PHP with some actual software architecture engineering can do some pretty amazing things, in a nicely efficient manner.
Altho, 98% of PHP "programmers" shouldn't even try to do anything serious without a rigid framework forcing some kind of inefficient, bloated architecture, but forcing the "programmer" to even a partially sane standards and architecture. The last 2% can wrap their own and forget the inefficiency and bloat, and spend less time doing that from scratch than learning all the kinks of the bloated inefficient rigid framework.
Yet PHP is chosen by the largest web applications time and time over again, it simply scales, it's easy to utilize due to brilliant documentation and community. And mapping a URI to a file is not necessary with PHP. You've probably never used PHP for anything actually good.
Ruby on web applications is basicly a rigid framework (RoR). Try to make Python to scale as efficiently.
PHP is specifically designed, and built for web applications. You can't say the same for any of the other choices.
I've actually built some large, extremely high performance, very scaleable projects on PHP, and almost always the bottleneck turns out to be on the database side due to sheer volume of data and features customers have insisted upon requiring more database servers than frontend.
FORGET java, forget everything you know about JAVA development. Go with PHP, and CodeIgniter or similar framework which does not force you to their patterns (ZFW used to be like this...)
and keep it simple - keep everything as simple as possible.
And "PHP Templating" is *NOT* templating, it is spaghetti some ate yesterday and came up today.
Replace military with police. Those drones could have tasers, shooting rubber bullets, maybe radio interference etc. Tho by itself can do quite a bit of havoc on small scale, but maybe if you crash the drones intentionally on something larger?
You are wrong, plain and simply. A lot because of "not invented here" syndrome with so many companies. Also Apple makes a huge portion of it's revenue on App sales and such.
Foxconn can be denied to make exact clones on contract, and if they did exact clones after your release, big business would simply move on their business elsewhere, making it stupid for Foxconn to sell clones to others.
High end tech is also closely safeguarded secrets, so for example Nokia would sell their high end just like now as no one has some of their technologies. Sure, there could be low end knock offs for cheaper, but people would probably still purchase mostly the Real Thing due to guarantees, quality assurances etc. the low end cheaper knockoffs would probably not have good warranty nor quality assurance.
More competition on the market is always better, as that drives technology and development further. These big companies would make other revenue streams if they had an actual issue with clones.
Also without clones you wouldn't be having a probably rather cheap computer build from misc parts. Remember that PCs used to be single manufacturer too on the early days, then "clones" arrived.
As for the smaller companies, without patents and copyrights they would be free to innovate, instead of making sure they are not meeting the business end of a lawsuit. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
Infact, computers are getting plenty faster, at a rate of approximately double the performance every 2 years, instead of 18months. Some of the transistors are now used to add additional features, or optimize very specific scenarios, in which of those scenarios performance gains are far more than double per ~18months.
A lot of work also goes to decreasing power demand per unit of computing.
Compare original Core 2 Duo to Nehalem to Sandy Bridge for example. Nevermind GPU processing power which is probably far more important for CGI as GPGPU is getting quite good.
Infact, i would argue that for the past 4.5-6 years the computing total power has increased faster than double every 1.5years on average. The leap from Core series to Nehalem was immense, and to Sandy Bridge no small leap there neither!
Around 2008 the norm used to be 4 or 8Gb of ram on a highend desktop computer, today we are seeing upto 48Gb on high end desktop.
So what you are saying is that: We are at a point where no skill is required, not even on scripting/writing. Well, ok, i guess that is true as so many movies are spinoffs of the same old story with different backdrop. We are at a point there is nothing new to invent, no new methods to do it. And at a point where one doesn't need any money to live, doesn't need food or shelter thus no salary.
And as for need off actors, we are now all basicly the same, and there is no differences in personalities and ways of doing things, or differences of perception between individuals? So we are robots?
Yeah sure.
Big budget movies and actors will be required pretty much always. Sure, a few very smart individuals can do a hugely popular show or movie, ie. Star Wreck, but you can still notice the lack of budget, and even Star Wreck has a certain amateur/B-Class feel to it, however in case of Star Wreck that probably makes it just better. Even Star Wreck required a bit of budget, nevermind Iron Sky is pretty much "big budget" film. If i recall right Iron Sky is the biggest budget finnish movie so far, or was it biggest budget independent film so far. I wouldn't say 7.5 million € is minimal budget any small crew could attain... Plus everyone has to eat.
Copyright laws actually has nothing to do with giving to the creators of said works, it has all to do with having control. If Big Media had their way, no one would be able to release anything to the world without their say-so, and at that point they would only sell Blu-Rays you can only view once at 100$ a pop.
Also, Humans by nature want to give and give as much as they can, only the exceptions doesn't want to do that. If we had sane, easy ways to give to the creators of said works directly, instead that someone takes 98% of it in the middle, i bet many creators would be making many times more money.
Yeah quite true, but i'm going to do my best to avoid travelling by flight in future, sure a trip to central europe now will take 2-3 days one way instead of couple of hours... But atleast i get good compensation in taxes:)
No, they should update their business plan to make most revenue from:
- Legitimate download sites (where artist gets more than 0.01% of revenue)
- Performances, ie. concerts bringing in the dough, and maybe some new innovative live performance formats for more revenue per gig
- Merchandise/fan products
- Physical media as a shelf decoration. pretty much like it is now, but saner pricing, and emphasis on showcasing it, that's why many people buy CDs/DVDs/BluRays, but also give access to digital, online copy which allows more convenient watching than putting the physical media in.
- Direct monetary gifts from fans -> who just want to support the artist, but does not necessarily need more crap etc.
- For some bands, "custom tailored" music, ie. for companies, movies etc. This is already happening but more direct and bigger scale adoption, ie. hourly rates or something like that.
Generally by increasing accessibility they should be able to monetize better. If i want to buy an album today, i have very few choices: Physical store for media i cannot use since i don't own even a SINGLE "just a cd player", iTunes for devices which i don't own (i don't own iPhone, iPad, iPod or any other apple devices), Spotify for computer only listening (nothing to play in my car).
I need non-DRM'd MP3, FLAC or OGG format so i can play it on any of the devices i have, ie. car, phone, computer, ps3
As it stands now, i would need to change to iPhone and purchase via iTunes (at a non-sensible per track price), and change my car audio system to accept iPhone for convenient access to most of my devices. Ofc, for iTunes to work properly i need to change to Mac OSX as well which means buying a mac. This still leaves my PS3, and other DLNA devices out (or has iTunes gained DLNA capability?). No i don't want new expensive devices.
On car i only radio, usb and bluetooth. On computers i don't even bother installing a DVD drive anymore for longer than OS installation. I use a Nokia phone (E7, got to love the QWERTY and casing it has!)
So my options are extremely limited! In practice i listen to radio only anymore because access is so ridiculously limited.
I guess there is probably SOME option, but i really can't be arsed to search for such a solution, if i need to put in time to try and find such a solution it's not accessible enough. There is plenty of radio channels to choose from even just from FM, which is easy and convenient:) Downside is none of the artists i really like gets no monetary gain from me directly in any fashion anymore, only thing they get is from the radio royalties get from me. I wouldn't mind buying a few albums if it meant i could listen on any device of my preference, anywhere, anytime, with or without access to internet.
DC-DC power conversion is actually very tricky, expensive operation. Many times often doing by transforming it back to AC, then back to DC...
Also, AC-DC power supplies reach 97% efficiency (in servers) nowadays. Common high end computer power supply does 90% or better nowadays, average computer power supply does 80%+. The cheap chinese wall "bricks" are also around 80-85% efficiency mark....
But let's say, directly DC from solar panels anywhere in the world, without power conversion needs... Yeah that'd be cool, but the amperage requirements makes it unfeasible.
ehrm.... So you take a bit, maybe 35% of the solar power radiating to sahara. Then you transport that energy to europe... and guess what? USE that energy. What happens to it at that point? Yeah heat.
Sahara is quite a light color not sucking up that much, but radiating a lot of the heat back, so when you add the black solar panels more of the energy remains there, being probably close to net +/- 0 or maybe even slightly on the gain side for sahara.
The amount less radiated back from sahara, some of which would escape earth again, is also less heat all around the earth (scatters). But you would also shutdown plants @ europe, resulting in less heat generation there of roughly equal amount. So it will be also at europe +/- 0 difference. A lot of that was probably fossil fuels, you can now mark a NEGATIVE net gain on heat(=energy), as less from the fossil fuels is released (like a epic scale battery). Less fossil fuels used equals also less Co2, which equals to less heat trapped & gained. Turning that very slight heat gain in sahara to an neutral position, if not negative, in total global heat gain.
So... Rethink a little bit.
If anything, more of solar energy is being trapped, but at the same time lowered Co2 in atmosphere results in less being trapped by atmosphere...
Petroleum isn't used for rockets, more potent fuels are. ie. hydrogen used to be common, they've now moved on to even more potent fuels. I think they use solids now...
There's currently nothing else than few chemical fuels which can put out the required mass velocity to get lift to the orbit. More mass velocity per kg of fuel means more payload or cheaper lift off.
These chemical fuels are damn expensive to produce. Oil based stuff is VERY weak on this kind of stuff (low velocity, need to add oxygen, low energy density).
Slashdot Mirror
PHP with some actual software architecture engineering can do some pretty amazing things, in a nicely efficient manner.
Altho, 98% of PHP "programmers" shouldn't even try to do anything serious without a rigid framework forcing some kind of inefficient, bloated architecture, but forcing the "programmer" to even a partially sane standards and architecture. The last 2% can wrap their own and forget the inefficiency and bloat, and spend less time doing that from scratch than learning all the kinks of the bloated inefficient rigid framework.
LOL, those arguments against PHP are hilarious at points :D
Not sure where these arguments against PHP were, haven't seen it, but who ever made those arguments clearly is not a very capable programmer.
Yet PHP is chosen by the largest web applications time and time over again, it simply scales, it's easy to utilize due to brilliant documentation and community.
And mapping a URI to a file is not necessary with PHP. You've probably never used PHP for anything actually good.
Ruby on web applications is basicly a rigid framework (RoR). Try to make Python to scale as efficiently.
PHP is specifically designed, and built for web applications. You can't say the same for any of the other choices.
I've actually built some large, extremely high performance, very scaleable projects on PHP, and almost always the bottleneck turns out to be on the database side due to sheer volume of data and features customers have insisted upon requiring more database servers than frontend.
FORGET java, forget everything you know about JAVA development.
Go with PHP, and CodeIgniter or similar framework which does not force you to their patterns (ZFW used to be like this...)
and keep it simple - keep everything as simple as possible.
And "PHP Templating" is *NOT* templating, it is spaghetti some ate yesterday and came up today.
Replace military with police.
Those drones could have tasers, shooting rubber bullets, maybe radio interference etc.
Tho by itself can do quite a bit of havoc on small scale, but maybe if you crash the drones intentionally on something larger?
Ever heard of remote access? Internet? Networks?
You are wrong, plain and simply.
A lot because of "not invented here" syndrome with so many companies.
Also Apple makes a huge portion of it's revenue on App sales and such.
Foxconn can be denied to make exact clones on contract, and if they did exact clones after your release, big business would simply move on their business elsewhere, making it stupid for Foxconn to sell clones to others.
High end tech is also closely safeguarded secrets, so for example Nokia would sell their high end just like now as no one has some of their technologies. Sure, there could be low end knock offs for cheaper, but people would probably still purchase mostly the Real Thing due to guarantees, quality assurances etc. the low end cheaper knockoffs would probably not have good warranty nor quality assurance.
More competition on the market is always better, as that drives technology and development further. These big companies would make other revenue streams if they had an actual issue with clones.
Also without clones you wouldn't be having a probably rather cheap computer build from misc parts. Remember that PCs used to be single manufacturer too on the early days, then "clones" arrived.
As for the smaller companies, without patents and copyrights they would be free to innovate, instead of making sure they are not meeting the business end of a lawsuit. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
Infact, computers are getting plenty faster, at a rate of approximately double the performance every 2 years, instead of 18months. Some of the transistors are now used to add additional features, or optimize very specific scenarios, in which of those scenarios performance gains are far more than double per ~18months.
A lot of work also goes to decreasing power demand per unit of computing.
Compare original Core 2 Duo to Nehalem to Sandy Bridge for example.
Nevermind GPU processing power which is probably far more important for CGI as GPGPU is getting quite good.
Infact, i would argue that for the past 4.5-6 years the computing total power has increased faster than double every 1.5years on average. The leap from Core series to Nehalem was immense, and to Sandy Bridge no small leap there neither!
Around 2008 the norm used to be 4 or 8Gb of ram on a highend desktop computer, today we are seeing upto 48Gb on high end desktop.
LOL!
So what you are saying is that:
We are at a point where no skill is required, not even on scripting/writing. Well, ok, i guess that is true as so many movies are spinoffs of the same old story with different backdrop.
We are at a point there is nothing new to invent, no new methods to do it.
And at a point where one doesn't need any money to live, doesn't need food or shelter thus no salary.
And as for need off actors, we are now all basicly the same, and there is no differences in personalities and ways of doing things, or differences of perception between individuals? So we are robots?
Yeah sure.
Big budget movies and actors will be required pretty much always. Sure, a few very smart individuals can do a hugely popular show or movie, ie. Star Wreck, but you can still notice the lack of budget, and even Star Wreck has a certain amateur/B-Class feel to it, however in case of Star Wreck that probably makes it just better. Even Star Wreck required a bit of budget, nevermind Iron Sky is pretty much "big budget" film. If i recall right Iron Sky is the biggest budget finnish movie so far, or was it biggest budget independent film so far.
I wouldn't say 7.5 million € is minimal budget any small crew could attain... Plus everyone has to eat.
Copyright laws actually has nothing to do with giving to the creators of said works, it has all to do with having control.
If Big Media had their way, no one would be able to release anything to the world without their say-so, and at that point they would only sell Blu-Rays you can only view once at 100$ a pop.
Also, Humans by nature want to give and give as much as they can, only the exceptions doesn't want to do that.
If we had sane, easy ways to give to the creators of said works directly, instead that someone takes 98% of it in the middle, i bet many creators would be making many times more money.
also it seems that lighttpd+php-fastcgi is not vulnerable.
Microsoft pulled their support a little bit ago.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/28/1549251/microsoft-backs-away-from-cispa-support-citing-privacy
This is ALL european flights, not just those bound to US.
Yeah quite true, but i'm going to do my best to avoid travelling by flight in future, sure a trip to central europe now will take 2-3 days one way instead of couple of hours... But atleast i get good compensation in taxes :)
First you need to spot that your VM is compromised and someone is listening in the middle... oops!
No, they should update their business plan to make most revenue from:
- Legitimate download sites (where artist gets more than 0.01% of revenue)
- Performances, ie. concerts bringing in the dough, and maybe some new innovative live performance formats for more revenue per gig
- Merchandise/fan products
- Physical media as a shelf decoration. pretty much like it is now, but saner pricing, and emphasis on showcasing it, that's why many people buy CDs/DVDs/BluRays, but also give access to digital, online copy which allows more convenient watching than putting the physical media in.
- Direct monetary gifts from fans -> who just want to support the artist, but does not necessarily need more crap etc.
- For some bands, "custom tailored" music, ie. for companies, movies etc. This is already happening but more direct and bigger scale adoption, ie. hourly rates or something like that.
Generally by increasing accessibility they should be able to monetize better.
If i want to buy an album today, i have very few choices: Physical store for media i cannot use since i don't own even a SINGLE "just a cd player", iTunes for devices which i don't own (i don't own iPhone, iPad, iPod or any other apple devices), Spotify for computer only listening (nothing to play in my car).
I need non-DRM'd MP3, FLAC or OGG format so i can play it on any of the devices i have, ie. car, phone, computer, ps3
As it stands now, i would need to change to iPhone and purchase via iTunes (at a non-sensible per track price), and change my car audio system to accept iPhone for convenient access to most of my devices. Ofc, for iTunes to work properly i need to change to Mac OSX as well which means buying a mac. This still leaves my PS3, and other DLNA devices out (or has iTunes gained DLNA capability?). No i don't want new expensive devices.
On car i only radio, usb and bluetooth.
On computers i don't even bother installing a DVD drive anymore for longer than OS installation.
I use a Nokia phone (E7, got to love the QWERTY and casing it has!)
So my options are extremely limited! In practice i listen to radio only anymore because access is so ridiculously limited.
I guess there is probably SOME option, but i really can't be arsed to search for such a solution, if i need to put in time to try and find such a solution it's not accessible enough. There is plenty of radio channels to choose from even just from FM, which is easy and convenient :)
Downside is none of the artists i really like gets no monetary gain from me directly in any fashion anymore, only thing they get is from the radio royalties get from me. I wouldn't mind buying a few albums if it meant i could listen on any device of my preference, anywhere, anytime, with or without access to internet.
MU was doing heck of a lot more to curb piracy than Pirate Bay has ever done ... Just saying.
You mean RIAA owns all music ;)
Anything having the slightest resemblance to music has a chance of to be taken down on youtube.
when there is profit to be made, things move pretty darned quickly.
References:
* Railroad
* Electricity
* Phone
* Mobile phones
* Computers
* Internet
* Aircraft
* Commercial space travel (Relative to goverment efforts commercial sector is moving damned fast)
* The friggin' wheel
* Cars
by that same logic, i'm assuming you are happy with incandescent light bulbs, no leds available, no mobile phone ...
1 000 000 000 000 * 0.06 = ?
6% * profit margin = ?
Yeah, you guessed it right 12%+
If that's not significant, could you please donate 12% of your income for rest of your life? Thank you! :)
AC transformers are only 2 coils at simplest btw. Not much loss can occur there.
DC-DC power conversion is actually very tricky, expensive operation. Many times often doing by transforming it back to AC, then back to DC ...
Also, AC-DC power supplies reach 97% efficiency (in servers) nowadays. Common high end computer power supply does 90% or better nowadays, average computer power supply does 80%+.
The cheap chinese wall "bricks" are also around 80-85% efficiency mark....
But let's say, directly DC from solar panels anywhere in the world, without power conversion needs... Yeah that'd be cool, but the amperage requirements makes it unfeasible.
ehrm .... So you take a bit, maybe 35% of the solar power radiating to sahara. ... and guess what? USE that energy. What happens to it at that point? Yeah heat.
Then you transport that energy to europe
Sahara is quite a light color not sucking up that much, but radiating a lot of the heat back, so when you add the black solar panels more of the energy remains there, being probably close to net +/- 0 or maybe even slightly on the gain side for sahara.
The amount less radiated back from sahara, some of which would escape earth again, is also less heat all around the earth (scatters).
But you would also shutdown plants @ europe, resulting in less heat generation there of roughly equal amount. So it will be also at europe +/- 0 difference.
A lot of that was probably fossil fuels, you can now mark a NEGATIVE net gain on heat(=energy), as less from the fossil fuels is released (like a epic scale battery).
Less fossil fuels used equals also less Co2, which equals to less heat trapped & gained.
Turning that very slight heat gain in sahara to an neutral position, if not negative, in total global heat gain.
So... Rethink a little bit.
If anything, more of solar energy is being trapped, but at the same time lowered Co2 in atmosphere results in less being trapped by atmosphere ...
a modern fireplace is an insanely efficient way to heat up your house ....
Petroleum isn't used for rockets, more potent fuels are. ie. hydrogen used to be common, they've now moved on to even more potent fuels. I think they use solids now...
There's currently nothing else than few chemical fuels which can put out the required mass velocity to get lift to the orbit. More mass velocity per kg of fuel means more payload or cheaper lift off.
These chemical fuels are damn expensive to produce. Oil based stuff is VERY weak on this kind of stuff (low velocity, need to add oxygen, low energy density).