TV shows exist for one reason, to make money for networks. They do this through ad revenue, which is tied to ratings.
So why can't you still advertise with downloads? Put ads in the middle of the show. I'm sure they will figure this out. Most people in the world aren't going to bother to edit them out. Hell, there are already "protected MP3s", why not make special players that don't let you fast forward through the commercials and the content won't play anywhere else? Someone will eventually crack the protection, but for the most part it will work. Look at iTunes.
And hey, why bother making commercial "breaks"? Why not just run the ads constantly in a banner at the bottom of the screen? Encoded into the content itself? Users can just cover it up with another window if they really want, but people will still pay to have the ads there. You could even (eventually) have links in them. And people could rewind or pause if they actually saw something interesting.
fragment your viewing audience, say by spinning off part of them (who would likely be demographically different than those who don't download) and you've got a problem with your revenue stream./p>
No, actually you're not fragmenting your audience as much as you're gaining a new one. There are a lot of people I know that would watch a lot more shows if they could get them anytime they wanted and didn't have to pay for 500 channels of crap cable.
However, anyone who thinks the scientists don't have a vested *financial* interest in continuing to publicize GW is deluded.
Okay....maybe these scientists do have a vested interest to get grants so they can keep their jobs, but anyone that thinks that large corporations that produce greenhouse gasses don't have an exponentially larger financial interest is completely insane.
These scientists are doing this work as much for continued support and grants as they are 'for the good of humanity.'
Okay.....they want to put food on their table and a roof over their family's head. And they want to make the world a better place. A scientist on Exxon's payroll doesn't give a crap about the 'good of humanity'. If he/she did, then Exxon would fire him and hire someone that cares about what Exxon cares about, which is the good of Exxon.
Further, most scientists on both sides of the debate go into their studies with bias on one side or the other.
True. But a good scientist sets up an experiment that is unbiased and looks only at the facts laid out. If not, then other scientists will criticize the experiment and point out flaws in the logic. The members of the Scientific Alliance remain skeptical about facts that are staring them in the face:
More CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat. This is an effect that physicists have studied and is a rather basic phenomenon to study.
The world is producing vastly more CO2 emissions than it was a century ago. More fossil fuel consumption = more CO2 output. Not a difficult thing to understand.
Measurements taken in the atmosphere show that the CO2 levels are increasing drastically. Measurements taken from ice cores show that CO2 levels from thousands of years prior were nowhere near as high as they are now, and were fairly stable.
Have a look at Scientific Alliance's view on climate change and you tell me who is more biased. The British government has set up the later conference, and I really doubt that they want to impose strict rules on industry unless they absolutely have to. Why would they want to disrupt the economy with unnecessary limitations on CO2 output? I can only assume that the British government is just as skeptical as anyone.
So in light of this, then why would this group set up a separate conference on the issue? Why not just attend the government sponsored one? A simple answer: they don't care about debate on the issue. They simply want to have the first word on the subject, and get as much press around them as they can. This makes the second conference seem insignificant.
These are the same kinds of groups that said that smoking isn't harmful to your health. I don't think that liars and scam artists should get equal media time, do you? I think that the media does have a charge to decide what is just disinformation and not give it any attention.
Could the MiniMac revive the idea of the set top box? This thing is smaller than a DVD player and does a hellova lot more. Hook it right up to your TV and edit movies, play games, surf the net, watch slideshows, play DVDs, listen to music, etc. all right at your entertainment center. Maybe this box will serve a dual purpose: a cheap computer for PC switchers and an entertainment hub for your living room?
Can anybody tell if there is an infared port on this thing? I guess you don't really need it with bluetooth.....
To most people, PCI slots don't matter. To a minority, they do matter, and to that minority, the lack may prevent them from buying a Mac.
So this minority won't buy this machine. This is something designed for people that want something cheap and simple that works. This is not designed for the power-user that wants to have the latest and greatest on his/her upgraded 486 from 10 years ago. Just because this machine won't please the entire spectrum of computer users doesn't mean that it won't please some of them very well.
When you try and please everybody then you please nobody.
But in reality, i believe this is so apple can release "big iron" type systems (servers), the VM would allow Multiple versions of the server OS to run for maximum uptime, protection etc...
I completely agree. To get a true integrated environment that you can cut, copy, paste, and have overlaying windows between OSes then there must be one OS in charge. This architecture would make it very complicated to do that when running two OSes at the chip level. Both OSes would have to be modified to talk to each other like that.
Most people are going to take it as "Cool i can run windows and OSX at the same time at full speed" But in reality its closer to what i described above.
Yes, I think that products like QuickTransit from Transitive will make the emulation (or "hardware virtualization" as they call it) of other OSes much more useable, and this product still runs on top of the OS. This technology doesn't sound like it would be all that practical for the average user.
Plus....at least Windows won't be able to crash my machine (only itself) if it's running on top of OSX. If they're running side by side then who knows....
I can't find the article right now, but I remember reading something about a study of hallucinogens taken in low doses. The subjects reported a mild euphoria that was associated with greater productivity and creativity at work. The side effects were minimal.
The problem with this methodology is that when you have a candidate that is pratically running on a christian platform, then you are very much blurring the line between church and state. I see far too many religious items on the neoconservative agenda. We have counties in this country that are outlawing science books that don't teach creationism. The issue of gay marriage is purely a religious battle, even though it provides benifiits from the state. Religion is a very powerful and persuasive force and one of the things keeping our democracy alive is keeping the church out of our government.
Personally, I say we get rid of the voting machines altogether. They are simply an easy way for people to commit fraud. In an excerpt from this article:
When I lived in Germany, they took the vote the same way most of the world does - people fill in hand-marked ballots, which are hand-counted by civil servants taking a week off from their regular jobs, watched over by volunteer representatives of the political parties. It's totally clean, and easily audited. And even though it takes a week or more to count the vote (and costs nothing more than a bit of overtime pay for civil servants), the German people know the election results the night the polls close because the news media's exit polls, for two generations, have never been more than a tenth of a percent off.
This method sounds pretty simple and effective to me. I'm all about advancing technology, but maybe in some cases it doesn't work so well....
Alright, this'll probably go 1000 comments. Everyone will comment on the fact that money is an unsatisfactory remedy for voting fraud. Then it'll die. The media won't pick it up, 2.6 million is not an impressive number. The average person won't care, and all will proceed as usual. Just because we know something is wrong doesn't mean the average person does.
NO! This is the problem with a lot of intellectual liberals these days....APATHY. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. The worst thing you can do is give up. Write your representative.Write to a newspaper. Just don't sit back and hope that someone out there will do your dirty work for you. You have an opinion. Let people who can make a difference know about it.
You wonder why public schools suck? An educated populace wouldn't tolerate this shit. The government has no need to make them better when ignorance is rewarded and they can stay in power by keeping them poor.
Couldn've said it better. The best kind of slaves are ones too dumb to know any better. This trend has to stop before it's too late.
She even specifies a date, October 13, 2000, as to when this back door was first implemented in the code. This is very shortly after the time that Curtis says his company was approached by Feeney.
I find it strange that Harris would discount this story as disinformation after these pieces line up like this....
Slashdot Mirror
TV shows exist for one reason, to make money for networks. They do this through ad revenue, which is tied to ratings.
So why can't you still advertise with downloads? Put ads in the middle of the show. I'm sure they will figure this out. Most people in the world aren't going to bother to edit them out. Hell, there are already "protected MP3s", why not make special players that don't let you fast forward through the commercials and the content won't play anywhere else? Someone will eventually crack the protection, but for the most part it will work. Look at iTunes.
And hey, why bother making commercial "breaks"? Why not just run the ads constantly in a banner at the bottom of the screen? Encoded into the content itself? Users can just cover it up with another window if they really want, but people will still pay to have the ads there. You could even (eventually) have links in them. And people could rewind or pause if they actually saw something interesting.
fragment your viewing audience, say by spinning off part of them (who would likely be demographically different than those who don't download) and you've got a problem with your revenue stream. /p>
No, actually you're not fragmenting your audience as much as you're gaining a new one. There are a lot of people I know that would watch a lot more shows if they could get them anytime they wanted and didn't have to pay for 500 channels of crap cable.
Okay....maybe these scientists do have a vested interest to get grants so they can keep their jobs, but anyone that thinks that large corporations that produce greenhouse gasses don't have an exponentially larger financial interest is completely insane.
Okay.....they want to put food on their table and a roof over their family's head. And they want to make the world a better place. A scientist on Exxon's payroll doesn't give a crap about the 'good of humanity'. If he/she did, then Exxon would fire him and hire someone that cares about what Exxon cares about, which is the good of Exxon.
True. But a good scientist sets up an experiment that is unbiased and looks only at the facts laid out. If not, then other scientists will criticize the experiment and point out flaws in the logic. The members of the Scientific Alliance remain skeptical about facts that are staring them in the face:
Have a look at Scientific Alliance's view on climate change and you tell me who is more biased. The British government has set up the later conference, and I really doubt that they want to impose strict rules on industry unless they absolutely have to. Why would they want to disrupt the economy with unnecessary limitations on CO2 output? I can only assume that the British government is just as skeptical as anyone.
So in light of this, then why would this group set up a separate conference on the issue? Why not just attend the government sponsored one? A simple answer: they don't care about debate on the issue. They simply want to have the first word on the subject, and get as much press around them as they can. This makes the second conference seem insignificant.
These are the same kinds of groups that said that smoking isn't harmful to your health. I don't think that liars and scam artists should get equal media time, do you? I think that the media does have a charge to decide what is just disinformation and not give it any attention.
-zCould the MiniMac revive the idea of the set top box? This thing is smaller than a DVD player and does a hellova lot more. Hook it right up to your TV and edit movies, play games, surf the net, watch slideshows, play DVDs, listen to music, etc. all right at your entertainment center. Maybe this box will serve a dual purpose: a cheap computer for PC switchers and an entertainment hub for your living room?
Can anybody tell if there is an infared port on this thing? I guess you don't really need it with bluetooth.....
To most people, PCI slots don't matter. To a minority, they do matter, and to that minority, the lack may prevent them from buying a Mac.
So this minority won't buy this machine. This is something designed for people that want something cheap and simple that works. This is not designed for the power-user that wants to have the latest and greatest on his/her upgraded 486 from 10 years ago. Just because this machine won't please the entire spectrum of computer users doesn't mean that it won't please some of them very well.
When you try and please everybody then you please nobody.
But in reality, i believe this is so apple can release "big iron" type systems (servers), the VM would allow Multiple versions of the server OS to run for maximum uptime, protection etc...
I completely agree. To get a true integrated environment that you can cut, copy, paste, and have overlaying windows between OSes then there must be one OS in charge. This architecture would make it very complicated to do that when running two OSes at the chip level. Both OSes would have to be modified to talk to each other like that.
Most people are going to take it as "Cool i can run windows and OSX at the same time at full speed" But in reality its closer to what i described above.
Yes, I think that products like QuickTransit from Transitive will make the emulation (or "hardware virtualization" as they call it) of other OSes much more useable, and this product still runs on top of the OS. This technology doesn't sound like it would be all that practical for the average user.
Plus....at least Windows won't be able to crash my machine (only itself) if it's running on top of OSX. If they're running side by side then who knows....
I can't find the article right now, but I remember reading something about a study of hallucinogens taken in low doses. The subjects reported a mild euphoria that was associated with greater productivity and creativity at work. The side effects were minimal.
-zThe problem with this methodology is that when you have a candidate that is pratically running on a christian platform, then you are very much blurring the line between church and state. I see far too many religious items on the neoconservative agenda. We have counties in this country that are outlawing science books that don't teach creationism. The issue of gay marriage is purely a religious battle, even though it provides benifiits from the state. Religion is a very powerful and persuasive force and one of the things keeping our democracy alive is keeping the church out of our government.
-zI say rig them all to make Nader win. Then he'll at least get his 5% and get federal funding for the green party.
Personally, I say we get rid of the voting machines altogether. They are simply an easy way for people to commit fraud. In an excerpt from this article:
This method sounds pretty simple and effective to me. I'm all about advancing technology, but maybe in some cases it doesn't work so well....
-zNO! This is the problem with a lot of intellectual liberals these days....APATHY. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. The worst thing you can do is give up. Write your representative. Write to a newspaper. Just don't sit back and hope that someone out there will do your dirty work for you. You have an opinion. Let people who can make a difference know about it.
Couldn've said it better. The best kind of slaves are ones too dumb to know any better. This trend has to stop before it's too late.
-zThe more I look into the Feeney/Curtis story the more I believe it.
There are clear links between YEI and Feeney. The president and the CEO of YEI donated over $5,000 to Feeney's 2004 campaign:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/t om_feeney.asp
Feeney also served as general counsel and lobbyist for YEI:
http://www.mystolennation.com/modules.php?name=New s&new_topic=18
The most interesting thing is that Bev Harris outlines a back door in the GEMS tabulator that is very similar to what Curtis created a demo for:
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-30.htm
She even specifies a date, October 13, 2000, as to when this back door was first implemented in the code. This is very shortly after the time that Curtis says his company was approached by Feeney.
I find it strange that Harris would discount this story as disinformation after these pieces line up like this....
-z