Tivo's "Product Watch" thingie is deja vu all over again for me. I was lead techie in a company called MPression Entertainment, now defunct. Our business plan was to provide video on demand to hotels using set top boxes and movies stored locally at the hotel. The catch was that it was to be funded by advertising, some of which would be on demand to the hotel guest. The pitch was that the hotel guest could request a video ad, adn they'd get credits for free movies and other rewards. Sadly the company went belly up when the CEO was shipped off to federal prison. You can't win 'em all.:P
Anyway, the "reward" bit is one thing sorely missing from Tivo's new venture. What value, beyond possible entertainment, does the customer get from viewing the videos? They can get video entertainment elsewhere (on their own Tivo box, for goodness sake) so why give benefit to Tivo and the advertisers by watching them? It makes no sense...
These people are not going to be helped with bioengineered rice. The problems in the third world are political chaos, war, lack of family planning, lack of education, religious fundamentalism, and others. Poverty, disease, high mortality, child labor, homelessness, and migration are symptoms of that.
It's not that simple. This is no simple chain of cause and effect. Political chaos, war, lack of family planning, lack of education, religious fundamentalism, poverty, disease, high mortality, child labor, homelessness, and migration all feed into each other and interact. None are in a vaccuum, being solely symptoms of any other, or set of other causes. Reduce poverty and disease and you reduce suffering, which can enable people the luxury of gaining an education, plan for their future, and participate in politics.
It's ironic that you call folks "well-meaning idiots" given your simplistic worldview.
You make it sound like getting into a fight with Bubba will get you shot, which it won't.
All I know is, the only times I've ever heard anyone brag about shooting someone "in self defense" it's come from the lips of a hyperconservative gun nut.
And, being from Texas, how many times have you encountered an "ultraliberal gun nut"? I've never met such a beast. I've met my share of paleoconservative homosexual Catholics, tree hugging pro-nuclear activists, and a fair share of pro-war Unitarians. Ultraliberal gun nut? Never.
I have had plenty of death threats from those claiming to be liberals...
Look. I live in Texas. Here, you don't flip someone off on the highway because you're likely to get shot. You don't get in an argument with some bubba for the same reason. Arguing with some pencil neck fruity guy? Fine. Safe territory. Chaw chewin' redneck? Nope. And that's just the law of the jungle. Some angry conservative dude is far more likely to haul off and shoot you.
Echo chambers kind of lead to that sort of behavior.
True, but the echoes from the right wing seem to lead to threats of imprisonment and/or death. There's a qualitative difference and insinuating that both sides are equivalent is disingenuous.
It amazes me how many of the comments on the ABC News blog say, "the government should put leakers away for life!" and "treasonous journalists should be shot!"
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
Regarding sports, you might have to take a few more days of layoff between workouts or slow down a bit on the court, but you will find that your increased understanding of tactics, planning, and strategy will make up for it. Yes, even for stuff like weight-training.
Especially when it comes to weight training! And this doesn't just apply to the middle aged man, either. I've been weight training on and off since I was sixteen. (35 now.) I seem to be getting better with age, mainly because I've avoided injury and too much strain.
At 20, I could bench press 225lb, no matter how hard I trained.
At 29 I reached 315lb after a year's worth of training.
At 35, after taking the intervening years off, I regained 315lb in about two months. (Started from 185lb or so...)
My goal is to maintain this strength for as long as possible.
Men just get stronger with age, up to a point. The important thing is to not injure yourself when you're young, and just keep steadily bulking up.
No, he blamed them for the fact that it's taken "...5 years for some people to come around to the facts..." They didn't start the war. They were the cover so it could be started with less opposition.
News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.
The existence of FoxNews makes this statement demonstrably false.
We think that certain habits will increase the liklihood, but we cannot say, "Excercise and you will not get cancer".
So? We think that the sun will come up tomorrow, but you don't know that for certain. Does that stop you from acting on that assumption? Granted the probabilities of behavior change affecting cancer incidence is lower, but that doesn't mean we should discount them entirely because they're not absolutes.
Let me give you an example; Lance Armstrong, incredibly healthy and a great athlete, yet he was on the brink of death due to cancer.
Bad example. He participated in a sport that involved sitting in a way that crushed is testicles and that probably caused the cancer. And guess what? Now bicycle seat design has changed to compensate. So yes, he was incredibly healthy, but there was a pretty clear cause for his cancer, and a behavior change could prevent testicular cancer in others. It's not the behavior change you were expecting.
Ain't it funny how Colbert is being ignored? This happened on Saturday. It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment. Did it make the major news sites? Type "Colbert" into google news and see what pops up first thing.
Highest on list: 37.80 cents per gallon, Hawaii Average: 22.94 cents per gallon
How about a little math with your FUD?
Average gas price, as of today: $2.90 Average gas tax, 2004: 22.94 cents
Let's be very generous, and assume average tax as risen to 29 cents per gallon. (Probably a wild overestimate, given the current political climate)
That makes a 10% markup. Hardly the "primary reason it costs a fortune to fill up at the pump" considering that the average price of gas has risen from $1.87 in 2004. (That would be a $1.03 rise for the math impaired...)
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
You're correct in the first sentence. It's your application of that principle where you go wrong.
The concept of God cannot be disproven. Thus science cannot say much about it. Science can speak to our perception of God, how the concept shapes our society, etc. The concept itself, however, cannot be disproven and is beyond science.
Really? I've got a 4200 with the stock cooler and it's whisper quiet. I had a shuttle box before and I was afraid the switch would be unpleasant. (I've had cpu coolers before that sounded like jets taking off. Not good...) But the cooler that came with the cpu was just fine, not much louder than the shuttle, and I run it with an open case.
Slashdot Mirror
Tivo's "Product Watch" thingie is deja vu all over again for me. I was lead techie in a company called MPression Entertainment, now defunct. Our business plan was to provide video on demand to hotels using set top boxes and movies stored locally at the hotel. The catch was that it was to be funded by advertising, some of which would be on demand to the hotel guest. The pitch was that the hotel guest could request a video ad, adn they'd get credits for free movies and other rewards. Sadly the company went belly up when the CEO was shipped off to federal prison. You can't win 'em all. :P
Anyway, the "reward" bit is one thing sorely missing from Tivo's new venture. What value, beyond possible entertainment, does the customer get from viewing the videos? They can get video entertainment elsewhere (on their own Tivo box, for goodness sake) so why give benefit to Tivo and the advertisers by watching them? It makes no sense...
These people are not going to be helped with bioengineered rice. The problems in the third world are political chaos, war, lack of family planning, lack of education, religious fundamentalism, and others. Poverty, disease, high mortality, child labor, homelessness, and migration are symptoms of that.
It's not that simple. This is no simple chain of cause and effect. Political chaos, war, lack of family planning, lack of education, religious fundamentalism, poverty, disease, high mortality, child labor, homelessness, and migration all feed into each other and interact. None are in a vaccuum, being solely symptoms of any other, or set of other causes. Reduce poverty and disease and you reduce suffering, which can enable people the luxury of gaining an education, plan for their future, and participate in politics.
It's ironic that you call folks "well-meaning idiots" given your simplistic worldview.
Cue the slashdot crowd, with cries of, "IT'S NOT ENOUGH!"
How does the saying go again? "Live by the sword..." ...and you get pretty fucking good and sword fighting.
Creative is going to be crushed.
I have Anonymous Coward problems, so suck it.
You make it sound like getting into a fight with Bubba will get you shot, which it won't.
All I know is, the only times I've ever heard anyone brag about shooting someone "in self defense" it's come from the lips of a hyperconservative gun nut.
And, being from Texas, how many times have you encountered an "ultraliberal gun nut"? I've never met such a beast. I've met my share of paleoconservative homosexual Catholics, tree hugging pro-nuclear activists, and a fair share of pro-war Unitarians. Ultraliberal gun nut? Never.
I have had plenty of death threats from those claiming to be liberals...
Look. I live in Texas. Here, you don't flip someone off on the highway because you're likely to get shot. You don't get in an argument with some bubba for the same reason. Arguing with some pencil neck fruity guy? Fine. Safe territory. Chaw chewin' redneck? Nope. And that's just the law of the jungle. Some angry conservative dude is far more likely to haul off and shoot you.
Echo chambers kind of lead to that sort of behavior.
True, but the echoes from the right wing seem to lead to threats of imprisonment and/or death. There's a qualitative difference and insinuating that both sides are equivalent is disingenuous.
It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.
I agree with part of your statement: It's high time this administration be brought to justice.
It amazes me how many of the comments on the ABC News blog say, "the government should put leakers away for life!" and "treasonous journalists should be shot!"
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
What smoke you been crackin'?
What to know why Rupert Murdoch is hosting fundraisers for Hillary Clinton?
Murdoch owns MySpace.
Hmmmmm....
Regarding sports, you might have to take a few more days of layoff between workouts or slow down a bit on the court, but you will find that your increased understanding of tactics, planning, and strategy will make up for it. Yes, even for stuff like weight-training.
Especially when it comes to weight training! And this doesn't just apply to the middle aged man, either. I've been weight training on and off since I was sixteen. (35 now.) I seem to be getting better with age, mainly because I've avoided injury and too much strain.
At 20, I could bench press 225lb, no matter how hard I trained.
At 29 I reached 315lb after a year's worth of training.
At 35, after taking the intervening years off, I regained 315lb in about two months. (Started from 185lb or so...)
My goal is to maintain this strength for as long as possible.
Men just get stronger with age, up to a point. The important thing is to not injure yourself when you're young, and just keep steadily bulking up.
I prefer the moniker "pedademagogue" or "white hat svengali"
You have nothing to lose but your huge bag of polyhedral dice.
Except for those six sided polyhedrons we call cubes...
...and they don't put up a ridiculous pretense of objectivity like NPR.
Wait, who calls themselves "Fair and Balanced" again?
You just blamed a news outlet for ...
No, he blamed them for the fact that it's taken "...5 years for some people to come around to the facts..." They didn't start the war. They were the cover so it could be started with less opposition.
News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.
The existence of FoxNews makes this statement demonstrably false.
We think that certain habits will increase the liklihood, but we cannot say, "Excercise and you will not get cancer".
So? We think that the sun will come up tomorrow, but you don't know that for certain. Does that stop you from acting on that assumption? Granted the probabilities of behavior change affecting cancer incidence is lower, but that doesn't mean we should discount them entirely because they're not absolutes.
Let me give you an example; Lance Armstrong, incredibly healthy and a great athlete, yet he was on the brink of death due to cancer.
Bad example. He participated in a sport that involved sitting in a way that crushed is testicles and that probably caused the cancer. And guess what? Now bicycle seat design has changed to compensate. So yes, he was incredibly healthy, but there was a pretty clear cause for his cancer, and a behavior change could prevent testicular cancer in others. It's not the behavior change you were expecting.
Ain't it funny how Colbert is being ignored? This happened on Saturday. It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment. Did it make the major news sites? Type "Colbert" into google news and see what pops up first thing.
Microsoft's share price was down 10% in after hours trading last night.
What's up with that?
Electricity doesn't have the insane levels of taxes gasolene and diesel do (this is the primary reason it costs a fortune to fill up at the pump.)
Really? You mean the rise from $2 to $3 per gallon in the past few years has been all tax?
Average gas taxes per state, 2004: linky
Highest on list: 37.80 cents per gallon, Hawaii
Average: 22.94 cents per gallon
How about a little math with your FUD?
Average gas price, as of today: $2.90
Average gas tax, 2004: 22.94 cents
Let's be very generous, and assume average tax as risen to 29 cents per gallon. (Probably a wild overestimate, given the current political climate)
That makes a 10% markup. Hardly the "primary reason it costs a fortune to fill up at the pump" considering that the average price of gas has risen from $1.87 in 2004. (That would be a $1.03 rise for the math impaired...)
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
You're correct in the first sentence. It's your application of that principle where you go wrong.
The concept of God cannot be disproven. Thus science cannot say much about it. Science can speak to our perception of God, how the concept shapes our society, etc. The concept itself, however, cannot be disproven and is beyond science.
My dual core 3800+ at home is quite loud...
Really? I've got a 4200 with the stock cooler and it's whisper quiet. I had a shuttle box before and I was afraid the switch would be unpleasant. (I've had cpu coolers before that sounded like jets taking off. Not good...) But the cooler that came with the cpu was just fine, not much louder than the shuttle, and I run it with an open case.
How is this any different from someone stealing your passport now?
They can do it without your knowledge.
They can do it N times a day, N = number of folks who are in range.
They can hold on to the stolen data indefinitely, until it is useful, again without your knowledge.
Your question is kile asking, "how is an MP3 file different from a physical CD?" I think the answer to that is obvious...
Are we footing the bill?
Of course. But the real question is, do we pay more if a company is allowed to abuse a monopoly?