I've always thought of Creative Commons was a simplified DIY copyright kit. When I create a work (i.e. write in my blog) it automatically is covered by full copyright law. I can't think of a simpler way to make sure I retain the controls I want but still let other people use my work in limited ways without the need to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't complicate Copyright law. It makes it simpler and more accessible.
I don't think the article could say less with more works if it tried.
It is supposed to be about Ethanol but it slips in this one line about
biodiesel "It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel". huh? Lets try to be a little consistent here.
For information on why oil replacement fuels are going to become very important to mainstream America and not just tree huggin' greenies you should parous the forums over at http://www.peakoil.com/
One thing that I'm sure of is that you have never watched a movie on the tiny screen of a palm or a Windows Mobile device. If you had then you wouldn't be making this comment.
As soon as the screen is enlarged to a decent size, the device has a hard drive, a network adapter and decent CPU power it might as well be a laptop.
But to play internet sourced movies, it needs a NIC, a hard drive and a decent prcessor. Thats a laptop.
Portable DVD players even look like laptops. They have similar sized screens and the clamshell design.
The Apple iTunes music store is successful because the iPod is sccuessful. Not the other way around. The fact that the iTMS has a good range and reasonable DRM just ensures repeat custom.
The only way Bill will lose out in this market is if he fails to get his software loaded on most laptops or he creates a truely crap product even by MS standards. I dont see what all the fuss is about.
My wife and I have had cable for the last 6 years. I noticed and interesting difference in viewing patterns between us. I found that I tend to watch channels but she watches programs. I'll turn on the TV and watch news, documentary or sports channels and I'm not too fussy, I'll surf between the 4 documentary channels until I find something interesting and watch it. Her viewing decisions are made from looking at the program guide, the clock, recommendations from her friends and womens magazines and then decide what and when to watch. She will actually plan to watch a particular program (amazing I know). I don't think I've done that in years. A PVR would only improve her viewing convenience but it would make no difference all to mine.
It doesn't seem surprising to me that women would then control the PVR.
From the article
"The most expensive-to-produce program of its day, at $1 million per episode"
Thats funny. My strongest memory of the original BSG was how, in nearly every episode, there was a fire on board the ship and they reused the exact same footage of firefighters putting it out every week. Even at 8 years old I knew that was the producers being cheap.
The only other program that I recall doing this so much was Astro Boy.
I think there was a Simpsons episode that satirized the technique. Anyone know which one?
There are a large number of SEO webspammers out there churning out often useless cookie cutter sites designed mostly to get good positions in Search engines. I'm an editor of DMOZ.org and find it frustrating that 2 out of 3 sites submitted have been created for no other reason than to make money.
Part of the blame lies with our beloved Google. They are actually funding a problem that they used to fight. It would be nice to see them put some effort into the problem instead of just cashing in like the do.
Adsense isnt all evil. It does allow many people to fund their often beloved web sites. It can be a great way to encourage people to make public their skills and knowledge in their special interests. It is fueling the best aspects of the web, that being the amazing diversity and depth of knowledge in any area you care to name.
It's such a good thing I even made a web site telling people how to do it right.
The Chinese seem to be copying the old US space program fairly closely. Why? National pride? To make money? Because its there?
The real reason the Chinese want to go into space is the same reason the US went there. It's the military application. If any country in the world wants to go toe to toe against the US in anything except a world destroying nuclear match up then they have to take the GPS and satellite spying monopoly from the USA.
It works even better if they find out a way take out US satellites without affecting their own. Blowing them up might cause large debris fields that are a danger to their own satellites. Maned missions could be sent up do attach de-orbiting rockets or more simply, spray paint the lenses and break off the antennae.
A US military without satellites has limited recognisance, communications, and command and control abilities. Some soldiers won't even know where they are.
I think the frightening thing for the US is that they won the cold war by simply outspending the USSR. With China's incredible growth it not many years before the opposite situation could occur.
There was no irony intended.
If a country has oil then desert isn't the only natural resource it has. Clearly, Saudi doesnt meet my criteria.
I was thinking of countries in Africa.
The capital investment required to get into the market is a problem but one that can be overcome.
The whole aspect of attaching this product to clothing or backpacks is just a gimmic to attract press attention.
The real story here is that the cost per what is falling. Only one order of magnitude in efficiency (in $ per watt) to go before we stop burning coal for electricity. I look foreward to a time when countries that whose only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich.
I get the numbers from http://www.webmasterworld.com/
Regular reading will show lots of information about all search engines.
If you own or run a web site then you should check it out.
Google is not even close to a monopoly.
They have about 30% market share. Compare that with Microsoft's Desktop OS market share of ~90%, which is a monopoly.
This idea that Google is a monopoly probably stems from when Yahoo used Googles results a couple of years ago. The two combined had about 80% market share back then. Thats close to a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always thought of Creative Commons was a simplified DIY copyright kit. When I create a work (i.e. write in my blog) it automatically is covered by full copyright law. I can't think of a simpler way to make sure I retain the controls I want but still let other people use my work in limited ways without the need to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't complicate Copyright law. It makes it simpler and more accessible.
I don't think the article could say less with more works if it tried. It is supposed to be about Ethanol but it slips in this one line about biodiesel "It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel". huh? Lets try to be a little consistent here.
For actual useful information on bio-diesel take a look at the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
For information on why oil replacement fuels are going to become very important to mainstream America and not just tree huggin' greenies you should parous the forums over at http://www.peakoil.com/
One thing that I'm sure of is that you have never watched a movie on the tiny screen of a palm or a Windows Mobile device. If you had then you wouldn't be making this comment.
As soon as the screen is enlarged to a decent size, the device has a hard drive, a network adapter and decent CPU power it might as well be a laptop.
You are correct.
But to play internet sourced movies, it needs a NIC, a hard drive and a decent prcessor. Thats a laptop.
Portable DVD players even look like laptops. They have similar sized screens and the clamshell design.
The iPod equivalent for movies is a laptop.
The Apple iTunes music store is successful because the iPod is sccuessful. Not the other way around. The fact that the iTMS has a good range and reasonable DRM just ensures repeat custom.
The only way Bill will lose out in this market is if he fails to get his software loaded on most laptops or he creates a truely crap product even by MS standards. I dont see what all the fuss is about.
This doesn't surprise me at all.
My wife and I have had cable for the last 6 years. I noticed and interesting difference in viewing patterns between us. I found that I tend to watch channels but she watches programs. I'll turn on the TV and watch news, documentary or sports channels and I'm not too fussy, I'll surf between the 4 documentary channels until I find something interesting and watch it. Her viewing decisions are made from looking at the program guide, the clock, recommendations from her friends and womens magazines and then decide what and when to watch. She will actually plan to watch a particular program (amazing I know). I don't think I've done that in years. A PVR would only improve her viewing convenience but it would make no difference all to mine.
It doesn't seem surprising to me that women would then control the PVR.
From the article "The most expensive-to-produce program of its day, at $1 million per episode" Thats funny. My strongest memory of the original BSG was how, in nearly every episode, there was a fire on board the ship and they reused the exact same footage of firefighters putting it out every week. Even at 8 years old I knew that was the producers being cheap. The only other program that I recall doing this so much was Astro Boy. I think there was a Simpsons episode that satirized the technique. Anyone know which one?
There are a large number of SEO webspammers out there churning out often useless cookie cutter sites designed mostly to get good positions in Search engines. I'm an editor of DMOZ.org and find it frustrating that 2 out of 3 sites submitted have been created for no other reason than to make money.
Part of the blame lies with our beloved Google. They are actually funding a problem that they used to fight. It would be nice to see them put some effort into the problem instead of just cashing in like the do.
Adsense isnt all evil. It does allow many people to fund their often beloved web sites. It can be a great way to encourage people to make public their skills and knowledge in their special interests. It is fueling the best aspects of the web, that being the amazing diversity and depth of knowledge in any area you care to name.
It's such a good thing I even made a web site telling people how to do it right.
The ever useful Wikipedia says you are correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
It should just be space. Outer space is redundant.
The Chinese seem to be copying the old US space program fairly closely.
Why? National pride? To make money? Because its there?
The real reason the Chinese want to go into space is the same reason the US went there. It's the military application. If any country in the world wants to go toe to toe against the US in anything except a world destroying nuclear match up then they have to take the GPS and satellite spying monopoly from the USA.
It works even better if they find out a way take out US satellites without affecting their own. Blowing them up might cause large debris fields that are a danger to their own satellites. Maned missions could be sent up do attach de-orbiting rockets or more simply, spray paint the lenses and break off the antennae.
A US military without satellites has limited recognisance, communications, and command and control abilities. Some soldiers won't even know where they are.
I think the frightening thing for the US is that they won the cold war by simply outspending the USSR. With China's incredible growth it not many years before the opposite situation could occur.
Wikipedia disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD
Even the term WMD was invented 7 years before the Nuclear bomb.
Who would mod the parent insightful?
Ha, could they come up with a more porno sounding name?
Of course it comes as no suprise that "Andrews Space is a privately held company"
Yes, in this ending I guess he really was "smoked".
There was no irony intended.
If a country has oil then desert isn't the only natural resource it has. Clearly, Saudi doesnt meet my criteria.
I was thinking of countries in Africa.
The capital investment required to get into the market is a problem but one that can be overcome.
The whole aspect of attaching this product to clothing or backpacks is just a gimmic to attract press attention.
The real story here is that the cost per what is falling. Only one order of magnitude in efficiency (in $ per watt) to go before we stop burning coal for electricity. I look foreward to a time when countries that whose only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich.
I get the numbers from http://www.webmasterworld.com/ Regular reading will show lots of information about all search engines.
If you own or run a web site then you should check it out.
Google is not even close to a monopoly. They have about 30% market share. Compare that with Microsoft's Desktop OS market share of ~90%, which is a monopoly. This idea that Google is a monopoly probably stems from when Yahoo used Googles results a couple of years ago. The two combined had about 80% market share back then. Thats close to a monopoly.