"If the plants get decommissioned it will literally cut our energy production by 1/2"
According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, in August 2009 Nuclear power produced approximately 0.758 quadrillion BTUs of energy, out of a total of 6.266 quadrillion BTUs produced across all sources. That's approximately 12% of total output. Thus, decomissioning nuclear power plants would not cut our energy production by half, either literally or figuratively.
Extensive stats from EIA available here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html
Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $2375 1917 dollars have the same buying power as about $39000 2008 dollars. That inflation is based on the CPI.
Industrial equipment is taxed when purchased - sales tax. Stock investments are taxed when you sell them - capital gains tax. Money people owe you is taxed - income tax. Labor contracts - sounds like income tax to me. Bank account - okay, you're right on this one for most basic checking accounts, although some types of interest bearing accounts can be considered capital gains.
The government doesn't place an 'arbitrary value' on things to tax them. They don't just make stuff up. For example, houses have to be regularly reassessed (the time depends on your jurisdiction) to determine their property tax level. The assessors are private individuals who judge the value based on the condition of the property, the surrounding neighborhood, general market conditions and so on. That assessment is also usually used when you try to sell the house - you don't *have* to sell it at the assessed value but if you ask a lot more, or a lot less, your buyers will get curious and at least want a good explanation.
Putting all those points aside, how is a property tax 'evil'? It can be unfair. It can be ineffective. It can be counterproductive. But *evil*? Property tax doesn't have agency. It can't be evil. Maybe you just hate taxes in general, which is an entirely separate conversation.
Many tram systems have operator-controlled switches. In the old days (and still in some places, like Prague) switches are set by an operator manually. This system appears to basically be the same thing through proximity IR control. On railroads, switches are mostly controlled from a central dispatch office.
First, a minor point, banks don't issue money (they used to but that creates undesireable barriers to trade) and thus making banks adhere to the gold standard is meaningless. Governments make currency standards.
Second, gold doesn't have intrinsic value at all. The value of gold fluctuates all the time. All the gold standard did was fix the price of gold. While the gold standard was tenable for a time it didn't work in the long run because it's not stable. Your money supply is dependent on your gold supply which in turn limits your economy. You can't have more dollars than your fixed ratio to gold. New discoveries of gold can also create deflationary shocks.
There's nothing special about money at all. It's a medium of exchange. It has what value we agree it has, no matter if the medium is a piece of paper or a string of bits or a hunk of metal.
Since DC is entirely the responsibility of congress Entirely true. See Art I, Sec. 8.
and have at large representation in congress No. DC elects a single non-voted delegate to the House. She has some of the privileges of a Representitive - she may speak on the House floor, for example - but may not cast votes in the House as a whole. DC's delegate has, at times, been allowed to cast votes in House committees but this is a function of the rules which may be changed by Congress at a whim. Non-voting delegates aren't uncommon. There's one each from Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, and it was a common practice for territories seeking statehood to be allowed a non-voting congressional delegate and a non-voting Senate delegate.
It is simply incorrect to think that citizens of DC have any representation in Congress.
In the modern era this is not the only concern. Minorities can push their will on the majority if the minority is sufficiently invested and the costs to the majority are sufficiently diffuse. Taking action has a cost and thus political involvement can be seen as an economic transactions - if the cost of acting isn't worth the potential payoff people won't take action.
Government has *no* place? So who will educate the people you want to employ? Who will build the roads to deliver your goods? Who will protect the oil tankers that fuel your factory? Who will predict when hurricanes are coming so you won't be drowned? Who will make sure the banks you keep your money in are stable? Who will prevent stock markets from being manipulated and destroying your business? For that matter, who will prevent you from being beaten up on the street by people bigger and meaner than you?
You don't have to agree with everything the government does, but don't use that as an excuse for ripping up the social contract in a shortsighted tantrum.
eBay and the like get no special exemption. Sellers are *supposed* to pay an income tax on their earnings from those sites, it's just that relies purely on self-reporting. It looks like the proposal would be akin to requiring employers to report wages for employees. This proposal would just make it more feasable to enforce existing law.
Disgruntled = Forced to install Exchange. Paranoid = Forced to recheck Exchange database Late = Had to stay up all night while Exchange tested databases Argumentative = Caught whispering 'Postfix, bitches' Poor Performer = Changed Exchange password to 'kill me now'
What's not to understand?
(I've never worked with Notes, so it could be as bad as you say, but I've worked with Exchange 2K and 2K3, and yup, it's painful).
The Express is a good quick read for the metro ride, but doesn't have the rich, full-bodied taste of a full newspaper. Also has mostly the same news I get in the 5-minute NPR headlines, but it's something to do while waiting for/cramming into trains.
As for the Examiner...there's enough issues about it that I find it dubious and avoid it. For example, they litter all over, including in my Arlington neighorhood. Of course, only certian neighborhoods are getting the Examiner tossed on their doorstep, and those seem to be 'selected' areas (re: white and rich). And, the Examiner regularly publishes articles on properties owned by their parent company without acknowledging the connection (ie: they ran a big piece on the DC United, which is owned byt he Examiner's owner).
The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this.
Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.
---
Jan. 5, 2005 |
I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.
To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.
Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.
Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.
The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.
Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.
These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?
Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l
"You broke the law by having the crop and the evidence should be used to convict you. The fact that the police entered illegaly is a separate violation of the law by the police officers. They should be charged with breaking and entering and violation of the 4th Amendment. That way they'll be encouraged to obtain the proper warrants. But you won't get off free because of their failure to follow the law."
The fourth ammendment acutaly says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (from Findlaw).
The problem with your approach is that it would still violate the right of the people to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Even if, in your scenario, the officers are tried and conviced of breaking and entering, my rights were still violated, and any evidence obtained was a direct benefit of that violation. "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED" is a long way from "encouraging" the police to follow the rules. Since the police, like everybody else, are fallable, the only choice is to pretend as if the violation never happened, and throw out anything discovered in it. It's inconvenient, but I prefer it to the other options.
But then again, I just re-upped my ACLU membership.
Yes it is. The IP holder can and should dictate the terms of usage of his/her IP.
Actually, Intellectual Property was meant to be treated quite differently than regular property. If we actually read the Constitution (a shocking idea, in this day and age, I fear), it reads:
"[Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
Fundamentally, the idea of copyright was to allow creators to be able to make a living because society as a whole benefitted from it. That this would only exist "for limited times" after which it would all revert to the public domain.
You have to remember that the cost to duplicate an idea is zero. If you take my bread, I don't have any. If you take my idea, I still have it. It's this fundamental difference that seperates intellectual and real property. Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote: "he who lights
his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
To say that copyright and patent holders have some inalienable right is to tread into dangerous territory, and makes a mockery of the social agreement by which IP exists in the first place.
Actually, the article seems to have missed the fact that your application will modify how you implement it.
The phone system uses a circuit-switched network: everybody gets their own, dedicated line to the other end (once the switches are thrown). On the one hand, it's inefficient, because even if you're not actively sending data, you still have the line tied up. But, your response time is near-instant, since there's no routing once the circuit is established, and there's nobody *else* using the line. This is great for the wya people converse.
It's lousy for the way computers converse. A packet switched network is vastly more efficient in terms of using the lines, but has added overhead of switching and routing, and does not have the same sort of response time. That's fine for most data applications, particularly the ones in use when the Internet was designed. It doesn't really matter if your packets arrive in-order, or quickly, for an e-mail. Just wait. It's crappy for applications that demand real-time reponse, such as a conversation. Granted, using UDP will fix some of that, but then things arrive out of order and get wierd.
And "webcasting" never made sense. The marginal cost to add a new person to a broadcast is 0. The radio waves are going to be passing through a certain space either way. Cable TV works basically the same way, but pumps frequency down a cable instead of radiating it. Still, the only real cost there is the cable itself: as long as you have enough power going in, and keep the signal from degrading, you can add as many cable customers as you want. You *can't* do that on the Internet (since multicast isn't routed), and so every time you add a viewer, you up your required bandwidth. And you run out.
People who are trying to use the Internet for phone calls or video are doing the network equivilent of using a hammer to insert a nail.
There's actually an excellent book on this topic by Rob McChesney, former NPR reporter and currently a Professor at the Universiy of Illinois called Rich Media, Poor Democracy. I read it for a class here at RPI, and part of what it detailed was the evolution of radio (which lead directly to television) and the big battle over educational value of the medium. Basically, teachers wanted to use it for education, while various companies, such as RCA, didn't. Basically, all the PBS stuff is just an extension of this same fight. Interesting how history repeats itself. ---------
The whole doctrin of "fair use" was absurdly generous to begin with. The fact is, intellectual property is a form of property, and any law that gives strangers usage rights to one's property over-extend legitimate government authority.
I'd strongly disagree with that. Intellectual propery is a social contract to encourage creation. If you read the constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article 1, Section 8).
There are two key points here: The first is what I put in bold. The purpose for intellectual property is to encourage it's creation, because there's a broader benefit for society. We all benefit from the creation of art, and if we can make a way so artists (and scientists, for that matter) can make a living. The second point is the 'limited time' part. Copyright currently (I believe) life plus one hundred years. That is, effectively, a 180 year copyright. That's in no way limited. Copyright has gotten out of hand. ---------
While I think some of the concepts in that essay you linked to are good, there are some glaring technical problems. Two which spring to mind:
The Declaration of Independence was made after the war had started, mostly as a piece of propaganda, and to legitimize the revolution (not that there's anything wrong with this). The DoI came after such notable events as the Boston Masacre (sp?), at which point war was virtually inevitable.
The Articles of Confederation were put together after the revolution. Much of the weakness of the articles was due to fear of having a strong central government, similar to that of England. This is why the constution wasn't actually ratified until 1787, 12 years after independence. A quote from the Constution. "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
So, about the headline for this story. I'm I the only person who noticed the glaring error? "Justice Department Decides to Break Up Microsoft" NONONONONO! That's not how it works.The *courts* get to make those decisions. "Court Decides to Break Up Microsoft" is what it should say. It's somehow disturbing that this basic fact was so easily missed. ---------
As one of those wacky left wing radio people, I'd suggest checking out two great sources for a different media perspective on the WTO issue: First is Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, at http://www.democracynow.org Second is a special series put out by the National Radio Project called World Trade Watch. ---------
Really? We've had issues with MSRPI over here for years. RPI (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for those who don't know), has been whoring it self to MS & its cronies for several years. The biggest coup came back in Jannuary, when the administration crammed through the laptop program, part of the disgustingly trendy "Mobile Computing @ Rensselaer" project. There was a huge meeting in the Student Union a week before break. Over 200 students showed up, packing the first floor, and the balcony that overlooks it, everybody harassing the admins. Nobody had a good thing to say. We made them promise that the machines would be Linux compatible. Guess what? They aren't. And they all run Windows. Makes you wonder.
Yet another grand case of the 'Tute Screw, the screw that always goes in, no matter which way you turn it! ---------
Slashdot Mirror
"If the plants get decommissioned it will literally cut our energy production by 1/2"
According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, in August 2009 Nuclear power produced approximately 0.758 quadrillion BTUs of energy, out of a total of 6.266 quadrillion BTUs produced across all sources. That's approximately 12% of total output. Thus, decomissioning nuclear power plants would not cut our energy production by half, either literally or figuratively.
Extensive stats from EIA available here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html
I'm not certain you're doing your math right.
Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $2375 1917 dollars have the same buying power as about $39000 2008 dollars. That inflation is based on the CPI.
Most of those things are taxed.
Industrial equipment is taxed when purchased - sales tax.
Stock investments are taxed when you sell them - capital gains tax.
Money people owe you is taxed - income tax.
Labor contracts - sounds like income tax to me.
Bank account - okay, you're right on this one for most basic checking accounts, although some types of interest bearing accounts can be considered capital gains.
The government doesn't place an 'arbitrary value' on things to tax them. They don't just make stuff up. For example, houses have to be regularly reassessed (the time depends on your jurisdiction) to determine their property tax level. The assessors are private individuals who judge the value based on the condition of the property, the surrounding neighborhood, general market conditions and so on. That assessment is also usually used when you try to sell the house - you don't *have* to sell it at the assessed value but if you ask a lot more, or a lot less, your buyers will get curious and at least want a good explanation.
Putting all those points aside, how is a property tax 'evil'? It can be unfair. It can be ineffective. It can be counterproductive. But *evil*? Property tax doesn't have agency. It can't be evil. Maybe you just hate taxes in general, which is an entirely separate conversation.
Many tram systems have operator-controlled switches. In the old days (and still in some places, like Prague) switches are set by an operator manually. This system appears to basically be the same thing through proximity IR control.
On railroads, switches are mostly controlled from a central dispatch office.
Err, that should be inflationary shocks. D'oh.
First, a minor point, banks don't issue money (they used to but that creates undesireable barriers to trade) and thus making banks adhere to the gold standard is meaningless. Governments make currency standards.
Second, gold doesn't have intrinsic value at all. The value of gold fluctuates all the time. All the gold standard did was fix the price of gold. While the gold standard was tenable for a time it didn't work in the long run because it's not stable. Your money supply is dependent on your gold supply which in turn limits your economy. You can't have more dollars than your fixed ratio to gold. New discoveries of gold can also create deflationary shocks.
There's nothing special about money at all. It's a medium of exchange. It has what value we agree it has, no matter if the medium is a piece of paper or a string of bits or a hunk of metal.
It is simply incorrect to think that citizens of DC have any representation in Congress.
In the modern era this is not the only concern. Minorities can push their will on the majority if the minority is sufficiently invested and the costs to the majority are sufficiently diffuse. Taking action has a cost and thus political involvement can be seen as an economic transactions - if the cost of acting isn't worth the potential payoff people won't take action.
This idea's been around for a while, pioneered by Mancur Olson. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
Government has *no* place?
So who will educate the people you want to employ?
Who will build the roads to deliver your goods?
Who will protect the oil tankers that fuel your factory?
Who will predict when hurricanes are coming so you won't be drowned?
Who will make sure the banks you keep your money in are stable?
Who will prevent stock markets from being manipulated and destroying your business?
For that matter, who will prevent you from being beaten up on the street by people bigger and meaner than you?
You don't have to agree with everything the government does, but don't use that as an excuse for ripping up the social contract in a shortsighted tantrum.
eBay and the like get no special exemption. Sellers are *supposed* to pay an income tax on their earnings from those sites, it's just that relies purely on self-reporting. It looks like the proposal would be akin to requiring employers to report wages for employees. This proposal would just make it more feasable to enforce existing law.
Disgruntled = Forced to install Exchange.
Paranoid = Forced to recheck Exchange database
Late = Had to stay up all night while Exchange tested databases
Argumentative = Caught whispering 'Postfix, bitches'
Poor Performer = Changed Exchange password to 'kill me now'
What's not to understand?
(I've never worked with Notes, so it could be as bad as you say, but I've worked with Exchange 2K and 2K3, and yup, it's painful).
The Express is a good quick read for the metro ride, but doesn't have the rich, full-bodied taste of a full newspaper. Also has mostly the same news I get in the 5-minute NPR headlines, but it's something to do while waiting for/cramming into trains.
As for the Examiner...there's enough issues about it that I find it dubious and avoid it. For example, they litter all over, including in my Arlington neighorhood. Of course, only certian neighborhoods are getting the Examiner tossed on their doorstep, and those seem to be 'selected' areas (re: white and rich). And, the Examiner regularly publishes articles on properties owned by their parent company without acknowledging the connection (ie: they ran a big piece on the DC United, which is owned byt he Examiner's owner).
All free media isn't created equal.
The whole 'lasers as weapons against planes' hysteria has to be one of the stupidest in memory. It just doesn't work. Salon.com's Patrick Smith, author of Ask the Pilot has written about this. Today an (almost) PhD. Physicist wrote in to support Mr. Smith. Text below for those of you who don't want to view the ad.
--- Jan. 5, 2005 |
I'm a few months away from receiving my Ph.D. in physics from a highly respected physics department. A good portion of my work has involved using various types of lasers.
To understand the improbability of a laser attack, consider the technical requirements involved. A weak laser beam can indeed blind a person. However, hitting a small target like an eye is very difficult over long distances. In order to have a high probability of success the terrorists would need to spread out the laser beam to fill the cockpit window. That isn't so difficult, but when you spread out a beam of light it becomes weaker, so you need a more powerful laser to compensate. Terrorists would need a large laser with a portable power supply and cooling system. Such systems are available, but they are bulky and expensive.
Next, temporary blindness is certainly dangerous. However, as Patrick Smith pointed out, blinding a pilot for a few seconds is not necessarily enough to bring down a plane. To bring down a plane the terrorists would have to inflict an injury that pilots can't recover from quickly. That requires either more power or a sustained exposure.
Sustained exposure requires the ability to track a plane. Tracking a moving target is certainly possible, but it would require skilled engineers to develop a system as well as money for parts. To reduce the necessary skill and expense, they would want to illuminate the plane from a point along the flight path. They would also want to do it from a high point that has a line of sight to the cockpit during takeoff or landing. However, takeoff and landing paths are generally chosen for a lack of tall buildings and large hills.
The location requirement is by no means an impossible resource constraint, but it does add to the difficulty of the task. It is interesting that the alleged attacks are happening around the country. Each site would need to be carefully selected, to ensure a good line of sight as well as easy access for bulky equipment and little scrutiny from law enforcement or other nosy observers.
Realistically, the complete weapon system would cost a hundred thousand dollars, require at least two people to operate, and would require considerable time to setup. Not to mention considerable time to dismantle before fleeing. (Unless they want to leave behind expensive equipment that authorities can trace.) And all of this would have to be done from one of the few hills or tall buildings in the flight path.
These are not impossible hurdles for a terrorist group, but most terrorist attacks against America in the past 10 years have involved fertilizer bombs, other improvised explosives, and boxcutter knives. If terrorist groups have money, technological savvy, and a network of operatives to scope out prime sites near airports around the United States, why not do something simple like make conventional explosives and plant them in public places?
Finally, the fact that the alleged incidents have involved visible light makes me even more convinced that these are not terrorist attacks. Lasers that emit visible light would be a poor choice for a weapon system. First of all, pilots would notice that the cockpit was being illuminated and they could cover or avert their eyes while waiting for the illumination to pass. Second, a powerful laser beam passing through the sky will scatter from dust and water droplets in the air, letting l
Ah, it burns! Zee goggles, zay do nothink!
"You broke the law by having the crop and the evidence should be used to convict you. The fact that the police entered illegaly is a separate violation of the law by the police officers. They should be charged with breaking and entering and violation of the 4th Amendment. That way they'll be encouraged to obtain the proper warrants. But you won't get off free because of their failure to follow the law."
The fourth ammendment acutaly says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (from Findlaw).
The problem with your approach is that it would still violate the right of the people to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Even if, in your scenario, the officers are tried and conviced of breaking and entering, my rights were still violated, and any evidence obtained was a direct benefit of that violation. "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED" is a long way from "encouraging" the police to follow the rules. Since the police, like everybody else, are fallable, the only choice is to pretend as if the violation never happened, and throw out anything discovered in it. It's inconvenient, but I prefer it to the other options.
But then again, I just re-upped my ACLU membership.
Actually, Intellectual Property was meant to be treated quite differently than regular property. If we actually read the Constitution (a shocking idea, in this day and age, I fear), it reads: Fundamentally, the idea of copyright was to allow creators to be able to make a living because society as a whole benefitted from it. That this would only exist "for limited times" after which it would all revert to the public domain.
You have to remember that the cost to duplicate an idea is zero. If you take my bread, I don't have any. If you take my idea, I still have it. It's this fundamental difference that seperates intellectual and real property. Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote: "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
To say that copyright and patent holders have some inalienable right is to tread into dangerous territory, and makes a mockery of the social agreement by which IP exists in the first place.
It's frightening to think that Slashdot can actually be prophetic.
This very possibility was discussed when the X-33 cancellation was posted.
Actually, the article seems to have missed the fact that your application will modify how you implement it.
The phone system uses a circuit-switched network: everybody gets their own, dedicated line to the other end (once the switches are thrown). On the one hand, it's inefficient, because even if you're not actively sending data, you still have the line tied up. But, your response time is near-instant, since there's no routing once the circuit is established, and there's nobody *else* using the line. This is great for the wya people converse.
It's lousy for the way computers converse. A packet switched network is vastly more efficient in terms of using the lines, but has added overhead of switching and routing, and does not have the same sort of response time. That's fine for most data applications, particularly the ones in use when the Internet was designed. It doesn't really matter if your packets arrive in-order, or quickly, for an e-mail. Just wait. It's crappy for applications that demand real-time reponse, such as a conversation. Granted, using UDP will fix some of that, but then things arrive out of order and get wierd.
And "webcasting" never made sense. The marginal cost to add a new person to a broadcast is 0. The radio waves are going to be passing through a certain space either way. Cable TV works basically the same way, but pumps frequency down a cable instead of radiating it. Still, the only real cost there is the cable itself: as long as you have enough power going in, and keep the signal from degrading, you can add as many cable customers as you want. You *can't* do that on the Internet (since multicast isn't routed), and so every time you add a viewer, you up your required bandwidth. And you run out.
People who are trying to use the Internet for phone calls or video are doing the network equivilent of using a hammer to insert a nail.
There's actually an excellent book on this topic by Rob McChesney, former NPR reporter and currently a Professor at the Universiy of Illinois called Rich Media, Poor Democracy . I read it for a class here at RPI, and part of what it detailed was the evolution of radio (which lead directly to television) and the big battle over educational value of the medium. Basically, teachers wanted to use it for education, while various companies, such as RCA, didn't. Basically, all the PBS stuff is just an extension of this same fight. Interesting how history repeats itself.
---------
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article 1, Section 8).
There are two key points here: The first is what I put in bold. The purpose for intellectual property is to encourage it's creation, because there's a broader benefit for society. We all benefit from the creation of art, and if we can make a way so artists (and scientists, for that matter) can make a living.
The second point is the 'limited time' part. Copyright currently (I believe) life plus one hundred years. That is, effectively, a 180 year copyright. That's in no way limited. Copyright has gotten out of hand.
---------
...make me drool on my keyboard this early in the morning!
---------
Get your history straight.
---------
So, about the headline for this story. I'm I the only person who noticed the glaring error? "Justice Department Decides to Break Up Microsoft" NONONONONO! That's not how it works.The *courts* get to make those decisions. "Court Decides to Break Up Microsoft" is what it should say. It's somehow disturbing that this basic fact was so easily missed.
---------
As one of those wacky left wing radio people, I'd suggest checking out two great sources for a different media perspective on the WTO issue:
First is Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, at http://www.democracynow.org
Second is a special series put out by the National Radio Project called World Trade Watch.
---------
Really? We've had issues with MSRPI over here for years. RPI (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for those who don't know), has been whoring it self to MS & its cronies for several years. The biggest coup came back in Jannuary, when the administration crammed through the laptop program, part of the disgustingly trendy "Mobile Computing @ Rensselaer" project. There was a huge meeting in the Student Union a week before break. Over 200 students showed up, packing the first floor, and the balcony that overlooks it, everybody harassing the admins. Nobody had a good thing to say. We made them promise that the machines would be Linux compatible. Guess what? They aren't. And they all run Windows. Makes you wonder.
Yet another grand case of the 'Tute Screw, the screw that always goes in, no matter which way you turn it!
---------