"They absolutely do take the money they recieve from customers and then make the next commercials"
The purpose of that is to attract MORE money from those customers. It doesn't go the other way. They don't pump that money into commercials without the sole expectation that they'll make money out of it. For that reason, it is ENTIRELY up to the advertiser, not the customer. The advertiser chooses which network to air their commercials. The advertiser chooses what the content of the commercial should be. The advertiser writes the check. The consumer, he/she buys a product, or doesn't buy a product. That's it.
Getting back to the point of my original post, your argument implies that the customer owns the network. This is not true in the sense we've talked about, not in the slightest. One could just as reasonably say that the employers of each of these customers are really who pays the bills all the way back to the television network.
"Well, unless their burning capital, the customers are the ones really paying the bills."
Not exactly. They spend money on advertising to make money, they don't take the money they recieved from customers to then make the commercials. The difference? They're causing the customers to give them money.
"But they're basing that on the fact that so far, we've only seen gas giants. Thing is, our detection methods would only show us gas giants. This whole thing is a non-starter."
There's nothing wrong with considering this possibility. To be fair, the other considerations that have been made are just as much non-starter. This is all about the scientific process. Come up with a hypothesis, gather data, compare it to hypothesis. Since the gather data phase is still under development, then there's nothing to get that concerned over.
I don't understand all the frustration here. They're not using the word proof anywhere. It's not even quite a theory according to the article. From what i've read from the comments so far, the posters here are taking what they're saying a lot farther than they are.
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Why is this even being posted here?"
Though you are correct, this is not what the article is saying. It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate. If what they're saying turns out to be true enough, then Earth-type planets could be extremely rare. They do not say that we're alone. They do not say they have evidence that we are alone or close to it. Instead they've come up with an alternative that may provide a reasonable assumption that it'll be a LOOONG time before we find another earthish planet.
"Its too early to say there are none or few rocky body systems out there. First off, we haven't even come close to surveying a representative portion of the sky, and second, we don't yet have good enough technology to detect small planets. If we were 500 light years away from our system, we probably wouldn't be able to detect earth."
I think the point of the article was that if it turns out the universe is populated mostly by gas giants, then it's a reasonable assumption we're, for all practical purposes, alone in the universe. That's a little different from jumping the gun, more like 'consider this possibility'.
"What do you mean, making a song available's "not legit"? It's legit, 100%, absolutely and indisputably, if either the recording in question is in the public domain, or you are or have the permission of the copyright holder."
I think that's a bit of a stretch considering that a lot of P2P programs make music available right after they're downloaded. Even if you got the song legit'ly, that license would not extend to the next person in line.
Nar, the people making it available aren't doing so legally. Again, though, every statement made by the *AA is that the stuff is downloaded, not uploaded, which is why I focus on that. It certainly irks me to no end. I have a laptop that doesn't have an optical drive. (Tablet PC, it's spensive to get those fully equipped.) One of these days I'll get an external drive, but until then, the most practical option I have for taking my movies to go is to just go on a late night Kazaa bender. I understand that they don't want me downloading movies I haven't paid for, yadda yadda yadda, but it really irritates me that I would be a 'pirate' for downloading a movie I already have.
Getting back around to my original point, I don't feel that they should make this argument against P2P if they're not even trying to count how many people are actually downloading stuff they don't have and never paying for it. That is, assuming, they don't immediately toss it.
"That argument about macs having a smaller marketshare and thus are not the target of hackers can be trown out of the window."
Nope. Windows still holds the crown by a long shot.
Virus spread is greatly enhanced by having a large number of connect hosts. (connected not necessarily meaning 'connected to the net') This argument has been disputed before, but not satisfactorally.
The worst part is they measure how 'evil' P2P is by how many songs etc are traded every month. But they're not even trying to estimate how many of those are legit. Yeah, I know, making it available's not legit. But how 'evil' is it really if I download an Mp3 of a song I already have on CD because I'm too lazy to rip it?
"What happens when people start doing bad stuff with the tor system? You know it's going to happen..."
When doesn't it happen? Freedom of Speech comes to mind. It all sounds great until people find out the KKK are protected. Everything's like that. The best you can hope for is it does more good than harm.
"This is like saying that a Chevy sucks because a Ford motor can't easily be used in it."
More like: Chevy sucks because I can only install certain brands of CD Players in their cars, and to find out what actually does work I have to do alot of research on the web first because their stupid display boxes won't tell me one way or another.
"The fact that so much hardware DOES work in linux is impressive as hell, to me."
I poo-pooed your other coment, but I agree with you on this one. In the last year or so I've developed a comfortable faith that if I were to install Linux, it'd more or less work with what I've got. That's good news for Linux, but by no means has it crossed the finish line. Frankly, I need Linux to do something really strong that I'm particularly interested in. Off the top of my head, I don't know what that is. Stability? Pff, I never reboot my XP box as it is. I can program for it? Right, like I've got time for that. I can be masochistic and use 'free' software that isn't quite up to snuff? Sorry, no.
Linux has to beat Windows at something important to the end user before it can be a mass-market desktop OS. I don't have an answer to this, but I can provide an example. Think about Apple. Remember when Apple laptops were attractive because you could do full-on DVD editing and burning with them? Linux needs to start filling interesting niches like that. How about a 'digital music enthusiast distro'? *Shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
"Tempting, isn't it :)"
Yeah! With any luck, they'll be as powerful as my Jaguar!
Seeing as how most of the revenue comes from them, I'd say damn near all of them. Happy?
Um, no, I think the problem was on your end.
" If you intend to play games on a PC, the laptop is not the form factor you want."
It is if you travel a lot like I used to. You don't get as many neat effects. BFD. You're still not bringing your desktop to the hotel.
"Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures."
Whoa. I just got sound working in KDE!
"They absolutely do take the money they recieve from customers and then make the next commercials"
The purpose of that is to attract MORE money from those customers. It doesn't go the other way. They don't pump that money into commercials without the sole expectation that they'll make money out of it. For that reason, it is ENTIRELY up to the advertiser, not the customer. The advertiser chooses which network to air their commercials. The advertiser chooses what the content of the commercial should be. The advertiser writes the check. The consumer, he/she buys a product, or doesn't buy a product. That's it.
Getting back to the point of my original post, your argument implies that the customer owns the network. This is not true in the sense we've talked about, not in the slightest. One could just as reasonably say that the employers of each of these customers are really who pays the bills all the way back to the television network.
"So money makes right? "
Dunno, didn't say that.
"And if they decide to kill a few people to increase ratings that would be ok as well?"
Let's pretend for a second that I did say what you thought I said... WTF?!
"For all the tinfoil, apparently."
Yeah, I'm off my medication. That's why I'm spouting wild theories about how TV networks make money through advertising.
"Well, unless their burning capital, the customers are the ones really paying the bills."
Not exactly. They spend money on advertising to make money, they don't take the money they recieved from customers to then make the commercials. The difference? They're causing the customers to give them money.
"Paying the bills for what exactly?"
Television networks like NBC make money from advertisers, remember?
"Well, if that's your attitude, don't come complaining about any perceived "conservative" or "liberal" bias in the media."
I don't complain about it, though I both agree and disagree. I think you're right, but the whole point of news reporting is to be fair and unbiased.
Money corrupts. Can't help that.
"Should we let Ad companies dictate not only what we can or cannot see on televison, but what we can, or cannot access via Interent?"
Seeing as how they're paying the bills...
"But they're basing that on the fact that so far, we've only seen gas giants. Thing is, our detection methods would only show us gas giants. This whole thing is a non-starter."
There's nothing wrong with considering this possibility. To be fair, the other considerations that have been made are just as much non-starter. This is all about the scientific process. Come up with a hypothesis, gather data, compare it to hypothesis. Since the gather data phase is still under development, then there's nothing to get that concerned over.
I don't understand all the frustration here. They're not using the word proof anywhere. It's not even quite a theory according to the article. From what i've read from the comments so far, the posters here are taking what they're saying a lot farther than they are.
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. Why is this even being posted here?"
Though you are correct, this is not what the article is saying. It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate. If what they're saying turns out to be true enough, then Earth-type planets could be extremely rare. They do not say that we're alone. They do not say they have evidence that we are alone or close to it. Instead they've come up with an alternative that may provide a reasonable assumption that it'll be a LOOONG time before we find another earthish planet.
Scientists just don't work that way.
"Its too early to say there are none or few rocky body systems out there. First off, we haven't even come close to surveying a representative portion of the sky, and second, we don't yet have good enough technology to detect small planets. If we were 500 light years away from our system, we probably wouldn't be able to detect earth."
I think the point of the article was that if it turns out the universe is populated mostly by gas giants, then it's a reasonable assumption we're, for all practical purposes, alone in the universe.
That's a little different from jumping the gun, more like 'consider this possibility'.
Can they make wallpaper that enhances my wifi instead of killing it?
CYBER LAWYER PRIME DIRECTIVES:
1.) Swerve the public trust
2.) Neglect the innocent
3.) Uproot the law
"If I saw a guy pointing a gun at me from far away (or close), I wouldn't be worried about him taking my contacts out of my phone."
Come to think of it, guns are a rather impressive hacking tool. I'm gonna go next door and hack my neighbor's porn stash.
"What else are they designed to do? Play chess?"
You can settle disputes, turn off the TV, and scare the cat. Sounds more like a swiss-army knife to me!
"What do you mean, making a song available's "not legit"? It's legit, 100%, absolutely and indisputably, if either the recording in question is in the public domain, or you are or have the permission of the copyright holder."
I think that's a bit of a stretch considering that a lot of P2P programs make music available right after they're downloaded. Even if you got the song legit'ly, that license would not extend to the next person in line.
Nar, the people making it available aren't doing so legally. Again, though, every statement made by the *AA is that the stuff is downloaded, not uploaded, which is why I focus on that. It certainly irks me to no end. I have a laptop that doesn't have an optical drive. (Tablet PC, it's spensive to get those fully equipped.) One of these days I'll get an external drive, but until then, the most practical option I have for taking my movies to go is to just go on a late night Kazaa bender. I understand that they don't want me downloading movies I haven't paid for, yadda yadda yadda, but it really irritates me that I would be a 'pirate' for downloading a movie I already have.
Getting back around to my original point, I don't feel that they should make this argument against P2P if they're not even trying to count how many people are actually downloading stuff they don't have and never paying for it. That is, assuming, they don't immediately toss it.
"That argument about macs having a smaller marketshare and thus are not the target of hackers can be trown out of the window."
Nope. Windows still holds the crown by a long shot.
Virus spread is greatly enhanced by having a large number of connect hosts. (connected not necessarily meaning 'connected to the net') This argument has been disputed before, but not satisfactorally.
The worst part is they measure how 'evil' P2P is by how many songs etc are traded every month. But they're not even trying to estimate how many of those are legit. Yeah, I know, making it available's not legit. But how 'evil' is it really if I download an Mp3 of a song I already have on CD because I'm too lazy to rip it?
"What happens when people start doing bad stuff with the tor system? You know it's going to happen..."
When doesn't it happen? Freedom of Speech comes to mind. It all sounds great until people find out the KKK are protected. Everything's like that. The best you can hope for is it does more good than harm.
"This is like saying that a Chevy sucks because a Ford motor can't easily be used in it."
More like: Chevy sucks because I can only install certain brands of CD Players in their cars, and to find out what actually does work I have to do alot of research on the web first because their stupid display boxes won't tell me one way or another.
"The fact that so much hardware DOES work in linux is impressive as hell, to me."
I poo-pooed your other coment, but I agree with you on this one. In the last year or so I've developed a comfortable faith that if I were to install Linux, it'd more or less work with what I've got. That's good news for Linux, but by no means has it crossed the finish line. Frankly, I need Linux to do something really strong that I'm particularly interested in. Off the top of my head, I don't know what that is. Stability? Pff, I never reboot my XP box as it is. I can program for it? Right, like I've got time for that. I can be masochistic and use 'free' software that isn't quite up to snuff? Sorry, no.
Linux has to beat Windows at something important to the end user before it can be a mass-market desktop OS. I don't have an answer to this, but I can provide an example. Think about Apple. Remember when Apple laptops were attractive because you could do full-on DVD editing and burning with them? Linux needs to start filling interesting niches like that. How about a 'digital music enthusiast distro'? *Shrug*