And why is evolution to be singled out? Do you also feel that germ theory ought to have disclaimers? If not, explain why not?
Here is the difference. Germ theory is easily testible using simple experiments. Macro-evolution is not.
It is trivial to demonstrate that injecting someone with "tiny squirming little things of a certain shape" will result in them developing a full-blown case of smallpox. I can easily create a hypothesis that can be repeatedly tested until it is disproven. And that is the scientific method: hypothesis and disproof. I'll also point out that prior to the invention of the microscope, germ theory was on shaky grounds.
How does one demonstrate that macro-evolution was the cause of existance for humans? There are no experiments that can prove how we got here. The BEST that can be shown is that macro-evolution COULD result in the existing situation.
Yes, one can create experiments in micro-evolution. For example, inocculating a large number of petri dishes containing a nutrient deficiency will likely result in a mutated strain of bacteria that do not rely on that nutrient, or similarly, one can develop antibiotic resistant strains by attempting to grow them on plates containing antibiotics. However, this is not proof that resistant strains of bacteria could only occur this way, just that it is possible to create them this way. And that is why it is important to differentiate between macro and micro evolution.
I recall the "scientific proofs" of the sixties, where various concoctions of gasses and liquids were bottled up, heated, and zapped with sparks to try to reproduce the initial conditions of primitive Earth. Yes, some amino acids were created, but nothing
conclusive was proven about how things happened millions of years ago.
Science is specifically bad at dealing with one-off systems. "How did humans come to exist?" is a question that science really cannot answer. "How did the universe start" is another. Just what experiment would you propose that could disprove the claim "God created the universe"? An untestable hypothesis that it happened some other way is neither scientific method nor proof of anything. When science tries to declare with certainty that something that was not observed happened in one specific way, it becomes religion: faith in things unseen.
Why is it that scientists who would quickly label the statement
"God created the Universe" as "religion" are unable to see that "The Universe started with a big bang..." is exactly the same kind of unprovable, untestable statement? Just what experiment would you propose that could disprove either statement?
The web was created specifically with the idea that "robots" would crawl across it,...
Uhh, no. The web was created specifically with the idea that humans would crawl across it. It wasn't until the web grew beyond
easy comprehension by humans that robots were created to crawl it.
Were your statement correct, the robots.txt exclusion protocol would have been part of the CERN webserver documentation from day one. It wasn't. My web pages were up for a very long time before there were robots wandering the web.
It's sort of like what happens when you leave a potful of candy at your front-door on Oct. 31st.
Yes, I know what happens. Been there, done that. The first person to visit saw an entire pot full of candy and took it all. After I refilled the pot, thinking that the selfishness of the first visitor was an abberation, the second visitor took the entire pot full of candy and the pot. Ethics are what you do when you think people aren't looking.
Fair enough. He encouraged others to do something which would harm the school district. So is organizing a massive write-in or phone-in campaign.
Hmmm. That depends on the INTENT of the campaign, doesn't it? His
clearly stated intent was to deny everyone the use of the webserver. Most "write in" campaigns don't have that as the default intent.
He has the right to ask people to join in his campaign.
Not when his intent is to cause damage. You have the right to ask people to join you in "peacable assembly", but you don't have the right to organize a riot.
If it is bad enough to be considered a felony then why aren't the rest of them being charged with at least something?
The ringleader of a crime is often prosecuted more severely than other participants. That's supposed to help cut down on people who goad others into doing something illegal whilst they try to keep their hands clean.
In this case, the rest aren't being charged for the same reason that/. people who acted with the intent to crash the server won't be. It's too hard to find them all. It's still an unethical act -- trying to crash someone's server because you don't like how he acted is wrong, even if you know you won't be caught.
the school servers were simply not up to the task they were intended for,
You know, if the school was trying to run a version of/. on their servers to provide a discussion forum for tens of thousands of people around the world, you'd be right.
I doubt that is what the web server was intended to be doing, however. It was probably intended to provide information to local parents and students and people moving to the area.
To pretend that anyone who wants to run a webserver needs to have the amount of hardware and bandwidth that/. uses just so it can
do "the task [they] were intended for" is silly.
... as he merely linked to a site,
Read the article. He did not "merely link" to a site. He created a link with an explicit request for people to repeatedly refresh the page with the intent to crash the school's site. It's a static page, so repeatedly refreshing it serves no purpose other than create needless page requests and services, which was his intent. And he got caught. Good.
If it happened to a server you ran, you'd call it "denial of service". When it happens to someone else, it's "just the way
the internet is supposed to work". Right.
That the first responders had problems communicating due to bandwidth limitations is a fact.
No, that is complete nonsense.
Communication problems were caused by two main things:
Complicated, poorly designed communications systems that meet (sometimes just barely) average load requirements.
Expensive systems that take a lot of money to implement, with several different standards being used.
When a system that is designed to meet average load meets the emergency, it fails. Period. No amount of extra bandwidth will help it. When a system that absolutely depends on having a "control channel" AND a central repeater wind up with either or both resources missing or unavailable, the system fails, period.
Firefighters inside the WTC could not talk to police because their systems were DESIGNED not to be able to talk to them. Police couldn't talk to each other because their fancy trunked systems couldn't coordinate a clear channel -- because the control channel was dead. This is not a bandwidth problem.
Then add the problem of outside agencies coming into an area with their own equipment. Some agencies simply cannot afford the fancy trunked digital systems, so they had analog radios that didn't communicate with anyone else. Some have fancy digital radios, but nobody at the scene could reprogram them to talk on the right channels. Some have fancy digital radios and someone on staff at the scene to program them, but they were using a different standard so they couldn't talk anyway. None of that is a "bandwidth" issue.
There is bandwidth allocated for this kind of stuff. There have been interoperability channels assigned for emergency use for YEARS, in all three main public service bands (150,450 and 800MHz), including specific repeater pairs. I personally programmed these into our local SAR radios, but I'm almost certain that they are NOT programmed into the local fire and police radios.
Even with those channels, there are equipment issues limiting their use. They are all split-split frequencies, which means that for VHF the radio has to deal with a 2.5kHz VFO step and 7.5kHz channel spacing. Some of the affordable modern equipment doesn't do that.
But to call this a bandwidth issue is simply ridiculous. It's a technical failure caused most by the ASSUMPTION on the part of emergency planners that critical infrastructure will still be in place when needed for an emergency, and that is will work perfectly. The state I live in even makes this statement explicitely (not the "perfectly" part, but the rest) in it's state disaster plan. "Mountain shake, antenna on top fall over, nobody communicate" just doesn't seem to fit in the picture for
earthquake planning. But allocating more bandwidth isn't a solution to that problem. Allocating money to buy a portable repeater, and having someone trained to know how to set it up,
is.
It is taking action to reduce something to less than what would have occured without the action.
How convenient to forget that under the US method of budgeting, "without the action" means there would be NO money being spent. It takes a positive action for each year's budget to be passed, and for money to be allocated for various things. Without the action == no money.
And yes, the "action" of allocating MORE money next year than was allocated this year is still an INCREASE, even if it wasn't as much as you wanted allocated.
Let's not play games with semantics.
So stop playing games with semantics. An increase in spending is not a cut in spending. All the fuzzy-warm-happy programs handing money out to people are going to get more next year -- just not as much as you want them to, perhaps. More than they ought, certainly.
This political nonsense has nothing to do with the switch to digital tv.
This kind of thing is called SCADA -- supervisory control and data acquisition, and it doesn't require BPL to accomplish. If the power
companies are trying to claim it does, then look for the real agenda.
Because carrier current radio stations are being carried at
a specific frequency with a relatively narrow bandwidth, and that
frequency just happens to be unallocated for other uses and users
in that area. E.g., a 560kHz carrier current radio station has a
10 kHz bandwidth and is available only in areas where there is no 560kHz AM broadcaster. Otherwise, there would be lots of interference.
BPL is BROADBAND and appears throughout the HF spectrum, where there are LOTS of assigned users, some of whom are OTHER COUNTRIES
MILITARIES, some of whom are our own, some of whom are international broadcasters, and some of whom are volunteers who provide emergency communications for just about any emergency that happens to take place, and almost all of which are covered by international treaty.
What happened in this case:
1.) Dude makes podcast
2.) 2nd dude mirrors podcast RSS file...
No. There was no mirror. The recipients of the podcast showed up at the original website. They simple took a path through podkeyword.com to get there. You can tell this is the fact because the removal of the podkeyword link resulted in a drop in subscribers at the original site.
And that's why I wonder what this whole brohaha is about. Linking is what the web is all about.
Yahoo has links to the vegan RSS feed. iTunes has links to the RSS feed. Podkeyword has links to the RSS feed. Yahoo is good, iTunes is good, podkeyword is bad. Huh?
Vegan RSS owner submitted his feed info to lots of places, podkeyword included. They put him in their index. People came to his site. Win. THEN vegan RSS owner demanded to be removed from the podkeyword index and links. Podkeyword complied immediately.
THEN vegan RSS feed owner decided he needed to be in podkeyword index, and when they didn't immediately put him back, considering his initial demand to be removed, and then decided they wanted to be paid to deal with his changing mind, he decided to call a lawyer.
Great idea. Demand someone stop doing something and they comply. Demand they start doing it again and then threaten a lawsuit when they say no.
The only other company I've ever seen have as good support as Red Hat, is Veritas.
Is that superior level of support the reason why the "subscription number" I got for RH support of my new Dell server keeps coming back "invalid", and the only thing RH can say is "maybe it will work tomorrow?"
Or was your comment sarcastic? I don't know, I don't know if Veritas is known for good or bad support. I only know what I'm thinking of RH right now. (Oh, they also shut support down at 3PM PST, as if nobody might have any problems after the afternoon teabreak.)
First, if you're thinking the unwashed, stupid, naive, and influenced need protection,
And just where did you see me say anything even close to this?
Paid advertising to me is not mind control. It's information.
It's wonderful that you trust the advertisers to provide accurate information in their advertisements. Please tell me, what "information" is contained in the phrase "zoom zoom zoom"? Please explain what the information that XYZ vaccuum cleaner can pick up a bowling ball if you use a funnel for the attachment means to anyone? Do you believe that people actually need a vacuum cleaner to pick up all the stray bowling balls laying around the house?
I can edit out ads on recordings (usually legal except DMCA issues), change the channel or tune out, get up to get a snack or go to the bathroom, etc.
I fail to see the relevance.
Second, I would even dare say that many of these "mind control" ads did the exact opposite they were intended to do,
That is why I was explicit in saying not all ads and not all people. The fact that some people voted or buy opposite from what the ads tell them does nothing to disprove that there are a large number of people who are affected by ads and do something they otherwise would not have done. Whether you call that response "mind control" or just "persuasion", it doesn't matter. Advertising works, IN GENERAL, and that is why it is still around. It works just like push-polling works, and spam, and telemarketing, even though lots of people are smart enough to recognize the latter three and react accordingly, a lot do not. That you are able to do so doesn't change the effectiveness overall.
For my part, I'm opposed to any attempt by do-gooder meddlers to limit free speech just because they think that paid advertising == mind control.
Unfortunately, in many cases, paid advertising IS mind control.
Not for all people, and not for all advertising, but if advertising wasn't convincing people to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done ("buy Tide" or "vote for Frank", e.g.) corporations (and campaign teams) wouldn't be paying for it.
Companies work best that profit most. Why spend money on ads if they don't work? Ads that don't work are lost profit.
Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion.
No, actually it's an extension of the existing laws to control spending in political elections, which just happens to wind up limiting free speech. The ATTEMPT was to limit over-the-top spending, but the RESULT was limiting speech.
Perhaps this argument will make it clearer to those in power that the campaign finance laws (which are Federal Election Commission rules and not FCC rules) are stupid and ineffective and should be repealed. The mainstream media didn't object, but now if the bloggers and other net users speak up, maybe something good will happen.
So, one airship covers a huge area, a large number of users, all expecting 11MBps (or 120, as the article says
is planned for).
Let's see, 1000 people running 11 million... carry the 4,
take the square root... that's a total of 11Gbps of data. How many people are in an area 60km in radius? If that's over a city, 50-100 thousand, assume 10% penetration, that's 5 to 10 thousand users in just that one small area. Are they planning on carrying a large raft of cache servers aloft with these balloons, or are people going to be very dissappointed the first time they try to pull full-rate data out of the air?
That's the same problem that makes them iffy for emergency services use. Fine for light use, but overloaded the first time they are needed.
The gist of this is not that people can't make products for the iPod or can't use the phrase "for the Apple iPod" but rather that there's a special connector with a proprietary protocol. To get the information for interacting with the iPod, you have to pay to be part of the program.
The gist of the original article is that Apple used to charge only for use of the logo, but now wants to charge for the right to connect to the iPod. What they claim they are charging for is a "marketing program" where the docking connector isn't going to go away like the headphone control connector did on the latest version. That's called "blackmail". "Pay me not to change my design on you every six months".
The connector is proprietary -- rights belong to JAE, not Apple, and JAE will apparently sell you the connector.
For info on the pinout, see here. There's a link to a guy who will sell you ones and twos so you don't even have to buy the minimum lots JAE wants to sell.
For Apple to tell people that they have to pay to connect to an iPod is ridiculous. To say they have to pay for using a logo is
fine.
You know, I'm trying to figure out from your post just what you think SCI-FI is. The fact that you consider Night Stalker to be sci-fi tells me a lot.
Anyway, "major" (== broadcast) networks carried science fiction prior to "Lost" (which I don't watch, but from the promos doesn't look much like science). Maybe I'm just older than the norm here, but I remember Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Quark, My Favorite Martian, My Mother The Car, The Outer Limits, One Step Beyond, Twighlight Zone, Star Trek (TOS), and even Night Stalker. I've certainly forgotten more than I listed. (In fact, Firefly was on Fox, which is broadcast, so even Firefly predates Lost.) Space 1999 was ABC, wasn't it?
Then, of course, when you consider that USA is SCI-FI networks are carried on most, if not almost all, cable and satellite systems, they are "major" in those terms, so there are a lot more sci-fi series that pre-date Lost.
Each successful show of any genre generates copycat shows. "Lost" may be just the latest successful something-fi show, but it is hardly anything new.
Doesn't anyone care that our politicians accept bribes (aka; campaign donations) to pass laws that are against the interest public interest (ie; the people the politicians are supposed to represent)?
This assumes that taxing everyone to provide "free" wireless internet to everyone who wants it is in the public interest.
I don't believe that taxing everyone to pay for "free" cable tv for everyone who wants it is in the public interest; nor is taxing everyone to pay for "free" DSL for everyone who wants it. I don't know why taxing everyone so some people can get "free" wireless internet is supposed to be different.
Yeah, it sure is nice not to have to pay for something, but when you add up all the taxes for things you don't have to pay for, you wind up paying real money for things you don't necessarily want or need.
Really? Well, the internet at my house ends at the end of the cat5
cable. When I turn my wireless router on, it ends just outside the
walls of my house, and even then doesn't cover some rooms inside very well at all.
While content may be available on the internet from every country, that content is not available at every end-point that is now served by broadcast television.
TV is dead,...
Let me guess, you live in an area where high-bandwidth (said jokingly, since DSL and cable are hardly "high" in real terms) is readily available and/or free.
If this attitude had prevailed during the early parts of this century, nobody outside the cities would have telephones or electric power. It was only mandates put on the utilities to force them to provide services where rates of return were small or negative that got "rural" america wired at all. Now they've got people telling them that they aren't worth the bandwidth to have broadcast TV signals sent out to them.
There is a significant number of people who talk about the internet creating a "digital divide" between the haves and have-nots. Do not make this divide worse by arguing for the removal of the information services that those who are internet-have-nots do currently have.
Seems like a fun way to generate interest and ensure that the majority of enthusiasts like the dubbing.
No, seems like a way to ensure that the majority do NOT like the dubbing.
Unless each role receives a clear majority winner made up from the same people, then a simple plurality will decide each role, and when a plurality wins, the majority has voted for someone else.
To demonstrate: A, B, C, D, and E are voting for people 1, 2, 3 and 4 for each role. For the first role, the votes are: A,B: 1 C:2 D:3 E:4.
Person 1 wins role 1, and C, D, and E are unhappy (a majority). For the second role the votes are: A:1 B:2 C,D:3 E:4. Person 3 wins role 2, and now A, B, and E are in the majority and are unhappy. And overall, A, B, C, D, and E are unhappy with the winners, even though
they all got to vote.
But what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.
In five years, I will be working in a laboratory funded by a generous government grant, being paid an exhorbitant salary ($15mil/yr sounds good), and I will discover not only the cure for AIDS, but for ebola and a handful of other diseases. Please start building my lab and start sending me my paycheck.
I mean, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.
...which will not necessarily be suitable for human civilisation.
Do you not realize the vast range of climatic conditions under which humans already live? From Siberia to the Sahara, people exist, and modify their environment to succeed.
...that wouldn't be a very pleasant thing if it caught you by surprise.
Do you really imagine that you go to bed one night in a temperate climate and wake up in a sauna? "SURPRISE! It's chili today, hot tamale!"
Most countries have built major cities very close to sea level.
Most countries don't decide where to build cities. Small towns grow into big towns into small cities into big cities, because people move there and/or reproduce there and stay.
Major cities happen to be close to the sea because that happens to be where the people want to be, at least originally. Access to trade and shipping, for example, is better at a sea port than in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, or on the top of Pike's Peak.
Make it less hospitible and they'll leave. Just like many of the people who have fled/been dragged away from New Orleans have decided they do NOT want to go back. Heck, if I'd just lost everything I own and was now living someplace far away from the sea and hurricanes, I doubt that I'd want to go back, either.
The only reason a lot of people go back (e.g., to the Outer Banks in North Carolina) is because misguided governments help them rebuild fancy houses to replace the ones they had. If every hurricane that went up the east coast was a million dollar loss for someone, they'd get the idea that living on the Outer Banks isn't really a swell idea after all.
No, it was Erik the Red's competitor George the Bush that caused the return of the ice. He and his offspring are responsible for everything bad, don't you know.
The latest member of the family was even able to direct hurricane Katrina directly through the gap between his ranch in Texas and his brother's state of Florida. I mean, who wants to mess with someone who has the power to make hurricanes go where he wants them?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the difference. Germ theory is easily testible using simple experiments. Macro-evolution is not.
It is trivial to demonstrate that injecting someone with "tiny squirming little things of a certain shape" will result in them developing a full-blown case of smallpox. I can easily create a hypothesis that can be repeatedly tested until it is disproven. And that is the scientific method: hypothesis and disproof. I'll also point out that prior to the invention of the microscope, germ theory was on shaky grounds.
How does one demonstrate that macro-evolution was the cause of existance for humans? There are no experiments that can prove how we got here. The BEST that can be shown is that macro-evolution COULD result in the existing situation.
Yes, one can create experiments in micro-evolution. For example, inocculating a large number of petri dishes containing a nutrient deficiency will likely result in a mutated strain of bacteria that do not rely on that nutrient, or similarly, one can develop antibiotic resistant strains by attempting to grow them on plates containing antibiotics. However, this is not proof that resistant strains of bacteria could only occur this way, just that it is possible to create them this way. And that is why it is important to differentiate between macro and micro evolution.
I recall the "scientific proofs" of the sixties, where various concoctions of gasses and liquids were bottled up, heated, and zapped with sparks to try to reproduce the initial conditions of primitive Earth. Yes, some amino acids were created, but nothing conclusive was proven about how things happened millions of years ago.
Science is specifically bad at dealing with one-off systems. "How did humans come to exist?" is a question that science really cannot answer. "How did the universe start" is another. Just what experiment would you propose that could disprove the claim "God created the universe"? An untestable hypothesis that it happened some other way is neither scientific method nor proof of anything. When science tries to declare with certainty that something that was not observed happened in one specific way, it becomes religion: faith in things unseen.
Why is it that scientists who would quickly label the statement "God created the Universe" as "religion" are unable to see that "The Universe started with a big bang..." is exactly the same kind of unprovable, untestable statement? Just what experiment would you propose that could disprove either statement?
Beer has a lot of carbohydrate, so it's out. Cheese, OTH, is mostly fat and protein. It's a-okay for Atkins.
Uhh, no. The web was created specifically with the idea that humans would crawl across it. It wasn't until the web grew beyond easy comprehension by humans that robots were created to crawl it.
Were your statement correct, the robots.txt exclusion protocol would have been part of the CERN webserver documentation from day one. It wasn't. My web pages were up for a very long time before there were robots wandering the web.
It's sort of like what happens when you leave a potful of candy at your front-door on Oct. 31st.
Yes, I know what happens. Been there, done that. The first person to visit saw an entire pot full of candy and took it all. After I refilled the pot, thinking that the selfishness of the first visitor was an abberation, the second visitor took the entire pot full of candy and the pot. Ethics are what you do when you think people aren't looking.
Hmmm. That depends on the INTENT of the campaign, doesn't it? His clearly stated intent was to deny everyone the use of the webserver. Most "write in" campaigns don't have that as the default intent.
He has the right to ask people to join in his campaign.
Not when his intent is to cause damage. You have the right to ask people to join you in "peacable assembly", but you don't have the right to organize a riot.
The ringleader of a crime is often prosecuted more severely than other participants. That's supposed to help cut down on people who goad others into doing something illegal whilst they try to keep their hands clean.
In this case, the rest aren't being charged for the same reason that /. people who acted with the intent to crash the server won't be. It's too hard to find them all. It's still an unethical act -- trying to crash someone's server because you don't like how he acted is wrong, even if you know you won't be caught.
You know, if the school was trying to run a version of /. on their servers to provide a discussion forum for tens of thousands of people around the world, you'd be right.
I doubt that is what the web server was intended to be doing, however. It was probably intended to provide information to local parents and students and people moving to the area.
To pretend that anyone who wants to run a webserver needs to have the amount of hardware and bandwidth that /. uses just so it can
do "the task [they] were intended for" is silly.
Read the article. He did not "merely link" to a site. He created a link with an explicit request for people to repeatedly refresh the page with the intent to crash the school's site. It's a static page, so repeatedly refreshing it serves no purpose other than create needless page requests and services, which was his intent. And he got caught. Good.
If it happened to a server you ran, you'd call it "denial of service". When it happens to someone else, it's "just the way the internet is supposed to work". Right.
No, that is complete nonsense.
Communication problems were caused by two main things:
When a system that is designed to meet average load meets the emergency, it fails. Period. No amount of extra bandwidth will help it. When a system that absolutely depends on having a "control channel" AND a central repeater wind up with either or both resources missing or unavailable, the system fails, period.
Firefighters inside the WTC could not talk to police because their systems were DESIGNED not to be able to talk to them. Police couldn't talk to each other because their fancy trunked systems couldn't coordinate a clear channel -- because the control channel was dead. This is not a bandwidth problem.
Then add the problem of outside agencies coming into an area with their own equipment. Some agencies simply cannot afford the fancy trunked digital systems, so they had analog radios that didn't communicate with anyone else. Some have fancy digital radios, but nobody at the scene could reprogram them to talk on the right channels. Some have fancy digital radios and someone on staff at the scene to program them, but they were using a different standard so they couldn't talk anyway. None of that is a "bandwidth" issue.
There is bandwidth allocated for this kind of stuff. There have been interoperability channels assigned for emergency use for YEARS, in all three main public service bands (150,450 and 800MHz), including specific repeater pairs. I personally programmed these into our local SAR radios, but I'm almost certain that they are NOT programmed into the local fire and police radios.
Even with those channels, there are equipment issues limiting their use. They are all split-split frequencies, which means that for VHF the radio has to deal with a 2.5kHz VFO step and 7.5kHz channel spacing. Some of the affordable modern equipment doesn't do that.
But to call this a bandwidth issue is simply ridiculous. It's a technical failure caused most by the ASSUMPTION on the part of emergency planners that critical infrastructure will still be in place when needed for an emergency, and that is will work perfectly. The state I live in even makes this statement explicitely (not the "perfectly" part, but the rest) in it's state disaster plan. "Mountain shake, antenna on top fall over, nobody communicate" just doesn't seem to fit in the picture for earthquake planning. But allocating more bandwidth isn't a solution to that problem. Allocating money to buy a portable repeater, and having someone trained to know how to set it up, is.
How convenient to forget that under the US method of budgeting, "without the action" means there would be NO money being spent. It takes a positive action for each year's budget to be passed, and for money to be allocated for various things. Without the action == no money.
And yes, the "action" of allocating MORE money next year than was allocated this year is still an INCREASE, even if it wasn't as much as you wanted allocated.
Let's not play games with semantics.
So stop playing games with semantics. An increase in spending is not a cut in spending. All the fuzzy-warm-happy programs handing money out to people are going to get more next year -- just not as much as you want them to, perhaps. More than they ought, certainly.
This political nonsense has nothing to do with the switch to digital tv.
This kind of thing is called SCADA -- supervisory control and data acquisition, and it doesn't require BPL to accomplish. If the power companies are trying to claim it does, then look for the real agenda.
BPL is BROADBAND and appears throughout the HF spectrum, where there are LOTS of assigned users, some of whom are OTHER COUNTRIES MILITARIES, some of whom are our own, some of whom are international broadcasters, and some of whom are volunteers who provide emergency communications for just about any emergency that happens to take place, and almost all of which are covered by international treaty.
No. There was no mirror. The recipients of the podcast showed up at the original website. They simple took a path through podkeyword.com to get there. You can tell this is the fact because the removal of the podkeyword link resulted in a drop in subscribers at the original site.
And that's why I wonder what this whole brohaha is about. Linking is what the web is all about.
Yahoo has links to the vegan RSS feed. iTunes has links to the RSS feed. Podkeyword has links to the RSS feed. Yahoo is good, iTunes is good, podkeyword is bad. Huh?
Vegan RSS owner submitted his feed info to lots of places, podkeyword included. They put him in their index. People came to his site. Win. THEN vegan RSS owner demanded to be removed from the podkeyword index and links. Podkeyword complied immediately.
THEN vegan RSS feed owner decided he needed to be in podkeyword index, and when they didn't immediately put him back, considering his initial demand to be removed, and then decided they wanted to be paid to deal with his changing mind, he decided to call a lawyer.
Great idea. Demand someone stop doing something and they comply. Demand they start doing it again and then threaten a lawsuit when they say no.
Is that superior level of support the reason why the "subscription number" I got for RH support of my new Dell server keeps coming back "invalid", and the only thing RH can say is "maybe it will work tomorrow?"
Or was your comment sarcastic? I don't know, I don't know if Veritas is known for good or bad support. I only know what I'm thinking of RH right now. (Oh, they also shut support down at 3PM PST, as if nobody might have any problems after the afternoon teabreak.)
Better to get a tesla coil and use high voltage electricity to take it out.
And just where did you see me say anything even close to this?
Paid advertising to me is not mind control. It's information.
It's wonderful that you trust the advertisers to provide accurate information in their advertisements. Please tell me, what "information" is contained in the phrase "zoom zoom zoom"? Please explain what the information that XYZ vaccuum cleaner can pick up a bowling ball if you use a funnel for the attachment means to anyone? Do you believe that people actually need a vacuum cleaner to pick up all the stray bowling balls laying around the house?
I can edit out ads on recordings (usually legal except DMCA issues), change the channel or tune out, get up to get a snack or go to the bathroom, etc.
I fail to see the relevance.
Second, I would even dare say that many of these "mind control" ads did the exact opposite they were intended to do,
That is why I was explicit in saying not all ads and not all people. The fact that some people voted or buy opposite from what the ads tell them does nothing to disprove that there are a large number of people who are affected by ads and do something they otherwise would not have done. Whether you call that response "mind control" or just "persuasion", it doesn't matter. Advertising works, IN GENERAL, and that is why it is still around. It works just like push-polling works, and spam, and telemarketing, even though lots of people are smart enough to recognize the latter three and react accordingly, a lot do not. That you are able to do so doesn't change the effectiveness overall.
Unfortunately, in many cases, paid advertising IS mind control.
Not for all people, and not for all advertising, but if advertising wasn't convincing people to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done ("buy Tide" or "vote for Frank", e.g.) corporations (and campaign teams) wouldn't be paying for it.
Companies work best that profit most. Why spend money on ads if they don't work? Ads that don't work are lost profit.
Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion.
No, actually it's an extension of the existing laws to control spending in political elections, which just happens to wind up limiting free speech. The ATTEMPT was to limit over-the-top spending, but the RESULT was limiting speech.
Perhaps this argument will make it clearer to those in power that the campaign finance laws (which are Federal Election Commission rules and not FCC rules) are stupid and ineffective and should be repealed. The mainstream media didn't object, but now if the bloggers and other net users speak up, maybe something good will happen.
Let's see, 1000 people running 11 million ... carry the 4,
take the square root ... that's a total of 11Gbps of data. How many people are in an area 60km in radius? If that's over a city, 50-100 thousand, assume 10% penetration, that's 5 to 10 thousand users in just that one small area. Are they planning on carrying a large raft of cache servers aloft with these balloons, or are people going to be very dissappointed the first time they try to pull full-rate data out of the air?
That's the same problem that makes them iffy for emergency services use. Fine for light use, but overloaded the first time they are needed.
The gist of the original article is that Apple used to charge only for use of the logo, but now wants to charge for the right to connect to the iPod. What they claim they are charging for is a "marketing program" where the docking connector isn't going to go away like the headphone control connector did on the latest version. That's called "blackmail". "Pay me not to change my design on you every six months".
The connector is proprietary -- rights belong to JAE, not Apple, and JAE will apparently sell you the connector.
For info on the pinout, see here. There's a link to a guy who will sell you ones and twos so you don't even have to buy the minimum lots JAE wants to sell.
For Apple to tell people that they have to pay to connect to an iPod is ridiculous. To say they have to pay for using a logo is fine.
Anyway, "major" (== broadcast) networks carried science fiction prior to "Lost" (which I don't watch, but from the promos doesn't look much like science). Maybe I'm just older than the norm here, but I remember Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Quark, My Favorite Martian, My Mother The Car, The Outer Limits, One Step Beyond, Twighlight Zone, Star Trek (TOS), and even Night Stalker. I've certainly forgotten more than I listed. (In fact, Firefly was on Fox, which is broadcast, so
even Firefly predates Lost.) Space 1999 was ABC, wasn't it?
Then, of course, when you consider that USA is SCI-FI networks are carried on most, if not almost all, cable and satellite systems, they are "major" in those terms, so there are a lot more sci-fi series that pre-date Lost.
Each successful show of any genre generates copycat shows. "Lost" may be just the latest successful something-fi show, but it is hardly anything new.
This assumes that taxing everyone to provide "free" wireless internet to everyone who wants it is in the public interest.
I don't believe that taxing everyone to pay for "free" cable tv for everyone who wants it is in the public interest; nor is taxing everyone to pay for "free" DSL for everyone who wants it. I don't know why taxing everyone so some people can get "free" wireless internet is supposed to be different.
Yeah, it sure is nice not to have to pay for something, but when you add up all the taxes for things you don't have to pay for, you wind up paying real money for things you don't necessarily want or need.
Really? Well, the internet at my house ends at the end of the cat5 cable. When I turn my wireless router on, it ends just outside the walls of my house, and even then doesn't cover some rooms inside very well at all.
While content may be available on the internet from every country, that content is not available at every end-point that is now served by broadcast television.
TV is dead,...
Let me guess, you live in an area where high-bandwidth (said jokingly, since DSL and cable are hardly "high" in real terms) is readily available and/or free.
If this attitude had prevailed during the early parts of this century, nobody outside the cities would have telephones or electric power. It was only mandates put on the utilities to force them to provide services where rates of return were small or negative that got "rural" america wired at all. Now they've got people telling them that they aren't worth the bandwidth to have broadcast TV signals sent out to them.
There is a significant number of people who talk about the internet creating a "digital divide" between the haves and have-nots. Do not make this divide worse by arguing for the removal of the information services that those who are internet-have-nots do currently have.
No, seems like a way to ensure that the majority do NOT like the dubbing.
Unless each role receives a clear majority winner made up from the same people, then a simple plurality will decide each role, and when a plurality wins, the majority has voted for someone else.
To demonstrate: A, B, C, D, and E are voting for people 1, 2, 3 and 4 for each role. For the first role, the votes are: A,B: 1 C:2 D:3 E:4. Person 1 wins role 1, and C, D, and E are unhappy (a majority). For the second role the votes are: A:1 B:2 C,D:3 E:4. Person 3 wins role 2, and now A, B, and E are in the majority and are unhappy. And overall, A, B, C, D, and E are unhappy with the winners, even though they all got to vote.
In five years, I will be working in a laboratory funded by a generous government grant, being paid an exhorbitant salary ($15mil/yr sounds good), and I will discover not only the cure for AIDS, but for ebola and a handful of other diseases. Please start building my lab and start sending me my paycheck.
I mean, the chances of this actually happening are remote, but what if I am not wrong? Then we could save billions of dollars and save millions of lives.
Do you not realize the vast range of climatic conditions under which humans already live? From Siberia to the Sahara, people exist, and modify their environment to succeed.
Do you really imagine that you go to bed one night in a temperate climate and wake up in a sauna? "SURPRISE! It's chili today, hot tamale!"
Most countries don't decide where to build cities. Small towns grow into big towns into small cities into big cities, because people move there and/or reproduce there and stay.
Major cities happen to be close to the sea because that happens to be where the people want to be, at least originally. Access to trade and shipping, for example, is better at a sea port than in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, or on the top of Pike's Peak.
Make it less hospitible and they'll leave. Just like many of the people who have fled/been dragged away from New Orleans have decided they do NOT want to go back. Heck, if I'd just lost everything I own and was now living someplace far away from the sea and hurricanes, I doubt that I'd want to go back, either.
The only reason a lot of people go back (e.g., to the Outer Banks in North Carolina) is because misguided governments help them rebuild fancy houses to replace the ones they had. If every hurricane that went up the east coast was a million dollar loss for someone, they'd get the idea that living on the Outer Banks isn't really a swell idea after all.
The next generation is going to have a hard time.
EVERY generation thinks it has a hard time.
The latest member of the family was even able to direct hurricane Katrina directly through the gap between his ranch in Texas and his brother's state of Florida. I mean, who wants to mess with someone who has the power to make hurricanes go where he wants them?