By now, everyone on slashdot knows that internet-over-power-lines is bad because it ends up acting like an antenna and causing interference in the same frequency bands that amateur radio is restricted to.
So how about turning that around and making its biggest weakness into its biggest strength? Since they naturally act like big-freaking-antennas, instead of using the power-lines to deliver wired connectivity, why not use them to deliver wireless connectivity? Sure, it would probably have to be one-way only but if there is a ton of bandwidth then a regular phone line or even wi{fi,max} could handle the uplink portion.
Even without uplink there is a lot of data that could be broadcast usefully - think television, radio and streaming multi-media it could be an alternative to cable-tv systems and you wouldn't even need to worry about the last-mile, just put a pair of rabbit-ears on your set-top box.
I figure that when the intention is to use the power lines as antennae, rather than it being an unintended side-effect, they could control the modulation such as to make it more friendly to the ham spectrum users. Of course I could just be dreaming.
I am also quite proud that Missouri, my birthplace, has voted with the winner in the presidential elections for about the past 100 years. It's a representative voice.
What kind of baloney is that?
My group is on the winning side! Yay me!
Elections are a contest for the candidates, not for the voters.
I must be a real immature nutcase because I think any such "prototypical cypherpunk" who holds to that "screed" is to be admired. Sure the "real-world" is going to make life hard for anyone trying to live their life following those ideals, but I'd say the real-world is wrong, not the ideals.
At the very least, it sure is a heck of a lot better philosophy than the "go-along, get-along" life that most people ease into by their 30's.
So, now will the thought police be out looking for me?
By hooked, you mean getting drugs that save the lives of their citizens? I guess maybe 3rd world countries shouldn't rely on drugs and rely on prayer instead.
By hooked, he means hooked on foreign produced drugs. All of the money that Gates gives for drugs (drug money?) is spent on purchasing foreign produced drugs, often at 100x the price of identical locally produced drugs.
So instead of using his money as a negotiating club to bring Big Pharma's pricing into line with local market conditions, he's just propping up the drug companies and helping a tiny fraction of the people who could be helped if the same money was spent on cheaper medicine.
Sure you can yada-yada about how drug companies deserve to get whatever they can for their hard-earned patented medicine. But that argument falls apart in the face of two facts: 1) Marketing makes up the bulk of costs associated with most patented drugs and 2) Without Bill's money the local governments would be using the locally-produced drugs anyway, these countries are just "freebies" to the drug co's and not part of their normal business plan otherwise - they know that you can't squeeze blood from a stone and they don't care, plenty of blood in the 1st world.
Lets be honest. With the current state of our US economy... Lets all make a bet... Who is going to bet that Movie ticket sales will go up, or down?:) I bet you they go up.
The price of DVDs. Why the fucking hell would I pay 25-30$ for four 22-27 minute episodes,
I've started to look into this and I still don't have a good answer other than milk, as in have you milked the customer of his last dollar today?
The production costs of anime are very tame, especially compared to production costs of American television. Where it tends to run $500k-$1M (generally closer to the high-end) per 30-minute episode of American TV, anime production costs are typically in the $100K-$150K range with the rare outlier in the $200k-$250k. The cost for english dub & sub work, plus new cover art can't be much more than $10K per episode.
Yet a 13-episode season of insanely over-priced HBO television like Sex & the City has an MSRP of $50 and routinely sells for ~$30, while a 13-episode anime series like L/R - Licensed by Royalty as an MSRP of $75 and you are lucky to find it under $50.
So, in one case you have a tv series appearing for the first time on DVD where it is probably still trying to recoup production costs, is over-priced in the "TV on DVD" marketplace and yet it is only 60% of the street price of an anime series for which the production costs are lower and are already mostly recouped due to earlier DVD sales in Japan.
Sure, Sex & City has a larger customer base than most anime and can thus benefit somewhat from efficiency due to the scale of production, but not anywhere near the ballpark of the difference in street pricing.
The comparison just gets worse when you compare with a ~22 episode TV series with 60-minute episodes (roughly 4 times the entertainment time) - CSI Miami is MSRP'd $90 with street at under $50 and Last Exile (~22 30-minute episodes, so half the time) is MSRP'd at $160 and streets at $120 - more than twice the money for half the entertainment.
That's the main reason I am loath to pay more than $7 per anime DVD, and even then I feel like the publishers are taking advantage of me.
If some states AG gets a burr under his saddle about something like this, they can again incarcerate him and cost him a boatload of sheckles to get clear of it.
No they can't, since he's not in the States.
Where he is is the Netherlands which also happens to be the same country where the supreme court ruled that cracking access restrictions like CSS was legal. In fact, it was Jon himself who won that case. So, it would be more than just a little difficult for even the Dutch equivalent of a state AG to incarcerate him there for doing the same thing to newer access restriction systems.
Re:Changing the producer, change the customer
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
Or perhaps even an "open source" project, but although writers and actors may do it for love and to share, the guys who sell lumber and costumes usually don't think of their work as open-sourceable.
There are two ways that people make money with "open-source" software - contract development and maintainence of the software or tied promotion of non-virtual products - like IBM will sell you a server on which linux is guaranteed to work, you can copy linux all you want but you can't copy the server no matter how much you want.
Similarly, "open source" entertainment would work the same way. Develop it on contract - the audience (customer) puts the money up ahead of time, kind of like many do now when "pre-ordering" a DVD. Tie physical goods to the show - license trademark rights for doodads, dolls and whatever other knick-knacks, charge for physical delivery of the show on DVD versus downloading and sell product-placement to the big advertisers.
The combination of contract development and physical tie-ins can theoretically be just as lucrative, if not even more so, than the current advertiser-driven model is. There are two really good parts about it - for the audience it is that it does not need copyright enforcement to be profitable - in fact giving away the finished product becomes advertising for the next episode or show. For the show's creators/investors the great part is that they can be guaranteed a profit before the show ever goes into production - modern tv shows run at least a 10:1 ratio of money losers versus money winners. When EVERY show is profitable, hollywood can stop running on fear and get back the real job of producing high-quality entertainment.
Yup. And as employer's rates go up, they go "oh darnees. I guess we will just have to eat that cost." or they might go "we will raise the price of our prodcuts, lower wages, or both"
Or maybe they figure out a way to cut costs besides laying people off. Who would have thunk it?
When you allow a person or group of people to make decisions of law for areas of understanding of which they are both uninformed and uneducated, they are more likely to be taken in by the misinformation campaigns of the larger corporations trying to stifle technological advances that threaten their outdated business models than they are to educate themselves adequately prior to sitting on a case.
But when you do require that the people making the decisions be educated, you end up with situations like national energy policy being decided behind closed doors by the CEOs of the largest oil companies. In other words, just because they are educated doesn't mean they won't all be entirely biased in a particular self-serving direction.
But what it boils down to in my mind is "Should I live off someone else when I don't have to? Or should I go work a job I don't like". To me, the answer is the latter choice.
Unemployment is not a handout. You paid for it as an explicit unemployment tax when you were working. Anyone and everyone who qualifies for unemployment support should have no qualms in accepting it.
That's easy, here's what the "father of facism" had to say about it:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
So, as you can see, you are way off in your use of the term.
Meanwhile, in response to the kind of brutalities you've listed with the implication they are due to the "islam" part of "islamofascism" - that's not islam, that's ultra-conservative pre-islamic tribal behaviour that the practicioners find convenient to cloak in the trappings of islam. But that stuff is no more in the quaran than the murdering of homosexuals, wife-beating and slavery is in the bible.
The fact of the matter is that they were found not guilty.
Do you even know what charges were in question in the case in front of the scotus? Do you really believe those specific points where the sum total of AA involvement with Enron?
It comes down to one very simple point - as auditor it was AA's job to stop Enron from commiting the fraud they did. So either they knew what was going on and were criminally negligent in not stopping it, or they were ignorant of one of the biggest corporate frauds ever going on right under their nose and were criminally incompetent in not noticing it.
One of these kids is not like the other. Arthur Anderson's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.
When the laws are bought and paid for, like so much of American law today, then they merely become cover for corrupt and immoral behavior.
While AA was de-convicted of a couple of specific charges that are in a definite gray area, their involvement in the Enron debacle is still just as scandalous. From the news reports it seems pretty clear that key people within AA knew what was up with Enron and even helped them perpetuate the fraud.as a standard business practice. As auditors they not only failed to catch, but willfully encouraged a lot of what was wrong with Enron.
Actually, no. When quoting somebody you should spell the word they were saying correctly.
But he did get the placement of the quote marks wrong, as did you. They should always include any punctuation - i.e. do not insert quote marks where there would otherwise be no whitespace.
I guess you and I just don't agree on the definition of "reasonable." I suspect that you would find yourself at odds with what many of the founding fathers would think about the current situation as well.
"The first thing is to never agree to give up copyright to a photographer."
That is the classic definition of work for hire -- As part of contracting the photog, you negotiate the terms of the agreement including payment and ownership of copyright.
The source of confusion here is that in order for the work to be considered "work for hire" there has to be a contract to that effect. However such a contract can be rather nebulous - an employer-employee relationship (such as suggested by the buyer with-holding income tax) is suggestive of, but not necessarily definitive proof of, a work-for-hire contract.
Of course the contract can spell it out (and most do, whether it is for a "W2" employee or a "1099" contractor).
So, while the end result of work-for-hire is very clear (ownership of the copyright goes to the person comissioning the work) sometimes determining if the relationship is work-for-hire or not can be a lot more complex.
Which is no surprise since lawyers have to pay for their bmws, trophy wives and second homes in the bahamas too!
freedom from scrunity in public places is not guarenteed by the Constitution. The fact that machines make this possible to degrees unknown or even imagined in the past does not change that basic truth.
It absolutely DOES change things.
The fifth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,..."
One-on-one surveillence in public is something that people could reasonably expect at the time.
Automatic surveillence of all people in all public spaces with permanent digital storage of all records and computerized cross-referencing is not something anyone in even their wildest dreams would have even thought possible, much less reasonable when the Constitution was drafted.
Slashdot Mirror
By now, everyone on slashdot knows that internet-over-power-lines is bad because it ends up acting like an antenna and causing interference in the same frequency bands that amateur radio is restricted to.
So how about turning that around and making its biggest weakness into its biggest strength? Since they naturally act like big-freaking-antennas, instead of using the power-lines to deliver wired connectivity, why not use them to deliver wireless connectivity? Sure, it would probably have to be one-way only but if there is a ton of bandwidth then a regular phone line or even wi{fi,max} could handle the uplink portion.
Even without uplink there is a lot of data that could be broadcast usefully - think television, radio and streaming multi-media it could be an alternative to cable-tv systems and you wouldn't even need to worry about the last-mile, just put a pair of rabbit-ears on your set-top box.
I figure that when the intention is to use the power lines as antennae, rather than it being an unintended side-effect, they could control the modulation such as to make it more friendly to the ham spectrum users. Of course I could just be dreaming.
Sure:
I am also quite proud that Missouri, my birthplace, has voted with the winner in the presidential elections for about the past 100 years. It's a representative voice.
What kind of baloney is that?
My group is on the winning side! Yay me!
Elections are a contest for the candidates, not for the voters.
I don't get it.
I must be a real immature nutcase because I think any such "prototypical cypherpunk" who holds to that "screed" is to be admired. Sure the "real-world" is going to make life hard for anyone trying to live their life following those ideals, but I'd say the real-world is wrong, not the ideals.
At the very least, it sure is a heck of a lot better philosophy than the "go-along, get-along" life that most people ease into by their 30's.
So, now will the thought police be out looking for me?
By hooked, you mean getting drugs that save the lives of their citizens? I guess maybe 3rd world countries shouldn't rely on drugs and rely on prayer instead.
By hooked, he means hooked on foreign produced drugs. All of the money that Gates gives for drugs (drug money?) is spent on purchasing foreign produced drugs, often at 100x the price of identical locally produced drugs.
So instead of using his money as a negotiating club to bring Big Pharma's pricing into line with local market conditions, he's just propping up the drug companies and helping a tiny fraction of the people who could be helped if the same money was spent on cheaper medicine.
Sure you can yada-yada about how drug companies deserve to get whatever they can for their hard-earned patented medicine. But that argument falls apart in the face of two facts: 1) Marketing makes up the bulk of costs associated with most patented drugs and 2) Without Bill's money the local governments would be using the locally-produced drugs anyway, these countries are just "freebies" to the drug co's and not part of their normal business plan otherwise - they know that you can't squeeze blood from a stone and they don't care, plenty of blood in the 1st world.
Lets be honest. With the current state of our US economy... Lets all make a bet... Who is going to bet that Movie ticket sales will go up, or down? :) I bet you they go up.
Attendence down 9% over last year, 18 weeks of straight revenue decline
The price of DVDs. Why the fucking hell would I pay 25-30$ for four 22-27 minute episodes,
I've started to look into this and I still don't have a good answer other than milk, as in have you milked the customer of his last dollar today?
The production costs of anime are very tame, especially compared to production costs of American television. Where it tends to run $500k-$1M (generally closer to the high-end) per 30-minute episode of American TV, anime production costs are typically in the $100K-$150K range with the rare outlier in the $200k-$250k. The cost for english dub & sub work, plus new cover art can't be much more than $10K per episode.
Yet a 13-episode season of insanely over-priced HBO television like Sex & the City has an MSRP of $50 and routinely sells for ~$30, while a 13-episode anime series like L/R - Licensed by Royalty as an MSRP of $75 and you are lucky to find it under $50.
So, in one case you have a tv series appearing for the first time on DVD where it is probably still trying to recoup production costs, is over-priced in the "TV on DVD" marketplace and yet it is only 60% of the street price of an anime series for which the production costs are lower and are already mostly recouped due to earlier DVD sales in Japan.
Sure, Sex & City has a larger customer base than most anime and can thus benefit somewhat from efficiency due to the scale of production, but not anywhere near the ballpark of the difference in street pricing.
The comparison just gets worse when you compare with a ~22 episode TV series with 60-minute episodes (roughly 4 times the entertainment time) - CSI Miami is MSRP'd $90 with street at under $50 and Last Exile (~22 30-minute episodes, so half the time) is MSRP'd at $160 and streets at $120 - more than twice the money for half the entertainment.
That's the main reason I am loath to pay more than $7 per anime DVD, and even then I feel like the publishers are taking advantage of me.
If some states AG gets a burr under his saddle about something like this, they can again incarcerate him and cost him a boatload of sheckles to get clear of it.
No they can't, since he's not in the States.
Where he is is the Netherlands which also happens to be the same country where the supreme court ruled that cracking access restrictions like CSS was legal. In fact, it was Jon himself who won that case. So, it would be more than just a little difficult for even the Dutch equivalent of a state AG to incarcerate him there for doing the same thing to newer access restriction systems.
Or perhaps even an "open source" project, but although writers and actors may do it for love and to share, the guys who sell lumber and costumes usually don't think of their work as open-sourceable.
There are two ways that people make money with "open-source" software - contract development and maintainence of the software or tied promotion of non-virtual products - like IBM will sell you a server on which linux is guaranteed to work, you can copy linux all you want but you can't copy the server no matter how much you want.
Similarly, "open source" entertainment would work the same way.
Develop it on contract - the audience (customer) puts the money up ahead of time, kind of like many do now when "pre-ordering" a DVD. Tie physical goods to the show - license trademark rights for doodads, dolls and whatever other knick-knacks, charge for physical delivery of the show on DVD versus downloading and sell product-placement to the big advertisers.
The combination of contract development and physical tie-ins can theoretically be just as lucrative, if not even more so, than the current advertiser-driven model is. There are two really good parts about it - for the audience it is that it does not need copyright enforcement to be profitable - in fact giving away the finished product becomes advertising for the next episode or show. For the show's creators/investors the great part is that they can be guaranteed a profit before the show ever goes into production - modern tv shows run at least a 10:1 ratio of money losers versus money winners. When EVERY show is profitable, hollywood can stop running on fear and get back the real job of producing high-quality entertainment.
Yup. And as employer's rates go up, they go "oh darnees. I guess we will just have to eat that cost." or they might go "we will raise the price of our prodcuts, lower wages, or both"
Or maybe they figure out a way to cut costs besides laying people off. Who would have thunk it?
When you allow a person or group of people to make decisions of law for areas of understanding of which they are both uninformed and uneducated, they are more likely to be taken in by the misinformation campaigns of the larger corporations trying to stifle technological advances that threaten their outdated business models than they are to educate themselves adequately prior to sitting on a case.
But when you do require that the people making the decisions be educated, you end up with situations like national energy policy being decided behind closed doors by the CEOs of the largest oil companies. In other words, just because they are educated doesn't mean they won't all be entirely biased in a particular self-serving direction.
Because money for it appears out of nowhere, right?
Perhaps you missed the part where I said that you've already paid for it.
If, as a society, we all used it less, our premiums would go down.
No, only your former employer's rate. The unemployment tax rate is computed based mostly on how many unemployment claims they generate.
There is hardly more fair a tax than the unemployment tax.
But what it boils down to in my mind is "Should I live off someone else when I don't have to? Or should I go work a job I don't like". To me, the answer is the latter choice.
Unemployment is not a handout. You paid for it as an explicit unemployment tax when you were working. Anyone and everyone who qualifies for unemployment support should have no qualms in accepting it.
That's easy, here's what the "father of facism" had to say about it:
So, as you can see, you are way off in your use of the term.
Meanwhile, in response to the kind of brutalities you've listed with the implication they are due to the "islam" part of "islamofascism" - that's not islam, that's ultra-conservative pre-islamic tribal behaviour that the practicioners find convenient to cloak in the trappings of islam. But that stuff is no more in the quaran than the murdering of homosexuals, wife-beating and slavery is in the bible.
The fact of the matter is that they were found not guilty.
Do you even know what charges were in question in the case in front of the scotus?
Do you really believe those specific points where the sum total of AA involvement with Enron?
It comes down to one very simple point - as auditor it was AA's job to stop Enron from commiting the fraud they did. So either they knew what was going on and were criminally negligent in not stopping it, or they were ignorant of one of the biggest corporate frauds ever going on right under their nose and were criminally incompetent in not noticing it.
And if you don't think islamofacism...
Nutjob alert.
Users of the term islamofascism are adherents of the whacked-out "Michael Savage" radio personality.
If you don't know him, read his website - it should only take a minute or two to convince you just how distorted his world view is.
One of these kids is not like the other. Arthur Anderson's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.
When the laws are bought and paid for, like so much of American law today, then they merely become cover for corrupt and immoral behavior.
While AA was de-convicted of a couple of specific charges that are in a definite gray area, their involvement in the Enron debacle is still just as scandalous. From the news reports it seems pretty clear that key people within AA knew what was up with Enron and even helped them perpetuate the fraud.as a standard business practice. As auditors they not only failed to catch, but willfully encouraged a lot of what was wrong with Enron.
Actually, no. When quoting somebody you should spell the word they were saying correctly.
But he did get the placement of the quote marks wrong, as did you. They should always include any punctuation - i.e. do not insert quote marks where there would otherwise be no whitespace.
For example:
You misspelled "misspell."
I guess you and I just don't agree on the definition of "reasonable." I suspect that you would find yourself at odds with what many of the founding fathers would think about the current situation as well.
"The first thing is to never agree to give up copyright to a photographer."
That is the classic definition of work for hire --
As part of contracting the photog, you negotiate the terms of the agreement including payment and ownership of copyright.
In work for hire,
n ing
The source of confusion here is that in order for the work to be considered "work for hire" there has to be a contract to that effect. However such a contract can be rather nebulous - an employer-employee relationship (such as suggested by the buyer with-holding income tax) is suggestive of, but not necessarily definitive proof of, a work-for-hire contract.
Here is info on determining when something is work-for-hire and when it isn't when contract doesn't really spell it out: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html#determi
Of course the contract can spell it out (and most do, whether it is for a "W2" employee or a "1099" contractor).
So, while the end result of work-for-hire is very clear (ownership of the copyright goes to the person comissioning the work) sometimes determining if the relationship is work-for-hire or not can be a lot more complex.
Which is no surprise since lawyers have to pay for their bmws, trophy wives and second homes in the bahamas too!
the leaders of the company are still good leaders
I hear Carly Fiorina is in the market for a new job.
Maybe she can set Google back on the ``right track.''
freedom from scrunity in public places is not guarenteed by the Constitution. The fact that machines make this possible to degrees unknown or even imagined in the past does not change that basic truth.
..."
It absolutely DOES change things.
The fifth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
One-on-one surveillence in public is something that people could reasonably expect at the time.
Automatic surveillence of all people in all public spaces with permanent digital storage of all records and computerized cross-referencing is not something anyone in even their wildest dreams would have even thought possible, much less reasonable when the Constitution was drafted.
How can you possibly think that the photographer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE created?
How can you possibly think that the buyer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE paid for?
You really need to learn what "work for hire" means.
we have Fuji Frontiers, look them up, and I at least know how to use it
You and about two other walmart employes in the entire country.