When you're comparing a superscaler, out of order, multipiplined x86 chip vs an ARM? Except that a small low-power single-chip version of the x86 probably won't have those features.
Okay, now can someone explain why there is a 32-bit limitation when x86 operates off of selector:offset addressing? I haven't coded x86 in years, but my recollection is that there were 32-bit selector registers and 32-bit offset registers. That allows for 2^64 addressing. I thought the limitation was no more than 4GB per selector, not 4GB total. Is the 32-bit limitation a function of the GDT?
Fortunately, Obama has a degree in chemical engineering, so we should listen to hi... oh wait, no? Well, then maybe Hillary's degree in physi... no? Oh wait. So which candidate is the most qualified to set our energy policy? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM! My qualifications as a computer scientist make me a better fit for deciding such things. Not to mention the fact that neither I, nor any political party, benefit from my policies.
This is just part of why none of these people are qualified to be president. The best answer they could give is "I don't know. Let's just stop subsidizing oil and ethanol, and start making companies pay for environmental damage, and see what that market decides?" The other answer I would accept is "What is the prevailing scientific opinion on this? Let's implement that" at which point no form of ethanol would be a part of this country's energy policy since we don't produce enough cane sugar to do it efficiently, assuming it is even possible.
Already, in just six years, broadband has reached 25 percent penetration, according to McKinsey & Co.lready, in just six years, broadband has reached 25 percent penetration, according to McKinsey & Co. So the internet was created 6 years ago?
The Washington post article also mentions nothing about network neutrality. IMHO, if it is a disguised case against it, it is very very well disguised. The only thing even possibly relevant is this line:
The formula for encouraging such extraordinary investments is clear: minimize tax and regulatory constraints and maximize competition. This line is followed by a list of things that should be passed, and NN is not one of them. Perhaps it is intentionally absent, perhaps it is not. Either way, it really isn't worth using the term "network neutrality" to stir up interest in the article.
You made your post assuming that it is self-evident to everyone why these things are wrong. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion, or convince anyone, by merely by implying that they are insane. To make your point, you need to specify why you think the private sector can't do a better job.
It also doesn't help that your list has perhaps the most inefficient and dirty of government organizations. (The IRS, homeland security, and FEMA all have black eyes right now, or are things most people hate intrinsically). If you wanted something that will make people go "what??" try mentioning that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.
...he is just another republican looking to weaken the government I think that line probably just bought him 10 more votes. Right now, Dick Cheney's main goal is to strengthen the federal government, and this whole discussion is about stopping the government from taking some unreasonable powers. So anyone wanting to weaken it looks good. Not to mention that the current government is republican, and definitely isn't weakening or shrinking government. So that statement makes Ron Pal sound really good.
The only way to fight crimes committed by the government is to use the court system. Yet you are saying we should ignore the fact that they are about to pass a law saying that they are not subject to the ruling of the courts. That would eliminate our only way to hold them liable. The telecoms are just the current battle front: And one that could land a lot of higher-up politicians in jail. If we lose this one, we probably lose the war - that includes Gitmo. This is no gimmick: This is the real thing.
A paranoid person might reply that all this means is that the U.S. is doing a better job. They have a fake opponent (The Democrats), they control the press well enough that people never even heard of the 747's that disappeared, and they don't need to keep Bush in office since they know that any of his potential successors will continue his plans. So to cover-up their Wikipedia editing, they have a few scapegoats do it from government IP addresses so that people can laugh at what an awful job the spin campaign is doing.
Is there a reason that HTTPS cannot work over a multi-homed web site? Ex: Serve multiple https servers on one IP address? That is one of the big barriers toward universal HTTPS adoption,
This is part of a general problem where the government researches to see if something is a good idea, then deploys it without paying attention to the results. That is why we have electronic voting machines, RFID passports, and 3-ounce limits on liquids on airplane flights.
Because the small local stores are often run by Vietnamese people, and American's don't trust them. They have a reputation for being smarmy and not providing any customer service. You can't argue with someone about a return when there's no line of customers to hold-up, nobody else to yell-at, and the guy pretends not to speak english very well.
Not all of them are this way. I paid my way through college building computers, and a wonderful local store run by a Vietnamese (I think) family was my main supplier. Their store looked like a Geek's basement with things disorganized and piled-up. But they took returns, provided good service, had better prices than CompUSA, and they knew what the heck they were talking about. I got a friend of mine a job there, and he absolutely loved it since they were total computer nerds. But the average mom and pop would just see them as more "farners" selling mysterious things they don't understand.
I worked at CompUSA 10 years ago, and employees do get items at cost. The problem is that CompUSA's "cost" is often higher than what it costs to buy it online (including shipping, retail box, and warranty). I'm sure their cost includes lots of other overhead, but to me it was always a sign that they just weren't making smart buying decisions.
Saying there is no reason to go into space is like saying there is no reason to go into the air. We go into the air because it is the fastest way to get from point A to point B, not because there is something intrinsically useful about the air itself. Same with space: you could design a plane that could go from New York to Tokyo in 3 hours if you used a space plane, even though the space itself is not useful. Air became tactically useful in warfare, and space can be the same way. Also, the barren wastelands you refer to are also inexhaustible non-polluting power sources. That is like saying there's nothing in the desert but sand. Yet people live in deserts all around the world because some of them are on oil fields, on giant aquifers.
Its not that he likes smaller government, its that he wouldn't see this as the governments role. Period. Why do people keep putting words in Ron Paul's mouth? I keep seeing posts like "Because Ron Paul believes in smaller government, he would not believe X is government's role" and they literally make "X" equal to anything that is not a literal phrase in the constitution. This is still a democracy, and if the people as a whole believe that spamming is illegal and intrusive, then it should be banned. It is the federal governments role to regulate interstate commerce amongst 1000 other things that this could fall under. Stopping spammers isn't something that requires a big government agency. It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. I don't see any reason to assume Ron Paul likes spamming.
The constitution would have to be read pretty loosely to interpret that it somehow granted the federal government the right to decide under what conditions a person or business contacted you with advertising, sales offers, or even just information. So then you also think that Ron Paul would allow slandering and false advertising? How about lying under oath? The constitution doesn't say they have the power to stop any of those things. If you follow things that strictly, the government really can't do anything. Not to mention that you seem to think that all the state laws against spamming would magically vanish.
Like many other people, you completely misunderstand libertarianism. Like I said in my message, just because someone believes in smaller government doesn't mean that they believe that everything should be legal. You have vastly over simplified things.
-- And ironically, after you're whole message, you point out how if we eliminated the meager spam laws we have, that the market would find a solution anyway. Wow, you might have actually just convinced me that we should vote for Ron Paul, and that the spammers are right!
That's like saying that "A vote for candidate X is a vote for terrorism" or "Osama Bin Laden would vote for so-and-so." Spammers like Ron Paul, so vote against him! [Your favorite team's rival] will vote for Ron Paul!
How are Ron Paul's philosophies any better for spammers? People seem to have this idea that a guy who likes a smaller government is okay with everything being legal. (Not that the CAN-SPAM act is any indication that the present government gives a crud about stopping spammers)
Your post is completely misinformed. You have painted Ron Paul to be exactly the opposite of the positions he took on each of those issues.
What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning? Ron Pal did not try to outlaw flag burning. He spoke out against a flag burning amendment and then voted against it. He actually proposed the amendment then voted against it to force the issue onto the floor. That's courageous and principled.
Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? Each of those items is completely consistent with libertarian viewpoints. The Libertarian viewpoint is that those types of laws weaken the ability for the economy to find the appropriate market value of labor, and that they work against the workers in the long-haul. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, but it is consistent with what he claims to believe.
It is obvious you disagree with the libertarian viewpoint, and that is fine. But don't paint him to be a liar when it is the completely consistent.
Q:...can't we design a computer that can "cold boot" nearly instantaneously? A: This is an economics blog, so you tell me: why don't the computer companies compete on boot-speed? I know! I know! Because there's no competition? The desktop competitors are*: 90% Microsoft, 5% Apple, 5% other. With a distribution like that, there's hardly any real competition to cause things to improve. Even if Linux is modified to boot in 3 seconds, it won't make Microsoft change anything.
* (This is just a ball park guess to make the point, not warranting for accuracy)
Suppose that the US FDA allowed companies to sell dangerous foods, but put a big honking label on them that says "OMG! THIS WILL KILL YOU DO NOT EAT IT!" I bet 75% of parents would say that they are concerned that they might be buying deadly poisonous foods, but don't have time to check the labels. They might cite that it is much easier to just put the food in the cart and buy it, because little Jimmy likes to eat "Radioactive Puffs" and it shuts up his whining.
FCC policy statement (FCC 05-151) August 5, 2005
(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; I think inserting RST packets into the data stream would violate rule #2, and if the content is legal they are also violating rule #1.
Just remember, it takes months and years to sign distribution deals in other countries. And there is a shortage of talented voice actors and translators who can translate American English to UK English. How many people do you know who understand the minute differences between pants and trousers? Between a truck and a lorrie? Don't even get me started on Canadian English. Adding all those "eh's" into the end of each characters lines requires digitally lengthening each episode by 5 minutes.
Okay, leaving tongue-in-cheek mode to make a technical point: Back in the VHS days, you had to translate media between PAL and NTSC. Today, there's no reason a DVD player can't handle both. The DVD players can already rescale the video, frame rate no longer has anything to do with "tracking" or "synching." So the PAL -vs- NTSC excuse doesn't hold water any more. Especially since that conversion can be done in real time on a midrange PC these days.
The <html> tag gets an optional version attribute. If its value is 5, then the following HTML 5 rules apply. If it is 4 or if the attribute is missing, then the HTML 4 rules apply. Ex: <html version=5> Doctypes are a pain, many tools still don't deal with them, and there are too many of them. A version number is straightforward and sufficient.
When the </head> is reached, all of the scripts that were included in the head are then executed in order. When the </body> is reached, all of the scripts that were included in the body are then executed in order. Much of the problem with HTML and script is the lack of a precise definition for how and when events and scripts are executed.
Frames: No more framesets, frames, or iframes. Modules: <module> creates a sub-tree which can contain a document with a communication channel These tags are deprecated anyway right? But I think we need to just plain throw them out. A single concept should be able to replace them all.
Custom Tags: Custom HTML tags have always been allowed in HTML... They have? What's the point? Somebody help me out here. Is something wrong with <div> and <span> for this purpose?
Unfortunately he doesn't think that the issue of corporate invasion of personal privacy is something that he should pay attention to. That's not true. The link specifically discusses this point. For example:
It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you're vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Ron Paul specifically discusses how he believes corporations are abusing your privacy. I must grant you, that in all the cases he discussed, they relate to government intrusion as well. But I see no indication that Ron Paul would try to repeal laws limiting how much information corporations can exchange. And the fact that he has not said discussed passing additional privacy laws can't be used as a mark against him either, for two reasons: 1) None of the other candidates have said they would do that, and 2) None of the other candidates even care about privacy half as much as he does. The other candidates aren't even recognizing that the use of SSNs, the PATRIOT Act, etc. are privacy issues.
Even on the issue of private corporations abusing your privacy, Ron Paul is still the most likely person help with that issue.
Of course, as a politician, Ron Paul (if he even actually had a chance), would become just another bullshit politician, so it's all a moot point. Yes, and I bet you would never be seen at a party that would invite someone like you.
Mark my words: Ron Paul will lose. I know this for certain because 8 of 10 of my friends said "I would vote for Ron Paul, but he won't win because he isn't taken seriously." So instead of Ron Paul getting 80% of my state, he will get 0% because they all say he will lose
But of course, people have this misguided believe that all they have to do to change the world is place a vote. In the last election, about 50% of the eligible voters voted. The people who can change the world are the ones who didn't vote, not the ones who did. In order to become a party, fully recognized, and funded by the federal government (and most states) -- a party must get 5% of the vote. So imagine for a moment if that 50% just walked into a booth and voted randomly. Not only are they actually the majority, but if they just voted randomly, we would have 10 new political parties. THAT would be the change we need. Politicians would have to actually discuss things with the dissidents who aren't in one the big money majority parties. And their power would be diluted.
So you see, your vote really isn't the vote that changes things. Not mine either. It's that lazy disgruntled neighbor of yours who doesn't bother to vote or write to their representatives. The one who isn't an EFF member and who doesn't even know that the government can listen to their phone conversations. Ironically, the apathetic hold the power.
Part of the problem is that we don't have an accurate accounting of how much oil is left in the easy-to-get-to locations. The middle eastern sources are depleting, but they refuse to acknowledge how much. Every year they say that the amount of oil left in the ground is the same as it was the previous year. This is because they are limited in how much they can extract by international treaties. If they can only extract 5% a year, then the only way they can keep production up is to claim that the amount of oil is the same. So they lie. We may find that those oil fields run dry all of a sudden and nobody knew it was going to happen.
As you point out, other sources can be exploited - but it requires investment and time to setup. And unless we know how much is left in the easy sources it is hard to gauge when to invest in the hard ones. In the end, it doesn't matter: We need to move to renewable for this reason, and 1000 others.
I'm not in the industry so it could be that I'm totally on crack. But here's what I see happening:
1. One month. 2. There is no labor shortage in this area. It's the exact opposite. There are people doing this on their own time, for free. And some of those groups would love to do it professionally if they got the opportunity. But they are treated as the enemy, not potential employees. 3. This should save time, not make it take longer. The fansub groups have to work from broadcasts, capture it, and convert it -- typically using non-professional tools. There's no excuse for the professionals claiming that it takes them longer to produce. Especially since I find that much anime that comes to the U.S. is in poorer quality than what the fansub groups put out. I can't tell you the number of anime DVDs that have bad inverse telecine and are interlaced, while the fansub groups have 640x480 progressive or HD quality. 4. You are right -- they don't have to produce a dubbed version.
Let's look at that last point:
Some purists may argue that dubbed anime isn't necessary, but the sales numbers consistently show higher sales on dubbed versions. Since they take 3 years to produce an English version the people who want subtitled versions have already seen it.
But let's dig into the real heart of why it takes so long: The companies don't start the process until years after a series becomes popular. They wait so long doing nothing that by the time they put it out, the hardcore fans have already seen it. Then, they water it down for various socio-political reasons, which dilutes it even further.
IANAL.
First, the FSF extended their definition of derived work...Now, they're invoking the madness that modifying but not redistributing software is against the license I've never heard of the 2 interpretations you just mentioned, so I'd love to see a link on it. It sure sounds like complete gibberish to me. Firstly, the FSF can "extend their definition" of derived work all they want, but that doesn't change the law. And copyright applies only to the distributor, and that's been a corner stone of free software for a while. I can, and have, modified commercial copyrighted software on my PC before (hacks, patches, etc.) That's legally protected, and I can't imagine why the FSF would want to try and change that.
This is the second time in a week I've begun to think that the FSF is overstepping its bounds. As much as I hate the RIAA, I'm not sure I want the FSF involved in RIAA law suits in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, now can someone explain why there is a 32-bit limitation when x86 operates off of selector:offset addressing? I haven't coded x86 in years, but my recollection is that there were 32-bit selector registers and 32-bit offset registers. That allows for 2^64 addressing. I thought the limitation was no more than 4GB per selector, not 4GB total. Is the 32-bit limitation a function of the GDT?
Fortunately, Obama has a degree in chemical engineering, so we should listen to hi... oh wait, no? Well, then maybe Hillary's degree in physi... no? Oh wait. So which candidate is the most qualified to set our energy policy? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM! My qualifications as a computer scientist make me a better fit for deciding such things. Not to mention the fact that neither I, nor any political party, benefit from my policies.
This is just part of why none of these people are qualified to be president. The best answer they could give is "I don't know. Let's just stop subsidizing oil and ethanol, and start making companies pay for environmental damage, and see what that market decides?" The other answer I would accept is "What is the prevailing scientific opinion on this? Let's implement that" at which point no form of ethanol would be a part of this country's energy policy since we don't produce enough cane sugar to do it efficiently, assuming it is even possible.
The Washington post article also mentions nothing about network neutrality. IMHO, if it is a disguised case against it, it is very very well disguised. The only thing even possibly relevant is this line: The formula for encouraging such extraordinary investments is clear: minimize tax and regulatory constraints and maximize competition. This line is followed by a list of things that should be passed, and NN is not one of them. Perhaps it is intentionally absent, perhaps it is not. Either way, it really isn't worth using the term "network neutrality" to stir up interest in the article.
It also doesn't help that your list has perhaps the most inefficient and dirty of government organizations. (The IRS, homeland security, and FEMA all have black eyes right now, or are things most people hate intrinsically). If you wanted something that will make people go "what??" try mentioning that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.
...he is just another republican looking to weaken the government I think that line probably just bought him 10 more votes. Right now, Dick Cheney's main goal is to strengthen the federal government, and this whole discussion is about stopping the government from taking some unreasonable powers. So anyone wanting to weaken it looks good. Not to mention that the current government is republican, and definitely isn't weakening or shrinking government. So that statement makes Ron Pal sound really good.The only way to fight crimes committed by the government is to use the court system. Yet you are saying we should ignore the fact that they are about to pass a law saying that they are not subject to the ruling of the courts. That would eliminate our only way to hold them liable. The telecoms are just the current battle front: And one that could land a lot of higher-up politicians in jail. If we lose this one, we probably lose the war - that includes Gitmo. This is no gimmick: This is the real thing.
A paranoid person might reply that all this means is that the U.S. is doing a better job. They have a fake opponent (The Democrats), they control the press well enough that people never even heard of the 747's that disappeared, and they don't need to keep Bush in office since they know that any of his potential successors will continue his plans. So to cover-up their Wikipedia editing, they have a few scapegoats do it from government IP addresses so that people can laugh at what an awful job the spin campaign is doing.
Is there a reason that HTTPS cannot work over a multi-homed web site? Ex: Serve multiple https servers on one IP address? That is one of the big barriers toward universal HTTPS adoption,
This is part of a general problem where the government researches to see if something is a good idea, then deploys it without paying attention to the results. That is why we have electronic voting machines, RFID passports, and 3-ounce limits on liquids on airplane flights.
Because the small local stores are often run by Vietnamese people, and American's don't trust them. They have a reputation for being smarmy and not providing any customer service. You can't argue with someone about a return when there's no line of customers to hold-up, nobody else to yell-at, and the guy pretends not to speak english very well.
Not all of them are this way. I paid my way through college building computers, and a wonderful local store run by a Vietnamese (I think) family was my main supplier. Their store looked like a Geek's basement with things disorganized and piled-up. But they took returns, provided good service, had better prices than CompUSA, and they knew what the heck they were talking about. I got a friend of mine a job there, and he absolutely loved it since they were total computer nerds. But the average mom and pop would just see them as more "farners" selling mysterious things they don't understand.
I worked at CompUSA 10 years ago, and employees do get items at cost. The problem is that CompUSA's "cost" is often higher than what it costs to buy it online (including shipping, retail box, and warranty). I'm sure their cost includes lots of other overhead, but to me it was always a sign that they just weren't making smart buying decisions.
Saying there is no reason to go into space is like saying there is no reason to go into the air. We go into the air because it is the fastest way to get from point A to point B, not because there is something intrinsically useful about the air itself. Same with space: you could design a plane that could go from New York to Tokyo in 3 hours if you used a space plane, even though the space itself is not useful. Air became tactically useful in warfare, and space can be the same way. Also, the barren wastelands you refer to are also inexhaustible non-polluting power sources. That is like saying there's nothing in the desert but sand. Yet people live in deserts all around the world because some of them are on oil fields, on giant aquifers.
As it was with air, so it shall be with space.
Like many other people, you completely misunderstand libertarianism. Like I said in my message, just because someone believes in smaller government doesn't mean that they believe that everything should be legal. You have vastly over simplified things.
-- And ironically, after you're whole message, you point out how if we eliminated the meager spam laws we have, that the market would find a solution anyway. Wow, you might have actually just convinced me that we should vote for Ron Paul, and that the spammers are right!
That's like saying that "A vote for candidate X is a vote for terrorism" or "Osama Bin Laden would vote for so-and-so." Spammers like Ron Paul, so vote against him! [Your favorite team's rival] will vote for Ron Paul!
How are Ron Paul's philosophies any better for spammers? People seem to have this idea that a guy who likes a smaller government is okay with everything being legal. (Not that the CAN-SPAM act is any indication that the present government gives a crud about stopping spammers)
It is obvious you disagree with the libertarian viewpoint, and that is fine. But don't paint him to be a liar when it is the completely consistent.
A: This is an economics blog, so you tell me: why don't the computer companies compete on boot-speed? I know! I know! Because there's no competition?
The desktop competitors are*: 90% Microsoft, 5% Apple, 5% other. With a distribution like that, there's hardly any real competition to cause things to improve. Even if Linux is modified to boot in 3 seconds, it won't make Microsoft change anything.
* (This is just a ball park guess to make the point, not warranting for accuracy)
Suppose that the US FDA allowed companies to sell dangerous foods, but put a big honking label on them that says "OMG! THIS WILL KILL YOU DO NOT EAT IT!" I bet 75% of parents would say that they are concerned that they might be buying deadly poisonous foods, but don't have time to check the labels. They might cite that it is much easier to just put the food in the cart and buy it, because little Jimmy likes to eat "Radioactive Puffs" and it shuts up his whining.
Just remember, it takes months and years to sign distribution deals in other countries. And there is a shortage of talented voice actors and translators who can translate American English to UK English. How many people do you know who understand the minute differences between pants and trousers? Between a truck and a lorrie? Don't even get me started on Canadian English. Adding all those "eh's" into the end of each characters lines requires digitally lengthening each episode by 5 minutes.
Okay, leaving tongue-in-cheek mode to make a technical point: Back in the VHS days, you had to translate media between PAL and NTSC. Today, there's no reason a DVD player can't handle both. The DVD players can already rescale the video, frame rate no longer has anything to do with "tracking" or "synching." So the PAL -vs- NTSC excuse doesn't hold water any more. Especially since that conversion can be done in real time on a midrange PC these days.
Modules: <module> creates a sub-tree which can contain a document with a communication channel These tags are deprecated anyway right? But I think we need to just plain throw them out. A single concept should be able to replace them all. Custom Tags: Custom HTML tags have always been allowed in HTML... They have? What's the point? Somebody help me out here. Is something wrong with <div> and <span> for this purpose?
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you're vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Ron Paul specifically discusses how he believes corporations are abusing your privacy. I must grant you, that in all the cases he discussed, they relate to government intrusion as well. But I see no indication that Ron Paul would try to repeal laws limiting how much information corporations can exchange. And the fact that he has not said discussed passing additional privacy laws can't be used as a mark against him either, for two reasons: 1) None of the other candidates have said they would do that, and 2) None of the other candidates even care about privacy half as much as he does. The other candidates aren't even recognizing that the use of SSNs, the PATRIOT Act, etc. are privacy issues.
Even on the issue of private corporations abusing your privacy, Ron Paul is still the most likely person help with that issue.
Mark my words: Ron Paul will lose. I know this for certain because 8 of 10 of my friends said "I would vote for Ron Paul, but he won't win because he isn't taken seriously." So instead of Ron Paul getting 80% of my state, he will get 0% because they all say he will lose But of course, people have this misguided believe that all they have to do to change the world is place a vote. In the last election, about 50% of the eligible voters voted. The people who can change the world are the ones who didn't vote, not the ones who did. In order to become a party, fully recognized, and funded by the federal government (and most states) -- a party must get 5% of the vote. So imagine for a moment if that 50% just walked into a booth and voted randomly. Not only are they actually the majority, but if they just voted randomly, we would have 10 new political parties. THAT would be the change we need. Politicians would have to actually discuss things with the dissidents who aren't in one the big money majority parties. And their power would be diluted.
So you see, your vote really isn't the vote that changes things. Not mine either. It's that lazy disgruntled neighbor of yours who doesn't bother to vote or write to their representatives. The one who isn't an EFF member and who doesn't even know that the government can listen to their phone conversations. Ironically, the apathetic hold the power.
Good points.
Part of the problem is that we don't have an accurate accounting of how much oil is left in the easy-to-get-to locations. The middle eastern sources are depleting, but they refuse to acknowledge how much. Every year they say that the amount of oil left in the ground is the same as it was the previous year. This is because they are limited in how much they can extract by international treaties. If they can only extract 5% a year, then the only way they can keep production up is to claim that the amount of oil is the same. So they lie. We may find that those oil fields run dry all of a sudden and nobody knew it was going to happen.
As you point out, other sources can be exploited - but it requires investment and time to setup. And unless we know how much is left in the easy sources it is hard to gauge when to invest in the hard ones. In the end, it doesn't matter: We need to move to renewable for this reason, and 1000 others.
1. One month.
2. There is no labor shortage in this area. It's the exact opposite. There are people doing this on their own time, for free. And some of those groups would love to do it professionally if they got the opportunity. But they are treated as the enemy, not potential employees.
3. This should save time, not make it take longer. The fansub groups have to work from broadcasts, capture it, and convert it -- typically using non-professional tools. There's no excuse for the professionals claiming that it takes them longer to produce. Especially since I find that much anime that comes to the U.S. is in poorer quality than what the fansub groups put out. I can't tell you the number of anime DVDs that have bad inverse telecine and are interlaced, while the fansub groups have 640x480 progressive or HD quality.
4. You are right -- they don't have to produce a dubbed version.
Let's look at that last point: Some purists may argue that dubbed anime isn't necessary, but the sales numbers consistently show higher sales on dubbed versions. Since they take 3 years to produce an English version the people who want subtitled versions have already seen it.
But let's dig into the real heart of why it takes so long: The companies don't start the process until years after a series becomes popular. They wait so long doing nothing that by the time they put it out, the hardcore fans have already seen it. Then, they water it down for various socio-political reasons, which dilutes it even further.
This is the second time in a week I've begun to think that the FSF is overstepping its bounds. As much as I hate the RIAA, I'm not sure I want the FSF involved in RIAA law suits in any way.