Instead of having the CIA/NSA/State Department file charges, they find someone to file charges on behalf of the American public. It would seem that these agencies have the duty of protecting the public and would be expected to file a lawsuit if justified. But then members of the agencies could be called in cross examination to testify as to the exact nature of the harm done. And that's the sort of thing TLAs hate to do on the record.
So, call up a buddy. Have him file suit. But he can't "spill the beans" on any internal processes or documents, since he has been retired for some time and not privy to current events.
Research published in lesser read journals gets fewer citations than elite ones. If you are writing your own paper, you might want to drop a few big names rather than some obscure ones to gain credibility. The initial reason for the elite journals' editors rejection may have little to do with an in-depth analysis of the research. So it goes on to some lesser publication.
From TFA:
It's a sign that these editors making snap decisions really quickly still have a nose for what quality is and isn't
That could be bad logic. The initial rejection by the editor of an elite journal may have little bearing on the quality of the research. But it does influence its subsequent exposure to the scientific community. That factor alone may cause it to be less cited.
I would expect that the study done on this topic does make some attempt to correct for this. But I can't be bothered to follow up on it as a new paper by Bennett Haselton on the distribution of ice has come across my desk and requires my immediate attention.
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things?
I'm guessing that the gov't is leaning on ISPs to get an explicit buy in/out of filtering per customer. So that later on, when someone in the household stumbles upon that midget porn site, no one can claim shock and offense.
The down side (as others have pointed out) is that little Timmy might be the first one onto the family Internet connection one morning. And the "Do you want to watch porn?" might not get the response intended.
most pay TV channels can't pay the bills to produce original programming.
And yet, my local OTA TV station seems to make a go of it. With a much smaller market available to spread the costs of their news anchors or local personality talking heads.
I think what you are hearing is the lobbying PR of the pay TV channels trying to protect one source of income that they had Congress write into law years ago.
satellite television is broadcast with conditional access and satellite Internet is unicast
Merely a technical detail of the implementation by Dish. And not really of concern to, or the business of, any outside party.
Tomorrow, Dish could lease bandwidth from some ultra cheap, high bandwidth satellite provider that would enable them to switch to video delivery via IP or whatever. That's not my business, or Fox's. The encrypted satellite up/downlinks are private communications channels for the exclusive use of Dish between their head end and set top boxes. What Fox, or Netflix, should pay for, is the service of delivering a video/audio stream to the HDMI port on the back of the STB.
The fact that Congress has a couple of morons who write laws based not upon a product or service, but one particular implementation of that is what hampers innovation.
That doesn't make sense. What with broadband providers trying to squeeze all the money they can out of Netflix, Google and any other content providers. Just call it sattelite Internet service and charge Fox for the bandwidth.
I don't really understand the issues. How much was Dish charging Fox News to deliver their content to Dish viewers? And what sort of fee increases was Dish asking for?
Right. This is of most interest to geeks anyway. And we understand that, looking through a round porthole, there's only so much you can do with a widescreen format.
Next time, put the countdown timer plus some altitude, velocity and maybe heat shield temp data in the side bars. That'll look much cooler than the widescreen kludge.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of having the CIA/NSA/State Department file charges, they find someone to file charges on behalf of the American public. It would seem that these agencies have the duty of protecting the public and would be expected to file a lawsuit if justified. But then members of the agencies could be called in cross examination to testify as to the exact nature of the harm done. And that's the sort of thing TLAs hate to do on the record.
So, call up a buddy. Have him file suit. But he can't "spill the beans" on any internal processes or documents, since he has been retired for some time and not privy to current events.
Research published in lesser read journals gets fewer citations than elite ones. If you are writing your own paper, you might want to drop a few big names rather than some obscure ones to gain credibility. The initial reason for the elite journals' editors rejection may have little to do with an in-depth analysis of the research. So it goes on to some lesser publication.
From TFA:
It's a sign that these editors making snap decisions really quickly still have a nose for what quality is and isn't
That could be bad logic. The initial rejection by the editor of an elite journal may have little bearing on the quality of the research. But it does influence its subsequent exposure to the scientific community. That factor alone may cause it to be less cited.
I would expect that the study done on this topic does make some attempt to correct for this. But I can't be bothered to follow up on it as a new paper by Bennett Haselton on the distribution of ice has come across my desk and requires my immediate attention.
Four hours of H.P. Lovecraft will keep anyone awake.
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things?
I'm guessing that the gov't is leaning on ISPs to get an explicit buy in/out of filtering per customer. So that later on, when someone in the household stumbles upon that midget porn site, no one can claim shock and offense.
The down side (as others have pointed out) is that little Timmy might be the first one onto the family Internet connection one morning. And the "Do you want to watch porn?" might not get the response intended.
On the other hand, if I only had 6 months to live, the first thing I'd do is to get back together with my ex-wife.
That would be the longest 6 months ever.
Did they try turning North Korea off and then back on again?
Or give him a football scholarship.
most pay TV channels can't pay the bills to produce original programming.
And yet, my local OTA TV station seems to make a go of it. With a much smaller market available to spread the costs of their news anchors or local personality talking heads.
I think what you are hearing is the lobbying PR of the pay TV channels trying to protect one source of income that they had Congress write into law years ago.
satellite television is broadcast with conditional access and satellite Internet is unicast
Merely a technical detail of the implementation by Dish. And not really of concern to, or the business of, any outside party.
Tomorrow, Dish could lease bandwidth from some ultra cheap, high bandwidth satellite provider that would enable them to switch to video delivery via IP or whatever. That's not my business, or Fox's. The encrypted satellite up/downlinks are private communications channels for the exclusive use of Dish between their head end and set top boxes. What Fox, or Netflix, should pay for, is the service of delivering a video/audio stream to the HDMI port on the back of the STB.
The fact that Congress has a couple of morons who write laws based not upon a product or service, but one particular implementation of that is what hampers innovation.
"The beauty of a chainsaw is that you don't have to start it. Just show up with it."
-- Joe Walsh, on checking in to hotels
Give them a rifle and send them to the front lines.
Personally, I find either brand to be unpalatable.
"In other news, an undercover officer still doesn't need to tell you that he or she is a member of law enforcement if you ask. "
"Are you a cop? Or are you just some dangerous nutjob, lurking around my property armed? Think carefully about your answer. Very carefully."
But I recently got a Barrett M82A1 and love to see just how far I can shoot the .50 cal rounds to hit things.
Does this version sound any better?
It was probably sarcastic
Probably.
We'll see when Netflix starts charging Verizon and AT&T for distributing their content.
Other way around.
That doesn't make sense. What with broadband providers trying to squeeze all the money they can out of Netflix, Google and any other content providers. Just call it sattelite Internet service and charge Fox for the bandwidth.
NASA. The people that had to break a handle off the Hubble Space Telescope because they don't know basic mechanics' tricks for disassembling stuff.
ISS: "Could you please e-mail us the instructions for a wrench?"
Ground: "Please clarify. What kind of wrench do you need?"
ISS: "It doesn't matter. We are going to use it as a hammer."
I don't really understand the issues. How much was Dish charging Fox News to deliver their content to Dish viewers? And what sort of fee increases was Dish asking for?
I still want to know what's behind the door
native aspect ratio.
Right. This is of most interest to geeks anyway. And we understand that, looking through a round porthole, there's only so much you can do with a widescreen format.
Next time, put the countdown timer plus some altitude, velocity and maybe heat shield temp data in the side bars. That'll look much cooler than the widescreen kludge.
We let the machines reverse engineer the homo sapien genome. Next step, a vaccine to eradicate the infection from the planet.