The treaty also bans the militarization of space. Once the ultimate high ground is freed, it won't take 50 years for the first battles to be fought there...
Yes, and as soon as everybody has computers (NTP), clock radios that can tune to WWV or can get it passively (atomic clock) or a cell phone (cell-phone network), then we can get rid of time services over POTS. Until then, it is still the most highly available service out of all of the above.
Plus, NASA made Apollo 12 and 13 boring as Hell (until the unfortunate problem with the fuel cells), and 14 was a return to normalcy. Even though surveys said people liked the idea of a Space Program, they were not that interested in communicating that support to Congress.
But boring was the whole idea, wasn't it? After Apollo 1, they wanted to have everything so nailed down that there was little to no chance of failure of any type. Because of this, they also didn't want to report little snags that occurred. I think that this came back and bit them because it drained all of the interesting stuff away. Except for Apollo 1 and 13, space exploration was never really shown as anything but routine. I think that's why the public lost interest - if you present something as boring, people get bored.
Finally, I think that the Vietnam War drained all the ambition from the US public.
I absolutely agree with this and would add that it also completely destroyed any respect that the American public had for the Federal Government. The hawks couldn't believe that the government was giving in to a bunch of unwashed hippies and the doves couldn't tolerate that we had gotten in in the first place. Hmmm. Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it?
The most flattering description of the shuttle program you can get from a space systems engineer is "it was a nice design before congress got to it."
What would have been better? Or, better yet, what would have been possible? Given the political climate at the time, it's amazing that anything got built at all.
In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly interested in funding anything even remotely related to space. What little interest had long since drained away after Apollo 13 (and would have probably been gone after Apollo 12 had the explosion not happened). The shuttle program was proposed to "keep the ball rolling". Yes, it was political and, no, it wasn't the best engineering solution, but what's worse, the best unfunded shuttle or the best funded one? The engineers can say all they want to about the solution, but they don't pay the bills. Congress does. If Congress hadn't agreed, there would have been no shuttle nor anything else. To quote The Right Stuff: No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.
Um, not really. My first two Intel-based computers were Gateways and I had nothing but good luck with them. I also found nothing particularly proprietary on them (unlike Compaq). I upgraded memory, disk, cards and even processors and never had any problem with it.
My first one ran for over five years before the power supply finally gave out. I decided it was time to build one myself, so I gave it to a co-worker for his kids to play with. He replaced the power supply and it worked for another three years before finally giving up the ghost. I think it might have been due to the 4- and 6-year olds trying to put interesting things into the drives or trying to hot-insert an EISA card, but I may be wrong...
I bought my first VCR in 1977, so I was there. Sony marketed Beta to people that were willing to pay a premium for quality (just like they did with their TVs). JVC licensed VHS to every other manufacturer and let them do the marketing. And new development. It would have been a good trick for Sony when they still owned the professional market and could have lived with a smaller portion of the whole pie. Sony would live with the high end and concede the rest of the market to VHS. Unfortunately for them, the "rest of the market" became huge.
I think that nobody really considered how much people would trade tapes between themselves. You can live with incompatibility when you keep stuff to yourself, but if you want to watch a TV show that someone else taped and you have a different system, well, you're SOL.
Of course you could get porn on Beta. Long before you could get prerecorded Hollywood movies (at least the ones that *weren't* made from midnight showings before a video camera), you could get porn. A friend of mine bought an early model Sony in 1976 and he seems to have found porn tapes easily enough.
Florida didn't do anything to the DNC (specifically) - they just moved the date of the presidential primary up to January 29th. If the Democratic party hadn't guaranteed Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina and Nevada first shot at the presidential primary, this wouldn't be an issue.
I doubt that this was put into place specifically to poke the Democrats - they just wanted to be first in the South. Besides, everybody wants in on the act. The South Carolina Republican party wants to move theirs to Jan 19th as a result of Florida's vote. California moved its primary from June 6th to Feb 5th earlier this year.
it comes from individuals making hard choices on what to support. If those changes turn out to be beneficial, then they become adopted as new standards.
The process of modifying standards is a bit more complex than that, but there is a process for change. You just have to become part of it rather than just picking and choosing which standards annoy you the least and then hoping that someone else will fix the ones that don't work the way you think they should.
We're not talking about distribution, but creation.
When it costs me nothing to do what I do (photography), then I'll feel perfectly happy to give it away without thought of compensation. Until then, please forgive me if I feel that I should actually be able to make enough money to continue doing it.
That's a tough one, but it kinda falls under the "not making any money at it" clause - at least to my point of view. Which means less than nothing to the licensing groups.
I think I know a good amount most net radio stations should be paying... $0
Why? If they are playing copyrighted music, why should they not follow the same rules as the commercial stations?
Most of the sites that I've been to have some form of advertising. If they are using music to bring people to their site and they are making money by ad views, their purpose is not a whole lot different than commercial stations. They just make a bunch less money at it.
If the sites make money - over and above operating costs - their hold on the moral high ground is a bit shaky.
No, it doesn't require a college degree to get a decent job - we've just decided to make it a requirement. Do good mechanics need a college degree? Plumbers? Finish Carpenters? All of these make good money and none of them require a degree to be good at.
Rather than put more money into higher education and requiring people to go through it - whether they need it or not - wouldn't it be better to fund trade schools like we did in the past?
Because it isn't just about you: the language you use affects the listener (or reader) and how they perceive you and your message.
If you know your audience and they know you, all say anything that you want any way you want. If you don't, why not use neutral words? It is possible to provide emphasis without profanity, if that's your intent.
AFAIK, the Touareg that VW donated to Stanford wasn't automated any more than a standard one is. Granted, just about everything but the steering is automated in one of those things, but it wasn't particularly special...
I ran into something like this when I worked for an public agency and was asked to produce a report but not to talk about it. "Why can't I?" I asked. "The information is public, isn't it?". "Yes," my supervisor said, "but the way we assemble it isn't."
I figure it's the same way in this case. The information is perfectly free. What you are paying for is having the information assembled and presented in a way that you can use easily. You can always do the same yourself, but what's cheaper? Your time on a regular basis or $5 a month...
No, the iPod was about "here's something that's easier to use". Do you really think that they have sold so many just based upon the fact that it's made by Apple? If so, why didn't it work in the same way for the Newton, the Lisa and just about any other item in their product lines? Would it have sold so well if it cost 30% less but had an interface that totally sucked? You may not like it, but there are millions of people who do.
Besides, if there were nothing new nor interesting about the iPhone, why would the Chinese company worked so hard to make an almost exact copy of it?
We got more of them because the artists had to produce more to make a living. And the idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's.
"The idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's?" Huh? Ever hear of the Payola scandal of the 50's? Do you think that the recording labels paid disc jockeys to play their musician's stuff because they really, really thought that their music was important and that money had nothing to do with it? How about that payola had been well known in the Big Band era of the 30's and 40's?
Money has been part and parcel of music since long before recorded music, or do you think that it was just ars gratia artis (art for the sake of art)?
In the mid 1800's, before mechanical means to reproduce music existed, musicians made money by selling sheet music. They performed concerts not to get paid (or at least, not to get paid very much), but as a way of advertising. People could go into a music store and buy a sheet music copy that they could take home and play themselves. Unfortunately, copyright laws largely didn't exist then, so different publishers could sell competing versions of that same piece of music and never pay the artists anything. Stephen Foster, one of the premier composers of popular American music in the 1800's, died penniless. "Oh, Susanna", netted him less than $100. This is why ASCAP was created - not because they wanted to make piles of money, just because musicians and composers got tired of other people making piles of money and while they got none.
One could argue that their situation was little different than today, but today at least the artist knows that there are licensing body(s) taking in the royalties. Unfortunately ASCAP, BMI and RIAA don't agree on how musicians should be paid.
30" Cinema displays? On request? Aarrgghhh. I had to go through three levels of management to get the almost tolerable 20" Dell that I use on my network monitoring workstation. I would kill for a decent monitor.
If we had the same order error (substituting 17" & 19" for 23" and 30"), the larger monitors would go to the executives. And the 17" inch too, 'cause we all understand that executives really benefit from a dual-display setup. Anybody who complained would get some of the 15" CRTs that we still have laying around.
I'm still using a 10" IBM CRT that I got fifteen years ago for one of my systems 'cause it's the only one that I can find. If you squint your eyes just right, you can see the menu. If you squint them another way, you can see Mother Teresa.
How can it be anything other than a Ponzi scheme? Banks pay interest to depositors from the income that they make from loans and from other investments that they make.
Unless Ginko loans money along with taking it in as deposit or has some kind of other income from some SL secondary monetary market or makes money from real world investments, the only means that they have of generating the money to pay in interest is from income that they gain from newer depositors.
Slashdot Mirror
The treaty also bans the militarization of space. Once the ultimate high ground is freed, it won't take 50 years for the first battles to be fought there...
Wasn't that 867-5309 (and no, I don't want to go into why I remembered it without looking it up)?
Yes, and as soon as everybody has computers (NTP), clock radios that can tune to WWV or can get it passively (atomic clock) or a cell phone (cell-phone network), then we can get rid of time services over POTS. Until then, it is still the most highly available service out of all of the above.
But boring was the whole idea, wasn't it? After Apollo 1, they wanted to have everything so nailed down that there was little to no chance of failure of any type. Because of this, they also didn't want to report little snags that occurred. I think that this came back and bit them because it drained all of the interesting stuff away. Except for Apollo 1 and 13, space exploration was never really shown as anything but routine. I think that's why the public lost interest - if you present something as boring, people get bored.
I absolutely agree with this and would add that it also completely destroyed any respect that the American public had for the Federal Government. The hawks couldn't believe that the government was giving in to a bunch of unwashed hippies and the doves couldn't tolerate that we had gotten in in the first place. Hmmm. Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it?
Welcome to the real world. The vast majority of people work where they do to keep a shirt on their back.
What would have been better? Or, better yet, what would have been possible? Given the political climate at the time, it's amazing that anything got built at all.
In the mid 70's, the American public wasn't terribly interested in funding anything even remotely related to space. What little interest had long since drained away after Apollo 13 (and would have probably been gone after Apollo 12 had the explosion not happened). The shuttle program was proposed to "keep the ball rolling". Yes, it was political and, no, it wasn't the best engineering solution, but what's worse, the best unfunded shuttle or the best funded one? The engineers can say all they want to about the solution, but they don't pay the bills. Congress does. If Congress hadn't agreed, there would have been no shuttle nor anything else. To quote The Right Stuff: No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.
My first one ran for over five years before the power supply finally gave out. I decided it was time to build one myself, so I gave it to a co-worker for his kids to play with. He replaced the power supply and it worked for another three years before finally giving up the ghost. I think it might have been due to the 4- and 6-year olds trying to put interesting things into the drives or trying to hot-insert an EISA card, but I may be wrong...
I think that nobody really considered how much people would trade tapes between themselves. You can live with incompatibility when you keep stuff to yourself, but if you want to watch a TV show that someone else taped and you have a different system, well, you're SOL.
Of course you could get porn on Beta. Long before you could get prerecorded Hollywood movies (at least the ones that *weren't* made from midnight showings before a video camera), you could get porn. A friend of mine bought an early model Sony in 1976 and he seems to have found porn tapes easily enough.
Which shows that better marketing beats better technology...
I doubt that this was put into place specifically to poke the Democrats - they just wanted to be first in the South. Besides, everybody wants in on the act. The South Carolina Republican party wants to move theirs to Jan 19th as a result of Florida's vote. California moved its primary from June 6th to Feb 5th earlier this year.
The process of modifying standards is a bit more complex than that, but there is a process for change. You just have to become part of it rather than just picking and choosing which standards annoy you the least and then hoping that someone else will fix the ones that don't work the way you think they should.
When it costs me nothing to do what I do (photography), then I'll feel perfectly happy to give it away without thought of compensation. Until then, please forgive me if I feel that I should actually be able to make enough money to continue doing it.
That's a tough one, but it kinda falls under the "not making any money at it" clause - at least to my point of view. Which means less than nothing to the licensing groups.
If commercial radio stations aren't paying any royalties or fees, then the Internet radio stations should be given the same consideration.
If they're not, then they should be left alone.
Why? If they are playing copyrighted music, why should they not follow the same rules as the commercial stations?
Most of the sites that I've been to have some form of advertising. If they are using music to bring people to their site and they are making money by ad views, their purpose is not a whole lot different than commercial stations. They just make a bunch less money at it.
If the sites make money - over and above operating costs - their hold on the moral high ground is a bit shaky.
I hate feeding trolls, but you can buy iLife 08 now. You'll have to figure out something else to toss abuse at...
Rather than put more money into higher education and requiring people to go through it - whether they need it or not - wouldn't it be better to fund trade schools like we did in the past?
If you know your audience and they know you, all say anything that you want any way you want. If you don't, why not use neutral words? It is possible to provide emphasis without profanity, if that's your intent.
AFAIK, the Touareg that VW donated to Stanford wasn't automated any more than a standard one is. Granted, just about everything but the steering is automated in one of those things, but it wasn't particularly special...
I figure it's the same way in this case. The information is perfectly free. What you are paying for is having the information assembled and presented in a way that you can use easily. You can always do the same yourself, but what's cheaper? Your time on a regular basis or $5 a month...
Besides, if there were nothing new nor interesting about the iPhone, why would the Chinese company worked so hard to make an almost exact copy of it?
"The idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's?" Huh? Ever hear of the Payola scandal of the 50's? Do you think that the recording labels paid disc jockeys to play their musician's stuff because they really, really thought that their music was important and that money had nothing to do with it? How about that payola had been well known in the Big Band era of the 30's and 40's?
Money has been part and parcel of music since long before recorded music, or do you think that it was just ars gratia artis (art for the sake of art)?
In the mid 1800's, before mechanical means to reproduce music existed, musicians made money by selling sheet music. They performed concerts not to get paid (or at least, not to get paid very much), but as a way of advertising. People could go into a music store and buy a sheet music copy that they could take home and play themselves. Unfortunately, copyright laws largely didn't exist then, so different publishers could sell competing versions of that same piece of music and never pay the artists anything. Stephen Foster, one of the premier composers of popular American music in the 1800's, died penniless. "Oh, Susanna", netted him less than $100. This is why ASCAP was created - not because they wanted to make piles of money, just because musicians and composers got tired of other people making piles of money and while they got none.
One could argue that their situation was little different than today, but today at least the artist knows that there are licensing body(s) taking in the royalties. Unfortunately ASCAP, BMI and RIAA don't agree on how musicians should be paid.
If we had the same order error (substituting 17" & 19" for 23" and 30"), the larger monitors would go to the executives. And the 17" inch too, 'cause we all understand that executives really benefit from a dual-display setup. Anybody who complained would get some of the 15" CRTs that we still have laying around.
I'm still using a 10" IBM CRT that I got fifteen years ago for one of my systems 'cause it's the only one that I can find. If you squint your eyes just right, you can see the menu. If you squint them another way, you can see Mother Teresa.
Unless Ginko loans money along with taking it in as deposit or has some kind of other income from some SL secondary monetary market or makes money from real world investments, the only means that they have of generating the money to pay in interest is from income that they gain from newer depositors.