In order for electric cars to become mainstream, it seems to me that some progress will have to be made regarding charging implementation and standards. If I was ruler of the world, here's what I would look into:
1. Create a standard for charging. I would suggest making the charging voltage be something very high, such as 440 or 880 Volts. This serves a couple purposes:
a. Charging should be faster.
b. Charging should be cheaper.
c. You won't be tempted to plug in your toaster. 2. Put the charging circuit on its own meter at facilities--this could be houses or places of business. 3. Mandate that all new construction get the new circuit and meter. This includes both houses and commercial buildings. 4. Make the charging port physically hardended--only the property owner can unlock it. 5. To use the charging port, you must have an account with some central agency that will issue you a physical key. This key will allow you to charge at any station in the country and have your individual account recorded at the meter for any electricity utilized. This key will be a physical key, but can only be used if the port is physically unlocked by the property owner. 6. No matter where you charge up, you ultimately pay for your power through your specific power company. Partnerships exist behind the scenes, through the central agency, to account for money transfers between providers if you fill up at a port that is serviced by another company. 7. Since this whole system is running and catalogued by account, taxes can be levied similar to gas taxes now--all without affecting the taxes on electricity powering the 110 and 220 Volt circuits.
This system may introduce privacy concerns. Namely, the government will known when and where you are using your key. Of course, with the majority of us using credit cards to fill up at gas stations, I'm not sure I agree that this is a HUGE problem.
You know, this may sound like I'm giving in, but I'd gladly buy into an unlimited download service if by signing up for a year would make all (or at least the music from those labels who are participating) of my current music collection legal.
I get maybe 1hr15mins out of my laptop's battery. This is only a marginally useful development, unless they also provide a power outlet. I've seen power on a few planes, but a vast majority are still missing this key component.
It's about time someone fought back. UofO has the backing of Phil Knight (founder of Nike), so there should be plenty of money to fight off the RIAA should things get ugly.
With all the advances in memory density, I find myself wondering why they still sell movies on DVDs, and not on a chip-based memory device of some sort.
I think you've figured out the real reason for not upgrading the system. If they spend money on the upgrade, somebody'll likely raise the "this project is superflous" flag and the whole thing could be in danger of being shut down. If they just let the program spend the same next year as it does this year, then nobody raises a brow. Clearly, the general concensus in the administration is that the project has no real value, but isn't worth scrapping either. I bet $5 (USD) that the budget line for this project doesn't even properly describe what the money's being spent on, they are using budget from another project to find the maintenance and monitoring, or principals on the project are working on this on the side.:-)
Your points are understood, but you seem a bit bias. You have a low opinion of popular music (rightfully so, possibly) but not everybody shares this opinion. Those that don't share that opinion are the ones that could contribute to the wealth of the artist by purchasing the music they enjoy.
You correctly point out that music is intangible and can be copied with little to no expense (unlike food that requires manual labor to produce each time). But, we need to be careful that the intangibility of it doesn't equate to the music having no value to society. I think many have placed too little value on recorded media in the abspect of what utility they derive from listening or watching it. A great many people (sub)consciously value music and movies (a *lot* as indicated by the 500GB hd's flying off the shelves at CompUSA), create massive collections of it, but refuse to pay for it. Those that do legitimately pay for it--even if cheaply because of free market pressures--are honoring the underlying value of the recording. Pirating music and getting cheap music is not the same thing because one gives a token of appreciation to the artist, the other says "fuck you, I want it, I'm taking it." (kinda 5-year-old in nature, eh?) I don't think you can argue that the digital age has managed to make copying music for free feasible, therefore music is less valuable to society.
Ok, so back to the begining--the copyright at least attempts to bring some sort of protection to the value of intangible goods such as music. Music is something people value enormously, so shouldn't it be as barterable as a 22oz steak?? Given that technology makes it simple to reduce the value down to zero, I think copyrights are not totally passe--yet.
Btw, I think 7 is better too.
Oh bother, I've forgotten what the original post was about.
Not sure where you are going with your argument, but it seems that you are saying that using a copyright to maximize profits on a product is abusing and undermining the reason we grant copyrights. If this is what you are implying, then you may have missed one critical point--turning a profit is what motivates many people to do things like write books, write music, and do science. Sure, people also do these things because they simply love the art/science, but if there's money in it then they are all that much more likely to pursue the end product. So, in a way, allowing companies to maximize profit by maintaining copyrights is *exactly* what a free market needs to stay on the edge.
Would it not be possible to leverage at least part of this technology to improve performance on typical diesel/gasoline powered or hybrid cars? In my simple mind, I see the process of slowing down (breaking) involving borrowing some of the kinetic energy and storing it as compressed air. Then, the next acceleration could use the stored energy to take some of burdon off the engine. I see this as a huge benefit in city driving where stopping and starting is more predominate.
So, this begs the question of how one would manage the rights at a Karaoke bar. In this case bar patrons are there because of the music. KJ's, for lack of a better acronym, may have music from all sorts of labels and the singers... well, good luck pinning them down and asking them to tip both the KJ (geez, that's more retarded everytime I type it) and the record label! Next thing we know I'll have to pay royalties to Microsoft everytime I explain to my Aunt Sue how to update her Outlook settings over the phone! Sheesh, enough already.
To me, Luke in episode 4 was a naive and unexperienced boy. That signifies a rather unremarkable childhood. I hope that they don't fill has childhood with all sorts of adventures that would contradict his demeanor in the movies. Oh wait, if they did that, then it wouldn't be much of a series.
I think the years prior to Episode 1 would be much more interesting. They could cover the adventures of a young Obi Wan or Mace Windu (spelling?).
Let's say that it's illegal to convert/copy DRM protected media in one country but not another, and you happen to live in the country where it's illegal. Is it legal to rent space on a machine in the country where it IS legal and on that machine do the conversion/copying to a non-DRM protected format?
Unfortunately, releasing new side scrollers for non-portable consoles is a step too far back for most gamers. But, there is a compromise that blends 2d action and gameplay with killer looks. Enter stage right, Crash Bandicoot. In my opinion CB epitomizes the genre of 2d scrollers, even though it was in 3d (sorta)... it's fast, easy to control, challenging, requires killer timing, and can be frustrating all at the same time. Create a half-dozen franchises in the style of Crash and that'll be a cash cow, if ever there was one.
I think that you were kidding, but it raises a good point. The US Federal Government, being in control of the DNS servers, could technically delete domains that host porn, thereby "controlling" it. However, have they? Do you honestly think that they would? If you one of those who say yes, then you obviously have no idea how much value the US puts on its liberties.
Also, doesn't it strike you that controlling content at the DNS level is really silly? Surely taking out the hosts of such materials (physically pulling the servers offline) would be much more effective than checking every registered domain (anybody can register a new domain) every new domain to see if it's hosting forbidden materials or restricted materials in an unsecure manner. Certainly miscreants can stay ahead of a bit a DNS filtering.
I'm running 1.0.4, but I think that my Firefox is reporting 0.9.2, so the Googlebar won't install. I checked under Help->About Mozilla Firefox and that is where I see the user agent string that is mismatched to the version number. What a pain!
It says:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/0.9.2
Be very careful suggesting this. If clicking on an ad with the sole intent to run up a bill for the company posting the ad is a criminal act, then enticing others to commit such an act by
) providing instruction that serve no other purpose than to cause such an act, or
2) providing incentive or a call to action directing others to commit the act...
This is not a good comparison. I would not water my lawn with bottled water, I wouldn't try to BUY a book from the library, and I wouldn't trust a security firm to put out a fire.
As the Internet and conncetivity because a commodity, the government needs to decide holistically if they are going to back it with infrastructure. It's not whether or not they will do it (because it's fine either way), it's NOT KNOWING if they will. If government is going to take care of wireless connectivity, then private sectors don't need to focus on it. If the government won't, then the private sectors do need to take care of it, and WILL, if given the chance. The important thing here is to make a decision, one way or the other.
There's almost no comparison. MemTech's offering has a throughput of 2.3/1.0 (r/w) mbps. Samsung's offering has a throughput of 57/32 (r/w)mbps. EIDE is typically in the range of 16 and 33 mbps for both read and write, so MemTech's product isn't even close to a suitable replacement for typical drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like they need to sell only one of these to pay for R&D costs. Seems like a pretty good business model to me.
In order for electric cars to become mainstream, it seems to me that some progress will have to be made regarding charging implementation and standards. If I was ruler of the world, here's what I would look into:
1. Create a standard for charging. I would suggest making the charging voltage be something very high, such as 440 or 880 Volts. This serves a couple purposes:
a. Charging should be faster.
b. Charging should be cheaper.
c. You won't be tempted to plug in your toaster.
2. Put the charging circuit on its own meter at facilities--this could be houses or places of business.
3. Mandate that all new construction get the new circuit and meter. This includes both houses and commercial buildings.
4. Make the charging port physically hardended--only the property owner can unlock it.
5. To use the charging port, you must have an account with some central agency that will issue you a physical key. This key will allow you to charge at any station in the country and have your individual account recorded at the meter for any electricity utilized. This key will be a physical key, but can only be used if the port is physically unlocked by the property owner.
6. No matter where you charge up, you ultimately pay for your power through your specific power company. Partnerships exist behind the scenes, through the central agency, to account for money transfers between providers if you fill up at a port that is serviced by another company.
7. Since this whole system is running and catalogued by account, taxes can be levied similar to gas taxes now--all without affecting the taxes on electricity powering the 110 and 220 Volt circuits.
This system may introduce privacy concerns. Namely, the government will known when and where you are using your key. Of course, with the majority of us using credit cards to fill up at gas stations, I'm not sure I agree that this is a HUGE problem.
You know, this may sound like I'm giving in, but I'd gladly buy into an unlimited download service if by signing up for a year would make all (or at least the music from those labels who are participating) of my current music collection legal.
I get maybe 1hr15mins out of my laptop's battery. This is only a marginally useful development, unless they also provide a power outlet. I've seen power on a few planes, but a vast majority are still missing this key component.
Go Ducks!
It's about time someone fought back. UofO has the backing of Phil Knight (founder of Nike), so there should be plenty of money to fight off the RIAA should things get ugly.
With all the advances in memory density, I find myself wondering why they still sell movies on DVDs, and not on a chip-based memory device of some sort.
I think you've figured out the real reason for not upgrading the system. If they spend money on the upgrade, somebody'll likely raise the "this project is superflous" flag and the whole thing could be in danger of being shut down. If they just let the program spend the same next year as it does this year, then nobody raises a brow. Clearly, the general concensus in the administration is that the project has no real value, but isn't worth scrapping either. I bet $5 (USD) that the budget line for this project doesn't even properly describe what the money's being spent on, they are using budget from another project to find the maintenance and monitoring, or principals on the project are working on this on the side. :-)
As a cat owner, I can tell you that you got it wrong--the cat's in charge, "... he smile, petting his evil white cat." I thought everybody knew that!
Your points are understood, but you seem a bit bias. You have a low opinion of popular music (rightfully so, possibly) but not everybody shares this opinion. Those that don't share that opinion are the ones that could contribute to the wealth of the artist by purchasing the music they enjoy.
You correctly point out that music is intangible and can be copied with little to no expense (unlike food that requires manual labor to produce each time). But, we need to be careful that the intangibility of it doesn't equate to the music having no value to society. I think many have placed too little value on recorded media in the abspect of what utility they derive from listening or watching it. A great many people (sub)consciously value music and movies (a *lot* as indicated by the 500GB hd's flying off the shelves at CompUSA), create massive collections of it, but refuse to pay for it. Those that do legitimately pay for it--even if cheaply because of free market pressures--are honoring the underlying value of the recording. Pirating music and getting cheap music is not the same thing because one gives a token of appreciation to the artist, the other says "fuck you, I want it, I'm taking it." (kinda 5-year-old in nature, eh?) I don't think you can argue that the digital age has managed to make copying music for free feasible, therefore music is less valuable to society.
Ok, so back to the begining--the copyright at least attempts to bring some sort of protection to the value of intangible goods such as music. Music is something people value enormously, so shouldn't it be as barterable as a 22oz steak?? Given that technology makes it simple to reduce the value down to zero, I think copyrights are not totally passe--yet.
Btw, I think 7 is better too.
Oh bother, I've forgotten what the original post was about.
Not sure where you are going with your argument, but it seems that you are saying that using a copyright to maximize profits on a product is abusing and undermining the reason we grant copyrights. If this is what you are implying, then you may have missed one critical point--turning a profit is what motivates many people to do things like write books, write music, and do science. Sure, people also do these things because they simply love the art/science, but if there's money in it then they are all that much more likely to pursue the end product. So, in a way, allowing companies to maximize profit by maintaining copyrights is *exactly* what a free market needs to stay on the edge.
Would it not be possible to leverage at least part of this technology to improve performance on typical diesel/gasoline powered or hybrid cars? In my simple mind, I see the process of slowing down (breaking) involving borrowing some of the kinetic energy and storing it as compressed air. Then, the next acceleration could use the stored energy to take some of burdon off the engine. I see this as a huge benefit in city driving where stopping and starting is more predominate.
So, this begs the question of how one would manage the rights at a Karaoke bar. In this case bar patrons are there because of the music. KJ's, for lack of a better acronym, may have music from all sorts of labels and the singers... well, good luck pinning them down and asking them to tip both the KJ (geez, that's more retarded everytime I type it) and the record label! Next thing we know I'll have to pay royalties to Microsoft everytime I explain to my Aunt Sue how to update her Outlook settings over the phone! Sheesh, enough already.
To me, Luke in episode 4 was a naive and unexperienced boy. That signifies a rather unremarkable childhood. I hope that they don't fill has childhood with all sorts of adventures that would contradict his demeanor in the movies. Oh wait, if they did that, then it wouldn't be much of a series.
I think the years prior to Episode 1 would be much more interesting. They could cover the adventures of a young Obi Wan or Mace Windu (spelling?).
Let's say that it's illegal to convert/copy DRM protected media in one country but not another, and you happen to live in the country where it's illegal. Is it legal to rent space on a machine in the country where it IS legal and on that machine do the conversion/copying to a non-DRM protected format?
Unfortunately, releasing new side scrollers for non-portable consoles is a step too far back for most gamers. But, there is a compromise that blends 2d action and gameplay with killer looks. Enter stage right, Crash Bandicoot. In my opinion CB epitomizes the genre of 2d scrollers, even though it was in 3d (sorta)... it's fast, easy to control, challenging, requires killer timing, and can be frustrating all at the same time. Create a half-dozen franchises in the style of Crash and that'll be a cash cow, if ever there was one.
I think that you were kidding, but it raises a good point. The US Federal Government, being in control of the DNS servers, could technically delete domains that host porn, thereby "controlling" it. However, have they? Do you honestly think that they would? If you one of those who say yes, then you obviously have no idea how much value the US puts on its liberties.
Also, doesn't it strike you that controlling content at the DNS level is really silly? Surely taking out the hosts of such materials (physically pulling the servers offline) would be much more effective than checking every registered domain (anybody can register a new domain) every new domain to see if it's hosting forbidden materials or restricted materials in an unsecure manner. Certainly miscreants can stay ahead of a bit a DNS filtering.
Would you mind recalculating that for the dimensions of a TUNA can... which is much more squat than a soup can. I'd be curious.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a comedy. The fact that you could see him coming for so long was part of the (British) humor. What a grand movie.
I'm running 1.0.4, but I think that my Firefox is reporting 0.9.2, so the Googlebar won't install. I checked under Help->About Mozilla Firefox and that is where I see the user agent string that is mismatched to the version number. What a pain!
It says:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/0.9.2
Be very careful suggesting this. If clicking on an ad with the sole intent to run up a bill for the company posting the ad is a criminal act, then enticing others to commit such an act by
) providing instruction that serve no other purpose than to cause such an act, or
2) providing incentive or a call to action directing others to commit the act...
is in itself a criminal act.
This is not a good comparison. I would not water my lawn with bottled water, I wouldn't try to BUY a book from the library, and I wouldn't trust a security firm to put out a fire.
As the Internet and conncetivity because a commodity, the government needs to decide holistically if they are going to back it with infrastructure. It's not whether or not they will do it (because it's fine either way), it's NOT KNOWING if they will. If government is going to take care of wireless connectivity, then private sectors don't need to focus on it. If the government won't, then the private sectors do need to take care of it, and WILL, if given the chance. The important thing here is to make a decision, one way or the other.
Apparently Google can do wrong, after all. Google's RSS feed reader got the ban from SLASHDOT! So much for the latest 9 headlines.
There's almost no comparison. MemTech's offering has a throughput of 2.3/1.0 (r/w) mbps. Samsung's offering has a throughput of 57/32 (r/w)mbps. EIDE is typically in the range of 16 and 33 mbps for both read and write, so MemTech's product isn't even close to a suitable replacement for typical drives.
The original poster has the video, presumably. Perhaps he'll so kind as to post a torrent.
ER... no. Mirrordot would link to mirrordot...