No, I don't suppose I have seen you at checkout. Are you a fat person who buys fresh vegetables? regularly? Do you buy more fresh produce than prepared foods? Of course I'm open to the possibility of the existance of such a person, I've just never seen one.
"When I go to a Safeway or Wegman's and see every tenth person over 300 pounds and pushing a shopping cart loaded with milk, cheeses, beef, etc. it makes me wince when I hear this "no bad foods" kind of thinking."
I took a quarter off once and bagged groceries. It is not good science, since I didn't record data and the sample was large but all from the same store in the same city. However, it was very clear to me that fat people weren't buying meat and cheese and cream, they were buying soda, chips, and prepared foods. Simple carbs, not fats, were getting them. In contrast, people buying fresh produce with or without dairy and meat, were never fat. Not once did I see a fat person buying fresh vegetables.
Perhaps the suspicion of mind-altering substances has nothing to do with the data, and is a comment on the very idea of risking life and limb to cook with lava.
I'm essentially agreeing with you, but I think its even worse than you state for many people.
If music is too inconvenient or expensive, some people may stop buying altogether. My music buying has tapered off over the last 15 years, until the point where I went to buy a new release for $18 and decided "thats just too expensive. I don't need any more CD's" and I haven't bought a new CD for at least 2 years, maybe 3. Same thing happened with DVD's: I bought lots at $13-15 each, but now that most of them are $20 or more, I don't buy any. Well, thats not quite true, I'll probably buy the $30 FOTR Special Edition. I bought a used $15 copy of Crouching Tiger. I'd like to buy Moulon Rouge, but its $18 used, and that is just too much.
Sorry for the ramble, buy the point is that I don't think the function is linear. When THEY cross some line, purchases drop off a cliff, people change their habits, and they may not come back. I'm sure I could find that Cake album I wanted to buy so long ago for less than $18 now, but I already chose not to buy it, I'm not interested in looking for it again.
Vulture says:"Remember that while it has all those big batteries in it, it doesn't have an equally big internal-combustion engine."
And Soulslayer says:"It depends on the size of the battery...not significantly more than the weight of the internal combustion engine...28 Optima AGM batteries...still within the axle load tolerances of the Ranger."
Ok yes, the aluminum V6 and associated parts were removed. I'm pretty sure that those weighed more than the new electric motor. However, the Tillman website says the car had 144.8V of charge left after the test, which leads me to believe that they had at least 12 batteries on board. The website also says the car has 65% of its weight on the rear axle, and judgeing from the way the rear looks weighted down in the pictures, I believe it. Furthermore, it could have 100 Amp-hour Deep-cycle marine batteries in it, which is what I would use if I were perpetrating a hoax, which I reckon would weigh a great deal more than an aluminum V6. Lastly, it is not readily apparent what the axle of a 20-year-old DeLorean can carry. The axle load strength of a Ford Ranger is irrelevent.
Which leads me to reaffirm my original point: it is not out of the question that a rear axle bearing actually could have broken during the test, because it may have been overloaded. I still think this is a hoax, and that there is no such thing as a negative resistor. But anyone that says that the bearing could not have broken is not being rational. Anyone who can say that the car was not overloaded must have more information than I was able to find.
Perhaps if someone can find original specs for the DeLorean that show its front/rear weight bias, its curb weight, and the load rating for the rear axle, then we could be more certain.
"I'd like to see a weighted tax on fuel consumption and emission rate."
Actually those substantial gasoline taxes are a weighted tax on consumption and emission.
What I would prefer to see, as a midsized-car driver who is tired of seeing giant trucks with their bumpers at my eye level, is a different, more expensive, more strict drivers license for vehicles over something like 4600 pounds. Some people need big trucks that can tow and carry things, and they should be able to get them, but I want it to be inconvenient to use one for commuting. And a fedral regulation to lower the bumper height of new cars and trucks would be nice too. As it is, trucks are far too deadly to other vehicles on the road. The sad thing is that all the safety "advantages" of a big truck go away when everyone else has one too, and leaves the streets less safe on the whole.
"A company isn't interested in someone improving on their products. They want to be the only one owning all rights to that device or software because that's how they make their money. They aren't concerned with cultural or social implications. That's not their issue. They want to secure as much marketshare as possible before some new technology becomes available that could replace their product."
Some companies, I hope, will see that without tinkering, the technology that they own all the rights to will stagnate and be replaced more quickly. Some companies understand that it isn't always about getting the biggest piece of pie, sometimes it is about making the pie bigger.
Of course you are right that MOST of the target audience will have disregarded this arguement, but perhaps not all. And perhaps lawmakers will read it to. Lawmakers are usually pretty short-term planners, but perhaps some will see that the loss of tinkering would handcuff American technology. I tend to think that India, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea, and Indonesia are not about to swallow the Palladium pill. Via may ship a crippled PC to the US, but they will have a full function version for everywhere else and there won't be anything the RIAA or DMCA can do about it. Dell and IBM and Oracle, etc. won't take that lying down.
No offense, but I think the game is a long way from over. IF the computer industry and the entertainment industry agree to help one another, we could very well end up with crippled computers. Personally, I think the computer indutry has a better future in computers rather than media distribution devices, and they probably see that too.
I more or less agree with everything else you said though.
I think 12 or 16 big car batteries actually COULD overload the suspension and break something, including the bearings. Not that I think that happened in this case. I seems more likely that Tilley faked the problem. I'm just saying it isn't completely out of the question because lead=acid batteries are heavy.
Their power is really more in their ability to kill something by NOT playing it. They sell listeners to the music labels and to the advertisers. They can only present the music, they can't actually make listeners like it or not get sick of it. They also don't own ALL the stations in a market, so they can lose listeners to another station, or they can lose listeners because people turn off the radio, and listeners=$. So they need to know exactly when THAT SONG gets old and needs to be taken off the "high rotation" playlist, so they can sub in a sound-alike. I'm sure they track requests too, so that they know if a song that was played a couple times can jump to the "high rotation" or disappear.
"We've discovered that of the stars we thought had planets going around them, about 5% don't."
No, they have not discovered that either. They have discovered exactly one planet that wasn't there. 5% merit further verification. There could be lots of reasons why those 5% merit further study. It may be that none of the other questionable 5% have anything to do with sunspot activity. After further study all five of them may be determined to definitely have planets.
I love to see the way the story progresses. First, the Scientific American article says ONE found planet, which was suspect all along, has been disproven, and they do not expect this to apply to many other planets because it is a particularly young star.
The CNN article turns the statement from a negative to a positive and says 95% are secure and 5% NEED TO BE CHECKED IN MORE DETAIL
Then it gets posted on slashdot and ONE becomes SEVERAL.
Now Wildcard has concluded that the 5% that are "unsure" do have this wild sunspot activity, and that they constitute 5% of the stars capable of supporting planets.
Sorry, I hit "submit" instead of "preview". Wouldn't a drive called "Rocksteady" or "DataSolid" or something be much better? "Cheetah" and "Barracuda" are fine, at least they emphasise speed.
And it has a shorter warrenty? Does anyone else think that a name that suggests it might BURST INTO FLAME is a bad thing? Other names that make the product look bad to me: TNT, Rage, Fury, Radeon(I radiates? EMI?), VooDoo,
I have heard studies quoted that 95% of the 10Gbps ports will be for links 2km. And IIRC, more than half will be 600m. So for all the LAN, WAN, and even Metro area stuff, and for the "last mile" it sounds like this POF stuff may be just fine. Maybe they can just blow these "fishing lines" down the sewer pipes if it is cheap enough.
I had the same problem getting VeriSign to change a domain host, they ignored faxes, etc. I finally got it moved, but was tired of the BS from VS. So I tried to move to a new registrar, GoDaddy to be exact, and got a "the current registrar has denied your transfer request." GoDaddy says there is nothing they can do about it and that I must take up the issue with VeriSign. I am of course seething mad. I am paid up. I am in compliance with their entire Service Agreement. The link in the Service Agreement that refers to changing registrars leads to a Procedure for changing restrants, not registrars. VeriSign ignored my first Help request. I just tried again and got the form email that says they will get back to me in 24hours. I'm hoping I don't have to send a certified letter to their legal department. Anyone have any advice out there?
"...or at least recognize that doing so will lose him some readers."
Perhaps he does recognize that some people will be turned off by his shorthand. That seems likely doesn't it, that he is willfully flouting conformity. Does that make it okay with you?
No, I will not spare you from a discussion of equal protection, because I do not think it is BS. Copyright laws should not give preferential treatment to works with >X cash value, or to copyright holders who have the money to pay. What you are proposing is completely unfair. Paul McCartney and Disney Corp. could afford to own their copyrights until the limit, while Willie Nelson and Janis Ian might not.
"The FBI does have non-agent positions for people who are highly skilled in areas such as computer forensics (collecting evidence from computers). Those who don't qualify for agent positions can still serve as civilian employees, according to an FBI spokeswoman."
Now the "security consultant" says non-agents are "at the bottom of the food chain." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't seem to be the issue everyone has with the way the FBI operates. It sounds to me like people are upset that they can't be a Special Agent, and carry a badge and a gun, unless they are qualified to carry a badge and a gun. So sweeny can still be an FBI full-time employee specializing in computer security. Whats the problem?
The one positive thing I can say about that idea is that at least it wouldn't have any pretense of equal protection under the law. No siree, its right up front about screwing the poor people. Unless you can afford to buy it, you can't own it. But what is the advantage of getting "crap" into the public domain sooner?
I never met Mr. Cobain, so I won't suppose what he would have preferred over the current ugly situation. And on second thought, I shouldn't have supposed what Courtney Love or Yoko Ono would or wouldn't be in favor of either.
I agree that the current copyright is way too long and is detrimental. However, I feel (with no evidence to support my opinion) that a flat 10 years would be too short. Without residual royalty payments, I think there would be fewer artists who could affort to make a living at their craft, and I think that would be bad for us all. Having a back catalog that brings in a steady income allows one to continue writing, and or teaching and developing other newer artists.
II. My conclusions thus far:
"So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels... The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is 'inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation'." ("Labels to Net Radio: Die Now", Steven Levy in Newsweek, July 15, 2002.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't suppose I have seen you at checkout. Are you a fat person who buys fresh vegetables? regularly? Do you buy more fresh produce than prepared foods? Of course I'm open to the possibility of the existance of such a person, I've just never seen one.
"When I go to a Safeway or Wegman's and see every tenth person over 300 pounds and pushing a shopping cart loaded with milk, cheeses, beef, etc. it makes me wince when I hear this "no bad foods" kind of thinking."
I took a quarter off once and bagged groceries. It is not good science, since I didn't record data and the sample was large but all from the same store in the same city. However, it was very clear to me that fat people weren't buying meat and cheese and cream, they were buying soda, chips, and prepared foods. Simple carbs, not fats, were getting them. In contrast, people buying fresh produce with or without dairy and meat, were never fat. Not once did I see a fat person buying fresh vegetables.
Perhaps the suspicion of mind-altering substances has nothing to do with the data, and is a comment on the very idea of risking life and limb to cook with lava.
I'm essentially agreeing with you, but I think its even worse than you state for many people.
If music is too inconvenient or expensive, some people may stop buying altogether. My music buying has tapered off over the last 15 years, until the point where I went to buy a new release for $18 and decided "thats just too expensive. I don't need any more CD's" and I haven't bought a new CD for at least 2 years, maybe 3. Same thing happened with DVD's: I bought lots at $13-15 each, but now that most of them are $20 or more, I don't buy any. Well, thats not quite true, I'll probably buy the $30 FOTR Special Edition. I bought a used $15 copy of Crouching Tiger. I'd like to buy Moulon Rouge, but its $18 used, and that is just too much.
Sorry for the ramble, buy the point is that I don't think the function is linear. When THEY cross some line, purchases drop off a cliff, people change their habits, and they may not come back. I'm sure I could find that Cake album I wanted to buy so long ago for less than $18 now, but I already chose not to buy it, I'm not interested in looking for it again.
Vulture says:"Remember that while it has all those big batteries in it, it doesn't have an equally big internal-combustion engine."
And Soulslayer says:"It depends on the size of the battery...not significantly more than the weight of the internal combustion engine...28 Optima AGM batteries...still within the axle load tolerances of the Ranger."
Ok yes, the aluminum V6 and associated parts were removed. I'm pretty sure that those weighed more than the new electric motor. However, the Tillman website says the car had 144.8V of charge left after the test, which leads me to believe that they had at least 12 batteries on board. The website also says the car has 65% of its weight on the rear axle, and judgeing from the way the rear looks weighted down in the pictures, I believe it. Furthermore, it could have 100 Amp-hour Deep-cycle marine batteries in it, which is what I would use if I were perpetrating a hoax, which I reckon would weigh a great deal more than an aluminum V6. Lastly, it is not readily apparent what the axle of a 20-year-old DeLorean can carry. The axle load strength of a Ford Ranger is irrelevent.
Which leads me to reaffirm my original point: it is not out of the question that a rear axle bearing actually could have broken during the test, because it may have been overloaded. I still think this is a hoax, and that there is no such thing as a negative resistor. But anyone that says that the bearing could not have broken is not being rational. Anyone who can say that the car was not overloaded must have more information than I was able to find.
Perhaps if someone can find original specs for the DeLorean that show its front/rear weight bias, its curb weight, and the load rating for the rear axle, then we could be more certain.
"I'd like to see a weighted tax on fuel consumption and emission rate."
Actually those substantial gasoline taxes are a weighted tax on consumption and emission.
What I would prefer to see, as a midsized-car driver who is tired of seeing giant trucks with their bumpers at my eye level, is a different, more expensive, more strict drivers license for vehicles over something like 4600 pounds. Some people need big trucks that can tow and carry things, and they should be able to get them, but I want it to be inconvenient to use one for commuting. And a fedral regulation to lower the bumper height of new cars and trucks would be nice too. As it is, trucks are far too deadly to other vehicles on the road. The sad thing is that all the safety "advantages" of a big truck go away when everyone else has one too, and leaves the streets less safe on the whole.
"A company isn't interested in someone improving on their products. They want to be the only one owning all rights to that device or software because that's how they make their money. They aren't concerned with cultural or social implications. That's not their issue. They want to secure as much marketshare as possible before some new technology becomes available that could replace their product."
Some companies, I hope, will see that without tinkering, the technology that they own all the rights to will stagnate and be replaced more quickly. Some companies understand that it isn't always about getting the biggest piece of pie, sometimes it is about making the pie bigger.
Of course you are right that MOST of the target audience will have disregarded this arguement, but perhaps not all. And perhaps lawmakers will read it to. Lawmakers are usually pretty short-term planners, but perhaps some will see that the loss of tinkering would handcuff American technology. I tend to think that India, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea, and Indonesia are not about to swallow the Palladium pill. Via may ship a crippled PC to the US, but they will have a full function version for everywhere else and there won't be anything the RIAA or DMCA can do about it. Dell and IBM and Oracle, etc. won't take that lying down.
No offense, but I think the game is a long way from over. IF the computer industry and the entertainment industry agree to help one another, we could very well end up with crippled computers. Personally, I think the computer indutry has a better future in computers rather than media distribution devices, and they probably see that too.
I more or less agree with everything else you said though.
I think 12 or 16 big car batteries actually COULD overload the suspension and break something, including the bearings. Not that I think that happened in this case. I seems more likely that Tilley faked the problem. I'm just saying it isn't completely out of the question because lead=acid batteries are heavy.
Their power is really more in their ability to kill something by NOT playing it. They sell listeners to the music labels and to the advertisers. They can only present the music, they can't actually make listeners like it or not get sick of it. They also don't own ALL the stations in a market, so they can lose listeners to another station, or they can lose listeners because people turn off the radio, and listeners=$. So they need to know exactly when THAT SONG gets old and needs to be taken off the "high rotation" playlist, so they can sub in a sound-alike. I'm sure they track requests too, so that they know if a song that was played a couple times can jump to the "high rotation" or disappear.
"We've discovered that of the stars we thought had planets going around them, about 5% don't."
No, they have not discovered that either. They have discovered exactly one planet that wasn't there. 5% merit further verification. There could be lots of reasons why those 5% merit further study. It may be that none of the other questionable 5% have anything to do with sunspot activity. After further study all five of them may be determined to definitely have planets.
is more surfing analogies.
I love to see the way the story progresses. First, the Scientific American article says ONE found planet, which was suspect all along, has been disproven, and they do not expect this to apply to many other planets because it is a particularly young star.
The CNN article turns the statement from a negative to a positive and says 95% are secure and 5% NEED TO BE CHECKED IN MORE DETAIL
Then it gets posted on slashdot and ONE becomes SEVERAL.
Now Wildcard has concluded that the 5% that are "unsure" do have this wild sunspot activity, and that they constitute 5% of the stars capable of supporting planets.
Oh crap, I just fed a troll, didn't I. Shame.
Sorry, I hit "submit" instead of "preview". Wouldn't a drive called "Rocksteady" or "DataSolid" or something be much better? "Cheetah" and "Barracuda" are fine, at least they emphasise speed.
And it has a shorter warrenty? Does anyone else think that a name that suggests it might BURST INTO FLAME is a bad thing? Other names that make the product look bad to me: TNT, Rage, Fury, Radeon(I radiates? EMI?), VooDoo,
I have heard studies quoted that 95% of the 10Gbps ports will be for links 2km. And IIRC, more than half will be 600m. So for all the LAN, WAN, and even Metro area stuff, and for the "last mile" it sounds like this POF stuff may be just fine. Maybe they can just blow these "fishing lines" down the sewer pipes if it is cheap enough.
Yes, I still use the admin email account, but I didn't receive any authorization check email from VS, they just denied the request.
I had the same problem getting VeriSign to change a domain host, they ignored faxes, etc. I finally got it moved, but was tired of the BS from VS. So I tried to move to a new registrar, GoDaddy to be exact, and got a "the current registrar has denied your transfer request." GoDaddy says there is nothing they can do about it and that I must take up the issue with VeriSign. I am of course seething mad. I am paid up. I am in compliance with their entire Service Agreement. The link in the Service Agreement that refers to changing registrars leads to a Procedure for changing restrants, not registrars. VeriSign ignored my first Help request. I just tried again and got the form email that says they will get back to me in 24hours. I'm hoping I don't have to send a certified letter to their legal department. Anyone have any advice out there?
"...or at least recognize that doing so will lose him some readers."
Perhaps he does recognize that some people will be turned off by his shorthand. That seems likely doesn't it, that he is willfully flouting conformity. Does that make it okay with you?
No, I will not spare you from a discussion of equal protection, because I do not think it is BS. Copyright laws should not give preferential treatment to works with >X cash value, or to copyright holders who have the money to pay. What you are proposing is completely unfair. Paul McCartney and Disney Corp. could afford to own their copyrights until the limit, while Willie Nelson and Janis Ian might not.
What makes you think they don't do this already? They have lots of non-agent employees. What makes you think some of them aren't "Oracles"?
"The FBI does have non-agent positions for people who are highly skilled in areas such as computer forensics (collecting evidence from computers). Those who don't qualify for agent positions can still serve as civilian employees, according to an FBI spokeswoman."
Now the "security consultant" says non-agents are "at the bottom of the food chain." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't seem to be the issue everyone has with the way the FBI operates. It sounds to me like people are upset that they can't be a Special Agent, and carry a badge and a gun, unless they are qualified to carry a badge and a gun. So sweeny can still be an FBI full-time employee specializing in computer security. Whats the problem?
The one positive thing I can say about that idea is that at least it wouldn't have any pretense of equal protection under the law. No siree, its right up front about screwing the poor people. Unless you can afford to buy it, you can't own it. But what is the advantage of getting "crap" into the public domain sooner?
I never met Mr. Cobain, so I won't suppose what he would have preferred over the current ugly situation. And on second thought, I shouldn't have supposed what Courtney Love or Yoko Ono would or wouldn't be in favor of either.
I agree that the current copyright is way too long and is detrimental. However, I feel (with no evidence to support my opinion) that a flat 10 years would be too short. Without residual royalty payments, I think there would be fewer artists who could affort to make a living at their craft, and I think that would be bad for us all. Having a back catalog that brings in a steady income allows one to continue writing, and or teaching and developing other newer artists.
II. My conclusions thus far: "So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels... The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is 'inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation'." ("Labels to Net Radio: Die Now", Steven Levy in Newsweek, July 15, 2002.)