And most of the operators won't shoulder any of the blame. They'll just point the finger at laws or at the content providers. And then what is a customer to do? The only thing you really *can* do is write your elected officials, and provide feedback to the FCC. Or, not buy any flag compliant devices, which might ultimately prove to be a very hard thing to do.
The more I think about all of this, the more I think it may all come back to really bite content providers. I believe many people will be less likely to tune in to a broadcast if they know they won't be able to move it to their portable player or burn a DVD... and if I can't record it at all ( i.e. even on a compliant DVR ), there's just no way I'm watching it. If it's not on my TiVo, I already don't have time for it.
This ( not tuning into no-record content ) is likely to cause such DRM/broadcast-flagged content to decrease in market value... I could be wrong, but, maybe not; it wouldn't be the first consumer revolt. There's always Netflix and video games to occupy my ( limited ) free time if I can't time-shift my TV shows anymore.
Then again, I don't have much need or desire to move my DVR viewing beyond a single monitor, and perhaps that's what the content providers are banking on. As long as they don't get too greedy, they might win... which probably means they'll lose, in the long run...
Run the numbers. You will find that buying an Xserve will cost you much less than trying to make your jury-rigged solution work.
I recently installed an XServe. If I ever got mod points, I'd give them to the above post. Not only is the OS superb, the hardware is _very_ impressive. It even has blinkenlights! Tell *that* to the guys who only want x86 hardware... I only wish I'd found an image of one running, those lights really are slick-looking;-).
But really, if you're looking for a good LDAP implementation that's relatively easy to admin, OS X is it. Even it could use better documentation, though...
My brother in law is a film professor. A post-modernist film professor. A post-modernist, European film professor. Well, OK he's German, but he's from west of the Rhine -- so far west he really ought to wear a beret.
Needless to say, he loathes Star Wars. No, no, he despises it.
I can't to give him the news.
That is really, really, really funny.
Any chance you'll be able to get his reaction on video? It should be priceless.
Now that I think of it, I'm anxious for it to actually be screened in front of a Cannes audience... so they can instantly leak details, and trash-talk it in the press well before the actual release here in the states. That ought to be very entertaining.
If the rich and powerful aren't incompetent, why isn't this place paradise?
For the rich and powerful, it is paradise.
What, you want them to make it paradise for everyone? Hah! Then were would the cheap labor come from?
our leaders have simply elected to serve themselves
The 'leaders' and the other rich and powerful who are their actual constituents, not us silly middle-class and working-class underlings... and yes, it's amazing how easily and cheaply people are bought off and otherwise misled.
So now show me the proof that carbon dioxide is a (I won't even stoop to claiming it's "the") direct cause of our current global warming. Without a computer model.
How about, instead, you explain how it's not a leading contributor ? No ? What else could it be ? And no, I don't feel like we should be able to completely explain every the cause of every ice age or warming spike in the geologic record to know we have a current problem and clear ideas of what the causes are.
I didn't get a good answer out of the other doubter, so I'll try again with you: what would it take for _you_ to belive global warming is real, and caused by burning things?
But really, if we both agree we should limit CO2, why are we arguing? What's the plan for limiting CO2, or do you think Kyoto is a decent start ?
So I would ask "What harm does it do you if I'm not convinced?"
Without having everyone convinced that there's a real, tangible problem here, it's going to be impossible to get everyone to agree that something has to be done. Why? Because the steps we'd need to take involve some serious expense which will be incurred on the part of people really, really opposed to spending money, especially ( just on principle ) being told they have to do so.
I'm talking about having to put scrubbers on smokestakes. I'm talking about seriously looking into replacing reliance on fossil fuel. I'm talking about having to re-tool a vast amount of our current industrial machinery. I'm talking about finding ways to eliminate unneccessary burning of plant matter, from forests in Brazil to agricultural burns in the US. The things we have to do to slow global warming are huge, and it'll be hard enough to do them if we all agree there's a real, serious problem. As long folks like you are sitting around going "well, I don't know if it's real until it's a whole lot warmer. Oh, wait, it's warmer? Well, I don't know if it's carbon emissions that are doing it...", as long as that's going on, it's easy for our 'leaders' to sit around and do nothing, which is exactly what will cause your grandchildren some serious, life-threatening problems.
And no, I'm not talking about major changes in your personal lifestyle. I'm talking about changes in corporate practices, along with major investment in research and infrastructure which will allow you and I to basically go about our lives with little change, since we're not driving SUVs hundreds of miles every week. People who _do_drive SUVs hundreds of miles a week ( lots of 'em here in the California bay area ), they might have to adjust a bit, though...
Most of the data I have seen is not conclusive in my mind.
I have to say it's interesting that you say "most" of the data isn't conclusive. What about the data that is conclusive ? I'm sorry, it really does sound like you're saying you can't be convinced. Isn't the kind of 'solid' evidence you're waiting for only possible _after_ devastating climate change has already come to pass ?
How are the vast majority of scientists politically motivated to make findings against the interest of big business ? I'm afraid I don't understand that line of reasoning.
It's very simple, and nobody should be shocked by the double standard.
I will treat _any_ company that is not a monopoly differently than a monopoly.
When the monopolist does it, it's abuse, because it might be difficult to find alternatives, or to remove it. Anyone else? If I don't like their product/service, it's easy to dump it. But when so many lame-ass websites write IE-specific content because it's the main browser in use, and it's the main browser because it comes with the 'standard' operating system, and it's the 'standard' operating system because of anti-competitive licensing strategies ( among other unfriendly business strategies ), it's somehow reasonable that I don't want Microsoft to foist their content on me when I didn't ask for it.
Having said that, I don't use Google's toolbar, either, and somehow I don't think I would. I'm pretty sure I have bookmarks and tools that do all of the things it does. That or I just don't understand what makes it 'cool'...
Unfortunately, it's been an utter pain in the arse for almost every other adaptation, and as a result DNA regretted it ever since.
It didn't seem to be much of a problem in the book I read;-)... although I did later hear tapes of the radio show, you have to realize that a lot of us here in the states caught all of Douglas Adams' stuff in text first. As such, the importance of the two heads in inner-dialog-humor terms weighs probably heavier for us than it should, or would, if we thought of the radio show when we think "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". There, I'll admit, the whole two-heads thing really was almost an aside.
The reason Bush didn't go forward with it, is because Congress was never going to vote on it, because miracle of all miracle's they actually read it and decided it was bad for the US!
Of course, in the short term, not creating as much pollution as we're used to is bad for the US. That doesn't mean it's not good for us in the long term.
I'm not saying the Kyoto treaty doesn't have it's problems. But you ask the most important question:
The real question is what, if anything, is the US going to do about carbon emmissions on their own?
Without Kyoto? Not a bloody damn thing. In this case, a poor solution is likely to be much preferable to no solution. I'd be very, very, very willing to give Kyoto-bashers like yourself a break if they were willing to come up with some soltion to cut emissions. Until folks bashing Kyoto come up with alternative plans, it's hard to do anything but assume they're anti-environment.
...I get testy because the future of our existence is at stake...
The only reason the temps are not higher is there's a lot of particulate matter in the air...
I know I'm testy about this. If you think about it, you'll realize I'm testy for a reason. There's an enormous amount of evidence. If you can't see it, I would like to suggest it's because you're trying not to see it.
Also, I get testy because the future of existence is at stake. It seems like a big deal.
What sort of evidence are you waiting for ? What would it take? Can you answer that question?
I am _not_ saying you're stupid. I'm saying I don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself would deny the evidence. The temperature is rising. The CO2 levels have climbed like crazy. The only reason the temps are higher is there's a lot of particulate matter in the air ( 'global dimming' ) that wasn't there in the past. Not a one of those previous statements is really a matter of serious debate- they're all facts backed by data. What is it that would make you understand that human-caused global warming is real ? What makes you think it is not ?
Seriously, even G.W. has had to admit that global warming is a real thing. What is stopping you? Why the denial? What good does it do you ?
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
Yea, I know, I was making a joke... but also a point. The ability of someone to believe something when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, just because their belief system might have to be questioned as a result is pretty high.
Also, although your point is interesting... the percentage of 'educated' folks in 400 AD? Not high. Plenty of people for plenty of years either just didn't think about such things, didn't know, or thought ( naturally enough ) that things were the way they appeared... simply...
More interesting ( and intense ) than the debate about the shape of the earth was the debate about it's relationship to the Sun and other celestial bodies, of course...
The parts which were obviously manipulated (see before and after) are:
As much as I actually did think the site was a fake ( wishful thinking ) after being told it was, I have to agree with fm6 that you've made a very weak argument here. Timothy Allmon's eyes? If that's an image manipulation, it's a bang-up job. I mean, they got the eyebrows looking very, very natural, even. It really looks like just a different head shot.
Most intriguing to me are the links http://www.biblecodedigest.com/ and banner adds on that site...
Anyway, I'd be happy to see other evidence that this is a fake site, it's just that religious nutballs are nutty enough, it's hard to tell if they're serious or not.
So, you realize you just admitted to replying to the parent's post without even bothering to follow his link, right?
I would not put data collected from ice cores on par with data recorded from weather stations in recent years.
You don't really need to, do you ? Would anything convince you that the world is not flat^H^H^H^H^H er, I mean that global warming is real, and caused by people burning things??
Dude, being anti-Kyoto treaty doesn't necessarily make one anti-environment
So instead of the Kyoto Treaty, you want to do what ?
Wanting to do nothing about carbon emissions makes you anti-environment, no matter how hard you try to make yourself feel better about it.
Blame the media all you want, but until you come up with something to reduce carbon emissions, Kyoto is at least a start. It's not the media, it's anyone who's bothered to actually _think_ about the problem who is making you out to be anti-environment.
No, really, I want to hear what the better approach is. What's the action you, G.W. and other Republican-supporting industrialists are taking that will keep our grandchildren from having to deal with drastic global climate change ? Nothing? That's what it looks like you're doing...
You really think so?? I guess it's a matter of personal opinion, but... it seems like rather a big deal to me.
I seem to remember the fact that Zaphod had two heads being _very_ prominently noticable in Arthur's introduction to him ( Arthur couldn't focus on what he was saying, didn't know which head to look at, etc ). The shot I saw in the trailer, it looked like there was maybe a big head that flopped back to reveal an inner small one or something? Not anything like the book, anyway. You'd think with that nice special effects budget they could have done some good CGI or something, rather than rewriting the story.
at least its not the crappy paper machet head that flopped around rediculously in the BBC series.
What, you expect BBC shows to *not* be cheap?!? That's taxpayer money at work there! It was Dr. Who production values, just what you should expect! Besides, at least it was toung-in-cheek funny, like the books... most importantly, keeping to the story and not re-writing completely just because it's 'hard' to do a good job of having a two-headed Zaphod. I was going to go watch it up until I noticed the missing head...
Oh, it's DISNEY, that explains why Zaphod is missing a head, the trailer doesn't even look remotely funny, and the whole thing in so many other ways seems to completely disrespect and miss the point of the original work.
Too bad. I might get it on Netflix 4 years from now... but probably not. Why oh why couldn't such a project have been handed to Pixar- or anyone but Disney for that matter...
The TV station can send their signals over the air
Wow, you can get TV from over the air!! Wireless TV, what will they think of next!!
Oh, wait, you don't mean satellite, do you?
Seriously, though, I know damn few people who get their TV off traditional broadcast these days... life without South Park or the Surreal Life would be pretty brutal...
nobody wants their Desperate Housewives to be laggy.
That's where having a large local storage capacity and TiVo-like playback/order-ahead capability come in handy. Seriously, video over an on-demand IP-like network is likely to happen at some point, just because it's what the consumer wants, no matter how hard the content providers and their advertisers wish that to not be the case... as soon as someone offers the service in a legal, easy-to-use form, with lots of content, that somebody will be making lots of customers happy. They'll also be making lots of money, if they can figure out the right way to do it.
No QWERTY? Won't that limit all that instant messaging and e-mailing you could do with it
Yes, that will limit IM and emailing. In TFA, it says "the E1060 model which is aimed at music afficianados and which will feature iTunes Music Player"... meaning the market they're targeting with that phone isn't likely to be typing out text messages, instead they'll be cheerfully listening to MP3 tunes ( AAC FairPlay DRM'd or otherwise ).
You and your text messaging friends will want the upcoming A1000 or something, with TFA also talks about...
As much as they'd like to be able to eventually sell this service, I'm not sure most cell phone companies want you to stay on the phone _quite_ so constantly. Their networks depend on the fact that not everyone is using their phones at once. A single cell tower can support only so many callers. Ever try to make a call in an area where you know you can get service and not be able to connect? Until that problem goes away, you won't see the streaming service... not from the carriers, anyway.
They are working on it, of course... eventually, as long as folks lobbying against cell tower density don't get their way...
Slashdot Mirror
The more I think about all of this, the more I think it may all come back to really bite content providers. I believe many people will be less likely to tune in to a broadcast if they know they won't be able to move it to their portable player or burn a DVD... and if I can't record it at all ( i.e. even on a compliant DVR ), there's just no way I'm watching it. If it's not on my TiVo, I already don't have time for it.
This ( not tuning into no-record content ) is likely to cause such DRM/broadcast-flagged content to decrease in market value... I could be wrong, but, maybe not; it wouldn't be the first consumer revolt. There's always Netflix and video games to occupy my ( limited ) free time if I can't time-shift my TV shows anymore.
Then again, I don't have much need or desire to move my DVR viewing beyond a single monitor, and perhaps that's what the content providers are banking on. As long as they don't get too greedy, they might win... which probably means they'll lose, in the long run...
I recently installed an XServe. If I ever got mod points, I'd give them to the above post. Not only is the OS superb, the hardware is _very_ impressive. It even has blinkenlights! Tell *that* to the guys who only want x86 hardware... I only wish I'd found an image of one running, those lights really are slick-looking ;-).
But really, if you're looking for a good LDAP implementation that's relatively easy to admin, OS X is it. Even it could use better documentation, though...
That is really, really, really funny.
Any chance you'll be able to get his reaction on video? It should be priceless.
Now that I think of it, I'm anxious for it to actually be screened in front of a Cannes audience... so they can instantly leak details, and trash-talk it in the press well before the actual release here in the states. That ought to be very entertaining.
For the rich and powerful, it is paradise.
What, you want them to make it paradise for everyone? Hah! Then were would the cheap labor come from?
our leaders have simply elected to serve themselves
The 'leaders' and the other rich and powerful who are their actual constituents, not us silly middle-class and working-class underlings... and yes, it's amazing how easily and cheaply people are bought off and otherwise misled.
How about, instead, you explain how it's not a leading contributor ? No ? What else could it be ? And no, I don't feel like we should be able to completely explain every the cause of every ice age or warming spike in the geologic record to know we have a current problem and clear ideas of what the causes are.
I didn't get a good answer out of the other doubter, so I'll try again with you: what would it take for _you_ to belive global warming is real, and caused by burning things?
But really, if we both agree we should limit CO2, why are we arguing? What's the plan for limiting CO2, or do you think Kyoto is a decent start ?
I'd like to direct your attention to the graph of carbon dioxide. Graph showing a 450,000 year record of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the earth's atmosphere. Not a computer model. We have a lot more than computer models to go on here. Characterizing the evidence as such just shows your extreme bias, or your extreme lack of information.
Without having everyone convinced that there's a real, tangible problem here, it's going to be impossible to get everyone to agree that something has to be done. Why? Because the steps we'd need to take involve some serious expense which will be incurred on the part of people really, really opposed to spending money, especially ( just on principle ) being told they have to do so.
I'm talking about having to put scrubbers on smokestakes. I'm talking about seriously looking into replacing reliance on fossil fuel. I'm talking about having to re-tool a vast amount of our current industrial machinery. I'm talking about finding ways to eliminate unneccessary burning of plant matter, from forests in Brazil to agricultural burns in the US. The things we have to do to slow global warming are huge, and it'll be hard enough to do them if we all agree there's a real, serious problem. As long folks like you are sitting around going "well, I don't know if it's real until it's a whole lot warmer. Oh, wait, it's warmer? Well, I don't know if it's carbon emissions that are doing it...", as long as that's going on, it's easy for our 'leaders' to sit around and do nothing, which is exactly what will cause your grandchildren some serious, life-threatening problems.
And no, I'm not talking about major changes in your personal lifestyle. I'm talking about changes in corporate practices, along with major investment in research and infrastructure which will allow you and I to basically go about our lives with little change, since we're not driving SUVs hundreds of miles every week. People who _do_drive SUVs hundreds of miles a week ( lots of 'em here in the California bay area ), they might have to adjust a bit, though...
Most of the data I have seen is not conclusive in my mind.
I have to say it's interesting that you say "most" of the data isn't conclusive. What about the data that is conclusive ? I'm sorry, it really does sound like you're saying you can't be convinced. Isn't the kind of 'solid' evidence you're waiting for only possible _after_ devastating climate change has already come to pass ?
How are the vast majority of scientists politically motivated to make findings against the interest of big business ? I'm afraid I don't understand that line of reasoning.
I will treat _any_ company that is not a monopoly differently than a monopoly.
When the monopolist does it, it's abuse, because it might be difficult to find alternatives, or to remove it. Anyone else? If I don't like their product/service, it's easy to dump it. But when so many lame-ass websites write IE-specific content because it's the main browser in use, and it's the main browser because it comes with the 'standard' operating system, and it's the 'standard' operating system because of anti-competitive licensing strategies ( among other unfriendly business strategies ), it's somehow reasonable that I don't want Microsoft to foist their content on me when I didn't ask for it.
Having said that, I don't use Google's toolbar, either, and somehow I don't think I would. I'm pretty sure I have bookmarks and tools that do all of the things it does. That or I just don't understand what makes it 'cool'...
It didn't seem to be much of a problem in the book I read ;-)... although I did later hear tapes of the radio show, you have to realize that a lot of us here in the states caught all of Douglas Adams' stuff in text first. As such, the importance of the two heads in inner-dialog-humor terms weighs probably heavier for us than it should, or would, if we thought of the radio show when we think "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". There, I'll admit, the whole two-heads thing really was almost an aside.
Of course, in the short term, not creating as much pollution as we're used to is bad for the US. That doesn't mean it's not good for us in the long term.
I'm not saying the Kyoto treaty doesn't have it's problems. But you ask the most important question :
The real question is what, if anything, is the US going to do about carbon emmissions on their own?
Without Kyoto? Not a bloody damn thing. In this case, a poor solution is likely to be much preferable to no solution. I'd be very, very, very willing to give Kyoto-bashers like yourself a break if they were willing to come up with some soltion to cut emissions. Until folks bashing Kyoto come up with alternative plans, it's hard to do anything but assume they're anti-environment.
I know I'm testy about this. If you think about it, you'll realize I'm testy for a reason. There's an enormous amount of evidence. If you can't see it, I would like to suggest it's because you're trying not to see it.
Also, I get testy because the future of existence is at stake. It seems like a big deal.
What sort of evidence are you waiting for ? What would it take? Can you answer that question?
I am _not_ saying you're stupid. I'm saying I don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself would deny the evidence. The temperature is rising. The CO2 levels have climbed like crazy. The only reason the temps are higher is there's a lot of particulate matter in the air ( 'global dimming' ) that wasn't there in the past. Not a one of those previous statements is really a matter of serious debate- they're all facts backed by data. What is it that would make you understand that human-caused global warming is real ? What makes you think it is not ?
Seriously, even G.W. has had to admit that global warming is a real thing. What is stopping you? Why the denial? What good does it do you ?
From Myth of the Flat Earth:
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
Yea, I know, I was making a joke... but also a point. The ability of someone to believe something when there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, just because their belief system might have to be questioned as a result is pretty high.
Also, although your point is interesting... the percentage of 'educated' folks in 400 AD? Not high. Plenty of people for plenty of years either just didn't think about such things, didn't know, or thought ( naturally enough ) that things were the way they appeared... simply...
More interesting ( and intense ) than the debate about the shape of the earth was the debate about it's relationship to the Sun and other celestial bodies, of course...
As much as I actually did think the site was a fake ( wishful thinking ) after being told it was, I have to agree with fm6 that you've made a very weak argument here. Timothy Allmon's eyes? If that's an image manipulation, it's a bang-up job. I mean, they got the eyebrows looking very, very natural, even. It really looks like just a different head shot.
Most intriguing to me are the links http://www.biblecodedigest.com/ and banner adds on that site...
Anyway, I'd be happy to see other evidence that this is a fake site, it's just that religious nutballs are nutty enough, it's hard to tell if they're serious or not.
Yes, and what is his big plan to help slow the process ?
Nothing ? Sadly, that seems typical of the administration.
So, you realize you just admitted to replying to the parent's post without even bothering to follow his link, right?
I would not put data collected from ice cores on par with data recorded from weather stations in recent years.
You don't really need to, do you ? Would anything convince you that the world is not flat^H^H^H^H^H er, I mean that global warming is real, and caused by people burning things??
So instead of the Kyoto Treaty, you want to do what ?
Wanting to do nothing about carbon emissions makes you anti-environment, no matter how hard you try to make yourself feel better about it.
Blame the media all you want, but until you come up with something to reduce carbon emissions, Kyoto is at least a start. It's not the media, it's anyone who's bothered to actually _think_ about the problem who is making you out to be anti-environment.
No, really, I want to hear what the better approach is. What's the action you, G.W. and other Republican-supporting industrialists are taking that will keep our grandchildren from having to deal with drastic global climate change ? Nothing? That's what it looks like you're doing...
I've been reading about this story for three days on different websites.
You really think so?? I guess it's a matter of personal opinion, but... it seems like rather a big deal to me.
I seem to remember the fact that Zaphod had two heads being _very_ prominently noticable in Arthur's introduction to him ( Arthur couldn't focus on what he was saying, didn't know which head to look at, etc ). The shot I saw in the trailer, it looked like there was maybe a big head that flopped back to reveal an inner small one or something? Not anything like the book, anyway. You'd think with that nice special effects budget they could have done some good CGI or something, rather than rewriting the story.
at least its not the crappy paper machet head that flopped around rediculously in the BBC series.
What, you expect BBC shows to *not* be cheap?!? That's taxpayer money at work there! It was Dr. Who production values, just what you should expect! Besides, at least it was toung-in-cheek funny, like the books... most importantly, keeping to the story and not re-writing completely just because it's 'hard' to do a good job of having a two-headed Zaphod. I was going to go watch it up until I noticed the missing head...
Too bad. I might get it on Netflix 4 years from now... but probably not. Why oh why couldn't such a project have been handed to Pixar- or anyone but Disney for that matter...
I thought we were supposed to like the command line around here.
Oh, wait. It looks like we are still stuck with DOS...
So, if M$ patents everything it can get its hands on, what innovations would it stop?
Well, considering (1) what the patent office is willing to allow and (2) what Microsoft can buy... a hell of a lot.
Just when I thought I'd never see another "usenet is dying!" story...
Wow, you can get TV from over the air!! Wireless TV, what will they think of next!!
Oh, wait, you don't mean satellite, do you?
Seriously, though, I know damn few people who get their TV off traditional broadcast these days... life without South Park or the Surreal Life would be pretty brutal...
nobody wants their Desperate Housewives to be laggy.
That's where having a large local storage capacity and TiVo-like playback/order-ahead capability come in handy. Seriously, video over an on-demand IP-like network is likely to happen at some point, just because it's what the consumer wants, no matter how hard the content providers and their advertisers wish that to not be the case... as soon as someone offers the service in a legal, easy-to-use form, with lots of content, that somebody will be making lots of customers happy. They'll also be making lots of money, if they can figure out the right way to do it.
Yes, that will limit IM and emailing. In TFA, it says "the E1060 model which is aimed at music afficianados and which will feature iTunes Music Player"... meaning the market they're targeting with that phone isn't likely to be typing out text messages, instead they'll be cheerfully listening to MP3 tunes ( AAC FairPlay DRM'd or otherwise ).
You and your text messaging friends will want the upcoming A1000 or something, with TFA also talks about...
As much as they'd like to be able to eventually sell this service, I'm not sure most cell phone companies want you to stay on the phone _quite_ so constantly. Their networks depend on the fact that not everyone is using their phones at once. A single cell tower can support only so many callers. Ever try to make a call in an area where you know you can get service and not be able to connect? Until that problem goes away, you won't see the streaming service... not from the carriers, anyway.
They are working on it, of course... eventually, as long as folks lobbying against cell tower density don't get their way...