OK! Go? You mean that obscure band that became surprisingly super-popular because of a stupid video that was virally spread throughout the video hosting sites?
Goddammit YouTube! You're destroying the livelyhoods of thousands of A&R men!
All computer-controlled transmission. There is no switching of gears in a Prius, the computer system apply torque and spin to two electric motor-generators attached to a planetary gear to handle speed and torque needs across the driving spectrum. Computer-controlled is geek.
In-dash touch screen to control almost everything, including a satellite navigation system. Geek.
Super-Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle (or Partial Zero Emission Vehicle after California created that category.) Geek.
Silent running at low speed/low acceleration driving. You can sneak up on people in the parking lot it's so quiet, like a ninja. Oh so geek.
The most obnoxious shift handle ever. Fugly body design. Super low wind resistance. Narrow and high body, uncomfortable seats but awesome field of vision. Geek, geek, geek.
I love my Prius. (145K miles and counting. Though I think I'm getting a Camry Hybrid soon.)
Again, the iPod/iTunes/Music Store interoperability is the key to not allowing the removal of DRM. There was an article posted on Slashdot not too long ago about how their technology works.
UnDRMing music in the iTunes chain overcomplicates the model. Choose your poison, elegant with fewer choices or more choices with complications. Apple is chosing elegance over complication.
You're argument is the same as complaining that the front door is locked when the windows, basement and backdoor are all wide open. There is nothing that prevents these supposed DRM-unwanting bands and labels from selling mp3s directly from their own web sites. Or making deals with other music stores and music player companies. They could even sell their CDs for less than 99 cents a song (with shipping). However, when they want to participate in the iTunes Music Store, the songs sold through there will be packaged with Apple's DRM scheme.
No, you're wrong. Broadcast radio station's pay to the copyright holders of the lyrics, ASCAP. They don't pay the copyright holders of the performances, record companies, et al.
Or they could be radical socialist luddites that crave an end to the corporations and evil industries, like pharmaceuticals, and a return to a "better" world of "sustainable" organic farming.
The scientists can then plan things for the rest of us, because they know better. So put down your computers and get working on that vegetable garden in your backyard. Or go work in a factory building the things they say we need.
I can't find a link for it, but I believe that the patent office has already changed it's policies of drug patents to prevent minor changes being repatented as brand new drugs. That still means that the original formula of the drug is no longer under patent.
That's a decent review at playlistmag, but it's slanted the other way. The article states that Microsoft should open the Zune to user modification. There is no way that Microsoft is going to sit aside and let users disable the WiFi DRM controls. Obviously that's one of the selling points of the Zune to the RIAA companies. The RIAA went after a MP3 player that allowed music to be captured off of digital FM, the RIAA will definitely go after Microsoft if Zunes can squirt out DRM-free songs.
However, the global warming debunkers and the global warming zealots are both arguing about man-made global warming. Many of the debunkers are firmly on the side that any global warming we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle, and CO2 emissions from human activity have very little to do with it.
Now for my bit of ranting. CO2 is the least dangerous of the greenhouse gasses. Carbon emissions trading schemes are horribly rigged to favor the most polluting countries. The US and Australia are probably doing more to stop CO2 emissions than Europe by simply giving the technology for cleaner burning of fossil fuels to China and India, the two fastest growing and soon to be most carbon emitting countries in the world.
Re:And unfortunately right about YouTube
on
Ballmer Sounds Off
·
· Score: 1
If any company could come up with a comprehensive way to filter out material on YouTube that is clearly a copyright violation, Google would be it.
Google is certainly buying eyeballs here. Google's income model is based on simple, non-invasive, content relevant advertising. YouTube is the fasting growing web service on the Internet, where the average viewer is staring at the page from minutes and minutes.
Here's the money quote from the article:
On the other hand, in 2001, the year that Napster closed, people with computers increased their CD buying by 19 percent while non-computer owners held steady.
2001 was also the year the Napster had peaked in it's usage. You can interpret this two ways, either Napster users suddenly went out and bought a lot of music once Napster was shut down, or Napster users were buying lots more music than non-users. I'd bet on the latter case.
Also, the "modern music is crap" argument isn't correct. It is more that modern music isn't worth buying if your only getting two good songs and 8 filler songs for $20. Some music publishers realize this, some don't.
Know A District is a great part of the show too.
I mean, how many people actually know their own Representative? How many people know all of the Reps in their own state (VT, ND, and RI residents don't count).
"Can't afford decent food," that's an outright lie. Basic food prices are very low. And someone earning minimum wage would certainly qualify for food, housing and other work-required government hand-outs in the US. Depending on what state they lived in, a minimum wage earning head-of-household would also qualify for medical coverage for themselves, or at least, their children.
Do you, instead, mean, "People can't afford THE TIME to prepare food"? That's a completely different problem, and that is definitely not the fault of fast-food providers.
People in the US have also stopped dying of smallpox and being deformed by polio.
Also, we've stopped smoking and you can't get benzedrine at the local 5 and dime no more.
And the price of flour and other basic food components has dropped compared to the weekly earnings of everyone in the US.
So basically, we are living longer, healthier lives while in the midst of cheap, calorie laden foods. As a result, we've gotten fat. It's the result of our genetic drive to survive the coming famine more, even though there is no famine coming.
What they should do is get rid of the Winner-takes-all laws in the 48 states that have it. This would give the incentive to candidates to listen to their supporters in states where support for the opponent support is strong. The opportunity to get half minus 2 of any larger states' electoral votes will bring candidates to states they normally would avoid.
Also, what the Stanford professor is suggesting is changing a number of states' laws to force Electoral College electors to cast their vote for the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner in just there state. I don't think this would last past the first unpopular popular vote. Imagine New Yorkers' surprise when all of their EC votes go to a Republican, even though 75 percent of them voted for a Democrat.
The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.
For example, Vermont has a cap on spending in local government races. Part of that cap includes a mileage reimbursement rate for driving your own car. Therefore, candidates in statewide or even countywide elections can blow their spending cap simply by driving from town to town to meet the voters.
Finally, money is not speech. Speech is speech. Money is money. By limiting how much money individuals can give to candidates you invite corruption instead of hindering it. In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free. If I want to spend 10 million dollars to put ad in the media nationwide about how Presidential Candidate X slept with my sister, or shot my dog, or redirected money from a trust fund into his own company, HookersAndBlow Inc., I should be able.
"Sharing Technology" means that they'll share the information on building cleaner power plants. Cleaner burning technology isn't a module you slap onto the side of a coal plant, it starts at the design phase.
As for not signing Kyoto, I don't see the actual Kyoto signees actually meeting their goals. Kyoto wound up being just a worthless piece of paper.
There is nothing wrong with the desire to stop the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But the approach in Kyoto is all wrong. It uses economic paralysis as an approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
I'd hate to use an ad hominem attack here, but from where I stand, the Kyoto supporters are the hypocrites. They clamour for cleaner energy production, but the residents of Martha's Vineyard and Vermont fight to stop the building of non-emitting windmills. Heaven help us if someone tries to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the US. Those two technologies emit much smaller amounts of greenhouse gases, but they are stopped by the NIMBY screamers. But the NIMBY screamers are also the supporters of Kyoto.
Slashdot Mirror
OK! Go? You mean that obscure band that became surprisingly super-popular because of a stupid video that was virally spread throughout the video hosting sites?
Goddammit YouTube! You're destroying the livelyhoods of thousands of A&R men!
The MONARCH chip is designed to fit into the new DR GIRLFRIEND deep and raspy socket.
Sketchy Presentation? At a Black Hat conference? Next you'll tell me the Anarchist Cookbook is full lies!
The Prius is all about the geek factor.
All computer-controlled transmission. There is no switching of gears in a Prius, the computer system apply torque and spin to two electric motor-generators attached to a planetary gear to handle speed and torque needs across the driving spectrum. Computer-controlled is geek.
In-dash touch screen to control almost everything, including a satellite navigation system. Geek.
Super-Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle (or Partial Zero Emission Vehicle after California created that category.) Geek.
Silent running at low speed/low acceleration driving. You can sneak up on people in the parking lot it's so quiet, like a ninja. Oh so geek.
The most obnoxious shift handle ever. Fugly body design. Super low wind resistance. Narrow and high body, uncomfortable seats but awesome field of vision. Geek, geek, geek.
I love my Prius. (145K miles and counting. Though I think I'm getting a Camry Hybrid soon.)
Again, the iPod/iTunes/Music Store interoperability is the key to not allowing the removal of DRM. There was an article posted on Slashdot not too long ago about how their technology works. UnDRMing music in the iTunes chain overcomplicates the model. Choose your poison, elegant with fewer choices or more choices with complications. Apple is chosing elegance over complication. You're argument is the same as complaining that the front door is locked when the windows, basement and backdoor are all wide open. There is nothing that prevents these supposed DRM-unwanting bands and labels from selling mp3s directly from their own web sites. Or making deals with other music stores and music player companies. They could even sell their CDs for less than 99 cents a song (with shipping). However, when they want to participate in the iTunes Music Store, the songs sold through there will be packaged with Apple's DRM scheme.
Didn't Slashdot link to this article describing Apple's DRM system already?
The Fairplay system/iTunes/iPod are all intertwined. You can't take off DRM from the indy bands songs without losing track of the song purchase from the iTunes store.
Altogether, ASCAP earned $785 million in revenues last year. That's from all music streams, radio, internet, live performances, etc.
Or they could be radical socialist luddites that crave an end to the corporations and evil industries, like pharmaceuticals, and a return to a "better" world of "sustainable" organic farming.
The scientists can then plan things for the rest of us, because they know better. So put down your computers and get working on that vegetable garden in your backyard. Or go work in a factory building the things they say we need.
I can't find a link for it, but I believe that the patent office has already changed it's policies of drug patents to prevent minor changes being repatented as brand new drugs. That still means that the original formula of the drug is no longer under patent.
That's a decent review at playlistmag, but it's slanted the other way. The article states that Microsoft should open the Zune to user modification. There is no way that Microsoft is going to sit aside and let users disable the WiFi DRM controls. Obviously that's one of the selling points of the Zune to the RIAA companies. The RIAA went after a MP3 player that allowed music to be captured off of digital FM, the RIAA will definitely go after Microsoft if Zunes can squirt out DRM-free songs.
So what was worse, Star Wars or the Cremaster series?
However, the global warming debunkers and the global warming zealots are both arguing about man-made global warming. Many of the debunkers are firmly on the side that any global warming we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle, and CO2 emissions from human activity have very little to do with it.
Now for my bit of ranting. CO2 is the least dangerous of the greenhouse gasses. Carbon emissions trading schemes are horribly rigged to favor the most polluting countries. The US and Australia are probably doing more to stop CO2 emissions than Europe by simply giving the technology for cleaner burning of fossil fuels to China and India, the two fastest growing and soon to be most carbon emitting countries in the world.
If any company could come up with a comprehensive way to filter out material on YouTube that is clearly a copyright violation, Google would be it.
Google is certainly buying eyeballs here. Google's income model is based on simple, non-invasive, content relevant advertising. YouTube is the fasting growing web service on the Internet, where the average viewer is staring at the page from minutes and minutes.
Here's the money quote from the article:
On the other hand, in 2001, the year that Napster closed, people with computers increased their CD buying by 19 percent while non-computer owners held steady.
2001 was also the year the Napster had peaked in it's usage. You can interpret this two ways, either Napster users suddenly went out and bought a lot of music once Napster was shut down, or Napster users were buying lots more music than non-users. I'd bet on the latter case.
Also, the "modern music is crap" argument isn't correct. It is more that modern music isn't worth buying if your only getting two good songs and 8 filler songs for $20. Some music publishers realize this, some don't.
I'm wondering if the Virgin Galactic ship is simply an up then down affair, or will it take off from one port and land in another.
A sub-orbital jaunt could easily turn a 20 hour flight into a much shorter trip.
Obviously, Brazil needs to extradite Larry Page or Eric Schmidt since they are violating Brazil's laws.
Know A District is a great part of the show too. I mean, how many people actually know their own Representative? How many people know all of the Reps in their own state (VT, ND, and RI residents don't count).
That scene in the demo where the player seems to be chasing someone. He's actually chasing himself.
WHAT?!??!?!
What supermarket are you shopping at?
"Can't afford decent food," that's an outright lie. Basic food prices are very low. And someone earning minimum wage would certainly qualify for food, housing and other work-required government hand-outs in the US. Depending on what state they lived in, a minimum wage earning head-of-household would also qualify for medical coverage for themselves, or at least, their children.
Do you, instead, mean, "People can't afford THE TIME to prepare food"? That's a completely different problem, and that is definitely not the fault of fast-food providers.
People in the US have also stopped dying of smallpox and being deformed by polio.
Also, we've stopped smoking and you can't get benzedrine at the local 5 and dime no more.
And the price of flour and other basic food components has dropped compared to the weekly earnings of everyone in the US.
So basically, we are living longer, healthier lives while in the midst of cheap, calorie laden foods. As a result, we've gotten fat. It's the result of our genetic drive to survive the coming famine more, even though there is no famine coming.
(And I diverge off-topic! I win!)
What they should do is get rid of the Winner-takes-all laws in the 48 states that have it. This would give the incentive to candidates to listen to their supporters in states where support for the opponent support is strong. The opportunity to get half minus 2 of any larger states' electoral votes will bring candidates to states they normally would avoid.
Also, what the Stanford professor is suggesting is changing a number of states' laws to force Electoral College electors to cast their vote for the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner in just there state. I don't think this would last past the first unpopular popular vote. Imagine New Yorkers' surprise when all of their EC votes go to a Republican, even though 75 percent of them voted for a Democrat.
For example, Vermont has a cap on spending in local government races. Part of that cap includes a mileage reimbursement rate for driving your own car. Therefore, candidates in statewide or even countywide elections can blow their spending cap simply by driving from town to town to meet the voters.
Finally, money is not speech. Speech is speech. Money is money. By limiting how much money individuals can give to candidates you invite corruption instead of hindering it. In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free. If I want to spend 10 million dollars to put ad in the media nationwide about how Presidential Candidate X slept with my sister, or shot my dog, or redirected money from a trust fund into his own company, HookersAndBlow Inc., I should be able.
There...there....there is no god. Unless Irvin Kershner directs the series.
Hell, I'm jumping straight FIVE! That'll get you an even closer shave.
"Sharing Technology" means that they'll share the information on building cleaner power plants. Cleaner burning technology isn't a module you slap onto the side of a coal plant, it starts at the design phase.
As for not signing Kyoto, I don't see the actual Kyoto signees actually meeting their goals. Kyoto wound up being just a worthless piece of paper.
There is nothing wrong with the desire to stop the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But the approach in Kyoto is all wrong. It uses economic paralysis as an approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
I'd hate to use an ad hominem attack here, but from where I stand, the Kyoto supporters are the hypocrites. They clamour for cleaner energy production, but the residents of Martha's Vineyard and Vermont fight to stop the building of non-emitting windmills. Heaven help us if someone tries to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the US. Those two technologies emit much smaller amounts of greenhouse gases, but they are stopped by the NIMBY screamers. But the NIMBY screamers are also the supporters of Kyoto.