Re:Your one-stop source for news...
on
P2P News Syndication?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I believe that's already on (cable and satellite) TV, is it not?
Which raises the issue, what is censored now? Anything? I can already visit Al Jazeera to see all the bloody babies and anti Bush views I might care to read.
The barrier to individuals broadcasting news isn't censorship, it's credibility. The problem is, no one person's view constitutes "the news," even if they were there firsthand. Reporting news well requires access to the places and key figures, that's what news agencies offer.
On the other hand, I record TV shows on my computer, and I've set the bitrate so 1 hour fits on a CD (700 megs) and the quality is pretty good IMHO. So at the same bitrate, 128 megs would hold around 10 minutes of video. I don't know about you, but I seldom shoot more than 10 minutes of Camcorder footage for anything, because it would be too boring to watch.
Most schools are like that. Even if you're just a student (ie. you're paying THEM), and write something not for an assignment but on your own time (and equipment), still they claim ownership. Anybody and their dog can claim ownership over your work, the important thing is making arrangements to avoid bad situations. For instance the university land-grabbing statements have to allow for people working for a company, so the company owns the work. So if you're a student and don't want your school to steal your work, set yourself up as a company.
And if you have a day job but are moonlighting, get an agreement beforehand and for heaven's sake don't mix the 2.
does linux offer per-process network traffic accounting? Even on packets just being routed by the kernel, you could break it down by source host and port.
That's a very interesting premise for a novel... some disgruntled IRS peon releases the *entire* IRS SSN database to the Internet. Now anybody can masquerade as anybody else - so effectively nobody has an identity!
I cant figure out what any logical person could have against outsourcing.
Yeah I know abt the diminshing jobs in the IT sector (And I guess I am writing this since I dont work in the It sector).
It's not just IT. The question you should ask is, why would ANY company (in any industry) be STUPID enough to produce anything in the US, where the people and environment are protected by laws (environmental, work safety, social security...) that make doing business more expensive? It costs *money* to fill in a strip mine when you're done with it, or compensate a worker when your machine chops their arm off. So long as US law permits it, it's just common sense to keep that money to yourself.
Then show me the mathematical proof that factoring (or whatever you want to base your crypto system on) is hard. Nobody has come forward with such a proof. Encryption is based on problems that "lots of people have worked on really hard without finding fast solutions," not mathematical rigor.
I thought the Intel CPUID was a great example and a great precedent - people didn't like it, they said so, and Intel complied.
The economic route you suggest is really not ideal, as there are so many other factors that are mixed into a buying decision. I agree that in theory market pressures would "solve everything" if you could buy anything with any set of options from a large number of suppliers, but that isn't the real world.
By and large, the most promising clients were big automakers and the military, since it's hard to break into the consumer markets -- it's hard to compete on price with NiMH.
But the article says this technology IS price competitive, yet makes no mention of automotive applications!? This seems to address one of the major problems with electric cars - the 8 hour pit stop.
Too bad... I'd rather they made these for movie theatres so I could go enjoy it myself. Why should people go pay to sit in a theater when they can watch DVD's on a large flat screen at home? - for exactly this sort of thing, which most of us will never personally own.
Rerouting doesn't help much unless you have some overcapacity to reroute. Power plants are expensive, you can't survive in a deregulated market by building extra plants "just in case." At some point you have to ask whether you want to pay 20% more to get that last 0.001% availability.
Read the article, nobody is claiming that the robots are about to put conductors of the job, that isn't even the point. The point is that these new robots can move quickly and fluidly and maintain balance, and are an advance beyond previous robots. Statements to the effect that the robots "only" mimicking a real conductor's movements miss the point of what a significant accomplishment that is.
If anybody steps up to claim that these robots are real conductors, I'll be the first to help you shout them down, but nobody has claimed that.
I'm not talking about AI here; The'll need to be able to recognize faces, respond to commands, and do daily autonomous tasks (water a house plant, feed the cat, get the paper), at least as well enough to pass a Turing-like test to be useful.
Explain to me how you're not talking about AI here.
The Muslim extremists are not going to leave us alone until we withdraw from their part of the world. That may sound easy, but the fact is the US is never going to hang Israel out to dry, and that is the Arabs' biggest beef. It certainly isn't our oil money that annoys them.
Universally, it was panned. Most of them only use 1-5% of their allotted yahoo mail quota, so they didn't see the big deal.
I really don't think the 1GB storate in itself is the point. The point is having all that data in one place, for the purpose of data mining. Google obviously specializes in information retrieval, and many techniques are data hungry. My guess is they will encourage users not to delete their old emails in subtle ways (or else keep whatever looks interesting even if the user "deletes" it).
They could tailor spam filtering using your own personal vocabulary. They can make a fancy address book that knows everybody you've ever emailed, and might be able to match up real world names with addresses. I don't know what all they'll do, but I'm certain they'll try to distinguish the service by its information processing features. (And meanwhile behind the scenes they'll try to profit from it the same way).
The system I've heard proposed is this: when you vote, you get a reciept. Later if you like you may log into a website and use a code printed on the receipt to verify that the vote in the database (the one that counts) matches how you voted. I'm sure there would be a major stink even if only a few voters bothered to check and found their votes changed.
Wrong! There are hundreds of people who can do Homer Simpson's voice. They may not do it as well as the voice actors do, but you can't say that nobody else can do it.
Only if you define "doing it well" has "doing it exactly like the current guy."
In your little world, I guess they have to work for free? Or for minimum wage? Or for some arbitrary amount that you decide upon, maybe?
In my little world, a show's production costs wouldn't skyrocket just because it became more popular. Instead, the production costs would be spread across the larger consumer base, so less commercials would need to be shown.
Obviously it doesn't work this way for TV programs. The reason capitalism mostly works is because for most products, it does work this way. Ecomonmy of scale doesn't work very well for TV shows, which is why there's a huge pot of money to fight over.
You make that sound like it's a bad thing. That's just the way capitalism works. If you have a product or service that only you can provide, then you get to charge whatever you want to for that product or service.
The only thing that the Simpsons voices do, that nobody else can do, is sound like themselves.
To say that they "deserve" whatever they can get only because they are in a position demand it, is purely circular reasoning. Just as the local mechanic "deserves" to char $100 for a fan belt when you happen to break down in some little town where there are no competing garages.
Come now. The voice actors are making $125,000 per episode, and demanding $360K. Already, they never have to work again, maybe that's part of the issue.
The voices have an easy, super high-paying job. They don't work harder and are not more talented than the animators and writers who I'm sure make far less money. The voices' role isn't even more visible - they're just less interchangeable at this point. In other words they're cashing in on the mechanics of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Which raises the issue, what is censored now? Anything? I can already visit Al Jazeera to see all the bloody babies and anti Bush views I might care to read.
The barrier to individuals broadcasting news isn't censorship, it's credibility. The problem is, no one person's view constitutes "the news," even if they were there firsthand. Reporting news well requires access to the places and key figures, that's what news agencies offer.
On the other hand, I record TV shows on my computer, and I've set the bitrate so 1 hour fits on a CD (700 megs) and the quality is pretty good IMHO. So at the same bitrate, 128 megs would hold around 10 minutes of video. I don't know about you, but I seldom shoot more than 10 minutes of Camcorder footage for anything, because it would be too boring to watch.
I think it's more a credit to Linux than a discredit to Microsoft.
Most schools are like that. Even if you're just a student (ie. you're paying THEM), and write something not for an assignment but on your own time (and equipment), still they claim ownership. Anybody and their dog can claim ownership over your work, the important thing is making arrangements to avoid bad situations. For instance the university land-grabbing statements have to allow for people working for a company, so the company owns the work. So if you're a student and don't want your school to steal your work, set yourself up as a company. And if you have a day job but are moonlighting, get an agreement beforehand and for heaven's sake don't mix the 2.
does linux offer per-process network traffic accounting? Even on packets just being routed by the kernel, you could break it down by source host and port.
That's a very interesting premise for a novel... some disgruntled IRS peon releases the *entire* IRS SSN database to the Internet. Now anybody can masquerade as anybody else - so effectively nobody has an identity!
The economic route you suggest is really not ideal, as there are so many other factors that are mixed into a buying decision. I agree that in theory market pressures would "solve everything" if you could buy anything with any set of options from a large number of suppliers, but that isn't the real world.
Too bad... I'd rather they made these for movie theatres so I could go enjoy it myself. Why should people go pay to sit in a theater when they can watch DVD's on a large flat screen at home? - for exactly this sort of thing, which most of us will never personally own.
Rerouting doesn't help much unless you have some overcapacity to reroute. Power plants are expensive, you can't survive in a deregulated market by building extra plants "just in case." At some point you have to ask whether you want to pay 20% more to get that last 0.001% availability.
Certainly. But I think what people really mean by "preventable" is that *reasonable foresight* would have precluded the incident.
If anybody steps up to claim that these robots are real conductors, I'll be the first to help you shout them down, but nobody has claimed that.
The Muslim extremists are not going to leave us alone until we withdraw from their part of the world. That may sound easy, but the fact is the US is never going to hang Israel out to dry, and that is the Arabs' biggest beef. It certainly isn't our oil money that annoys them.
They could tailor spam filtering using your own personal vocabulary. They can make a fancy address book that knows everybody you've ever emailed, and might be able to match up real world names with addresses. I don't know what all they'll do, but I'm certain they'll try to distinguish the service by its information processing features. (And meanwhile behind the scenes they'll try to profit from it the same way).
The system I've heard proposed is this: when you vote, you get a reciept. Later if you like you may log into a website and use a code printed on the receipt to verify that the vote in the database (the one that counts) matches how you voted. I'm sure there would be a major stink even if only a few voters bothered to check and found their votes changed.
Obviously it doesn't work this way for TV programs. The reason capitalism mostly works is because for most products, it does work this way. Ecomonmy of scale doesn't work very well for TV shows, which is why there's a huge pot of money to fight over.
To say that they "deserve" whatever they can get only because they are in a position demand it, is purely circular reasoning. Just as the local mechanic "deserves" to char $100 for a fan belt when you happen to break down in some little town where there are no competing garages.
The voices have an easy, super high-paying job. They don't work harder and are not more talented than the animators and writers who I'm sure make far less money. The voices' role isn't even more visible - they're just less interchangeable at this point. In other words they're cashing in on the mechanics of the situation.
Splitting the OS and Application division into separate companies, on the other hand, might have been meaningful.
It's not inconceivable though. Disk space is only 50 cents per gig - think about it, a gig is worth less than postage for two pieces of junkmail!