"But the networks can't count those netcasts when they figure in how many people are watching the show and the ads, so they can't charge more to the advertisers."
Why on earth not? Demographics are only estimates anyway. If they can demonstrate that ICraveTV has a certain number of users then they should be able to include those numbers in their estimate.
If I was a broadcaster, I'd be pissing all over myself with joy that more people were getting an opportunity to see my broadcast and the advertisements contained therein. I'd then charge the advertisers more because I'm now reaching a larger demographic. Isn't it in the best interest of a broadcast network to reach as many people as possible since their revenue is based on advertising?
After reading some more info from the company orginating this idea I have to agree that it might be a good idea. They're not targeting the rental industry at all. I think it would be cool to have a rack full of movies at the check-out counter of a drug store or grocery store that you could buy for a couple of bucks to watch once or twice and then throw away. I would probably watch a lot of movies that I might otherwise pass up if I had to return them.
I think the rental stores will push back the hardest on this. They *want* to collect late fees, and if you have to go back to the store to return the movie, you are much more likely to rent another one. This is a stupid idea, pure and simple.
Of course, I just use kozmo.com to deliver movies to my door and pick them up when I'm done. I don't have to go anywhere!
They just said the Code Morphing stuff would remain proprietary for now, but the Linux mobile stuff would be open source. I wonder what exactly that means.
It'll never happen. If one thing has been shown to be true, legislation cannot keep up with the advance of technology. They can put in place whatever safeguards they want and in time they will be circumvented. Nothing short of banning data networks could eliminate the free and easy distribution of digital data.
Face it. The major record labels are running scared from MP3 and any other technology that has the potential to cut them out of the distribution loop. The advent of the internet and digital media represent a pardigm shift in the way media is distributed. I think we will begin to see more artists taking advantage of this technology to distribute and promote their own work. No longer will they be slaves to the labels, earning a mere fraction of the royalties and getting exposure at the whim of an executive only interested in maximizing profit by capitalizing on the next "formula" group (Back Street Boys anyone?) Consumers can only benefit from this as they will gain access to more varied music at much cheaper prices. I for one would much rather purchase music by the song over the internet knowing that the artists will get the lion's share of the profit. An artist could charge just a few cents per download and still make vastly more than they currently make under the yoke of the all-powerful label. As the price of music drops, pirating will become less of a problem since it will cost so little to download legal music directly from the artist. The recording companies, if they wish to survive, need to wake up to this reality and discover new revenue streams. I think they still have a roll to play in live music promotion and other models not tied to distribution, but it will take creativity and innovation on their part to make this happen.
"As a public trustee, the broadcaster may not engage in intentional and deliberate falsification (distorting, slanting, rigging, staging) of the news. As the Commission stated in its ruling in Hunger in America, "Rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest - indeed, there is no act more harmful to the public's ability to handle its affairs." Therefore, the Commission does act appropriately to protect the public interest in this important respect where we have received extrinsic evidence of such rigging or slanting. For example, this kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be extrinsic evidence revealing orders to falsify the news by a licensee, its top management or its news management."
I'm curious to see if the FCC will have anything to say about this. Isn't there something in the terms of agreement that networks must comply with that says something about public service? This may not apply to cable since it's a private medium, but the radio spectrum is public property and I'm almost certain that to get broadcast bandwidth the networks have to agree to certain conditions. Can't remember where I read this.
The vast majority of Americans are not as sophisticated as you. They believe what they see on TV and, for better or worse, it is through the medium of television that they get most of their information about the world around them. TV news anchors are perennially near the top of the list of people who garner the most trust in this country.
Until now, most news has been reported truthfully, if often out of context. But at least you could be sure that what you saw through the lens of a reporter's camera was an actual, unaltered image of what was going on, and you could make your own judgement about its meaning and significance. We have now entered a world in which it is no longer possible to trust the images you see that are reported as news. This is bad news indeed.
I just called my friendly @home customer service rep (she actually *was* friendly!) and asked her about the UDP problem. She was not aware of it, but she escalated the call and found out that the issue has been elevated to the corporate level and it is hoped things will be addressed before the UDP goes into effect. It seems they have started taking a lot of calls over this.
I think a Slashdot sponsored robot would be great!
I've had a couple of ideas for robots that could kill the flippers. One is a pneumatic steel dart firing straigh down from a platform supported by four legs, each of which has an independently controlled wheel on the bottom. Each leg can also be raised and lowered to avoid a flipping paddle. You maneuver the robot of the top of the target, hit the switch, and WHAM! a 10 lb. stainless steel dart is propelled straight through the enemy at 150 mph.
The other idea is to have two sledgehammers whirling around the top of a low profile robot like helicopter blades. No one could even get close to it without getting bashed. Similar to the Blendo concept, but more destructive.
It strikes me that simply *because* he passed on his genes he is "fit" in the darwinian sense. He obviously has some traits which make it possible for him to be successful and pass on his genes. He's made a lot of money, mated and had offspring, and married *twice*. Clearly he must be more fit than many who participate in this list!
It doesn't sit well with me. Ponying up ~$1000: OK, ~$2000: well it's tight, but I can manage, ~$3000: sorry son, we'll start the college fund next year. I might have to sell a few shares to make up for the difference.
A monocular display like the one in the story is used by keeping both eyes open. The effect is like having a transparent monitor floating in front of you. You don't get headaches, and you don't have to worry about a laser being beamed directly at you retina (something tells me that no matter how safe such a system would be, you would have a hard time getting consumers to buy into it).
Columbia has a good program. It's a real university, which means its a lot of real work. It's definately going to require some time and effort on your part. It's also pretty hard to get in.
Easy way to deal with the problem. Give him a spinal block anesthetic so signals can't get from his brain to his limbs. Then if it moves, it's because of signals sent from the computer.
You can get along perfectly well in a 3D environment with one eye. If you couldn't, the FAA wouldn't issue pilot's licenses to people with only one eye. It is fairly easy to get a one-eye waiver from the FAA. You just have to demonstrate that you can fly the plane safely.
Slashdot Mirror
"But the networks can't count those netcasts when they figure in how many people are watching the show and the ads, so they can't charge more to the advertisers."
Why on earth not? Demographics are only estimates anyway. If they can demonstrate that ICraveTV has a certain number of users then they should be able to include those numbers in their estimate.
If I was a broadcaster, I'd be pissing all over myself with joy that more people were getting an opportunity to see my broadcast and the advertisements contained therein. I'd then charge the advertisers more because I'm now reaching a larger demographic. Isn't it in the best interest of a broadcast network to reach as many people as possible since their revenue is based on advertising?
When I become dictator, the first ones against the wall will be patent lawyers.*
(* Putting patent lawyers against the wall under a dictatorial form of government is patent pending)
After reading some more info from the company orginating this idea I have to agree that it might be a good idea. They're not targeting the rental industry at all. I think it would be cool to have a rack full of movies at the check-out counter of a drug store or grocery store that you could buy for a couple of bucks to watch once or twice and then throw away. I would probably watch a lot of movies that I might otherwise pass up if I had to return them.
I think the rental stores will push back the hardest on this. They *want* to collect late fees, and if you have to go back to the store to return the movie, you are much more likely to rent another one. This is a stupid idea, pure and simple.
Of course, I just use kozmo.com to deliver movies to my door and pick them up when I'm done. I don't have to go anywhere!
-Jeff
They just said the Code Morphing stuff would remain proprietary for now, but the Linux mobile stuff would be open source. I wonder what exactly that means.
-Jeff
Mobile Beowulf
:)
It'll never happen. If one thing has been shown to be true, legislation cannot keep up with the advance of technology. They can put in place whatever safeguards they want and in time they will be circumvented. Nothing short of banning data networks could eliminate the free and easy distribution of digital data.
Face it. The major record labels are running scared from MP3 and any other technology that has the potential to cut them out of the distribution loop. The advent of the internet and digital media represent a pardigm shift in the way media is distributed. I think we will begin to see more artists taking advantage of this technology to distribute and promote their own work. No longer will they be slaves to the labels, earning a mere fraction of the royalties and getting exposure at the whim of an executive only interested in maximizing profit by capitalizing on the next "formula" group (Back Street Boys anyone?) Consumers can only benefit from this as they will gain access to more varied music at much cheaper prices. I for one would much rather purchase music by the song over the internet knowing that the artists will get the lion's share of the profit. An artist could charge just a few cents per download and still make vastly more than they currently make under the yoke of the all-powerful label. As the price of music drops, pirating will become less of a problem since it will cost so little to download legal music directly from the artist. The recording companies, if they wish to survive, need to wake up to this reality and discover new revenue streams. I think they still have a roll to play in live music promotion and other models not tied to distribution, but it will take creativity and innovation on their part to make this happen.
OK, I found this onthe FCC website:
"As a public trustee, the broadcaster may not engage in intentional and deliberate falsification (distorting, slanting, rigging, staging) of the news. As the Commission stated in its ruling in Hunger in America, "Rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest - indeed, there is no act more harmful to the public's ability to handle its affairs." Therefore, the Commission does act appropriately to protect the public interest in this important respect where we have received extrinsic evidence of such rigging or slanting. For example, this kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be extrinsic evidence revealing orders to falsify the news by a licensee, its top management or its news management."
I'm curious to see if the FCC will have anything to say about this. Isn't there something in the terms of agreement that networks must comply with that says something about public service? This may not apply to cable since it's a private medium, but the radio spectrum is public property and I'm almost certain that to get broadcast bandwidth the networks have to agree to certain conditions. Can't remember where I read this.
The vast majority of Americans are not as sophisticated as you. They believe what they see on TV and, for better or worse, it is through the medium of television that they get most of their information about the world around them. TV news anchors are perennially near the top of the list of people who garner the most trust in this country.
Until now, most news has been reported truthfully, if often out of context. But at least you could be sure that what you saw through the lens of a reporter's camera was an actual, unaltered image of what was going on, and you could make your own judgement about its meaning and significance. We have now entered a world in which it is no longer possible to trust the images you see that are reported as news. This is bad news indeed.
Forget it man. She's MINE! All MINE!
That evolution occured is one of the most well-established *facts* in science. The only thing theoretical about it is it's mechanism.
-Jeff
I just called my friendly @home customer service rep (she actually *was* friendly!) and asked her about the UDP problem. She was not aware of it, but she escalated the call and found out that the issue has been elevated to the corporate level and it is hoped things will be addressed before the UDP goes into effect. It seems they have started taking a lot of calls over this.
-Jeff
I think a Slashdot sponsored robot would be great!
I've had a couple of ideas for robots that could kill the flippers. One is a pneumatic steel dart firing straigh down from a platform supported by four legs, each of which has an independently controlled wheel on the bottom. Each leg can also be raised and lowered to avoid a flipping paddle. You maneuver the robot of the top of the target, hit the switch, and WHAM! a 10 lb. stainless steel dart is propelled straight through the enemy at 150 mph.
The other idea is to have two sledgehammers whirling around the top of a low profile robot like helicopter blades. No one could even get close to it without getting bashed. Similar to the Blendo concept, but more destructive.
It strikes me that simply *because* he passed on his genes he is "fit" in the darwinian sense. He obviously has some traits which make it possible for him to be successful and pass on his genes. He's made a lot of money, mated and had offspring, and married *twice*. Clearly he must be more fit than many who participate in this list!
-Jeff
It doesn't sit well with me. Ponying up ~$1000: OK, ~$2000: well it's tight, but I can manage, ~$3000: sorry son, we'll start the college fund next year. I might have to sell a few shares to make up for the difference.
A monocular display like the one in the story is used by keeping both eyes open. The effect is like having a transparent monitor floating in front of you. You don't get headaches, and you don't have to worry about a laser being beamed directly at you retina (something tells me that no matter how safe such a system would be, you would have a hard time getting consumers to buy into it).
Columbia has a good program. It's a real university, which means its a lot of real work. It's definately going to require some time and effort on your part. It's also pretty hard to get in.
Keep in mind that Judge Jackson has the option of sending this case directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing a whole lot of legal red tape.
-Jeff
Easy way to deal with the problem. Give him a spinal block anesthetic so signals can't get from his brain to his limbs. Then if it moves, it's because of signals sent from the computer.
-Jeff
You can get along perfectly well in a 3D environment with one eye. If you couldn't, the FAA wouldn't issue pilot's licenses to people with only one eye. It is fairly easy to get a one-eye waiver from the FAA. You just have to demonstrate that you can fly the plane safely.
Something you may wish to consider is Allaire's announcement that they will be releasing ColdFusion for Linux in November.