What about the neat ads? I like the "I'm a Mac" ads on www.cnn.com they are funny. I watch the Super Bowl mostly for the ads and on TBS there is that funny ad show. All cool.
What sucks is the ad services. If the content owners really own their advertising and only advertise for good products then ads aren't that bad.
I click on the ads at http://www.penny-arcade.com/ they do a good job with their ads and I want to support their site, not only that, the products they advertise are usually pretty cool.
I don't understand the Pope's objection. The body is nothing more than a meat machine that holds the soul. If we have the technology to improve the machine that houses the soul, what is the problem? Jesus Christ. The disciples fixed the broken machine all the time in the new testament, back then it was called a miracle. Now we have the technology to improve the lives of all future children it would be a crime not to remove genetic diseases. Why does the church insist on allowing unnecessary suffering just so that they can provide comfort to the person who is suffering? Wouldn't it be better to eradicate the suffering in the first place?
By that argument the 49% of Americans that didn't vote for Barack Obama got screwed too...
Two things happened in Iran that didn't happen in the US. 1. In Iran it is alleged that the government censored and unfairly portrayed the opposition to maintain power skewing the vote. 2. In Iran the 49% think they are the majority and won't say they lost. They argue that point 1 caused the discrepancy, not that they are actually a very large minority.
Actually they are. They are charging you, I believe, $0.42 to distribute content to you. I imagine for a Netflix DVD it is a bit more.
That fat pipe isn't free either. It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment. It isn't a gravity fed system, the internet isn't a series of pipes, I don't care what Ted Stevens says. It also takes manpower to maintain all that equipment. It is a service, but a service without value if not for the content on the other side.
Has anyone calculated the cost to transfer a GB of information from point A to point B in terms of electricity cost? equipment cost? manpower cost?
I don't know how well it would work either, but it would be a way to direct revenue directly to content providers instead of to conglomerates, RIAA, MPAA, etc. It could actually save the newspaper business as well. If newspaper articles online made newspapers money instead of costing the newspaper money, would they still be in as bad a shape as they are? I mean they are creating the content.
Then again I also see modern newspapers dissolving since columnists would be paid directly based on downloads of their articles from their own sites. Aggregators would still exist, but they would pull the articles from the authors website (generating revenue for the author), but at the same time they would be supplying their own content as well also earning them income.
There would be no need to steal information from the content creator since you could just link to their information. You would make money since information was downloaded from you're site, but at the same time the information you provided linked to the original content owner who then is paid for their work.
The internet would still be "neutral" but finally the intangible price we've all been paying would finally have a value. People work to put this stuff together, it has value. At this moment in time the value I'm paying for it is $60 a month to Comcast, and the only one making money off of it is Comcast, not the people who are actually supplying me content. Comcast is just the middle man, the content provider should be earning something besides what they get from "advertising".
I agree completely. There is no reason I should pay for the content I'm not downloading, that should be illegal. But if I'm downloading content from Disney why shouldn't I be billed for it? If ALL content providers stopped uploading content the internet would die.
I wouldn't let my kids watch that crap. It is nothing but potty humor.
No Spunge Bob. No Chowder.
I let my kids watch the classics: Thundercats. He-man. GI Joe. Avatar (not a classic, but damn good). Robotech. GoLion (Voltron). Transformers. GoBots. Johny Quest. Jetsons. Grape Ape. Flintstones. (10million strong and growing). Silver Hawks.
I'm sure I'm missing stuff, but anything is better than the drivel the networks are pumping to our kids these days...
Something with a plot that holds your attention for more than one episode or even 30 second punch lines...
It shouldn't be a flat value paid to Disney. If they want to set up a per GB contract, thats find, then just don't go to any disney sites and they wouldn't get any money. Having it be a flat fee for access and taxed to everyone is wrong. The ISP knows exactly how much bandwidth Disney websites are using and we shouldn't have to pay one red cent above what is being used.
I disagree and am probably going to get tarred and feathered for this, but they kinda have a point. However they are doing it wrong.
ISP's are nothing more than distributors of content. They don't create or provide content, they just distribute it.
Disney is a large scale content provider. They make the content which an ISP then distributes. Disney has every right to charge for that content. If they decided not to put their content on the internet who would pay comcast or verizon or whomever for non-existent content?
What I mean by they are doing it wrong is that they should put a bid out to ISPs to distribute their content at a byte or GB distribution level. So comcast could offer to pay Disney $1.00 per GB to route their content, comcast can then charge other ISPs $1.10 per GB for their content. Verizon would then have to charge $1.20 to its customers for internet access on top of whatever monthly fee. Comcast could charge $1.10 to its customers since it had the premier content.
Then Verizon makes an offer to YouTube for $1.20 per GB to distribute its content... and the cycle continues.
Not only that but since every node on the internet is potentially a content provider contracts can be set so that whatever content you upload you could get paid for. Anything you download you pay them for and the costs are passed to the actual content provider.
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate. Market competition should keep the costs down.
Hosting content isn't free. Distributing content isn't free. The internet isn't free... right now a lot of companies are providing their internet content at a loss. This type of model would fix the newspaper mess. An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ, a small town newspaper would also benefit from this method. This is the answer to the question "How do you make money on the internet." Now we just have the means to pay the content providers directly.
With this kind of distribution method the 2 million+ Joss Whedon fans could have been directly supporting his program and theoretically firefly could still be being produced. With this kind of distribution there is no reason for conglomorates to own all the media, the directors and producers have a direct line and business model that would work to support their production costs. It would limit the pirating of software since it would still cost you to torrent, when you could just get the content directly for the content owner. I mean if you could just go to the artist website and download the song "for free" and they earn money from it wouldn't everyone be better off? If it cost you $3 do torrent a movie from TPB or $3 to download it from http://www.transformersmovie.com/ wouldn't you rather have your money support the actual content providers?
Skynet is already live and it is us. Google: unmanned military vehicles; if you don't believe me. The way we disassociate killing from a distance with the act itself is scary.
With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.
I buy several of them every day, today they call it "Dr. Pepper" and its great!
I was running an emulator of I believe FFIV? or some other sprite turn based RPG. The emulator let you save at any point, so I could pretty much not die. There was a cave that went down 99 floors to some "impossible" boss. Technically you shouldn't have even been able to get a fraction into the cave. Anyway I don't think you were supposed to get to the giant slime at the end, the maps were really weird down there and I forget what it said when I beat him, but it wasn't supposed to happen.
Anyone else know what I'm talking about? This was when Napster was still free and legal...
The planes velocity is too fast to move birds out of the flight path of planes. What needs to happen is make the planes capable of hitting a Canadian goose at 400 mph...
I'm being naive here, but since the state has been buying text books for 80 years plus at some point wouldn't it just be cheaper to higher people to write the text books for the state? So we pay them an annual salary of $100,000 a year to write, maintain and update text books. They could do this online and distribute them to all school districts for free.
The problem isn't in paying people for their work, the problem is the cost of distribution. Even if every state had their own "content creators" paying each an annual salary of $1,000,000 it would be cheaper than the current system. Maybe that'll be my next job, I'll write online only text books and I'll offer distribution contracts so that I make $1,000,000 a year annual for the use of my books. If all 50 states use my books the cost to each state would only be $20,000 a year. That would save the federal government millions.
Each state could even maintain their own wiki and have it the school board approve changes before they post. Why are we paying millions in tax dollars to publishing companies again? Can't they just die already?
What are you guys talking about? A text book costs more than a computer, how is this even an issue? Seems like a no-brainer to me. A freaking Kindle DX is cheaper than most text books... How about one Kindle per child?
You could hash a voter_id onto a ticket type receipt where the voter keeps a record of their vote and the election official keeps the other half of the tab. Then you go to the website and look for your hash. If your hash doesn't match what is published you can complain to your local election officials. There is then a paper trail that can be tallied against voter registration without giving away voter ids.
The scam in this situation is that you could issue the same hash to people that vote the same way but then count their vote differently, however the election officials could see in the tally of their copies of the hash that there are multiple instances of the same hash.
So instead of VOTER_ID, CANDIDATE_ID you would have RECEIPT_ID, ISSUE_ID that could then be tabulated by anyone and the receipts could be tabulated by election officials in the event of a dispute.
Better yet store them as flat files that are available for download by the entire population.
VOTER_ID, CANDIDATE_ID
Then have the files named: precinctID_ballotID.csv Have the files available for download from the precinct website as well as the district and region websites for comparison to make sure there is no tampering.
The only issue with this system is keeping voter id's private, but it would allow for the most open and auditable elections ever.
I'm lost... why is "bestiality" in the list of bad things? They have the donkey joke in the American Pie movies and its always behind the curtain, so I looked it up... does that mean I'm going to jail?
Slashdot Mirror
What about the neat ads? I like the "I'm a Mac" ads on www.cnn.com they are funny. I watch the Super Bowl mostly for the ads and on TBS there is that funny ad show. All cool.
What sucks is the ad services. If the content owners really own their advertising and only advertise for good products then ads aren't that bad.
I click on the ads at http://www.penny-arcade.com/ they do a good job with their ads and I want to support their site, not only that, the products they advertise are usually pretty cool.
I don't understand the Pope's objection. The body is nothing more than a meat machine that holds the soul. If we have the technology to improve the machine that houses the soul, what is the problem? Jesus Christ. The disciples fixed the broken machine all the time in the new testament, back then it was called a miracle. Now we have the technology to improve the lives of all future children it would be a crime not to remove genetic diseases. Why does the church insist on allowing unnecessary suffering just so that they can provide comfort to the person who is suffering? Wouldn't it be better to eradicate the suffering in the first place?
So whats growing faster tweets or the US national debt?
-OR-
Thats less than the projected deficit at the end of Obama's first term in office...
By that argument the 49% of Americans that didn't vote for Barack Obama got screwed too...
Two things happened in Iran that didn't happen in the US.
1. In Iran it is alleged that the government censored and unfairly portrayed the opposition to maintain power skewing the vote.
2. In Iran the 49% think they are the majority and won't say they lost. They argue that point 1 caused the discrepancy, not that they are actually a very large minority.
Actually they are. They are charging you, I believe, $0.42 to distribute content to you. I imagine for a Netflix DVD it is a bit more.
That fat pipe isn't free either. It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment. It isn't a gravity fed system, the internet isn't a series of pipes, I don't care what Ted Stevens says. It also takes manpower to maintain all that equipment. It is a service, but a service without value if not for the content on the other side.
Has anyone calculated the cost to transfer a GB of information from point A to point B in terms of electricity cost? equipment cost? manpower cost?
That is almost exactly what I'm proposing.
I don't know how well it would work either, but it would be a way to direct revenue directly to content providers instead of to conglomerates, RIAA, MPAA, etc. It could actually save the newspaper business as well. If newspaper articles online made newspapers money instead of costing the newspaper money, would they still be in as bad a shape as they are? I mean they are creating the content.
Then again I also see modern newspapers dissolving since columnists would be paid directly based on downloads of their articles from their own sites. Aggregators would still exist, but they would pull the articles from the authors website (generating revenue for the author), but at the same time they would be supplying their own content as well also earning them income.
There would be no need to steal information from the content creator since you could just link to their information. You would make money since information was downloaded from you're site, but at the same time the information you provided linked to the original content owner who then is paid for their work.
The internet would still be "neutral" but finally the intangible price we've all been paying would finally have a value. People work to put this stuff together, it has value. At this moment in time the value I'm paying for it is $60 a month to Comcast, and the only one making money off of it is Comcast, not the people who are actually supplying me content. Comcast is just the middle man, the content provider should be earning something besides what they get from "advertising".
I agree completely. There is no reason I should pay for the content I'm not downloading, that should be illegal. But if I'm downloading content from Disney why shouldn't I be billed for it? If ALL content providers stopped uploading content the internet would die.
Thats because those are all channels watched by people without jobs.... welcome to America the welfare state...
I wouldn't let my kids watch that crap. It is nothing but potty humor.
No Spunge Bob.
No Chowder.
I let my kids watch the classics:
Thundercats.
He-man.
GI Joe.
Avatar (not a classic, but damn good).
Robotech.
GoLion (Voltron).
Transformers.
GoBots.
Johny Quest.
Jetsons.
Grape Ape.
Flintstones. (10million strong and growing).
Silver Hawks.
I'm sure I'm missing stuff, but anything is better than the drivel the networks are pumping to our kids these days...
Something with a plot that holds your attention for more than one episode or even 30 second punch lines...
It shouldn't be a flat value paid to Disney. If they want to set up a per GB contract, thats find, then just don't go to any disney sites and they wouldn't get any money. Having it be a flat fee for access and taxed to everyone is wrong. The ISP knows exactly how much bandwidth Disney websites are using and we shouldn't have to pay one red cent above what is being used.
I disagree and am probably going to get tarred and feathered for this, but they kinda have a point. However they are doing it wrong.
ISP's are nothing more than distributors of content. They don't create or provide content, they just distribute it.
Disney is a large scale content provider. They make the content which an ISP then distributes. Disney has every right to charge for that content. If they decided not to put their content on the internet who would pay comcast or verizon or whomever for non-existent content?
What I mean by they are doing it wrong is that they should put a bid out to ISPs to distribute their content at a byte or GB distribution level. So comcast could offer to pay Disney $1.00 per GB to route their content, comcast can then charge other ISPs $1.10 per GB for their content. Verizon would then have to charge $1.20 to its customers for internet access on top of whatever monthly fee. Comcast could charge $1.10 to its customers since it had the premier content.
Then Verizon makes an offer to YouTube for $1.20 per GB to distribute its content... and the cycle continues.
Not only that but since every node on the internet is potentially a content provider contracts can be set so that whatever content you upload you could get paid for. Anything you download you pay them for and the costs are passed to the actual content provider.
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate. Market competition should keep the costs down.
Hosting content isn't free. Distributing content isn't free. The internet isn't free... right now a lot of companies are providing their internet content at a loss. This type of model would fix the newspaper mess. An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ, a small town newspaper would also benefit from this method. This is the answer to the question "How do you make money on the internet." Now we just have the means to pay the content providers directly.
With this kind of distribution method the 2 million+ Joss Whedon fans could have been directly supporting his program and theoretically firefly could still be being produced.
With this kind of distribution there is no reason for conglomorates to own all the media, the directors and producers have a direct line and business model that would work to support their production costs.
It would limit the pirating of software since it would still cost you to torrent, when you could just get the content directly for the content owner. I mean if you could just go to the artist website and download the song "for free" and they earn money from it wouldn't everyone be better off? If it cost you $3 do torrent a movie from TPB or $3 to download it from http://www.transformersmovie.com/ wouldn't you rather have your money support the actual content providers?
Skynet is already live and it is us. Google: unmanned military vehicles; if you don't believe me. The way we disassociate killing from a distance with the act itself is scary.
With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.
I buy several of them every day, today they call it "Dr. Pepper" and its great!
I was running an emulator of I believe FFIV? or some other sprite turn based RPG. The emulator let you save at any point, so I could pretty much not die. There was a cave that went down 99 floors to some "impossible" boss. Technically you shouldn't have even been able to get a fraction into the cave. Anyway I don't think you were supposed to get to the giant slime at the end, the maps were really weird down there and I forget what it said when I beat him, but it wasn't supposed to happen.
Anyone else know what I'm talking about? This was when Napster was still free and legal...
The planes velocity is too fast to move birds out of the flight path of planes. What needs to happen is make the planes capable of hitting a Canadian goose at 400 mph...
Would a water grid to more evenly distribute water be feasible? It works for electricity, why not water?
Katrina? 9/11? Dot-com bubble?
I'm being naive here, but since the state has been buying text books for 80 years plus at some point wouldn't it just be cheaper to higher people to write the text books for the state? So we pay them an annual salary of $100,000 a year to write, maintain and update text books. They could do this online and distribute them to all school districts for free.
The problem isn't in paying people for their work, the problem is the cost of distribution. Even if every state had their own "content creators" paying each an annual salary of $1,000,000 it would be cheaper than the current system. Maybe that'll be my next job, I'll write online only text books and I'll offer distribution contracts so that I make $1,000,000 a year annual for the use of my books. If all 50 states use my books the cost to each state would only be $20,000 a year. That would save the federal government millions.
No like this:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page
Each state could even maintain their own wiki and have it the school board approve changes before they post. Why are we paying millions in tax dollars to publishing companies again? Can't they just die already?
What are you guys talking about? A text book costs more than a computer, how is this even an issue? Seems like a no-brainer to me. A freaking Kindle DX is cheaper than most text books... How about one Kindle per child?
http://news.cnet.com/E-voting-predicament-Not-so-secret-ballots/2100-1014_3-6203323.html
You could hash a voter_id onto a ticket type receipt where the voter keeps a record of their vote and the election official keeps the other half of the tab. Then you go to the website and look for your hash. If your hash doesn't match what is published you can complain to your local election officials. There is then a paper trail that can be tallied against voter registration without giving away voter ids.
The scam in this situation is that you could issue the same hash to people that vote the same way but then count their vote differently, however the election officials could see in the tally of their copies of the hash that there are multiple instances of the same hash.
So instead of VOTER_ID, CANDIDATE_ID you would have RECEIPT_ID, ISSUE_ID that could then be tabulated by anyone and the receipts could be tabulated by election officials in the event of a dispute.
Better yet store them as flat files that are available for download by the entire population.
VOTER_ID, CANDIDATE_ID
Then have the files named: precinctID_ballotID.csv Have the files available for download from the precinct website as well as the district and region websites for comparison to make sure there is no tampering.
The only issue with this system is keeping voter id's private, but it would allow for the most open and auditable elections ever.
I'm lost... why is "bestiality" in the list of bad things? They have the donkey joke in the American Pie movies and its always behind the curtain, so I looked it up... does that mean I'm going to jail?
I'm already paying NBC Universal News Corp for access to their content in my Comcast Cable bill. Why should I have to pay for their content twice?
A la cart is an awesome and great goal, but paying for the full swath and then paying extra for a la cart on top of the combo sucks.