Nice:) And don't forget to have all the women sniff a lot (whatever the heck that really means), treat all the men as "woolheads", and make sure they don't do anything that might actually help the Dragon Reborn save the world.:)
I, indeed, was going to make several sarcastic comments about this unfortunate statement. However, I'll let that lie (merely reflecting on the importance of science education...in Australia we're required to study English literature until we're 17 - but maths and science only until we're 14. Makes you wonder...
Anyway, my real comment is that AFAIK there's going to be very little (energetic) advantage in using a fuel cell train over an electric train. On the one hand, if you need to use power lines to get the electricity to the train, you (potentially) have a lot of losses there. But on the other hand, separating, storing and transporting the fuel cells will require energy too, and I find it hard to believe there's a significant advantage.
Possibly longer term, if you don't have to build the power line infrastructure for the trains, you might save money/time/energy, but it really seems like fuel cell buses would be a better bet. But then, why not go for electric buses anyway? According to one of the researchers I work with, batteries don't actually have that bad an efficiency compared to hydrogen cells, and they're certainly cheaper at the moment, although I think size and weight are the main factors.
I'd be a little more convinced by Brittanica's argument if they'd submitted it as a letter to the editor or some other peer reviewed article, either to Nature or somewhere else. Why should we believe their claims carry more weight than those written in Nature? Admittedly, they do make some good points, if they're true, but how do I know? And their demands for a retraction are rather bold - research is as research does, and if someone can correct it - then publish or perish.
On a minor note, they make a big deal of the fact that Wiki has "a third more errors", and how this is very significant. But I'm not convinced that this is particularly statistically significant in the scheme of things - both have very small numbers of errors, and indeed, Brittanica has at least some errors (they can't argue with that) and so both are important points, worth mentioning by the article.
Yeah, excellent point re the bulk buying. I certainly download a lot more stuff at 5-10cents/song than I would at $30+ per album. If I don't like it, well, who cares? Just give it 1 star in iTunes and let it sit in case I need it later, or even just delete it.
A similar example is my local video store which now offers all videos, including new releases, for $3 (ain't competition grand?) That makes it more convenient for me to just go and rent the video than to find it and download it, or even copy it off a friend (since CDs are of order $1 anyway...)
But you're right, piracy won't completely die - kids, in particular, have way more time than money. But that'll be a relatively small market, I expect, particularly as our tech-savvy generation makes up more and more of hte population.
As best I understand it, they pay the Russian music body a licensing fee, and as far as Russian law goes, they've satisfied all the requirements necessary to distribute music. The grey area is whether they have the right to sell it to us folk over the seas. If it were CDs, then there's no law against importing a CD, but the internet is a different kettle of fish - it's quite unclear what their legal obligations are. They're probably not in the spirit of the law, but seem to be within the letter. The RIAA tried to get them shut down, but failed; it remains to be seen what course of action they take.
As for the paying/not paying thing, artists (of major lables) get virtually zip from CD sales; I figure at least this way, the albums I buy are making it to the Top 10 on this site, which then encourages more people to buy them, etc, which ultimately results in more listeners and hopefully bigger sales at concerts, where they make their real money. Of course, this doesn't work out so well for the Labels (and hence the sustainability of the current industry model) but that's all for the better we might start to see some shake up.
Anyway, I rarely buy new music - it's mainly jazz I'm after, and the occasional soundtrack.
These days, I don't (er, and never have) download music from filesharing networks - sites like AllOfMP3.com, where I can download music for 6-10 cents a song means that it is far easier for me to get on there, find the album I want, choose the exact encoding I want and get the album fast and conveniently. Plus, I know for certain that it's a good quality encoding, that it's actually the right file, and that I can get all of the album. (Provided, of course, that the album's actually on there!)
Ultimately, the death of pirating shareware is going to be governed by the pricepoint more than anything else. Sure, free is always cheaper, but if you can get the music at the right price (and I certainly think allofmp3.com has got it!) then that's going to be a major player.
(And yes, I know there are questions about the legality of the service. But so far it's stood up the legal challenges presented, and it's got to be "more" legal than filesharing, right?:) Not that that matters twojots to the RIAA I guess:)
I wonder if their offer to "remove" the software, replace the CDs, stop selling them, etc, would count for them or against them? On the one hand, they're taking "positive" steps to resolve the problem, but on the other hand it's kind of an admission that they're in the wrong (or at least, everyone thinks they are and so they're doing something about it!)
One can only hope that the analysts are right, and that this has set CD copy protection back 10 years:)
A summary plus a discussion of some thoughts on the ethical issues involved in both intellectual property and discrimination are on the University of Queensland's physics blog.
Unfortunately, the rush of/.'ers surging to watch the surgery online/.'ed their servers, and patients dialing in for surgery have receieved 405 errors (Doctor not found).
In other news, one town has offered $50 surgerical procedures from 4 year old doctors, and the resulting stampede has created an infinite loop of supply and demand.
I just tried the flash test out (before it gets slashdotted...) and I think I saw the image every time. It was kind of confusing, however, because I couldn't really register the images that came along. So I'm not certain if I did see it in tests B or C - something looked out of the ordinary, but I couldn't say what.
That said, the injured hand really did stand out. But is that because it was a gross pic, or because it was a different and more vivid colour to the others? Not certain, but interesting test nonetheless. Quite a clever way of testing this.
I know search engine preferences are fickle, but Google's got such a brand name now (not to mention it's own verb. Not that they actually want that, legally speaking...) that I think there is a bit of lock in. The biggest risk is probabaly browsers or operating systems (think Microsoft) that have like MSN as the homepage (bloated rubbish!)
Also, with Google continuing to push into just about every market, customer loyalty will just keep increasing. I think that's something that Microsoft undervalues - people will continue to shop in the same store or search from the same people if the service is good and they really like the shop, even if they can get the same thing elsewhere, even marginally cheaper.
Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, but neither (apparently) do the claims of these companies - so why should I worry about it either?
In other news, thousands of Brits have been trying to hack the game so that Margaret Thatcher, and indeed any other of her party, land on the "Go Directly to Jail" square.
Democrats flew President Bush over (on the pretense of buying him a pet sheep) for a similar trick, but Bush simply changed the constitution so that while he didn't have to go to jail, he did get to collect $200, and without having to pass Go, either. He then rewrote to board to read "Go directly to Guatanamo Bay. And stay there."
One has to think that with the current prices of petrol, cab maintenance, sallaries, parking fees and so forth, it'd be quite a bit of work to just break even, particularly when you only get $200 for going around the whole board just once.
Perhaps this could become a new True Cost kind of standard!
I wonder - if Microsoft were to post hacking requests/challenges/whatever of security measures like this before they were released commercially, and actually invite people to hack it, would hackers respond?
I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.
It just seems that these things are always cracked relatively quickly - couldn't microsoft somehow incorporate this into their pre-release coding cycle? I guess, though, they don't want to release their programs before they, er, release them.
For many people, all we do is put down what we earned, tick a few "Yes, I'm a human"-style boxes, and sign our name at the end. It would really make sense if the forms came already completed, and just had to check it for accuracy and so on.
The biggest time consumer (for me, anyway) is actually reading everything and deciding what I need to fill in or not - and then how to actually do that...
(I'm in Australia, but all tax forms are in the same universality class [condensed matter theorist humour]).
Actually, I think the answer is that you buy Google's AdWords advertising - then your commercial site comes up as a link when they search for garden tools in your region - and you get the exposure you want. Relying on your rank in a search engine for advertising isn't the solution. Just look at how many people complain every time Google changes its algorithms! If it's that important to you, just buy the advertising!
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, never mind...
Nice :) And don't forget to have all the women sniff a lot (whatever the heck that really means), treat all the men as "woolheads", and make sure they don't do anything that might actually help the Dragon Reborn save the world. :)
Anyway, my real comment is that AFAIK there's going to be very little (energetic) advantage in using a fuel cell train over an electric train. On the one hand, if you need to use power lines to get the electricity to the train, you (potentially) have a lot of losses there. But on the other hand, separating, storing and transporting the fuel cells will require energy too, and I find it hard to believe there's a significant advantage.
Possibly longer term, if you don't have to build the power line infrastructure for the trains, you might save money/time/energy, but it really seems like fuel cell buses would be a better bet. But then, why not go for electric buses anyway? According to one of the researchers I work with, batteries don't actually have that bad an efficiency compared to hydrogen cells, and they're certainly cheaper at the moment, although I think size and weight are the main factors.
Site's running a little slowly so here's the NYUD link, just in case ;)
On a minor note, they make a big deal of the fact that Wiki has "a third more errors", and how this is very significant. But I'm not convinced that this is particularly statistically significant in the scheme of things - both have very small numbers of errors, and indeed, Brittanica has at least some errors (they can't argue with that) and so both are important points, worth mentioning by the article.
J.
Good call!!!
A similar example is my local video store which now offers all videos, including new releases, for $3 (ain't competition grand?) That makes it more convenient for me to just go and rent the video than to find it and download it, or even copy it off a friend (since CDs are of order $1 anyway...)
But you're right, piracy won't completely die - kids, in particular, have way more time than money. But that'll be a relatively small market, I expect, particularly as our tech-savvy generation makes up more and more of hte population.
As for the paying/not paying thing, artists (of major lables) get virtually zip from CD sales; I figure at least this way, the albums I buy are making it to the Top 10 on this site, which then encourages more people to buy them, etc, which ultimately results in more listeners and hopefully bigger sales at concerts, where they make their real money. Of course, this doesn't work out so well for the Labels (and hence the sustainability of the current industry model) but that's all for the better we might start to see some shake up.
Anyway, I rarely buy new music - it's mainly jazz I'm after, and the occasional soundtrack.
Ultimately, the death of pirating shareware is going to be governed by the pricepoint more than anything else. Sure, free is always cheaper, but if you can get the music at the right price (and I certainly think allofmp3.com has got it!) then that's going to be a major player.
(And yes, I know there are questions about the legality of the service. But so far it's stood up the legal challenges presented, and it's got to be "more" legal than filesharing, right? :) Not that that matters twojots to the RIAA I guess :)
One can only hope that the analysts are right, and that this has set CD copy protection back 10 years :)
Nice googling, but I'm a different Joel :)
Though your reasoning still applies!
J.
NB. I said beer was "knock-me-out" not "knock-me-up", so don't go getting any ideas. Not that the two are mutually incompatible, I guess...
A summary plus a discussion of some thoughts on the ethical issues involved in both intellectual property and discrimination are on the University of Queensland's physics blog.
I've seen that show, and it's just not as good as the original...
Guess I read too much LotR...
In other news, one town has offered $50 surgerical procedures from 4 year old doctors, and the resulting stampede has created an infinite loop of supply and demand.
I just tried the flash test out (before it gets slashdotted...) and I think I saw the image every time. It was kind of confusing, however, because I couldn't really register the images that came along. So I'm not certain if I did see it in tests B or C - something looked out of the ordinary, but I couldn't say what. That said, the injured hand really did stand out. But is that because it was a gross pic, or because it was a different and more vivid colour to the others? Not certain, but interesting test nonetheless. Quite a clever way of testing this.
Also, with Google continuing to push into just about every market, customer loyalty will just keep increasing. I think that's something that Microsoft undervalues - people will continue to shop in the same store or search from the same people if the service is good and they really like the shop, even if they can get the same thing elsewhere, even marginally cheaper.
Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, but neither (apparently) do the claims of these companies - so why should I worry about it either?
Physicist 1 to physists 2: One in three scientists believe their peers fabrictate research.
Physicist 3, to herself: He's making that up...
Democrats flew President Bush over (on the pretense of buying him a pet sheep) for a similar trick, but Bush simply changed the constitution so that while he didn't have to go to jail, he did get to collect $200, and without having to pass Go, either. He then rewrote to board to read "Go directly to Guatanamo Bay. And stay there."
Perhaps this could become a new True Cost kind of standard!
I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.
It just seems that these things are always cracked relatively quickly - couldn't microsoft somehow incorporate this into their pre-release coding cycle? I guess, though, they don't want to release their programs before they, er, release them.
The biggest time consumer (for me, anyway) is actually reading everything and deciding what I need to fill in or not - and then how to actually do that...
(I'm in Australia, but all tax forms are in the same universality class [condensed matter theorist humour]).
Actually, I think the answer is that you buy Google's AdWords advertising - then your commercial site comes up as a link when they search for garden tools in your region - and you get the exposure you want. Relying on your rank in a search engine for advertising isn't the solution. Just look at how many people complain every time Google changes its algorithms! If it's that important to you, just buy the advertising!