But if they do that, the dealers will start hiding from them, and then they'll have to work harder to find the drives in the first place. They may even end up having to use force, and the dealers might decide to use force back. You could end up in a situation where a US soldier is killed trying to retrieve a thumbdrive.
I'd really love to see Apple with, oh, 25% of the market. Enough that people really take them seriously, but not enough to be in charge.
Apple is innovative and amazing, and makes some of the best personal computers and software on the market. And the moment they started to get control of that market they'd be worse than Microsoft. (Who occasionally has to listen to people outside their company: the PC manufacturers for instance.)
Downloading for free over the internet (even with commercials) is a different business model then offering via local affliates over television. If you release the episiode first on the internet you are relying on that as the business model, and the TV is just an added bonus. If they found they couldn't make money doing it, but that people switched to watching it that way instead of via their old business model it would at the very least kill the show.
This way they can test to see if they can actually make money this way without any worries about it eating into their old revenue stream. (Or, at least not eating into it much.)
The reason it is a different business model is because there is a different cost structure: The studio is having to pay more of the distrobution and advertising recruitment costs. This is also on-demand instead of push. The end result is that they don't actually know until they try it how much it is going to cost to distribute. Now, they also get all the revenue directly, but exactly how that effect the profits is unclear.
It's on-demand instead of push, it's centralized instead of distributed, it's in a format that is closer to editable (and easier to share). The fact that it's TCP/IP instead of cable/satelite is irrelevent. The behind the scenes differences are substantial.
You've already got the episode, so they don't charge you any more for it. If I recall correctly, it's a season pass, so no matter how many episiodes there are a season you get all of them.
iTunes suscriptions aren't time-limited. You get all the episiodes released inside the timeframe you have a subscription for, but you can play them forever.
They have to make their investment back somehow. I'm actually encouraged: They now offer these shows on TV for free with commecials, on DVD (eventually) for pay without commercials, on iTunes for pay without commericals, and on this website for free with commercials. Sounds like they are trying all avenues to see what the consumers actually want.
So, do actions meet words here? All of these shows mentioned are avalible, without commericals, for $2 an episode from iTunes. Quality is lower than TV, true, but not that much.
But the versions on iTunes don't have commercials, and can be played away from the computer. Depending on quality and useablity, it may well be true that both versions have value to consumers. I'd guess they may well be able to co-exist, serving different consumers.
This way more people are likely to watch it twice.
Also, this way they aren't stepping on revenue streams for their local affliates. (Who may be able to show some local ads during the regular broadcast. Or at least share revenue.)
What you are talking about is a whole different business model. It could well work, but I wouldn't want to give up a currently working business model to try it.
A hundred years ago we were putting up coal dust and soot. These days it is carbon dioxide and sufuric oxides.
Total pollution levels have probably gone up, but polution output per person has gone down dramatically, and what we are putting out is different: more fully combusted/used. The industrial world in particular is actually much cleaner than it was. However, the compounds we are putting out now are less 'natural' than the ones we were putting out then (in most cases), so they do damage differently. In this case, the compounds we are putting out have less of an effect then the ones we were putting out a hundred years ago.
The study hasn't been done. He needed $40k to do it.
The response he got proves the hypothesis of the study (that ID is eroding real science), but doesn't do much beyond that. I assume, if he's a decent scientist, he would have been able to say how far ID had encroached on evolution, and what the effects were had he been able to complete the study. Since it isn't going to be funded it will never be done.
Best reason is to stress-test the equipment. It's not such a big project that if the system fails anyone is in danger, but it is quite a bit more extreme a test than anything the system has faced so far.
It's not really to demonstrate that they can get people up the mountain, or even to actually get people up the mountain. It is to demonstrate that the HAL system will work on a mountain.
And they will learn where it is good and where it is bad. Useful goals, on an early generation of potential tech.
There is one good reason to build a Moonbase: Telescopes on the far side of the Moon are as insulated as you can get from interference from human sources. A good set of telescopes, in all spectrums, on the far side of the Moon should be an eventual goal of NASA. (Not that we need people there to run them...)
The only other reason for a base on the Moon is turism: It's a place where a person can walk on the surface of another major body and be back within a few months.
Neither of these should make a Moonbase top priority.
Agreed. I haven't gone to the trouble of tracking down every spam email, but I found simply immediately reporting anything spammassassin scored at 15+ to spam report services dropped my spam volume by 50+ a day. It's growing again, but very slowly.
Systems like this tend to creep, and creep in the very directions I don't like. Given that sender-pays this way doesn't really do that much to actually stop spam, I'd rather it wasn't used at all. (Then it can't creep.)
You are going to ask me what I think will work. I think good filtering is already working. It decreases the ROI of sending spam, and there are costs to sending it. In the meantime a good filter means I don't have to see spam. I get 120+ spam emails a day. My filters assure that I only ever see 1-2 spam emails a month. And they don't increase the cost of sending email one bit. The ammount of spam I recieved (before the filter) has actually dropped on occasion as I implemented better filtering and reporting of spam.
I can see why reading it using an RSS reader might be better (and most email clients these days can do the same things), but I'm not really sure why sending it that way would be better. At the very least it means everyone who wants to check to see if there are new messages will have to hit your server every time they check. If people are on a lot of these annonuncment lists (which I am) that would mean hitting a large number of servers very day to check for one-two messages a month (total). Email, at the very least, would generate a lot less internet traffic.
As far as I can tell it would be the same info either way, so the less load on my connections is preferred.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they do that, the dealers will start hiding from them, and then they'll have to work harder to find the drives in the first place. They may even end up having to use force, and the dealers might decide to use force back. You could end up in a situation where a US soldier is killed trying to retrieve a thumbdrive.
This way is better and cheaper for everybody.
I'd really love to see Apple with, oh, 25% of the market. Enough that people really take them seriously, but not enough to be in charge.
Apple is innovative and amazing, and makes some of the best personal computers and software on the market. And the moment they started to get control of that market they'd be worse than Microsoft. (Who occasionally has to listen to people outside their company: the PC manufacturers for instance.)
No, the dupe will be posted after the product ships.
At the same price? The one without. I don't need or want it.
Actually, for flyers, try 'large area search'. They could blanket a forest fairly quickly for instance, and stay under the trees while doing so.
As for 'search and destroy': All they need is a targeting beacon. Then you send the homing missle right to them...
Downloading for free over the internet (even with commercials) is a different business model then offering via local affliates over television. If you release the episiode first on the internet you are relying on that as the business model, and the TV is just an added bonus. If they found they couldn't make money doing it, but that people switched to watching it that way instead of via their old business model it would at the very least kill the show.
This way they can test to see if they can actually make money this way without any worries about it eating into their old revenue stream. (Or, at least not eating into it much.)
The reason it is a different business model is because there is a different cost structure: The studio is having to pay more of the distrobution and advertising recruitment costs. This is also on-demand instead of push. The end result is that they don't actually know until they try it how much it is going to cost to distribute. Now, they also get all the revenue directly, but exactly how that effect the profits is unclear.
It's on-demand instead of push, it's centralized instead of distributed, it's in a format that is closer to editable (and easier to share). The fact that it's TCP/IP instead of cable/satelite is irrelevent. The behind the scenes differences are substantial.
You've already got the episode, so they don't charge you any more for it. If I recall correctly, it's a season pass, so no matter how many episiodes there are a season you get all of them.
iTunes suscriptions aren't time-limited. You get all the episiodes released inside the timeframe you have a subscription for, but you can play them forever.
They have to make their investment back somehow. I'm actually encouraged: They now offer these shows on TV for free with commecials, on DVD (eventually) for pay without commercials, on iTunes for pay without commericals, and on this website for free with commercials. Sounds like they are trying all avenues to see what the consumers actually want.
It wouldn't suprise me if Steve talked them into it.
So, do actions meet words here? All of these shows mentioned are avalible, without commericals, for $2 an episode from iTunes. Quality is lower than TV, true, but not that much.
But the versions on iTunes don't have commercials, and can be played away from the computer. Depending on quality and useablity, it may well be true that both versions have value to consumers. I'd guess they may well be able to co-exist, serving different consumers.
This way more people are likely to watch it twice.
Also, this way they aren't stepping on revenue streams for their local affliates. (Who may be able to show some local ads during the regular broadcast. Or at least share revenue.)
What you are talking about is a whole different business model. It could well work, but I wouldn't want to give up a currently working business model to try it.
A hundred years ago we were putting up coal dust and soot. These days it is carbon dioxide and sufuric oxides.
Total pollution levels have probably gone up, but polution output per person has gone down dramatically, and what we are putting out is different: more fully combusted/used. The industrial world in particular is actually much cleaner than it was. However, the compounds we are putting out now are less 'natural' than the ones we were putting out then (in most cases), so they do damage differently. In this case, the compounds we are putting out have less of an effect then the ones we were putting out a hundred years ago.
The study hasn't been done. He needed $40k to do it.
The response he got proves the hypothesis of the study (that ID is eroding real science), but doesn't do much beyond that. I assume, if he's a decent scientist, he would have been able to say how far ID had encroached on evolution, and what the effects were had he been able to complete the study. Since it isn't going to be funded it will never be done.
They are, on a Dvorak board... ('a' is in the same place, 'o' is on the qwerty 's'.)
Looks like you should be able to, with the dual-boot setup Apple released yesterday.
Best reason is to stress-test the equipment. It's not such a big project that if the system fails anyone is in danger, but it is quite a bit more extreme a test than anything the system has faced so far.
It's not really to demonstrate that they can get people up the mountain, or even to actually get people up the mountain. It is to demonstrate that the HAL system will work on a mountain.
And they will learn where it is good and where it is bad. Useful goals, on an early generation of potential tech.
Most of the protections we've been putting up are (poorly built) against unlikely attacks. However, they are glamourus attacks. Ones that sound good.
If you realize the main point of these protections is to get people elected, this makes perfect sense.
Yeah, that'd be slick. And it worked real well for OS/2...
(Of course, times and perceptions have changed, and Apple might be able to pull it off. Maybe.)
I recently did this caluation, and it sounds relevent here...
A common formula for the IQ of a group is to take the IQ of the highest member of the group, and divide by the number of people in the group.
The highest IQ is the US is that of Marilyn Vos Savant, estimated at 228. (That's the high estimate. Might as well give the benifit of the doubt.)
The population of the US is 295,734,134, according to the CIA world factbook.
That means the IQ of the US is 7.70962746×10^-7.
No, but finding aliens, a la Species is.
There is one good reason to build a Moonbase: Telescopes on the far side of the Moon are as insulated as you can get from interference from human sources. A good set of telescopes, in all spectrums, on the far side of the Moon should be an eventual goal of NASA. (Not that we need people there to run them...)
The only other reason for a base on the Moon is turism: It's a place where a person can walk on the surface of another major body and be back within a few months.
Neither of these should make a Moonbase top priority.
Agreed. I haven't gone to the trouble of tracking down every spam email, but I found simply immediately reporting anything spammassassin scored at 15+ to spam report services dropped my spam volume by 50+ a day. It's growing again, but very slowly.
Promise me it will stay that way. Forever.
Systems like this tend to creep, and creep in the very directions I don't like. Given that sender-pays this way doesn't really do that much to actually stop spam, I'd rather it wasn't used at all. (Then it can't creep.)
You are going to ask me what I think will work. I think good filtering is already working. It decreases the ROI of sending spam, and there are costs to sending it. In the meantime a good filter means I don't have to see spam. I get 120+ spam emails a day. My filters assure that I only ever see 1-2 spam emails a month. And they don't increase the cost of sending email one bit. The ammount of spam I recieved (before the filter) has actually dropped on occasion as I implemented better filtering and reporting of spam.
I can see why reading it using an RSS reader might be better (and most email clients these days can do the same things), but I'm not really sure why sending it that way would be better. At the very least it means everyone who wants to check to see if there are new messages will have to hit your server every time they check. If people are on a lot of these annonuncment lists (which I am) that would mean hitting a large number of servers very day to check for one-two messages a month (total). Email, at the very least, would generate a lot less internet traffic.
As far as I can tell it would be the same info either way, so the less load on my connections is preferred.