For the sake of computer users everywhere, why don't all the world governments/BBC/etc.. get together, buy the patents for MPEG-4 and make them public domain and create an open standards committee? I don't care how much it costs... I mean, lets standardize and be done with it; each day that passes the MPEG-? technologies are becoming more and more entrenched and its not like anyone is going to go back and reencode everything in a patent-free format...
Just like building physical roads, can't some sort of emminent domain type of argument be made for electronic infostructure?
It seems to me that just about everything Nasa has released so far has been through JPL press conferences (as opposed to writeups in academic journals). None of this information has been through any sort of peer review process yet -- isn't this the cornerstone of good science? I'm sure the raw data isn't yet available to folks outside of Nasa so it's impossible to even get an independent evaluation. I know they need to keep the public excited to justify the overall expenditure, but I'm very suspicious of broad generalizations like this made in days (as opposed to years) time after data collection...
Sorry if it seems Troll-like, but this bother me a little....
This is great until the number of allowed burns drops to 0, and extra computers cost $10 monthly. The troubling point here is that they changed the rules, your opinion is right now they did it for the better (and I would agree), but its very possible for this to work the other way in the future (lets say after they get an established userbase). Despite this DRM looking not so bad (at this point in time), it just shows you they have the power over what you can do with this music. They can probably force upgrades by breaking compatability.
This whole iTMS rests on Apple's reputation of being Good People (tm) (which they usually are) but they are a for-profit company, and money always wins in the long run not being nice. Some pressure from the RIAA and maybe this deal takes a turn for the worse?
Not commenting on the paper itself, but it has been submitted to PRL, not accepted. It hasn't gone through that wonderful process of peer-review that is the very heart of the scientific method (that and falsifiability but thats another topic). NASA has been setting a particularily bad example here with science by "press release". PRL is not an easy journal to publish in, lets wait until other experts have a look and not cheat the scientific method like this. PRL should not be mentioned in connection with this paper until this get published - Anyone can submit a paper to PRL...
Two things... first, pollution free must be an outright lie, they are using a carbon based fuel therefore it must generate carbon based waste. I have no idea how they can make claims like this...
Secondly, fuel cells are nothing more than batteries. None of the proposed "fuels" are available in ample enough quantities in nature to make them attractive as fuels. The likely scenario is a standard power plant generates electricity/energy which is then used to make H2, methanol, ethanol, etc, etc. Its pollution free in the sense the pollution is removed from the mind of the consumer and shifted to larger facilities that do the polluting for you. This might have some pros (easier pollution control at large scale for example), but its important to see the entire supply chain for power. Unfortunately, it seems if most people can't see it directly they think they are doing the earth a huge favor... its this type of NIBY environmentalism that is very dangerous. The real environmental breakthru must come on the large scale power supply side, not the consumer device side... Li ion batteries are as non-polluting as fuel cells in this respect and in fact even less so than this device since they won't produce CO2/CO.
Chicago rates have dropped 16 percent in the last three years. So all this information can and does prevent crime and save lives
Really? What city with similar demographics to Chicago that didn't implement this technology served as the control for this comparison? Sounds like "Eating ice cream causes drowning". It just happens more people eat ice cream during summer, which also happens to be when most people swim. Be very careful of drawing correlations like this!
Another problem with this is a fundemental issue of economics... for sure spending money on this system may reduce crime, but is there a more effective use of this money? For example, after school programs, education, free drug rehab, etc. Giving more money to law enforcement treats the symptoms not the caues!
These fish will not make it in the wild. Natural selection picks the best combination of genes for you, anything you do on top of this almost always will reduce the fitness of the individual (at least in their originial environment, which is also usually the optimal environment for them). Since unmodified Zebrafish have not been a problem in our waters (despite being in the hobby for decades) its very, very unlikely a brightly colored aquarium strain would.
Not that I agree with GM for fun and pleasure, but thats another issue... I don't like to force my tastes and opinions on others if it doesn't step on my toes - people keeping these fish have little impact on me or the environment I enjoy.
Well, the RIAA knows it's hopeless to go after individuals, so I'm sure this policy had something to do with a few phone calls to those in charge of computing services at heavily wired schools. If you are the RIAA, why not threaten to sue the ISPs/colleges? Much more cost effective than going after users. It has worked/is working elsewhere:
Tobacco companies are wrong for manufacturing cigarettes, McDonald's is responsible for making people fat, gun companies will very soon be responsible for the manner in which their product is used, it's only logical (in that wacky American way!) that ISPs and colleges will be responsible for user actions... The implication here is that people are too stupid to know any better I guess.
Wow, pretty soon I'll be able to market my WiFi toaster. It uses 802.11g to transmit realtime images of the toast, so no more guessing about how dark it is or waiting over the toaster... get a perfect toast while reading slashdot... it could save you 1-2 minutes a day!
I don't think it will... at least on a lower level, precedent has been set (the Verizon case) and usually most judges will defer to this. Verizon did want to hand over names and IPs, and I can assure you they have much more legal firepower than a college...
Instead of waiting for a case to make it to the supreme court, why not join an organization like the EFF and start writing letters to your senators now?
Slashdot Mirror
Just like building physical roads, can't some sort of emminent domain type of argument be made for electronic infostructure?
It seems to me that just about everything Nasa has released so far has been through JPL press conferences (as opposed to writeups in academic journals). None of this information has been through any sort of peer review process yet -- isn't this the cornerstone of good science? I'm sure the raw data isn't yet available to folks outside of Nasa so it's impossible to even get an independent evaluation. I know they need to keep the public excited to justify the overall expenditure, but I'm very suspicious of broad generalizations like this made in days (as opposed to years) time after data collection...
This whole iTMS rests on Apple's reputation of being Good People (tm) (which they usually are) but they are a for-profit company, and money always wins in the long run not being nice. Some pressure from the RIAA and maybe this deal takes a turn for the worse?
Not commenting on the paper itself, but it has been submitted to PRL, not accepted. It hasn't gone through that wonderful process of peer-review that is the very heart of the scientific method (that and falsifiability but thats another topic). NASA has been setting a particularily bad example here with science by "press release". PRL is not an easy journal to publish in, lets wait until other experts have a look and not cheat the scientific method like this. PRL should not be mentioned in connection with this paper until this get published - Anyone can submit a paper to PRL...
Secondly, fuel cells are nothing more than batteries. None of the proposed "fuels" are available in ample enough quantities in nature to make them attractive as fuels. The likely scenario is a standard power plant generates electricity/energy which is then used to make H2, methanol, ethanol, etc, etc. Its pollution free in the sense the pollution is removed from the mind of the consumer and shifted to larger facilities that do the polluting for you. This might have some pros (easier pollution control at large scale for example), but its important to see the entire supply chain for power. Unfortunately, it seems if most people can't see it directly they think they are doing the earth a huge favor... its this type of NIBY environmentalism that is very dangerous. The real environmental breakthru must come on the large scale power supply side, not the consumer device side... Li ion batteries are as non-polluting as fuel cells in this respect and in fact even less so than this device since they won't produce CO2/CO.
Jeff
Really? What city with similar demographics to Chicago that didn't implement this technology served as the control for this comparison? Sounds like "Eating ice cream causes drowning". It just happens more people eat ice cream during summer, which also happens to be when most people swim. Be very careful of drawing correlations like this!
Another problem with this is a fundemental issue of economics... for sure spending money on this system may reduce crime, but is there a more effective use of this money? For example, after school programs, education, free drug rehab, etc. Giving more money to law enforcement treats the symptoms not the caues!
These fish will not make it in the wild. Natural selection picks the best combination of genes for you, anything you do on top of this almost always will reduce the fitness of the individual (at least in their originial environment, which is also usually the optimal environment for them). Since unmodified Zebrafish have not been a problem in our waters (despite being in the hobby for decades) its very, very unlikely a brightly colored aquarium strain would. Not that I agree with GM for fun and pleasure, but thats another issue... I don't like to force my tastes and opinions on others if it doesn't step on my toes - people keeping these fish have little impact on me or the environment I enjoy.
Well, the RIAA knows it's hopeless to go after individuals, so I'm sure this policy had something to do with a few phone calls to those in charge of computing services at heavily wired schools. If you are the RIAA, why not threaten to sue the ISPs/colleges? Much more cost effective than going after users. It has worked/is working elsewhere: Tobacco companies are wrong for manufacturing cigarettes, McDonald's is responsible for making people fat, gun companies will very soon be responsible for the manner in which their product is used, it's only logical (in that wacky American way!) that ISPs and colleges will be responsible for user actions... The implication here is that people are too stupid to know any better I guess.
J
Instead of waiting for a case to make it to the supreme court, why not join an organization like the EFF and start writing letters to your senators now?
J