Put on your skeptical hats. Do you really think there are "huge machines" in low earth orbit that nobody else, aside from the link, can see? John Walson isn't the only one watching the sky. There are people who do this for a living and nobody else can see what he is seeing. As in, not a single person has been able to confirm his "finding". Therefore, one can only conclude that he is full of it.
There is no mystery because there are no machines.
I can't believe the parent got modded up on/. of all places. Wow....how far we've fallen.
Not really cost effective for the type of control valves I sell.
You're looking for a "WOG" valve....water, oil, gas. Prolly a 1/2" or 1" NPT connections (ie: threaded) with a brass body of somekind. Dwyer is a good source for hobby projects. Cheap, but good stuff.
I have valves installed that hold a 10,000 psi well down in Venezuela right now. Many of them.
Trust me, we have valves and instrumentation that can handle CO2 underground. We already do this with underground natural gas storage and CO2 isn't a giant change.
And yes, I sell valves. Relief valves, control valves, block valves, cryogenic valves, high temperature valves, steam valves. All kinds of valves. All kinds of materials.:) C02 is no big deal to hold underground. It can be done easily.
The world's total solar power capacity is roughly equivalent to one unit of your average coal-fired power station
Ok, the coal plant near me is an 1800MW dual-plant. Are you saying the ENTIRE solar power capacity of the world is less than that? That's 1800 Megawatts, about enough to run 450,000 people and businesses.
Perhaps I am mislead but that doesn't even pass the smell test for me. If so, I have to drastically rethink my support of solar.....but I'm guessing you're just wrong.
First, it's not Yahoo saying $44 Bil. It's MSFT, with their offer. You can read that as: MSFT is willing to pay $44bil for Yahoo, therefore, Yahoo is worth at least $44bil.
Second, people here need to understand something: the stock market is the final judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to valuing companies.
If the stock market says "Company X" is worth $Y billion dollars -- then it is. Implicitly, it is saying "someone will pay that price - right now - in the open markets", thus putting a final value on the company at that moment. You can't argue with it and you can't complain about it. It just is.
If you think that price is wrong, then you can act accordingly and make money from that knowledge. Wash, rinse, and repeat and you now start to understand the stock market. It is THE most efficient capital market in the world. It processes ALL information and takes it into account for it's pricing. That's what Wall Street does.
And, judging by the share prices of MSFT, you are not the only one to question the number of users vs active users. (I happen to agree, btw)
Cigarettes, huh?
Interesting choice. And a bad one...
Here's why: The bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms would never let you get that far.
It would be similar to making bath tub gin and then trying to go make a business out of it. They have a name for that. It's called bootlegging. Tobacco is in the same boat.
If you think the govt would let you "work" with tobacco in any way shape or form, other than farming it, you are kidding yourself. You need a license/permit/registration to even sniff it. And guess who controls those? Yep. The Government. So we're already there, pal. Been there for a looooong time already.
My old professor used to say, "Those companies with unions have, in almost all cases, done something to the employees to deserve it".
And the best part is: when you go back and actually fact check that statement, he's exactly right.
You just don't see unions at places that treat their workers well. And in the converse, you almost always see unions where they don't (or at least attempts to unionize). Sometimes they intersect when the unions try to recruit new members at "good" companies but for the most part, unless the employer is just an asshat, they get rebuffed. In places where the employers are good to the employees, the unions just don't get the play that they demand.
As long as ONE nation has super weapons, no other nation can POSSIBLY feel non-threatened. Doesn't matter whether the US actually USES them. It's their existence and actual deployment that is unnerving to some nations. And, it only justifies nations spending exorbitant sums of public money on otherwise phantom or unjustified war footing.
Yep. And guess what happens after that? The US acquires more power in the world and the "threatened" nation knows it can't step too far out of line or it risks war. Of course, the lesser powered nation will spend significant resources trying to defend against the new threat -- which is exactly what we (the US) want them to do. You see, warfare is a broader subject than just bullets and guns. It's also about the economics. Over time, if you can bankrupt your foes, then you might not even have to fight. And even if you can't, it's to your benefit that they spend significant resources chasing rainbows.
You see, the world stage isn't about friends and enemies in the traditional sense. It's about interests. After you understand that aspect, you will see that the very things you lay out in your post are exactly why the US is choosing this course of action. The military isn't stupid you know. They absolutely, 100% know power and how to achieve it. No question about that.
Take step back and realize that the entire world works this way. The more you understand 'spheres of influence' the more you will understand the *why* behind the what. Of course, its much much more complex than I have laid out but I was trying to keep my response limited to your post.
It is not Charter's job to determine what is and isn't important for me to keep. They should have prepared and if they didn't (which they clearly have not), then shame on them.
I think it's 100% reasonable to expect your e-mail (which is paid for as part of your service) be kept safe and not deleted. I do not think that is asking too much -- if your provider includes that service as part of their product offering.
If Charter had said "hey guys, we'll give you free e-mail but we aren't going to support it", then that's another story. But that is not the case here. E-mail is about as fundamental to "teh intarnet" as any service aside from the WWW. Customers should expect their e-mail to be safe (which means backups!!!)
For anything remotely technical or digital, you will quickly run afoul of current IP Laws. In other words, they would sue you into oblivion. And if they don't....well, that means you aren't big enough yet.
THAT is the real reason it is very very difficult to break the status quo and do what the GP laid out. It's so absurd that you can make something "work" in your basement but as soon as you try to capitalize on it....here come the attorneys with all kinds of arcane reasons why you can't do what you just did in your basement.
Look no further than Vonage for an example. History is littered with companies like this. Companies who could build a better mousetrap but are not allowed to because they will inevitably have to use functionality that is locked up in some stupid, overly broad patent. Of course, the root cause there is the patent system. But if you start your own company, you are subject to that system. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not.
I think it's easy to say "well go start your own company if you think it sucks" but in actual practice, it rarely happens on anything but a small scale.
Ahhh, point well taken. I see now where you were coming from.
You are correct that the clone would have to be identical, or at least close enough to identical that it retains the same desired characteristics (meat, wool, whatever). We aren't there quite yet, as your cat example demonstrates.
But, we will get there, don't you think? When that happens, the scenario I outlined is entirely feasible and I imagine lots of farmers/ranchers will take advantage of being able to create a "world class" herd in 1 year, instead of working 20 to achieve the same thing through selective breeding. Heck, I imagine in the future, many farmers would have the same genetic herd as other farmers (ie: many herds come from one prized mother/father).
Kinda like Beefmaster cattle. That genetic line is known for creating large cows that can eat almost anything (scrub brush, etc). If you found the BEST Beefmaster cow in the country (in terms of yield) and cloned that one....you'd get a lot of beef down the line.
yes, wool and/or meat. Depends on what you are raising them for.
You do realize that different sheep produce different amounts of those substances, correct? I can only speak of bovine (cows) since that is what I am most familiar with. But the concept is the same.
In bovine, yield refers to either the milk produced or the beef produced per lb of feed input (+medical +shared fixed cost of land). If you can increase your yield (the amount you get out compared to the amount put in), then - by definition - you make more money. You get more out compared to what you put in. That is increasing the yield.
A cloned animal doesn't necessarily increase the yield. The cloning of a high yielding animal will produce higher yields compared to a "normal" herd. Cloning is simply the means to an end. And the "end goal" is a higher yielding herd each year. Heck, that's WHY farmers select "best of the herd" in the first place. Except instead of breeding the best of the herd (and maybe get 1-2 offspring) we clone the best of the herd -- multiple times.
You really don't understand the benefit of being able to produce an exact clone of a high-producing male/female? You must not have a very active imagination.
Methinks you are purposely not seeing it.
I still don't see how introducing genetically faulty copies. No - I said clones. As in, exact copies.
If you can't figure out how you could increase your yield by using clones (after you decide on a "master mother/father") then I can't help explain it any easier. Even if you took a mother/father from the 50% median and cloned that animal -- you'd still outyield the bottom 49% of your herd.
You might beat my yield the first year. We would be using the exact same methods. But the second year, my yield will FAR surpass your yield. Why? Because I can clone my best producer from year 1 and replicate a whole herd of them. And I can do that every year. Or, I can go back and refine my selection process (via your methods)...and get an even higher producing master mother/father.
Instead of doing this every year (like right now), you only do this once or twice. Once you have "the best", you only need a herd if you want a new "best". Otherwise, you just keep using "the best" and making copies. There will also be a market for "bests" and you can probably purchase one without hasseling yourself with a herd and the selection process.
It's not expensive and difficult to take blood from 100 sheep and store it for 2 years. Perhaps farmers could start a Co-Op and offset costs (where have I heard that before...?)
How do you think we are doing things currently? That would be a vast improvement in yield (which is the ultimate goal)
I'd take a sample from every lamb. Then I'd feed all the sheep the same feed for 2 years under the same conditions (ie: the same farm). I have no idea what the correct "harvest" date is for Mutton, but I'd make a mental note of the sheep that produced the most and best quality meat on slaughter day. Or the most and best quality wool. Whatever.
Then I'd clone that one.
Just takes one or two iterations to dramatically improve results. Farmers have been doing this for 1000's of years, but you can already imagine the impact cloning animals will have. (we've always been able to clone a lot of plants...)
Instead of having a large, cumbersome herd, I could have a smaller, more specialized herd and just selectively clone as needed. Now that I think about it, its like the farmers in the show "Weeds"....but with mammals.
they give a fuck whose copyright they are breaking
You do realize the difference between hosting CONTENT and hosting torrents, correct? Because your post implies you don't. TPB isn't breaking ANYONE's copyright by hosting torrents. The users are.
I believe your outrage is misplaced. Don't blame the technology. Blame the people who are using the technology for "bad things".
Question for you: what is the rate of replacement? ie: we know we lose some atmosphere, but we also gain atmosphere when the Earth's gravity pulls stuff into our atmosphere. What are the rates for each?
The original poster claimed Helium is a depleting resource because we are losing it through the atmosphere. I questioned that but it seems the equation is a lot more complex than I first thought. While I still stand by my previous post, I am open to hearing more about the loss/gain rate for light elements.
Extracting it from the atmosphere is not cost-effectiveat current pricing levels
There, fixed it. Helium is available. We can extract it out of the air for anyone who needs it. However, the price they want to pay may not make it worthwhile to the supplier so we have fewer and fewer suppliers who can provide Helium and still stay in business.
Saying "something is running out" never seems to take price into consideration. Same issue with oil. There is PLENTY of oil on the earth. The question is: how valuable is it to you (the consumer) to extract and use it? I guaran-damn-tee you that if Helium sold for $5000/cu ft -- we'd have PLENTY of helium. And most likely, I'd be in the helium sales business tomorrow. That's how capitalism works. If demand is out of whack with supply, then the price goes up and more suppliers come online to provide that product. If supply is out of whack with demand, then prices go down and fewer and fewer suppliers stay in that business.
I see it something like:
1. Go to Soviet Russia
2. Find some old Koreans
3. ????
4. Profit!!!!!
If they are looking to "enforce" copyright, then don't they have to enforce my copyright also? Through whatever technical means they are referring to...
Makes me wonder what would happen if thousands of webpages suddenly became copyrighted and their respective owners filed copyright infringement complaints through whatever process AT&T outlines for owners? In other words, this policy doesn't care WHO'S copyright it is (in theory), be it MPAA material, RIAA material, or anyone else who claims infringement....there has to be a way for AT&T to differentiate between non-infringing and infringing material. So I am guessing they will have a process where, if you feel your copyright has been infringed, you can file it with them and they will monitor the network for that traffic/signature/however they do that.
My point is this: AT&T has to have a process for copyright owners to submit claims of infringement*. That's the ticket to crushing this stupid idea. Exploit that (file lots and lots of claims) and this system will be overwhelmed quickly. With copyright laws the way they are, it is trivial to find millions of cases of infringement to submit. See the problem is: copyright law doesn't distinguish between "large corporation like Disney" and "small amateur production company". And we're ALL small amateur production companies. All we have to do is figure out the process for submitting a claim. I can think of lots of infringing material of mine that is being sent -unauthorized- around the internet. I am sure you can too.
Go enforce THAT AT&T. Good luck.
* if there is no process, then it will be easy to show how ridiculously unfair the program is. Might not make a difference, but still.
I've had many a religious discussion with my judeo-christian friends and I hear the same thing that you said, "They're either stupid, insane, or lying. None of which is a desirable quality."
...except they use Jesus as the example. As in: he was either a) a liar b) a lunatic or c) the real thing.
And they phrase it as if there are no other choices. I hear this argument come up a lot and usually I have to refrain from giving my opinion. They seem to forget that not only were there plenty of charlatans back then....but people were even stupider than they are now from a "we understand the world" standpoint.
Is this really the case? I had not heard of the audio angle but I imagine LOTS and LOTS of people have audio separated from their video within their home theater. Most of us have been doing that for some time now (ie: video out of cable box to TV, digital audio out to the audio receiver, harmony remote to make it work nicely together).
If I am reading your post correctly....that can not be done anymore because of the "unprotected" audio-out port.
So even if I have a "good" HDCP compliant monitor, and a "good" HDCP compliant source (like Blu-ray player), I can't send my audio through my home theater receiver? In other words, you can't separate the audio and video anymore because the audio ports (which have been around a long time) are unprotected. Both Coax and Toslink.
On one hand, that's jacked up. On the other hand, I now understand why my TV has a toslink out connection. It's basically a passthru so you can take HDMI/HDCP into the TV and split out the audio from the TV to the audio receiver.
Just so there is no confusion amongst readers....VideoLan and VLC are the same thing. VLC is just an abbreviation.
And if you haven't checked out this media player yet (shame on you, you should know better), then I highly suggest you check it out. Since I switched to VLC, I can definitely say my life is MUCH much easier. I've also made my friends/families lives easier by asking them to switch too. No more codecs. No more DRM. No more MS nonsense, just to play a regular multimedia file.
I have a 37" 1080P HD-Monitor and VLC plays fine on it. Both standard def and high def content. So much so that I don't even recognize the issues that are discussed in this article. I don't think I've ever seen this on my system. (not being able to play HD content at full res).
I understand what you are saying, with respect to applications.
However, the point of my post is that MS dominates the desktop OS space and, since you must have an OS to run any of the apps you lay out above, then MS - by default - still dominates the desktop. The OS is the key to the vault. If you control that, you can stick your grubby little fingers wherever you want to, up to and including making those competitor apps break (though not as obviously as in years past).
Slashdot Mirror
Put on your skeptical hats. Do you really think there are "huge machines" in low earth orbit that nobody else, aside from the link, can see? John Walson isn't the only one watching the sky. There are people who do this for a living and nobody else can see what he is seeing. As in, not a single person has been able to confirm his "finding". Therefore, one can only conclude that he is full of it.
/. of all places. Wow....how far we've fallen.
There is no mystery because there are no machines.
I can't believe the parent got modded up on
Not really cost effective for the type of control valves I sell.
You're looking for a "WOG" valve....water, oil, gas. Prolly a 1/2" or 1" NPT connections (ie: threaded) with a brass body of somekind. Dwyer is a good source for hobby projects. Cheap, but good stuff.
Bring it.
:) C02 is no big deal to hold underground. It can be done easily.
I have valves installed that hold a 10,000 psi well down in Venezuela right now. Many of them.
Trust me, we have valves and instrumentation that can handle CO2 underground. We already do this with underground natural gas storage and CO2 isn't a giant change.
And yes, I sell valves. Relief valves, control valves, block valves, cryogenic valves, high temperature valves, steam valves. All kinds of valves. All kinds of materials.
The world's total solar power capacity is roughly equivalent to one unit of your average coal-fired power station
Ok, the coal plant near me is an 1800MW dual-plant. Are you saying the ENTIRE solar power capacity of the world is less than that? That's 1800 Megawatts, about enough to run 450,000 people and businesses.
Perhaps I am mislead but that doesn't even pass the smell test for me. If so, I have to drastically rethink my support of solar.....but I'm guessing you're just wrong.
First, it's not Yahoo saying $44 Bil. It's MSFT, with their offer. You can read that as: MSFT is willing to pay $44bil for Yahoo, therefore, Yahoo is worth at least $44bil.
Second, people here need to understand something: the stock market is the final judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to valuing companies.
If the stock market says "Company X" is worth $Y billion dollars -- then it is. Implicitly, it is saying "someone will pay that price - right now - in the open markets", thus putting a final value on the company at that moment. You can't argue with it and you can't complain about it. It just is.
If you think that price is wrong, then you can act accordingly and make money from that knowledge. Wash, rinse, and repeat and you now start to understand the stock market. It is THE most efficient capital market in the world. It processes ALL information and takes it into account for it's pricing. That's what Wall Street does.
And, judging by the share prices of MSFT, you are not the only one to question the number of users vs active users. (I happen to agree, btw)
Cigarettes, huh?
Interesting choice. And a bad one...
Here's why: The bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms would never let you get that far.
It would be similar to making bath tub gin and then trying to go make a business out of it. They have a name for that. It's called bootlegging. Tobacco is in the same boat.
If you think the govt would let you "work" with tobacco in any way shape or form, other than farming it, you are kidding yourself. You need a license/permit/registration to even sniff it. And guess who controls those? Yep. The Government. So we're already there, pal. Been there for a looooong time already.
My old professor used to say, "Those companies with unions have, in almost all cases, done something to the employees to deserve it".
And the best part is: when you go back and actually fact check that statement, he's exactly right.
You just don't see unions at places that treat their workers well. And in the converse, you almost always see unions where they don't (or at least attempts to unionize). Sometimes they intersect when the unions try to recruit new members at "good" companies but for the most part, unless the employer is just an asshat, they get rebuffed. In places where the employers are good to the employees, the unions just don't get the play that they demand.
As long as ONE nation has super weapons, no other nation can POSSIBLY feel non-threatened. Doesn't matter whether the US actually USES them. It's their existence and actual deployment that is unnerving to some nations. And, it only justifies nations spending exorbitant sums of public money on otherwise phantom or unjustified war footing.
Yep. And guess what happens after that? The US acquires more power in the world and the "threatened" nation knows it can't step too far out of line or it risks war. Of course, the lesser powered nation will spend significant resources trying to defend against the new threat -- which is exactly what we (the US) want them to do. You see, warfare is a broader subject than just bullets and guns. It's also about the economics. Over time, if you can bankrupt your foes, then you might not even have to fight. And even if you can't, it's to your benefit that they spend significant resources chasing rainbows.
You see, the world stage isn't about friends and enemies in the traditional sense. It's about interests. After you understand that aspect, you will see that the very things you lay out in your post are exactly why the US is choosing this course of action. The military isn't stupid you know. They absolutely, 100% know power and how to achieve it. No question about that.
Take step back and realize that the entire world works this way. The more you understand 'spheres of influence' the more you will understand the *why* behind the what. Of course, its much much more complex than I have laid out but I was trying to keep my response limited to your post.
It is not Charter's job to determine what is and isn't important for me to keep. They should have prepared and if they didn't (which they clearly have not), then shame on them.
I think it's 100% reasonable to expect your e-mail (which is paid for as part of your service) be kept safe and not deleted. I do not think that is asking too much -- if your provider includes that service as part of their product offering.
If Charter had said "hey guys, we'll give you free e-mail but we aren't going to support it", then that's another story. But that is not the case here. E-mail is about as fundamental to "teh intarnet" as any service aside from the WWW. Customers should expect their e-mail to be safe (which means backups!!!)
"Can't stop the signal...."
Highly appropriate, don't you think?
For anything remotely technical or digital, you will quickly run afoul of current IP Laws. In other words, they would sue you into oblivion. And if they don't....well, that means you aren't big enough yet.
THAT is the real reason it is very very difficult to break the status quo and do what the GP laid out. It's so absurd that you can make something "work" in your basement but as soon as you try to capitalize on it....here come the attorneys with all kinds of arcane reasons why you can't do what you just did in your basement.
Look no further than Vonage for an example. History is littered with companies like this. Companies who could build a better mousetrap but are not allowed to because they will inevitably have to use functionality that is locked up in some stupid, overly broad patent. Of course, the root cause there is the patent system. But if you start your own company, you are subject to that system. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not.
I think it's easy to say "well go start your own company if you think it sucks" but in actual practice, it rarely happens on anything but a small scale.
Ahhh, point well taken. I see now where you were coming from.
You are correct that the clone would have to be identical, or at least close enough to identical that it retains the same desired characteristics (meat, wool, whatever). We aren't there quite yet, as your cat example demonstrates.
But, we will get there, don't you think? When that happens, the scenario I outlined is entirely feasible and I imagine lots of farmers/ranchers will take advantage of being able to create a "world class" herd in 1 year, instead of working 20 to achieve the same thing through selective breeding. Heck, I imagine in the future, many farmers would have the same genetic herd as other farmers (ie: many herds come from one prized mother/father).
Kinda like Beefmaster cattle. That genetic line is known for creating large cows that can eat almost anything (scrub brush, etc). If you found the BEST Beefmaster cow in the country (in terms of yield) and cloned that one....you'd get a lot of beef down the line.
yes, wool and/or meat. Depends on what you are raising them for.
You do realize that different sheep produce different amounts of those substances, correct? I can only speak of bovine (cows) since that is what I am most familiar with. But the concept is the same.
In bovine, yield refers to either the milk produced or the beef produced per lb of feed input (+medical +shared fixed cost of land). If you can increase your yield (the amount you get out compared to the amount put in), then - by definition - you make more money. You get more out compared to what you put in. That is increasing the yield.
A cloned animal doesn't necessarily increase the yield. The cloning of a high yielding animal will produce higher yields compared to a "normal" herd. Cloning is simply the means to an end. And the "end goal" is a higher yielding herd each year. Heck, that's WHY farmers select "best of the herd" in the first place. Except instead of breeding the best of the herd (and maybe get 1-2 offspring) we clone the best of the herd -- multiple times.
You really don't understand the benefit of being able to produce an exact clone of a high-producing male/female? You must not have a very active imagination.
Methinks you are purposely not seeing it.
I still don't see how introducing genetically faulty copies. No - I said clones. As in, exact copies.
If you can't figure out how you could increase your yield by using clones (after you decide on a "master mother/father") then I can't help explain it any easier. Even if you took a mother/father from the 50% median and cloned that animal -- you'd still outyield the bottom 49% of your herd.
You might beat my yield the first year. We would be using the exact same methods. But the second year, my yield will FAR surpass your yield. Why? Because I can clone my best producer from year 1 and replicate a whole herd of them. And I can do that every year. Or, I can go back and refine my selection process (via your methods)...and get an even higher producing master mother/father.
Instead of doing this every year (like right now), you only do this once or twice. Once you have "the best", you only need a herd if you want a new "best". Otherwise, you just keep using "the best" and making copies. There will also be a market for "bests" and you can probably purchase one without hasseling yourself with a herd and the selection process.
It's not expensive and difficult to take blood from 100 sheep and store it for 2 years. Perhaps farmers could start a Co-Op and offset costs (where have I heard that before...?)
How do you think we are doing things currently? That would be a vast improvement in yield (which is the ultimate goal)
I'd take a sample from every lamb. Then I'd feed all the sheep the same feed for 2 years under the same conditions (ie: the same farm). I have no idea what the correct "harvest" date is for Mutton, but I'd make a mental note of the sheep that produced the most and best quality meat on slaughter day. Or the most and best quality wool. Whatever.
Then I'd clone that one.
Just takes one or two iterations to dramatically improve results. Farmers have been doing this for 1000's of years, but you can already imagine the impact cloning animals will have. (we've always been able to clone a lot of plants...)
Instead of having a large, cumbersome herd, I could have a smaller, more specialized herd and just selectively clone as needed. Now that I think about it, its like the farmers in the show "Weeds"....but with mammals.
they give a fuck whose copyright they are breaking
You do realize the difference between hosting CONTENT and hosting torrents, correct? Because your post implies you don't. TPB isn't breaking ANYONE's copyright by hosting torrents. The users are.
I believe your outrage is misplaced. Don't blame the technology. Blame the people who are using the technology for "bad things".
Interesting. I may stand corrected....
Question for you: what is the rate of replacement? ie: we know we lose some atmosphere, but we also gain atmosphere when the Earth's gravity pulls stuff into our atmosphere. What are the rates for each?
The original poster claimed Helium is a depleting resource because we are losing it through the atmosphere. I questioned that but it seems the equation is a lot more complex than I first thought. While I still stand by my previous post, I am open to hearing more about the loss/gain rate for light elements.
Gravity works on Helium too, ya know. Helium is not escaping the earth's atmosphere unless it has sufficient velocity to do so. Which...it doesn't.
Yes, Helium is the lightest element. But it still has mass and thus, is subject to gravity.
Extracting it from the atmosphere is not cost-effective at current pricing levels
There, fixed it. Helium is available. We can extract it out of the air for anyone who needs it. However, the price they want to pay may not make it worthwhile to the supplier so we have fewer and fewer suppliers who can provide Helium and still stay in business.
Saying "something is running out" never seems to take price into consideration. Same issue with oil. There is PLENTY of oil on the earth. The question is: how valuable is it to you (the consumer) to extract and use it? I guaran-damn-tee you that if Helium sold for $5000/cu ft -- we'd have PLENTY of helium. And most likely, I'd be in the helium sales business tomorrow. That's how capitalism works. If demand is out of whack with supply, then the price goes up and more suppliers come online to provide that product. If supply is out of whack with demand, then prices go down and fewer and fewer suppliers stay in that business.
I see it something like:
1. Go to Soviet Russia
2. Find some old Koreans
3. ????
4. Profit!!!!!
See how easy it works?
If they are looking to "enforce" copyright, then don't they have to enforce my copyright also? Through whatever technical means they are referring to...
Makes me wonder what would happen if thousands of webpages suddenly became copyrighted and their respective owners filed copyright infringement complaints through whatever process AT&T outlines for owners? In other words, this policy doesn't care WHO'S copyright it is (in theory), be it MPAA material, RIAA material, or anyone else who claims infringement....there has to be a way for AT&T to differentiate between non-infringing and infringing material. So I am guessing they will have a process where, if you feel your copyright has been infringed, you can file it with them and they will monitor the network for that traffic/signature/however they do that.
My point is this: AT&T has to have a process for copyright owners to submit claims of infringement*. That's the ticket to crushing this stupid idea. Exploit that (file lots and lots of claims) and this system will be overwhelmed quickly. With copyright laws the way they are, it is trivial to find millions of cases of infringement to submit. See the problem is: copyright law doesn't distinguish between "large corporation like Disney" and "small amateur production company". And we're ALL small amateur production companies. All we have to do is figure out the process for submitting a claim. I can think of lots of infringing material of mine that is being sent -unauthorized- around the internet. I am sure you can too.
Go enforce THAT AT&T. Good luck.
* if there is no process, then it will be easy to show how ridiculously unfair the program is. Might not make a difference, but still.
I've had many a religious discussion with my judeo-christian friends and I hear the same thing that you said, "They're either stupid, insane, or lying. None of which is a desirable quality."
...except they use Jesus as the example. As in: he was either a) a liar b) a lunatic or c) the real thing.
And they phrase it as if there are no other choices. I hear this argument come up a lot and usually I have to refrain from giving my opinion. They seem to forget that not only were there plenty of charlatans back then....but people were even stupider than they are now from a "we understand the world" standpoint.
Is this really the case? I had not heard of the audio angle but I imagine LOTS and LOTS of people have audio separated from their video within their home theater. Most of us have been doing that for some time now (ie: video out of cable box to TV, digital audio out to the audio receiver, harmony remote to make it work nicely together).
If I am reading your post correctly....that can not be done anymore because of the "unprotected" audio-out port.
So even if I have a "good" HDCP compliant monitor, and a "good" HDCP compliant source (like Blu-ray player), I can't send my audio through my home theater receiver? In other words, you can't separate the audio and video anymore because the audio ports (which have been around a long time) are unprotected. Both Coax and Toslink.
On one hand, that's jacked up. On the other hand, I now understand why my TV has a toslink out connection. It's basically a passthru so you can take HDMI/HDCP into the TV and split out the audio from the TV to the audio receiver.
Just so there is no confusion amongst readers....VideoLan and VLC are the same thing. VLC is just an abbreviation.
And if you haven't checked out this media player yet (shame on you, you should know better), then I highly suggest you check it out. Since I switched to VLC, I can definitely say my life is MUCH much easier. I've also made my friends/families lives easier by asking them to switch too. No more codecs. No more DRM. No more MS nonsense, just to play a regular multimedia file.
I have a 37" 1080P HD-Monitor and VLC plays fine on it. Both standard def and high def content. So much so that I don't even recognize the issues that are discussed in this article. I don't think I've ever seen this on my system. (not being able to play HD content at full res).
I understand what you are saying, with respect to applications.
However, the point of my post is that MS dominates the desktop OS space and, since you must have an OS to run any of the apps you lay out above, then MS - by default - still dominates the desktop. The OS is the key to the vault. If you control that, you can stick your grubby little fingers wherever you want to, up to and including making those competitor apps break (though not as obviously as in years past).