except that only tells you that the wall is perpendicular to the floor. Granted you did say straight and not 'vertical' but that was my first assumption when reading...
Actually you prove my point by wondering what good can come of missions to Mars.
In all of my examples, there was *No* economic incentive to do any them, the reasons were outside of economics. Interstate Highways were conceived of by Eisenhower for military purposes, Cheap air travel became possible because of military advances throughout the century. The Internet...gee the military thing again. Kennedy and the moon missions...we did that for prestige as much as anything else.
You can't know what all the benefits of something will be, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.
I never said we should cut all/any other space initiatives in favor of Mars. I just mean that the goal of Mars has easy potential to produce things you or I can't conceive of now. If you only do things you can see immediate benefit of, you'll miss things that could be far greater.
If you want reasons for space travel...think about when we need more energy than we can produce on this planet. The Moon becomes a very nearby source of raw materials and solar power. By reaching for Mars, the Moon becomes relatively easy. And as many stories here have suggested, basing missions from the Moon is cheaper than doing them from Earth. But we can't get to the Moon easily enough to make it work...yet.
Ahh...to feed the troll or to not feed the troll...
When the technology of cheap space travel provides us with access energy sources that save us from the effects of burning fossil fuels...you can just live in your dark little mud hut.
It's not about recreating the world directly outside your window. It's about recreating places you *can't* go to that fascinates people (and me!).
Of course this also applies to all the pr0n jokes as to most/.'s since getting jiggy with Ms. Portman qualifies as a place they will *never* be anyway;-)
Well the *American* driving *tests* have failed miserably but try the German tests on for size.
Show of hands how many people in the US have failed their driving test? It ain't many. Go to Germany and plenty of people have failed...some more than once.
It costs serious cash and time to take the training; as such the people value their 'priviledge' as opposed to us Americans who 'expect our right' to be able to drive.
Oh yeah I love it when a sig actually relates to a topic;-)
I'll hold up what *I* consider the Holy Grail of gov't/sports combinations:
The Green Bay Packers
The city owns the team or some sort of legal equivalent. I.e. it's in the city's interest to support grow and 'profit' (non-monetarily) from the team. The people of Green Bay love their team and know the 'owner' won't move them.
With modern sports prices however this isn't feasible anymore (short of some waco tycoon donating them..Bueller? Bueller?). I don't believe cities should build stadiums for independent owners either; WITHOUT serious contractual gaurantees that team will stay in the stadium for it's useful life or the owner pays back all the tax payer money used to build it.
That said in today's world you won't get a team without building the stadium (they can just go somewhere that will build it for them) so you're stuck dealing with it.
My point was that they had bridged that hurdle and now the DC Council members want to tinker and do things that could disrupt the process entirely. Thus fueling the stereotype that DC is "run by the inmates"
Considering the current squabbles over the baseball team, can you blame them?
There was a DEAL agreed to and now the city council is trying to tinker with it, jeapordizing whether MLB will even bring a team here in the first place.
The reasons (reducing taxpayer burden) are good, but if baseball walks away because of the bickering, I don't see it as very good in the long run.
Because perhaps there were others in the same situation as me. Weren't able to see the previous shows, and seeing how it's an on going SERIES it's kind of hard to want to watch the REST of the SERIES without knowing what happened BEFORE.
I think the advertisers on the LATER shows would much LIKE me to have watched the PREVIOUS shows so I would watch the LATER shows of which now I WON'T
I'm not talking about redistributing DVD rips, these were almost but not quite OTA broadcasts (it was on SciFi) and there is no other medium for seeing the shows currently. So is there really any financial loss to them by my leaving the torrent open? I really can't see any here. It IS technically illegal, I've never said it wasn't. But their reaction to the situation has definitely caused them financial loss as I won't be buying the DVDs when they come out.
First of all, if you take a Dodge Neon, the dealer is out one car to sell. Not quite the same thing here.
However, I'm not saying that buy leaving the torrent open I was within my rights. It is illegal to offer copyrighted works without permission. That is perfectly true and I don't dispute it.
My point is that because of their reaction I will likely never buy the DVD sets when(if) they're available. So their trumpeting their *rights* has cost them actual sales. That was my reason for saying I own all the SG-1 sets, I do buy what I like, and I was just trying to get up to date with the current (and only) season.
So it was porn that was just 'named' as Stargate Atlantis?
That would mean you weren't serving up MGM copyrighted material (or I *really* need to watch Atlantis...haha). Which means they sent a fraudulent letter, yes? I *think* stuff like that can get their copyright (or maybe it's trademark) revoked. Abuse can mean dismissal or something...
Fair enough but lets say a friend taped it for me to watch later. That is clearly covered under the Betamax decision. It's called time shifting - though the 3 months in this case is a tad extreme I agree.
My point being though that because of their stupid antics I probably won't ever give them any revenue from this show. And that I seriously would have before this C&D letter to my cable ISP.
What I really should do is figure out who their current commercial sponsors are and write a letter saying *why* I'm not watching their show. Of course this is/. and that would probably be against the rules...actually doing more than whineing here;-)
Funny thing that my TiVo hasn't caught any episodes other than the first runs...I'll dbl check it's looking for both but I'm pretty sure it is.
Exactly. Here's my story of criminal treatment, or at least intimidation...
I didn't have TV over the summer so wasn't able to see the new series Stargate Atlantis first episodes. Once I turned TV back on I decided to go catch up. Used BitTorrent to download the episodes (TV rips, not on DVD so where else to get them?). I figured I'd leave the torrent active to give other people a chance to see them too.
Gee a day later my cable acct is suspended due to a C&D letter from MGM.
Now I *own* every SG-1 DVD set out there, I would likely have bought the Atlantis ones too, but now...fsck 'em. Still haven't watched the episodes either, and probably won't.
The 3 months without TV in the house really made me aware how much we are beholden to the media giants...it's nice to tell them to screw off...in a legal way:)
Correct. As you say Microsoft is pushing stuff that *any* browser can handle. Which means you don't need IE, which means you don't need Windows.
So by Firefox pushing the envelope you get more people who wouldn't otherwise switch browsers. That will lead in turn to less people using Windows because they *have* too and more people who us tech-types can switch to something else (Linux), and finally give Microsoft a run for their money with other OS's.
This is a long term process to be sure but it is happening and ironically Microsoft is encouraging it with the open standards front ends they are supporting with their proprietary backend stuff.
I'd say you probably are atypical, but then most of us here can fit into that category too. Besides cell phones generally have free long distance these days anyway.
I got VOIP because I wasn't ready to hack my DirecTiVo to use ethernet and wanted to have a dedicated fax machine. And the different in price being $50 from Verizon vs $15 from Vonage just wasn't justifiable.
I use my cell phone as my only phone, why do I need a land line anymore? The cell phone is something most people have these days and it uses the "reliable circuit-switched" network you mention. For $5/month I get unlimited minutes after 7pm (Sprint) so my total cost is probably closer to 20/month for switching - still a good bit cheaper.
One of the nice things about VOIP is there's very little 'conversion' needed to switch. Most people have a phone jack near their computer from the modem-only days. You just plug your VOIP adapter into that jack and your entire house now runs off the VOIP service. (Vonage recommends you disconnect your phone line at the junction box so there's no excess voltage on the internal lines).
But probably the most fun thing is that when rebates/stores/travelling salespeople ask for a number, I give them the Vonage number and they get an earful of my fax machine!
I'd beg to differ (with *no* actualy knowledge mind you)
The equivalent to a CD is a musical performance, which at it's base only requires musicians music & instruments.
The equivalent to a movie is going to be a play or other theatrical(sp?) performance. Since it's *visual*, you need sets, props, actual space and equipment. Need may be a bit much but without such things it won't be nearly as good as 6 people standing around reading their lines.
It seems to me that movie making requires fair bit more in terms of actual upfront stuff and so will cost more, making indie makers, while not impossible, seemingly less able to produce quality works.
Musicians can jam anywhere, but acting on the scale of movies is harder to just 'do'. Music is also a fairly linear product; one song to another. Movies/plays have separate scenes and so you end up needing directors, and other people musicians don't generally have a need for.
Prices for movies are too high, there's no doubt about that, but the only way they'll come down is by not buying/renting/downloading the product. Even downloads show the MPAA that there is *interest* in their products, thus justifying their pricing structure.
So do I but only when it's really really needed. The last movies I watched in an actual theater were the LOTR trilogy. Those were movies very few home setups can do justice to properly. I heard Titanic was similar but never cared to watch it.
Add this to the equation...I've got an AOL acct I've had for probably 10-12+ years. I don't actualy use it much anymore save for the screenname for AIM and chatting. Now that I've gotten around to cancel it, guess what...I'll lose my AIM name if I cancel the service.
I *know* this used to be allowed but AOL stopped it to prevent the bleeding of even more people who now only want the free AIM service.
Since I use that name for damn near everything, work/family/friends, it's really too much hassle to switch it to another name at this point so I'm down to the 4.95/month option that keeps the email and chat active but no realy other features (a good thing).
Any thoughts as to the anti-trust aspects of this? They offer a free service, I want to downgrade to that free service but I'm told that because I started with AOL instead of AIM (which didn't exist back then) I can't just have an AIM account now (with the same name). If I had started with AIM, then signed on to AOL, and then wanted to go back to AIM they *say* I'd be able too. Anyone here done that?
The misleading part anti-Bush people (including me) point out is that the 'highest in history' is used to justify the massive win this was for Bush. But who got the 2nd highest vote tally in history? guess who, Kerry.
This is a clean and legitmate victory for Bush. But it's not a 'landslide' as some are trying to portray it. The first actual majority in quite a while is significant but Clinton would have easily had it twice had Perot not been involved.
Are you using Percentage of eligible voters? Because Kerry would have the same things in his column as well.
This is what I was saying about it being the highest turnout in history or at least in a long long time. High tides raise all boats as it were. Feel free to show me links that prove otherwise
I still highly doubt Bush's percentage of actual voters is higher than previous elections.
The percentage of eligible voters also says that Kerry has beaten pretty much the same thing since he has just as large number of votes
Slashdot Mirror
except that only tells you that the wall is perpendicular to the floor. Granted you did say straight and not 'vertical' but that was my first assumption when reading...
Actually you prove my point by wondering what good can come of missions to Mars.
In all of my examples, there was *No* economic incentive to do any them, the reasons were outside of economics. Interstate Highways were conceived of by Eisenhower for military purposes, Cheap air travel became possible because of military advances throughout the century. The Internet...gee the military thing again. Kennedy and the moon missions...we did that for prestige as much as anything else.
You can't know what all the benefits of something will be, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.
I never said we should cut all/any other space initiatives in favor of Mars. I just mean that the goal of Mars has easy potential to produce things you or I can't conceive of now. If you only do things you can see immediate benefit of, you'll miss things that could be far greater.
If you want reasons for space travel...think about when we need more energy than we can produce on this planet. The Moon becomes a very nearby source of raw materials and solar power. By reaching for Mars, the Moon becomes relatively easy. And as many stories here have suggested, basing missions from the Moon is cheaper than doing them from Earth. But we can't get to the Moon easily enough to make it work...yet.
Ahh...to feed the troll or to not feed the troll...
When the technology of cheap space travel provides us with access energy sources that save us from the effects of burning fossil fuels...you can just live in your dark little mud hut.
So was the interstate highway system before it became a crux of today's economy.
So was air travel before it became a crux of today's economy.
So was the internet before it became a crux of today's economy.
So lets just *try* and look a little farther into the future than *your* vision, k?
It's not about recreating the world directly outside your window. It's about recreating places you *can't* go to that fascinates people (and me!).
/.'s since getting jiggy with Ms. Portman qualifies as a place they will *never* be anyway ;-)
Of course this also applies to all the pr0n jokes as to most
Well the *American* driving *tests* have failed miserably but try the German tests on for size.
;-)
Show of hands how many people in the US have failed their driving test? It ain't many. Go to Germany and plenty of people have failed...some more than once.
It costs serious cash and time to take the training; as such the people value their 'priviledge' as opposed to us Americans who 'expect our right' to be able to drive.
Oh yeah I love it when a sig actually relates to a topic
I'll hold up what *I* consider the Holy Grail of gov't/sports combinations:
The Green Bay Packers
The city owns the team or some sort of legal equivalent. I.e. it's in the city's interest to support grow and 'profit' (non-monetarily) from the team. The people of Green Bay love their team and know the 'owner' won't move them.
With modern sports prices however this isn't feasible anymore (short of some waco tycoon donating them..Bueller? Bueller?). I don't believe cities should build stadiums for independent owners either; WITHOUT serious contractual gaurantees that team will stay in the stadium for it's useful life or the owner pays back all the tax payer money used to build it.
That said in today's world you won't get a team without building the stadium (they can just go somewhere that will build it for them) so you're stuck dealing with it.
My point was that they had bridged that hurdle and now the DC Council members want to tinker and do things that could disrupt the process entirely. Thus fueling the stereotype that DC is "run by the inmates"
Considering the current squabbles over the baseball team, can you blame them?
There was a DEAL agreed to and now the city council is trying to tinker with it, jeapordizing whether MLB will even bring a team here in the first place.
The reasons (reducing taxpayer burden) are good, but if baseball walks away because of the bickering, I don't see it as very good in the long run.
Because perhaps there were others in the same situation as me. Weren't able to see the previous shows, and seeing how it's an on going SERIES it's kind of hard to want to watch the REST of the SERIES without knowing what happened BEFORE.
I think the advertisers on the LATER shows would much LIKE me to have watched the PREVIOUS shows so I would watch the LATER shows of which now I WON'T
I'm not talking about redistributing DVD rips, these were almost but not quite OTA broadcasts (it was on SciFi) and there is no other medium for seeing the shows currently. So is there really any financial loss to them by my leaving the torrent open? I really can't see any here. It IS technically illegal, I've never said it wasn't. But their reaction to the situation has definitely caused them financial loss as I won't be buying the DVDs when they come out.
First of all, if you take a Dodge Neon, the dealer is out one car to sell. Not quite the same thing here.
However, I'm not saying that buy leaving the torrent open I was within my rights. It is illegal to offer copyrighted works without permission. That is perfectly true and I don't dispute it.
My point is that because of their reaction I will likely never buy the DVD sets when(if) they're available. So their trumpeting their *rights* has cost them actual sales. That was my reason for saying I own all the SG-1 sets, I do buy what I like, and I was just trying to get up to date with the current (and only) season.
So it was porn that was just 'named' as Stargate Atlantis?
That would mean you weren't serving up MGM copyrighted material (or I *really* need to watch Atlantis...haha). Which means they sent a fraudulent letter, yes? I *think* stuff like that can get their copyright (or maybe it's trademark) revoked. Abuse can mean dismissal or something...
Agreed, your points are valid. Theirs are legal....if stupid ;-)
one more nit...
It wasn't the downloading they objected too (legally anyway) it was the torrent from my machine serving it back for others to download from.
Fair enough but lets say a friend taped it for me to watch later. That is clearly covered under the Betamax decision. It's called time shifting - though the 3 months in this case is a tad extreme I agree.
/. and that would probably be against the rules...actually doing more than whineing here ;-)
My point being though that because of their stupid antics I probably won't ever give them any revenue from this show. And that I seriously would have before this C&D letter to my cable ISP.
What I really should do is figure out who their current commercial sponsors are and write a letter saying *why* I'm not watching their show. Of course this is
Funny thing that my TiVo hasn't caught any episodes other than the first runs...I'll dbl check it's looking for both but I'm pretty sure it is.
Exactly. Here's my story of criminal treatment, or at least intimidation...
:)
I didn't have TV over the summer so wasn't able to see the new series Stargate Atlantis first episodes. Once I turned TV back on I decided to go catch up. Used BitTorrent to download the episodes (TV rips, not on DVD so where else to get them?). I figured I'd leave the torrent active to give other people a chance to see them too.
Gee a day later my cable acct is suspended due to a C&D letter from MGM.
Now I *own* every SG-1 DVD set out there, I would likely have bought the Atlantis ones too, but now...fsck 'em. Still haven't watched the episodes either, and probably won't.
The 3 months without TV in the house really made me aware how much we are beholden to the media giants...it's nice to tell them to screw off...in a legal way
Correct. As you say Microsoft is pushing stuff that *any* browser can handle. Which means you don't need IE, which means you don't need Windows.
So by Firefox pushing the envelope you get more people who wouldn't otherwise switch browsers. That will lead in turn to less people using Windows because they *have* too and more people who us tech-types can switch to something else (Linux), and finally give Microsoft a run for their money with other OS's.
This is a long term process to be sure but it is happening and ironically Microsoft is encouraging it with the open standards front ends they are supporting with their proprietary backend stuff.
Don't look know but *everybody* believes they are an 'above average' driver.
;-)
Well except me, I KNOW I am
Delaware is also a serious Corporation tax haven for the same reasons
I'd say you probably are atypical, but then most of us here can fit into that category too. Besides cell phones generally have free long distance these days anyway.
I got VOIP because I wasn't ready to hack my DirecTiVo to use ethernet and wanted to have a dedicated fax machine. And the different in price being $50 from Verizon vs $15 from Vonage just wasn't justifiable.
I use my cell phone as my only phone, why do I need a land line anymore? The cell phone is something most people have these days and it uses the "reliable circuit-switched" network you mention. For $5/month I get unlimited minutes after 7pm (Sprint) so my total cost is probably closer to 20/month for switching - still a good bit cheaper.
One of the nice things about VOIP is there's very little 'conversion' needed to switch. Most people have a phone jack near their computer from the modem-only days. You just plug your VOIP adapter into that jack and your entire house now runs off the VOIP service. (Vonage recommends you disconnect your phone line at the junction box so there's no excess voltage on the internal lines).
But probably the most fun thing is that when rebates/stores/travelling salespeople ask for a number, I give them the Vonage number and they get an earful of my fax machine!
probably great indie films too
I'd beg to differ (with *no* actualy knowledge mind you)
The equivalent to a CD is a musical performance, which at it's base only requires musicians music & instruments.
The equivalent to a movie is going to be a play or other theatrical(sp?) performance. Since it's *visual*, you need sets, props, actual space and equipment. Need may be a bit much but without such things it won't be nearly as good as 6 people standing around reading their lines.
It seems to me that movie making requires fair bit more in terms of actual upfront stuff and so will cost more, making indie makers, while not impossible, seemingly less able to produce quality works.
Musicians can jam anywhere, but acting on the scale of movies is harder to just 'do'. Music is also a fairly linear product; one song to another. Movies/plays have separate scenes and so you end up needing directors, and other people musicians don't generally have a need for.
Prices for movies are too high, there's no doubt about that, but the only way they'll come down is by not buying/renting/downloading the product. Even downloads show the MPAA that there is *interest* in their products, thus justifying their pricing structure.
So do I but only when it's really really needed. The last movies I watched in an actual theater were the LOTR trilogy. Those were movies very few home setups can do justice to properly. I heard Titanic was similar but never cared to watch it.
Add this to the equation...I've got an AOL acct I've had for probably 10-12+ years. I don't actualy use it much anymore save for the screenname for AIM and chatting. Now that I've gotten around to cancel it, guess what...I'll lose my AIM name if I cancel the service.
I *know* this used to be allowed but AOL stopped it to prevent the bleeding of even more people who now only want the free AIM service.
Since I use that name for damn near everything, work/family/friends, it's really too much hassle to switch it to another name at this point so I'm down to the 4.95/month option that keeps the email and chat active but no realy other features (a good thing).
Any thoughts as to the anti-trust aspects of this? They offer a free service, I want to downgrade to that free service but I'm told that because I started with AOL instead of AIM (which didn't exist back then) I can't just have an AIM account now (with the same name). If I had started with AIM, then signed on to AOL, and then wanted to go back to AIM they *say* I'd be able too. Anyone here done that?
The misleading part anti-Bush people (including me) point out is that the 'highest in history' is used to justify the massive win this was for Bush. But who got the 2nd highest vote tally in history? guess who, Kerry.
This is a clean and legitmate victory for Bush. But it's not a 'landslide' as some are trying to portray it. The first actual majority in quite a while is significant but Clinton would have easily had it twice had Perot not been involved.
I do stand corrected sir. Much appreciate the link
I will caveat that Clinton would have had both in 92 & 96 had there not been a significant 3rd candidate (Perot)
But yes Bush's victory is more solid than I would have expected and your points are valid.
Are you using Percentage of eligible voters? Because Kerry would have the same things in his column as well.
This is what I was saying about it being the highest turnout in history or at least in a long long time. High tides raise all boats as it were. Feel free to show me links that prove otherwise
I still highly doubt Bush's percentage of actual voters is higher than previous elections.
The percentage of eligible voters also says that Kerry has beaten pretty much the same thing since he has just as large number of votes