8)Buy CD used at Amazon.com (they offer used from 3rd parties alongside with new in the same listing) or other place.
Much of the time, price lower than ITunes even with shipping. Great selection and variety, even on CDs released maybe a month ago. Superior bitrate. RIAA doesn't get money AGAIN. Completely legal and ethical. CD can be converted easily to any other format to play on any digital players, including Apple's. Don't have to go to store and waste gas.
You know, this reminds me of the rhetoric in Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. You've taken half-truths and spun them out of control and used them to justify the injustifiable. Great works are NOT erased from the public consciousness by publishers - in fact, they tend to be published and republished again and again.
Astounding man, Godwin's law reached in record time!
I find this is true, anytime I broke a habit, I usually had to replace that vacuum with another habit. (At least in the beginning..... like from smoking to chewing gum to nothing now.)
If this is true about the brain, then the problem is reduced to identifying WHY you do what you do to get an appropriate counter habit.
For instance, for someone who overeats, do they overeat because of stress relief, genetics, medical problems (ranging from dysfunctional glands to blood sugar), eat normally but in disproportionally large portions, or because food tastes so good?
So suggesting exercise as a habit may not be appropriate/effective in every case such as someone who has a habit of not eating frequently but simply became used to overly disproportionally portions for whatever reason (America - home of the Supersize value menus).
I believe there is no actual solution but am certain there is no "single watcher" solution:
There can be no "watcher/counter" because the king can call him in the beginning where he can't say "Yes" to the question. Then the king may go on to only recall him as many times as he pleases until the arbitrary number A, which we the problem solvers chose, is reached and then never call him again. This series of events does as much good for the watcher as being called only once. In this case, only maximum 1 bit of information, right or wrong due to possible interference by the king, reaches the watcher and he can send a maximum of 1 bit of information out, only possibly reaching it's destination, again due to possible interference by the king. Moreover, the watcher doesn't know he's being called repeatedly (the king takes his jolly damn time) and may not know why the cup is flipping and where that information is coming from.
This is also the problem with any "everybody is a watcher" solution - how do you know when you leave the signal be or turn it if, besides the king, you do not who is being called when? Which prisoner from 1-n left it in that state?
This suggests that there is either no solution or that it is structure around simply counting signals left behind. It must take into account up to K errors, K being a number given to the prisoner beforehand. This doesn't only mean subtracting tokens, the king may be adding them. Lastly, because a prisoner may be only talking to himself (called sequentially), it may be possible he leaves either only 1 token (or 0 because of king) for the next person and the group! Any token solution I've thought of or seen so far preproposes that prisoner N will eventually be called individually after each other prisoner at some point or at least that his "signal" won't be touched until a counter/watcher sees it.
Perhaps the solution is that when a prisoners goes of his cell, looks for footprints leading up to all of them AND then AWAY from all the other cell doors, he says "YES!" I suppose this is wrong, but this math is hurting my head:-)
Have different email adresses....
on
Meet The Life Hackers
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The spam in my yahoo account is atrocious. Something like 10 a day, all time wasters. (Though it was worse during spam heyday.....)
So I set up a different system and signed up a 2 new account elsewhere - a business name and a personal name.
Anything on the internet that I have to signup for goes in the name of my old yahoo account. This goes for forums, subscriptions, mailing lists, etcetera. Any online acquaintances get my old yahoo account until they earn my trust. Any new credit cards/banks/companies where I conduct personal transactions (say like ebay or on ebay), I do the same - 99% of their mail is junk.
On my business address, only my colleagues/boss/clients get this address. On my personal address, only my personal friends and my family will have it and services that have earned my trust.
In case of emergencies, my family has my cell phone number and work number. Same thing at work only with my boss.
I rarely get interrupted. I very rarely get useful emails in the old yahoo address which I check about every 2 weeks in under 10 minutes. I rarely have to mix personal with business or the other way around. Of coures, I don't use other services like IM during work, I don't have to (not that other people couldn't/shouldn't.)
With any communication medium, it's a cost/benefit analysis and not just talking dollars here, but on concentration, attention, whatever you value that the medium takes a little of before it gives you a return somehow. With this philosophy, I decide that many of the new communication tools aren't worth my personal hassle. (Yes, I also have discovered that I should somehow free myself of my slashdot addiction long ago:-)
Linux has already taken off, a long time ago. If you mean the desktop sector, perhaps that is due more to monopolies twisting the arms of vendors than anything else, hint, hint, hint. I'm sure, without this, that Linux would have skyrocketed in the low-end market for people who just want to surf, word process, etcetera (and the system has too crappy of a video card anyway to play games).
However, without Linux's "fragmentation," there would not have been the killer distros like Ubuntu. which was only released first a year ago and has been #1 for a while now (according to Distrowatch.com).
I, too, thought Distros were confusing when I first came on the scene but now I love them because I love the choice which I wasn't used to. I choose LFS when I want to play with the internals, Gentoo for a server or on a slower system that needs no bloat in order not to be slow, and Ubuntu (with Easy Ubuntu) for someone with a fast system and just needs something that works "out of the box" more or less.
But, there is little fragmentation for what Linux really is - the Kernel. Everything else is just a gather of "3rd party " utilities/apps around it.
If Risc gets released, won't it most likely follow the Linus model where most people will flock around the whole OS (not just the kernel) that is offered and any offshoots will really become offshoots or will sync now and then with the original.
It's just like evolution - survival of the fittest (for the market).
I can only imagine that the product, if worthwhile now, can only get better with open sourcing.
But the company OTOH. Well, it would have to change to services/support like IBM in order to survive that decision. It's not without pitfalls.
But since it's being thought about, the company sounds like it's at a fork in the road anyway.
Not only this, but it used be that the top executive at Fortune 500 companies 20 years age got something like 20X what a "normal" lay person gets paid (though I'm sure stock options were there aplenty to). These days it's ballooned to ballooned to 50x and up. And when they do get laid off, they have so many parachute clauses and termination pay-offs that being laid-off is the best thing that could have every happened to them - you don't even have to be good at your job - witness Carlo Fiorina at HP. Or Meg Whitman at Ebay - (she's a billionaire from heading ebay! And I was there from the beginning, DESPITE her blunders, it was going up anyway, if anything it was a free ride).
Sorry if it seems I'm picking on the girls, these just happen to be the companies I follow--.--, there are percentage wise also a lot of crappy guy CEOs - Darl McBride for one.
The CEO of Costco is one of those people I still look up to in business, most of the rest are ratbags willing to sell out the company in order to grab as much as they can in their short tenors as leaders. The Costco CEO (and co-founder, I believe) only pays himself 250,000 a year and insists on paying his workers a decent wage (something like 15-16 dollars/hour to start with) plus health benefits unlike Walmart.
It sounds to me that one method to detect genes in general was found years ago, and all these gene patents are, are obvious (or semi-obvious) extensions/variations to the method.
Hmm, My ass wasnt particularly making any noise that I know of.
Not even a whisper?:D
This will not kill small business, even though it is a blatant attempt at tax revenue, people that give their items over for consignment will have one more avenue to attack those that take advantage of the situation.
How do you figure this? Again, the government has laws on the books (fraud) and the best defense here isn't the badge anyway, it's common sense 99% of the time.
Besides, those who pull scams aren't consignors anyway. The fraud I can see with consignors are when they are close to closing their business and screw all sides by not sending merchandise and not paying consignees. But that can happen in any business.
Especially if this is a state by state law, it will become a patchwork of licenses here and there, unenforceable and the seller's will just relocate their "location" on ebay to a friendly state. Like a scammers do with Utah or Florida. Or Washington D.C.:-)
I actually did selling on ebay, as well as buying where I got burned - so I looked into it.
Most of the fraud done on ebay are by low volume sellers who build up their feedback to somewhere in the double-digits and then pull either a high-priced scam, or probably more likely a dump a bunch of lots (medium priced, say computers for a low price) and never deliver.
Common sense is the best defense in this case, buying from someone that has an internet presence besides ebay (like a website) and that has a high feedback (over 200) that won't likely jeopardize it.
If this starts passing left and right, it will kill small business, or they'll move from ebay (I hate ebay, I don't care if they lose money) into their own website and just sell the stuff for a fixed price. In fact, they can do that now on ebay too.
Nowadays, when government usually do something (and other local governments want to be fast on the heels to follow), it's not for the good of the people, it's about control and increasing the revenue stream. I wonder if this is the first step toward greater taxes applied to internet selling, since they'll get the consignors listed on paper.....
I would think ePaper is less discarded, because it's still relatively expensive compared to a sheet of paper.
Unlike the article where it sounds every little thing will have epaper, I believe it will be more like someone said, blank e-Papers will get sold and then you buy a subscription (or just one magazine, book, newspaper) that gets transferred to the device from the internet.
Even if consumers use up 1 ePaper every X months (I figure 6, but say even just 1, due to wear or whatever), what is that compared to X months of newspapers, magazines, books etcetera.
I like Plan 9's idea of having one protocol, P9, for communicating in the network. Very simple.
Or better yet, most of us won't have to worry about operating systems at all (for the desktop), because many things become more standarized, drivers contain metadata detailing the device's operation rather needing to deal with every operating system's quirks and specific interface, and applications work seamlessly across platforms - perhaps by having a minimal universal API, perhaps by taking the JAVA idea on step further and making the OS the VM.
Please remember, my ideas are more to reach a goal than for being realistic or pragmatic, I'm not an expert in all these areas....
I find that magazines are extremely expensive right now. Thin slabs (much thinner than they used to be) with very little content, basically you are paying to look at ads - which may or may not be a bad thing but this usually correlates with how big a niche the magazine addresses.
With the printing and distribution costs going down with this, will the trend be that magazines go down a lot in price, go down moderately and pocket a higher profit margin, or become free?
The one assumption I feel to make is that many websites will become downloadable and truly start competing in the same domnain as magazines/newspapers: the john:), the airplane, lunch, in bed, etcetera.
Before I get a lot of "you are an idiot" replies, please realize I spend no time on the internet reading the www pages of known magazines - partly because the live versions have been shown to be so poor in content in the first place - so I don't know if they are generally cheaper or free online.
because of the high quality paper we use, they find they can recycle it and print their newspapers on it and it's cheaper than them making their own paper. It's a billion dollar industry for us.
Yet, the Chinese are adopting innovations faster than the western world (like the super speed trains). Will this mean that the trade deficit will tip even further in their direction?
I heard that paper tidbit on the History Channel and can't find any links that specific, but here are some related ones:
Well, maybe because this will be touted to be environmently friendly, the guy is thinking "The more of these we use, the faster we save the environment!"
I agree. Answering questions only provides so much information and also assumes the answers are honest and not limiting (like multiple choice).
I have to wonder, barring major secret advances in psychology, what chemistry.com knows that others in psychology don't know about love. Eharmony (sp?) also purports to test "31 dimensions of love for greater compatibility" or some such. I mean, really, "dimensions?" Talk about a buzzword, why not just say criteria?
I think the most significant application pyschology going on behind these websites is the marketing to draw the users. The more users, the more active the site. The more active the site, the more sucessful it seems. The more sucessful, the more revenue.
Like ebay or any other activity dependent website. And I have nothing against that except that it seems likely these places promise more than it can deliver. Like any other salesman.
Perhaps I should be a little clearer on the ink doesn't run statement, you can take a sponge to the photo and makes no difference. Because of the clearcoat but also dye-sublimination isn't sprayed on ink:
I thought I add this because I see a lot of people bitching about their inkjet printers and the costs - this dye-sub is much cheaper.
I avoid inkjets like the plague - the cost is ridiculous. Laser for text or color printing (laser can do decent, not great, photos these day too) and this dye-sub for photos is the way I go to keep the per-page costs down.
I own a hiti (Hi-touch imaging) photo printer. It's a dyesub printer that cost $250 (deluxe version) at the time (they have cheaper models) that's standalone (just insert the memory card) and the cartridges that have the dye-sub "ink" (includes 50 4x6 photos sheets) cost only 20 bucks - so it costs like.40 per photo. Plus it's as good or better than the professional places - it prints on a clear coat and the ink doesn't run plus the estimated life is 99 years or something ridiculous like that - I can't tell the difference between "real" photos or these ones except for the perforated edges.
I like it better, no running back to Wal-mart if I don't like the prints (I like the clear coat, many places put on some matte finish I don't appreciate) nor running back if I find out the photos suck (often they are darker on the print than on my camera). My gas and time costs more than the per print cost.
It's great for a professional, but they probably already know that. It's also great for someone who wants a photo here and there. But if your someone that processes a roll a couple times a year - I recommend to keep going to Wal-mart or wherever.
No, it was plainly evil the entire time. It was constitutional, however. If you disagree, please point to the part of the antebellum Constitution (i.e. everything before the 13th Amendment) that prohibited it.
I read it here, but YMMV:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......
As for the rest, I do not want to be here all night:) Though I say amendment IV in it's entirety also has interesting implications with property in general - depending on interpretation.
As for the penumbra, that's very controversial I gather and not specifically stated in the BoR so much as implied - though the SCoUSA is on your side with interpretation and of course, privacy is a good thing.
I wish you good luck on that copyright work though - do you have a page on that?
It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.
No it's not fact. The "not a big deal" is an argument and interpretation.
But let's take your premise that it's nothing new even though I think the scope of it has reached unprecedented heights. Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time, whether or the government decided to recognize that. Because it was nothing new, back then, did it make it any better?
"And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?"
We were discussing rights, were we not? Why did you bring up Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration?
"Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure"
Privacy.
"right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,"
Distrust of standing armies, distrust of the federal government by the states, and distrust of government generally.
That's one interpretation (I love how legal scholars read the minds of men, dead for over 200 years, or perhaps what a textbook told you), and take that as the only right answer.
Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR or Declaration, AFAIK.
These rights imply that they protect you from something. But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.
Who said property rights aren't recognized? Not me. I said that they weren't "the foundation upon which everything else rests" which was the bizarre statement I had responded to.
Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.
Even Eminent Domain respects property rights with its just compensation clause.
No. The government cannot use clever means to infringe on your liberties just as much as they cannot use straightforward means.
You are confusing "cannot" with should not.
Patriotic Act. Gun Laws. The BSA. Etcetera.
"Without property right, you don't even own yourself."
People are not property at all. No one owns people, not even themselves.
Maybe in the most technical jargon sense. Perhaps property would not make sense, but you own yourself - with nontransferable (ownership). Though You can sell your blood. You can give away your kidneys. You can tattoo yourself. You can contract yourself (time) out and subject yourself to what have you.
You are arguing on what hand that Thomas Jefferson only considered that we own grasp as our own property, but we don't have the complete command of ourselves?
"And this [anticircumvention provisions in copyright law] isn't big brother how?"
It's hardly totalitarian.
This is not what I argued, I said it's big brother. Big brother starts out in democracies to gain control and it's aim is total control - which DRM obviously is.
The copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored. Copyright is a contract between society and the "artist." Originally, for society's protection (which taxpayers have to pay enforcement), the works were to go to public domain after a limited time. With DRM schemes, this is a whole-hearted effort by the "artist" (manufacture) to restrict his work indefinitely. As such, he should not qualify for Copyright as he is attempting to fudge on his part of copyright - releasing the work into public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the red screen of death? Muahahahahaha!
http://news.com.com/2061-10805_3-5703006.html
8)Buy CD used at Amazon.com (they offer used from 3rd parties alongside with new in the same listing) or other place.
Much of the time, price lower than ITunes even with shipping. Great selection and variety, even on CDs released maybe a month ago. Superior bitrate. RIAA doesn't get money AGAIN. Completely legal and ethical. CD can be converted easily to any other format to play on any digital players, including Apple's. Don't have to go to store and waste gas.
Downside: Waiting a few days for it to get there.
Astounding man, Godwin's law reached in record time!
Congratulations! I'll stop reading now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I find this is true, anytime I broke a habit, I usually had to replace that vacuum with another habit. (At least in the beginning..... like from smoking to chewing gum to nothing now.)
If this is true about the brain, then the problem is reduced to identifying WHY you do what you do to get an appropriate counter habit.
For instance, for someone who overeats, do they overeat because of stress relief, genetics, medical problems (ranging from dysfunctional glands to blood sugar), eat normally but in disproportionally large portions, or because food tastes so good?
So suggesting exercise as a habit may not be appropriate/effective in every case such as someone who has a habit of not eating frequently but simply became used to overly disproportionally portions for whatever reason (America - home of the Supersize value menus).
Are you saying the the prisoners have to be called in an equal number of times?
I believe there is no actual solution but am certain there is no "single watcher" solution:
:-)
There can be no "watcher/counter" because the king can call him in the beginning where he can't say "Yes" to the question. Then the king may go on to only recall him as many times as he pleases until the arbitrary number A, which we the problem solvers chose, is reached and then never call him again. This series of events does as much good for the watcher as being called only once. In this case, only maximum 1 bit of information, right or wrong due to possible interference by the king, reaches the watcher and he can send a maximum of 1 bit of information out, only possibly reaching it's destination, again due to possible interference by the king. Moreover, the watcher doesn't know he's being called repeatedly (the king takes his jolly damn time) and may not know why the cup is flipping and where that information is coming from.
This is also the problem with any "everybody is a watcher" solution - how do you know when you leave the signal be or turn it if, besides the king, you do not who is being called when? Which prisoner from 1-n left it in that state?
This suggests that there is either no solution or that it is structure around simply counting signals left behind. It must take into account up to K errors, K being a number given to the prisoner beforehand. This doesn't only mean subtracting tokens, the king may be adding them. Lastly, because a prisoner may be only talking to himself (called sequentially), it may be possible he leaves either only 1 token (or 0 because of king) for the next person and the group! Any token solution I've thought of or seen so far preproposes that prisoner N will eventually be called individually after each other prisoner at some point or at least that his "signal" won't be touched until a counter/watcher sees it.
Perhaps the solution is that when a prisoners goes of his cell, looks for footprints leading up to all of them AND then AWAY from all the other cell doors, he says "YES!" I suppose this is wrong, but this math is hurting my head
The spam in my yahoo account is atrocious. Something like 10 a day, all time wasters. (Though it was worse during spam heyday.....)
:-)
So I set up a different system and signed up a 2 new account elsewhere - a business name and a personal name.
Anything on the internet that I have to signup for goes in the name of my old yahoo account. This goes for forums, subscriptions, mailing lists, etcetera. Any online acquaintances get my old yahoo account until they earn my trust. Any new credit cards/banks/companies where I conduct personal transactions (say like ebay or on ebay), I do the same - 99% of their mail is junk.
On my business address, only my colleagues/boss/clients get this address. On my personal address, only my personal friends and my family will have it and services that have earned my trust.
In case of emergencies, my family has my cell phone number and work number. Same thing at work only with my boss.
I rarely get interrupted. I very rarely get useful emails in the old yahoo address which I check about every 2 weeks in under 10 minutes. I rarely have to mix personal with business or the other way around. Of coures, I don't use other services like IM during work, I don't have to (not that other people couldn't/shouldn't.)
With any communication medium, it's a cost/benefit analysis and not just talking dollars here, but on concentration, attention, whatever you value that the medium takes a little of before it gives you a return somehow. With this philosophy, I decide that many of the new communication tools aren't worth my personal hassle. (Yes, I also have discovered that I should somehow free myself of my slashdot addiction long ago
Linux has already taken off, a long time ago. If you mean the desktop sector, perhaps that is due more to monopolies twisting the arms of vendors than anything else, hint, hint, hint. I'm sure, without this, that Linux would have skyrocketed in the low-end market for people who just want to surf, word process, etcetera (and the system has too crappy of a video card anyway to play games).
However, without Linux's "fragmentation," there would not have been the killer distros like Ubuntu. which was only released first a year ago and has been #1 for a while now (according to Distrowatch.com).
I, too, thought Distros were confusing when I first came on the scene but now I love them because I love the choice which I wasn't used to. I choose LFS when I want to play with the internals, Gentoo for a server or on a slower system that needs no bloat in order not to be slow, and Ubuntu (with Easy Ubuntu) for someone with a fast system and just needs something that works "out of the box" more or less.
But, there is little fragmentation for what Linux really is - the Kernel. Everything else is just a gather of "3rd party " utilities/apps around it.
If Risc gets released, won't it most likely follow the Linus model where most people will flock around the whole OS (not just the kernel) that is offered and any offshoots will really become offshoots or will sync now and then with the original.
It's just like evolution - survival of the fittest (for the market).
I can only imagine that the product, if worthwhile now, can only get better with open sourcing.
But the company OTOH. Well, it would have to change to services/support like IBM in order to survive that decision. It's not without pitfalls.
But since it's being thought about, the company sounds like it's at a fork in the road anyway.
Not only this, but it used be that the top executive at Fortune 500 companies 20 years age got something like 20X what a "normal" lay person gets paid (though I'm sure stock options were there aplenty to). These days it's ballooned to ballooned to 50x and up. And when they do get laid off, they have so many parachute clauses and termination pay-offs that being laid-off is the best thing that could have every happened to them - you don't even have to be good at your job - witness Carlo Fiorina at HP. Or Meg Whitman at Ebay - (she's a billionaire from heading ebay! And I was there from the beginning, DESPITE her blunders, it was going up anyway, if anything it was a free ride).
2 /b3885011_mz001.htm
Sorry if it seems I'm picking on the girls, these just happen to be the companies I follow--.--, there are percentage wise also a lot of crappy guy CEOs - Darl McBride for one.
The CEO of Costco is one of those people I still look up to in business, most of the rest are ratbags willing to sell out the company in order to grab as much as they can in their short tenors as leaders. The Costco CEO (and co-founder, I believe) only pays himself 250,000 a year and insists on paying his workers a decent wage (something like 15-16 dollars/hour to start with) plus health benefits unlike Walmart.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_2
It sounds to me that one method to detect genes in general was found years ago, and all these gene patents are, are obvious (or semi-obvious) extensions/variations to the method.
Would that be correct or am I missing the boat?
The US government/military has a humongous interest in keeping the system up - why be scared about it? It will keep plodding along.
Or am I missing something here?
Not even a whisper?
How do you figure this? Again, the government has laws on the books (fraud) and the best defense here isn't the badge anyway, it's common sense 99% of the time.
Besides, those who pull scams aren't consignors anyway. The fraud I can see with consignors are when they are close to closing their business and screw all sides by not sending merchandise and not paying consignees. But that can happen in any business.
Are you talking out of your ass?
Especially if this is a state by state law, it will become a patchwork of licenses here and there, unenforceable and the seller's will just relocate their "location" on ebay to a friendly state. Like a scammers do with Utah or Florida. Or Washington D.C.:-)
I actually did selling on ebay, as well as buying where I got burned - so I looked into it.
Most of the fraud done on ebay are by low volume sellers who build up their feedback to somewhere in the double-digits and then pull either a high-priced scam, or probably more likely a dump a bunch of lots (medium priced, say computers for a low price) and never deliver.
Common sense is the best defense in this case, buying from someone that has an internet presence besides ebay (like a website) and that has a high feedback (over 200) that won't likely jeopardize it.
If this starts passing left and right, it will kill small business, or they'll move from ebay (I hate ebay, I don't care if they lose money) into their own website and just sell the stuff for a fixed price. In fact, they can do that now on ebay too.
Nowadays, when government usually do something (and other local governments want to be fast on the heels to follow), it's not for the good of the people, it's about control and increasing the revenue stream. I wonder if this is the first step toward greater taxes applied to internet selling, since they'll get the consignors listed on paper.....
I would think ePaper is less discarded, because it's still relatively expensive compared to a sheet of paper.
Unlike the article where it sounds every little thing will have epaper, I believe it will be more like someone said, blank e-Papers will get sold and then you buy a subscription (or just one magazine, book, newspaper) that gets transferred to the device from the internet.
Even if consumers use up 1 ePaper every X months (I figure 6, but say even just 1, due to wear or whatever), what is that compared to X months of newspapers, magazines, books etcetera.
Another operating system will have supplanted it.
Perhaps something open like Linux, but not necessarily Linux. I think Plan 9 has some potential:
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/
I like Plan 9's idea of having one protocol, P9, for communicating in the network. Very simple.
Or better yet, most of us won't have to worry about operating systems at all (for the desktop), because many things become more standarized, drivers contain metadata detailing the device's operation rather needing to deal with every operating system's quirks and specific interface, and applications work seamlessly across platforms - perhaps by having a minimal universal API, perhaps by taking the JAVA idea on step further and making the OS the VM.
Please remember, my ideas are more to reach a goal than for being realistic or pragmatic, I'm not an expert in all these areas....
I find that magazines are extremely expensive right now. Thin slabs (much thinner than they used to be) with very little content, basically you are paying to look at ads - which may or may not be a bad thing but this usually correlates with how big a niche the magazine addresses.
With the printing and distribution costs going down with this, will the trend be that magazines go down a lot in price, go down moderately and pocket a higher profit margin, or become free?
The one assumption I feel to make is that many websites will become downloadable and truly start competing in the same domnain as magazines/newspapers: the john:), the airplane, lunch, in bed, etcetera.
Before I get a lot of "you are an idiot" replies, please realize I spend no time on the internet reading the www pages of known magazines - partly because the live versions have been shown to be so poor in content in the first place - so I don't know if they are generally cheaper or free online.
because of the high quality paper we use, they find they can recycle it and print their newspapers on it and it's cheaper than them making their own paper. It's a billion dollar industry for us.
r _us_r.php
Yet, the Chinese are adopting innovations faster than the western world (like the super speed trains). Will this mean that the trade deficit will tip even further in their direction?
I heard that paper tidbit on the History Channel and can't find any links that specific, but here are some related ones:
http://www.ban.org/ban_news/Junk_Bond.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/04/demand_fo
Well, maybe because this will be touted to be environmently friendly, the guy is thinking "The more of these we use, the faster we save the environment!"
I don't know if Hummingbird can be categorized as a different model of flight but:
0 5/hummingbird.htm
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2005/Jun
They can hover, fly backwards/forwards, or even upsidedown.
I agree. Answering questions only provides so much information and also assumes the answers are honest and not limiting (like multiple choice).
I have to wonder, barring major secret advances in psychology, what chemistry.com knows that others in psychology don't know about love. Eharmony (sp?) also purports to test "31 dimensions of love for greater compatibility" or some such. I mean, really, "dimensions?" Talk about a buzzword, why not just say criteria?
I think the most significant application pyschology going on behind these websites is the marketing to draw the users. The more users, the more active the site. The more active the site, the more sucessful it seems. The more sucessful, the more revenue.
Like ebay or any other activity dependent website. And I have nothing against that except that it seems likely these places promise more than it can deliver. Like any other salesman.
Unlike TV and Magazines - where I don't have necessary control.
Perhaps I should be a little clearer on the ink doesn't run statement, you can take a sponge to the photo and makes no difference. Because of the clearcoat but also dye-sublimination isn't sprayed on ink:
t er
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_prin
I thought I add this because I see a lot of people bitching about their inkjet printers and the costs - this dye-sub is much cheaper.
I avoid inkjets like the plague - the cost is ridiculous. Laser for text or color printing (laser can do decent, not great, photos these day too) and this dye-sub for photos is the way I go to keep the per-page costs down.
I own a hiti (Hi-touch imaging) photo printer. It's a dyesub printer that cost $250 (deluxe version) at the time (they have cheaper models) that's standalone (just insert the memory card) and the cartridges that have the dye-sub "ink" (includes 50 4x6 photos sheets) cost only 20 bucks - so it costs like .40 per photo. Plus it's as good or better than the professional places - it prints on a clear coat and the ink doesn't run plus the estimated life is 99 years or something ridiculous like that - I can't tell the difference between "real" photos or these ones except for the perforated edges.
I like it better, no running back to Wal-mart if I don't like the prints (I like the clear coat, many places put on some matte finish I don't appreciate) nor running back if I find out the photos suck (often they are darker on the print than on my camera). My gas and time costs more than the per print cost.
It's great for a professional, but they probably already know that. It's also great for someone who wants a photo here and there. But if your someone that processes a roll a couple times a year - I recommend to keep going to Wal-mart or wherever.
I read it here, but YMMV:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......
As for the rest, I do not want to be here all night:) Though I say amendment IV in it's entirety also has interesting implications with property in general - depending on interpretation.
As for the penumbra, that's very controversial I gather and not specifically stated in the BoR so much as implied - though the SCoUSA is on your side with interpretation and of course, privacy is a good thing.
I wish you good luck on that copyright work though - do you have a page on that?
No it's not fact. The "not a big deal" is an argument and interpretation.
But let's take your premise that it's nothing new even though I think the scope of it has reached unprecedented heights. Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time, whether or the government decided to recognize that. Because it was nothing new, back then, did it make it any better?
We were discussing rights, were we not? Why did you bring up Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration?
That's one interpretation (I love how legal scholars read the minds of men, dead for over 200 years, or perhaps what a textbook told you), and take that as the only right answer.
Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR or Declaration, AFAIK.
These rights imply that they protect you from something. But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.
Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.
Even Eminent Domain respects property rights with its just compensation clause.
You are confusing "cannot" with should not.
Patriotic Act. Gun Laws. The BSA. Etcetera.
Maybe in the most technical jargon sense. Perhaps property would not make sense, but you own yourself - with nontransferable (ownership). Though You can sell your blood. You can give away your kidneys. You can tattoo yourself. You can contract yourself (time) out and subject yourself to what have you.
You are arguing on what hand that Thomas Jefferson only considered that we own grasp as our own property, but we don't have the complete command of ourselves?
This is not what I argued, I said it's big brother. Big brother starts out in democracies to gain control and it's aim is total control - which DRM obviously is.
The copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored. Copyright is a contract between society and the "artist." Originally, for society's protection (which taxpayers have to pay enforcement), the works were to go to public domain after a limited time. With DRM schemes, this is a whole-hearted effort by the "artist" (manufacture) to restrict his work indefinitely. As such, he should not qualify for Copyright as he is attempting to fudge on his part of copyright - releasing the work into public domain.