you with enough flexibility to get a decent sounding mix out of it.
And while you're busy: It greatly helps to use some compression when recording drums. It gives you a much better signal to work with in your software. Behringer has a few decent, low-budget compressors for instance, which will keep the snarelevels in check (it's allways the last hit in the song that will send it into the red...)
WiMax is at this moment not suitable for these kind of networks, for the following reasons:
WiMax equipment is hard to come by, especially for Joe User
WiMax equipment is significantly more expensive then 802.11 equipment
The goal of these kind of networks is to provide WiFi access to the community, not do some sort of Proof of Concept network. It has to be practical, and people must be able to use it. It doesn't matter/at all/ wheter a superior technology is available. As long as it's not for sale on the corner of the street, people won't buy it, and your network infrastructure will be useless.
Besides, these kind of projects usually depend on government funding and corporate sponsorships to get things off the ground. They have little money to spend and must spend it wisely. 802.11 does the trick, and it is cheap as hell. Same goes for the people who are using it. If using the network is free, it shouldn't require a $$$ purchase just to be able to access it. Especially since there are no guarantees on performance and availability.
If prices drop and availabilty rises, WiMax will surely be a good candidate to supersede 802.11 for these kind of networks, but it's going to take a few years before we're there...
Re:It features integration with Gmail.
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Google calendar uses your gmail contact list to auto suggest email addresses when inviting other users to an event. And the same goes for sharing a calendar with other users.
Quick report so far
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have been nosing around in it for a few hours now. The main thing that I still miss is the ability to sync with a PDA, but I'm sure that will be hacked into the app. at some point. Furthermore: * The user interface is pleasant, at least far more pleasant than any other web-based calendar I worked with before. * The abilty to search for and import iCal calendars is very nice. * You can manage multiple calendars from you account * Sharing calendars with other users seems to work nicely
I remember Clearswift (or whatever they were called in the day, or are now...), had a PornSweeper product years ago, which judged images based on skin-tones. Probably things have gotten a bit more sophisticated nowadays, but the principle remains the same. And there will still be a lot of false positives. Plus, people will quickly find a way to overcome these kind of filters.
All in all however, I'd rather see these kinds of initiatives than a governmental crusade against online porn, which would not only be doomed from the start, but also give a government too much control over the Internet, or the idea that they (should) have that kind of control.
They're selling IP phones, which by default cooperate nicely with the network when it comes to QoS. Same will happen with webcams and other video-technology Cisco might dive into. And just like the market is moving from traditional telephony to IP telephony, so will CCTV become IP-enabled. All you need is an integrated system, and Cisco will be able to bodge that together.
I've been spending quite some time working on it on an OS from Redmont. I'd reckon the experience can be compared to that on any *NIX/BSD you prefer.
The main things I have to say about tools is: I haven't found the right tool. Yet.
The scintilla-based editor that comes with rails is ok, but no more than that. I'd prefer an IDE, with some project management and such. It seems like there are some possibilities with eclipse. http://www.napcs.com/howto/railsonwindows.html#_To c111133460
Once more, a nice display of reverse logics! If I, as a parent, fail to keep track of what my child is doing and/or looking at, I find someone to blame. And the federal government is backing me up on this one.
If you have a small child, you, as a parent, should be aware of what kind of content your child has access to. Preview television shows, whitelist certain webpages. If you leave smutty magazines lying around the house, do you blame the editor if a child finds them and looks through it?
Besides, sex is a natural thing, use education to enable your child to discern right from wrong, instead of keeping the whole subject hidden from him/her until marriage.
Google has nothing to do with this battle the right-wing christians wage against the porn industry. I'm not saying that pornsites should advertise all over the net, or judge porn altogether, but the federal government is taking a very one-sided approach in this matter. The net has always been free, and it should remain that way. I agree with Googles view on this matter.
Let me please provide the Congress with a few examples in which questions about ethical behaviour and/or shame might be appropriate:
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people. * Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it? * Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
According to www.opensecrets.org Sony has, over the years, ponied up millions of dollars in contributions to political parties. I haven't seen that 15 year old script-running-juvenile matching that.
No it's not. Broaden your horizon, and discover how much beautiful music is out their, that is not published by RIAA-affiliated labels. It will be like dining on haute cuisine after a lifetime of eating stale mc-burgers and overly-salty french-fries!
I quit buying any music that Sony put out since their adventures in rootkit land, and these days, I will only buy a CD if it's on an indy label. Not only do I contribute to a better world, I also make sure that a lot of overrated crap music will never find its way into my collection. Thank you Sony, for showing me the way.
This is allready happening. Various 'aggregators' allow musicians and/or indie labels to publish music on iTunes and Rhapsody, against a hefty sum that is. Tunecore (http://www.tunecore.com/) offers the same, against much smaller costs.
Record companies had 3 monopolies which allowed them to firmly control the recording industry: * To record an album you need a studio, which is expensive. Record companies paid band to use studios, tying the bands to the record company. * To publish an album, you need to put it on CD (or LP), and get it out to record stores (distribution). Both of these activities come with huge expenses upfront. * Finally, you need to promote and plug a band, which requires a network of people you know.
Nowadays, as a musician, I can record decent quality productions at home with the aid of a computer, at a fraction of the costs it would take if I were to do it in a studio. Distribution can take place via the Internet, (e.g. Tunecore), and for promotion/plugging, web2.0 like community networks and a well designed website can get you somewhere.
Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.
And another victory for Bin Laden and co. Everytime a Western government implements laws like these, he comes a step closer to achieve his goal: Undermining Western civilization, economics and politics, and that without incurring any cost, be it monetary or people.
My telephone runs windows mobile, and comes bundeld with MSN messenger. I can connect through GPRS, and that 'works'. The only problem is I/O. It is hell to type in any messages with my keypad, with or without the help of T9.
I feel that the biggest hurdle to take in this scenario is not the technical feasability of running IM apps on mobile networks, but the I/O capabilities of mobile devices. PDAs are largely business oriented, while the bulk of the IM-users consists of teenagers, who do not carry a stylus-based mobile device.
Spam is often seen by companies as a method to make another profit. They come up with a box or a product that usually should be able to weed out any spam, and YOU, the customer and/or enterprise, should pony up some cash. This is not "solving spam", this is only getting rid of one of the symptoms of spam, leaving the problem relatively untouched. Messagelabs will continue to report that, how much is it these days?, percent of all e-mail traffic is either spam or virus-infected.
The Microsofts (and Ciscos, etc...) of this world probably think that once e-mail spam stops reaching peoples inboxes, the incentive for spammers to spam will vanish, and with it, the problem of spam. WRONG.
Marketing and salesforces all over the world have somehow gotten it into their heads that they have some God-given right to pester and harass consumers anytime, anyplace to beat them over the head with whatever they have around that should make you empty your pockets. And e-mail has been a relatively cheap way for them to harass us. But if that won't last, they will find newer, even more intrusive ways to get into our wallets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hearts. Texting my mobile phone, calling me with product advertisements, harassing me while I'm shopping for groceries, Inserting picture-in-picture commercials during television, etc, etc, etc... I could go on for hours about how evil everything involving marketing and sales is, but hey, we all know that don't we?
My point is: Spam is not solved by either filtering messages, or making unsollicited commercial e-mail impossible. If Microsoft really wants to enhance the quality of my life, make sure I can for instance enjoy a half hour of television without being constantly interrupted by commercials, and keep those salesdroids away from my favorite supermarket, and away from my phone. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the western world so utterly addicted to the internal combustion engine? It might be an easy way to get around, but we generate a lot of harmful waste gasses that way. By finding alternative ways to produce diesel and gasoline, we're not addressing the fact that internal combustion is just an outdated technology which we keep clinging on to.
Research should focus on an efficient way to turn energy from a portable source into movement, and an efficient and clean way to produce portable energy sources. We will still be needing huge quantaties of hydrocarbons (read: crude oil, not refined into diesel or anything) for the production of plastics and other artificial materials.
(1) Yeah, yeah, flame away with your pro/contra global warming theories whatever you like. Fact of the matter is: Internal Combustion engines are not an efficient way to extract energy from an energy source. A lot of energy is transferred into heat, which is dissipated. I don't want to go into the global warming issue here, with a dominantly american crowd, but the carbon oxide emissions are a fact, and they're not benificial to the environment in any case.
You can state that crapware subsidizes my purchase, but I wonder to what extend?
/. crowd, I'm always the one they call when this crapware f*cks up a guys machine and it's 'not working anymore'. Thanks a bunch Dell!
Looking at TV-shows for instance, these are riddled with (hidden) commercials already, why do they need to interrupt them every 10 minutes to shove a block of commercials down my throat? And has the quality of TV shows gotten any better because of the inline advertising? No. Through all the ranks it's all dumbing down. When was the last time I actually saw a music video on MTV, you know, with actual musicians in it?
We see the same with computer software. Most software is ad-supported, and the only reason for most of this crapware to be pushed on your new machine is to generate more advertisement revenue stream. It's a self-perpetuating industry, whether anyone actually spends a dime is not important, advertisement has become it's own justification.
And frankly, I'm stunned by the liberties all the marketeers and advertisers allow themselves to be as intrusive as possible. Whenever I am in a public space, I am constantly subjected to communcication aimed not at me but at my wallet. And we let these assholes get away with it.
I'm no great MS fan, but they have my blessing to use all their powers of monopoly to stop these practices, so that when I buy an off-the-shelf product, it's ready for use, and I don't need to spend hours getting it back to basic.
P.S.
Not unlike many of you
No! You're doing it wrong. Don't be scientific about it, just say: An engine that's not running is not using any fuel.
Stick to these kind of logics and people will think you talk in simple truths. Next thing you'll be president of the USA.
OK, sorry, I'll take my pills now and get back to work...
Car companies could drastically reduce emissions is they would would just limit all internal combustion engines at 3000rpm. Think of what this would do for emission levels.
Or that the engine would shut itself down if you let it run stationary for 30 seconds.
I think I just solved the entire global warming issue!
Onwards to the meaning of life!
Wether it is a criminal case investigating guilt, or a civil case investigating liability, the fact remains that it is easily possible to exploit a difference in resources between Corp. XYZ and Joe Schmoe.
What's happening is that the RIAA's claims about piracy etc. haven't yet been tested in court. Everybody who settles in favor of the RIAA, never mind the money involved, is a little step for the RIAA towards the public view that filesharing is unacceptable. They are using these lawsuits to redefine the public opinion on this issue, not to determine liability.
Until now, the RIAA has put forward the notion that filesharing is illegal, and it has not yet been confronted because everybody settled. Once this case comes before a court of law, this notion will be seriously questioned. Any ruling in favor of the RIAA might set a precedent, but it would render half the internet population a criminal. It will be impossible to consistently enforce regulations on this scale.
Too bad the notion of Civil Disobediance is so unknown to Americans. We claim to live in a 'Free' 'Democracy', which is Greek for 'The ruling of the people'. If everyone thinks that filesharing is a good idea, the RIAA will have to adapt or die. And believe me, it will not kill music and other arts if the big corporate sponsorship of the RIAA would vanish.
The RIAA lawsuits indicate an underlying problem with this legal system. A lot of cases, not only regarding copyright infringement, are being settled out of court, because a defendent hasn't got the capabilities to fight back. Any company with sufficiently deep pockets could launch any bogus case, and leave any defendant powerless to react.
/very/ slim chance any artists will see a penny from that money. It's corporate bullying. Why won't US senators and pressure groups worry about that instead of a computer game (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/11 /000227)?
For instance: How many people are presently incarcerated without having had a fair trial (not counting any Guantanamo Bay style prisoners of course, that's a different story).
How many people have ponied up cash to SCO because of their outrageous claims about Linux IP? This sounds a lot like the bullyboy who takes your lunch money.
Yhe RIAA can't honestly think they will stop filesharing because they will have to sue millions for this message to effectively be driven home to Joe User. And the few thousand quid they win on each case will barely cover the administrative and investigative costs they make, so there's a
I haven't really dug into the legal and/or practical aspects of this, but if I were an artist, and I would release my works under a suitable creative commons license, wouldn't that exempt my work from falling under this bill?
Because the trend is that more and more artists are getting fed up with the RIAA way of doing business, and they are seeking alternative ways to get their music out on the street and still be able to make some money off it, and they are succeeding. If artists could abolish the current (federal) copyright legislation and do things their way, the government and the recording industry would have a very restricted system which no one, would be using anymore (exepct for music allready existing where copyrights will probably be maintained for eternity...)
I disagree. If your song gets featured, it will mean a lot of exposure, which to independent artists is very valuable.
My point exactly. Whatever I do at home, it's never going to be a million dollar production.
... and the rest at home.
Face it, the only aspect of recording that usually can't be done at home with basic equipment is recording drums. And unless you're serious about doing this kind of thing more often, ask yourself if it is worth the investment.
In the past, I went to a studio with the drummer, recorded all the drums for the tracks in 1 day on their equipment. (We did 6 tracks in 1 day), and take these recording home. Jammed in all into cubase, and recorded all bass, guitars and vocals through my soundcard. Worked like a charm.
And depending on the sound quality you're after (and the way your drummer uses his toms), you might even record your drumkit by placing 2 overhead mics over it, and maybe an extra mic for the kick and the snare. That requires only 4 tracks, and leaves you with enough flexibility to get a decent sounding mix out of it.
And while you're busy: It greatly helps to use some compression when recording drums. It gives you a much better signal to work with in your software. Behringer has a few decent, low-budget compressors for instance, which will keep the snarelevels in check (it's allways the last hit in the song that will send it into the red...)
HTH
The goal of these kind of networks is to provide WiFi access to the community, not do some sort of Proof of Concept network. It has to be practical, and people must be able to use it. It doesn't matter
Besides, these kind of projects usually depend on government funding and corporate sponsorships to get things off the ground. They have little money to spend and must spend it wisely. 802.11 does the trick, and it is cheap as hell. Same goes for the people who are using it. If using the network is free, it shouldn't require a $$$ purchase just to be able to access it. Especially since there are no guarantees on performance and availability.
If prices drop and availabilty rises, WiMax will surely be a good candidate to supersede 802.11 for these kind of networks, but it's going to take a few years before we're there...
Google calendar uses your gmail contact list to auto suggest email addresses when inviting other users to an event.
And the same goes for sharing a calendar with other users.
I have been nosing around in it for a few hours now. The main thing that I still miss is the ability to sync with a PDA, but I'm sure that will be hacked into the app. at some point. Furthermore:
* The user interface is pleasant, at least far more pleasant than any other web-based calendar I worked with before.
* The abilty to search for and import iCal calendars is very nice.
* You can manage multiple calendars from you account
* Sharing calendars with other users seems to work nicely
All in all, a decent start...
I remember Clearswift (or whatever they were called in the day, or are now...), had a PornSweeper product years ago, which judged images based on skin-tones. Probably things have gotten a bit more sophisticated nowadays, but the principle remains the same. And there will still be a lot of false positives. Plus, people will quickly find a way to overcome these kind of filters.
All in all however, I'd rather see these kinds of initiatives than a governmental crusade against online porn, which would not only be doomed from the start, but also give a government too much control over the Internet, or the idea that they (should) have that kind of control.
They're selling IP phones, which by default cooperate nicely with the network when it comes to QoS. Same will happen with webcams and other video-technology Cisco might dive into. And just like the market is moving from traditional telephony to IP telephony, so will CCTV become IP-enabled. All you need is an integrated system, and Cisco will be able to bodge that together.
I've been spending quite some time working on it on an OS from Redmont. I'd reckon the experience can be compared to that on any *NIX/BSD you prefer.
o c111133460
The main things I have to say about tools is: I haven't found the right tool. Yet.
The scintilla-based editor that comes with rails is ok, but no more than that. I'd prefer an IDE, with some project management and such. It seems like there are some possibilities with eclipse. http://www.napcs.com/howto/railsonwindows.html#_T
But I still have to check that one out...
Once more, a nice display of reverse logics! If I, as a parent, fail to keep track of what my child is doing and/or looking at, I find someone to blame. And the federal government is backing me up on this one.
If you have a small child, you, as a parent, should be aware of what kind of content your child has access to. Preview television shows, whitelist certain webpages. If you leave smutty magazines lying around the house, do you blame the editor if a child finds them and looks through it?
Besides, sex is a natural thing, use education to enable your child to discern right from wrong, instead of keeping the whole subject hidden from him/her until marriage.
Google has nothing to do with this battle the right-wing christians wage against the porn industry. I'm not saying that pornsites should advertise all over the net, or judge porn altogether, but the federal government is taking a very one-sided approach in this matter. The net has always been free, and it should remain that way. I agree with Googles view on this matter.
Let me please provide the Congress with a few examples in which questions about ethical behaviour and/or shame might be appropriate:
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people.
* Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it?
* Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
According to www.opensecrets.org Sony has, over the years, ponied up millions of dollars in contributions to political parties. I haven't seen that 15 year old script-running-juvenile matching that.
No it's not. Broaden your horizon, and discover how much beautiful music is out their, that is not published by RIAA-affiliated labels. It will be like dining on haute cuisine after a lifetime of eating stale mc-burgers and overly-salty french-fries!
I quit buying any music that Sony put out since their adventures in rootkit land, and these days, I will only buy a CD if it's on an indy label. Not only do I contribute to a better world, I also make sure that a lot of overrated crap music will never find its way into my collection. Thank you Sony, for showing me the way.
This is allready happening. Various 'aggregators' allow musicians and/or indie labels to publish music on iTunes and Rhapsody, against a hefty sum that is. Tunecore (http://www.tunecore.com/) offers the same, against much smaller costs.
Record companies had 3 monopolies which allowed them to firmly control the recording industry:
* To record an album you need a studio, which is expensive. Record companies paid band to use studios, tying the bands to the record company.
* To publish an album, you need to put it on CD (or LP), and get it out to record stores (distribution). Both of these activities come with huge expenses upfront.
* Finally, you need to promote and plug a band, which requires a network of people you know.
Nowadays, as a musician, I can record decent quality productions at home with the aid of a computer, at a fraction of the costs it would take if I were to do it in a studio. Distribution can take place via the Internet, (e.g. Tunecore), and for promotion/plugging, web2.0 like community networks and a well designed website can get you somewhere.
Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.
And another victory for Bin Laden and co. Everytime a Western government implements laws like these, he comes a step closer to achieve his goal: Undermining Western civilization, economics and politics, and that without incurring any cost, be it monetary or people.
My telephone runs windows mobile, and comes bundeld with MSN messenger. I can connect through GPRS, and that 'works'. The only problem is I/O. It is hell to type in any messages with my keypad, with or without the help of T9.
I feel that the biggest hurdle to take in this scenario is not the technical feasability of running IM apps on mobile networks, but the I/O capabilities of mobile devices. PDAs are largely business oriented, while the bulk of the IM-users consists of teenagers, who do not carry a stylus-based mobile device.
Spam is often seen by companies as a method to make another profit. They come up with a box or a product that usually should be able to weed out any spam, and YOU, the customer and/or enterprise, should pony up some cash. This is not "solving spam", this is only getting rid of one of the symptoms of spam, leaving the problem relatively untouched. Messagelabs will continue to report that, how much is it these days?, percent of all e-mail traffic is either spam or virus-infected.
The Microsofts (and Ciscos, etc...) of this world probably think that once e-mail spam stops reaching peoples inboxes, the incentive for spammers to spam will vanish, and with it, the problem of spam. WRONG.
Marketing and salesforces all over the world have somehow gotten it into their heads that they have some God-given right to pester and harass consumers anytime, anyplace to beat them over the head with whatever they have around that should make you empty your pockets. And e-mail has been a relatively cheap way for them to harass us. But if that won't last, they will find newer, even more intrusive ways to get into our wallets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hearts. Texting my mobile phone, calling me with product advertisements, harassing me while I'm shopping for groceries, Inserting picture-in-picture commercials during television, etc, etc, etc... I could go on for hours about how evil everything involving marketing and sales is, but hey, we all know that don't we?
My point is: Spam is not solved by either filtering messages, or making unsollicited commercial e-mail impossible. If Microsoft really wants to enhance the quality of my life, make sure I can for instance enjoy a half hour of television without being constantly interrupted by commercials, and keep those salesdroids away from my favorite supermarket, and away from my phone. Thank you.