And it's apparently not at all on solar yet, the first system turns on in two weeks, the last in October.
I'm not even going to grouse about the 3 cars that run on fossil fuel, because that's peanuts next to the fact that the country won't even have power 24 hours a day (article says 12-18h).
It's basically the HBO issue (the BBC and HBO are very similar models).
The BBC is required by law/charter to minimize their financial costs to UK citizens (the TV licence fee). So they sell their overseas rights as part of this. This brings in money and minimizes their overhead.
However, these overseas licenses are also exclusive. They just can't get much money for non-exclusive licenses. So in the process, the BBC gives up the right to stream their own produced shows to you in other countries even for a fee.
Until they can make more money vending TV licence fees to you (and me, I'd pay too) in a country, they legally cannot stop selling rights in other countries and switch to selling TV license fees in those countries. Or until the law is changed by Parliament.
Also note that they cannot sell you the rights to watch content they don't produce (Olympics, Formula 1) outside their borders at any price. They'd have to secure the rights to that content in your country and that would never be cost-effective.
Like the Olympics they don't have rights to stream outside their borders.
They could turn off geolocation for their own content they produce, but they sell the rights to air those shows to broadcasters in other countries. These broadcasters demand exclusive rights in their countries, and so the BBC cannot let their shows be streamed outside the UK. This is the same issue all other broadcasters face.
The BBC could simply not sell their rights beyond their borders and then remove their geolocation for their own content. But the BBC is required by law to minimize their financial impact on UK citizens (i.e. minimize the TV licence fee) and taking in money for overseas rights does this.
You can watch any event you want with NBC too. And you were able to do so at the 2010 Olympics (Canadian CBC did it too). And you were even able to do it at the Olympics on NBC!
So yeah, coverage has been this vast and all encompassing before. Glad to hear you finally came to the party. I guess you just didn't notice NBC in the room when you got here.
This idea began in the US 20 years ago with the (failed) Olympics Triplecast.
Because they are not required to stream their content online for free. So they don't.
When they provide their service over the airwaves, it is required to be free, so it is. When they provide it over the internet it isn't required to be free because the internet isn't regulated in that way. Hands off the internet, right?
Also note that if you watch NBC over cable/satellite there's a good chance the local affiliate you are watching is also receiving carriage fees from your cable/satellite bill.
WTBS was a broadcast station for decades before it became a basic cable channel. Yet Turner (Time Warner) is not required to stream their content over the internet for free either.
Cory is an intelligent person. He is respected for many things.
However, he is hugely reactionary about anything related to censorship. If he does basic vetting of claims related to censorship, he must have started recently, because he's embarrassed himself previously over not being selective enough when things seem to bolster to what he already believes.
He has no real reputation to protect when it comes to censorship, he blew that up a long time ago.
The Concorde was far louder even at regular plane cruising speeds, for the same reason an F/A-18 is louder than a 737. The Concorde was loud even for its day and planes nowadays are far far quieter.
And at cruising height where it broke the sound barrier, yes, the sonic boom did extend to the ground and it was very loud.
Boeing's 2707 suffered from the same problem so I'm not sure why Boeing would make up stories.
The change to only fly supersonic over ocean was a compromise after the protests during the Concorde's goodwill tour. The goodwill tour was to drum up customers, but it garnered none and meanwhile the cancellations kept rolling in. It was a sales flop, no models were sold to companies other than the state flagship carriers of the two countries that developed the plane. And those were sold the plane on the cheap.
The carriers who did fly them did make money on them, but if the purchase price had not been subsidized this may not have been true.
Did you look at Dish TVs hundeds of channels? It's about 1/3rd audio-only "channels", and about 1/4 free-to-air channels (religious and home shopping).
For $50/month, expect to get about $50/month worth of channels, nothing more. Most of the money is going to the content providers so Google's ability to deliver more value for money for TV channels is limited.
Google isn't magic.
And Dish doesn't even have a $35/month pack. Their DishFamily is $25/mo, their Top 120 is $45/mo and it only gets higher from there.
No, it's not comparable to DirecTV. Most of your DirecTV bill goes to the content providers, not DirecTV.
So with this being only $50 for the TV part you'll get fewer channels. It won't be DirecTV's selection, but it might still be worth $50. Heck I know a lot of people who would rather have fewer channels and only pay $50.
When a Gatekeeper check does occur, however, the behavior depends on which mode Gatekeeper is in (set in System Preferences). There are three modes: "Mac App Store" (the default), in which only apps downloaded from the Mac App Store are allowed to launch
By your own text it sounds like his guess was close to the mark. By default an app has to be from the app store and that means signed by Apple.
You don't have to be naive to think that the plans could make some financial sense.
The companies are offering these plans in the hope people will buy more cellular connected devices. Right now there is a disincentive to do so because you have to have a separate contract for each. Merged plans at a reasonable price could cause people to use a lot more cellular data, putting money into the carriers' pockets.
Instead we just got huge per-device cash-grabs. I think they've cut their own legs out from under themselves.
I agree with you. Heck even if you're going to compress something, compress the natural gas!
All I can think is there is a limitation on how rapidly (or slowly) they can burn the natural gas and turn it into electricity. Otherwise, just keep the natural gas around until you need the energy and burn it then.
Why if there's a limit on how fast you can burn the natural gas there wouldn't be one on free-wheeling it into a turbine too I have no idea.
When you store natural gas in salt domes, the energy isn't in the pressure, it's in the gas itself. You don't care if it retains pressure as long as you can store more gas in there. In fact, you're prefer lower pressure in general, it's easier to work with.
The volume doesn't matter except to improve volume to surface area (radiative/conductive area) ratio. Each bite of air heats up the same amount during compression whether you then dump it into a big cavity or a small one.
Give away doesn't necessarily mean anyone is deprived of anything. It often does, but not always.
If I watch your prize dog while you are on vacation, a pedigreed breeding dog and I give away his sperm to someone, I have given something of value away. But you aren't deprived of it, that sperm would have been dead by the time you got back from vacation and it would have been replaced by then with new live sperm anyway.
You'd do well to stick to the point at hand instead of trying to put up a semantic front.
There was only one of that UHF tower. And RF power falls with the square of the distance. Actually, it falls off a lot worse than that at UHF frequencies, which is why UHF stations get so much power to transmit with in the first place.
You don't have a million Watt LTE tower, but you have a lot of 10 Watt towers and you are in general a lot closer to them. And you can have a half watt LTE transmitter (your phone) in the same room as your TV.
My phone sitting on the coffee table 1 meter away at 0.5W versus a tower 10km away at 1M watts, the LTE transmitter in my room alone presents a 50x stronger RF power density, and that's before you talk about the other LTE towers which are transmitting constantly and other LTE devices in this room and others.
In the US, TV channels have been reclaimed for cellular service twice. First channels 70-83 were turned into the original 800Mhz cellular range (really 850Mhz) and now 60-76 has been carved out for the new 700MHz 3G/4G frequencies.
How is this somehow not sensible?
The US has interference issues as much as Australia does as much as the UK does. Frequencies which used to be TV channels now have (much stronger) cellular transmissions on them. Because TVs were designed to tune to those frequencies, they don't have blocking filters for those frequencies, making interference possible.
In Australia, 126MHz of bandwidth will be reassigned from UHF TV to cellular.
Interference in the US has been minimal (at most) and I doubt the UK or Australia will have much difficulty either.
Slashdot Mirror
CNET just reports it. Every one of their sentences about the info says "according to..." or "journalist blames".
Careful, multiple stories written by reading one report is not any kind of confirmation, it's just repetition.
I never thought the Apple ][ was first. But the TRS-80 wasn't either. The PET was available before either of them.
Why would you mention Exidy (the Sorcerer)? It came after all these computers. Where I was you could get an Apple ][+ before you could get a Sorcerer.
It's a territory of NZ.
And it's apparently not at all on solar yet, the first system turns on in two weeks, the last in October.
I'm not even going to grouse about the 3 cars that run on fossil fuel, because that's peanuts next to the fact that the country won't even have power 24 hours a day (article says 12-18h).
This article is just plain wrong.
NBC offered every event online at the 2008 Olympics. That's what the 3rd sentence should say.
It's basically the HBO issue (the BBC and HBO are very similar models).
The BBC is required by law/charter to minimize their financial costs to UK citizens (the TV licence fee). So they sell their overseas rights as part of this. This brings in money and minimizes their overhead.
However, these overseas licenses are also exclusive. They just can't get much money for non-exclusive licenses. So in the process, the BBC gives up the right to stream their own produced shows to you in other countries even for a fee.
Until they can make more money vending TV licence fees to you (and me, I'd pay too) in a country, they legally cannot stop selling rights in other countries and switch to selling TV license fees in those countries. Or until the law is changed by Parliament.
Also note that they cannot sell you the rights to watch content they don't produce (Olympics, Formula 1) outside their borders at any price. They'd have to secure the rights to that content in your country and that would never be cost-effective.
Like the Olympics they don't have rights to stream outside their borders.
They could turn off geolocation for their own content they produce, but they sell the rights to air those shows to broadcasters in other countries. These broadcasters demand exclusive rights in their countries, and so the BBC cannot let their shows be streamed outside the UK. This is the same issue all other broadcasters face.
The BBC could simply not sell their rights beyond their borders and then remove their geolocation for their own content. But the BBC is required by law to minimize their financial impact on UK citizens (i.e. minimize the TV licence fee) and taking in money for overseas rights does this.
But Steve Jobs is dead. And he requested people at Apple not spend their time asking "What Would Steve Jobs Do?".
Also, this advertising, cheesy as it may be, is getting attention. Isn't that what ads are for? To get attention.
Remember the Mentos ads? 20 years later? Yep. Cheesy? Yep.
You can watch any event you want with NBC too. And you were able to do so at the 2010 Olympics (Canadian CBC did it too). And you were even able to do it at the Olympics on NBC!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/online-listings/day=august-1/index.html
So yeah, coverage has been this vast and all encompassing before. Glad to hear you finally came to the party. I guess you just didn't notice NBC in the room when you got here.
This idea began in the US 20 years ago with the (failed) Olympics Triplecast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics_Triplecast
They switched to the internet as soon as it made sense and it's been better and better every 2 years since.
Because they are not required to stream their content online for free. So they don't.
When they provide their service over the airwaves, it is required to be free, so it is. When they provide it over the internet it isn't required to be free because the internet isn't regulated in that way. Hands off the internet, right?
Also note that if you watch NBC over cable/satellite there's a good chance the local affiliate you are watching is also receiving carriage fees from your cable/satellite bill.
WTBS was a broadcast station for decades before it became a basic cable channel. Yet Turner (Time Warner) is not required to stream their content over the internet for free either.
Cory is an intelligent person. He is respected for many things.
However, he is hugely reactionary about anything related to censorship. If he does basic vetting of claims related to censorship, he must have started recently, because he's embarrassed himself previously over not being selective enough when things seem to bolster to what he already believes.
He has no real reputation to protect when it comes to censorship, he blew that up a long time ago.
Require extraordinary proof.
There are plenty of iBooks already that mention Amazon.
We have one person making a blind accusation here.
The Concorde was far louder even at regular plane cruising speeds, for the same reason an F/A-18 is louder than a 737. The Concorde was loud even for its day and planes nowadays are far far quieter.
And at cruising height where it broke the sound barrier, yes, the sonic boom did extend to the ground and it was very loud.
Boeing's 2707 suffered from the same problem so I'm not sure why Boeing would make up stories.
The change to only fly supersonic over ocean was a compromise after the protests during the Concorde's goodwill tour. The goodwill tour was to drum up customers, but it garnered none and meanwhile the cancellations kept rolling in. It was a sales flop, no models were sold to companies other than the state flagship carriers of the two countries that developed the plane. And those were sold the plane on the cheap.
The carriers who did fly them did make money on them, but if the purchase price had not been subsidized this may not have been true.
Did you look at Dish TVs hundeds of channels? It's about 1/3rd audio-only "channels", and about 1/4 free-to-air channels (religious and home shopping).
For $50/month, expect to get about $50/month worth of channels, nothing more. Most of the money is going to the content providers so Google's ability to deliver more value for money for TV channels is limited.
Google isn't magic.
And Dish doesn't even have a $35/month pack. Their DishFamily is $25/mo, their Top 120 is $45/mo and it only gets higher from there.
No, it's not comparable to DirecTV. Most of your DirecTV bill goes to the content providers, not DirecTV.
So with this being only $50 for the TV part you'll get fewer channels. It won't be DirecTV's selection, but it might still be worth $50. Heck I know a lot of people who would rather have fewer channels and only pay $50.
When a Gatekeeper check does occur, however, the behavior depends on which mode Gatekeeper is in (set in System Preferences). There are three modes: "Mac App Store" (the default), in which only apps downloaded from the Mac App Store are allowed to launch
By your own text it sounds like his guess was close to the mark. By default an app has to be from the app store and that means signed by Apple.
DirecTV has 20M customers. $600M/year is $30/year/subscriber or $2.50 per subscriber per month.
I like the Daily Show but doesn't $2.50/customer seem a bit high given they also have commercials?
No wonder "basic cable" is now so expensive.
You don't have to be naive to think that the plans could make some financial sense.
The companies are offering these plans in the hope people will buy more cellular connected devices. Right now there is a disincentive to do so because you have to have a separate contract for each. Merged plans at a reasonable price could cause people to use a lot more cellular data, putting money into the carriers' pockets.
Instead we just got huge per-device cash-grabs. I think they've cut their own legs out from under themselves.
I agree with you. Heck even if you're going to compress something, compress the natural gas!
All I can think is there is a limitation on how rapidly (or slowly) they can burn the natural gas and turn it into electricity. Otherwise, just keep the natural gas around until you need the energy and burn it then.
Why if there's a limit on how fast you can burn the natural gas there wouldn't be one on free-wheeling it into a turbine too I have no idea.
When you store natural gas in salt domes, the energy isn't in the pressure, it's in the gas itself. You don't care if it retains pressure as long as you can store more gas in there. In fact, you're prefer lower pressure in general, it's easier to work with.
The volume doesn't matter except to improve volume to surface area (radiative/conductive area) ratio. Each bite of air heats up the same amount during compression whether you then dump it into a big cavity or a small one.
Give away doesn't necessarily mean anyone is deprived of anything. It often does, but not always.
If I watch your prize dog while you are on vacation, a pedigreed breeding dog and I give away his sperm to someone, I have given something of value away. But you aren't deprived of it, that sperm would have been dead by the time you got back from vacation and it would have been replaced by then with new live sperm anyway.
You'd do well to stick to the point at hand instead of trying to put up a semantic front.
Thanks for giving an extended explanation and good concrete examples.
But I would say it's a lot simpler to explain.
Once "Likes" can be traded for something of value, people will begin cheating to that thing of value.
It happens with everything. Pay-per-click spawned meaningless fraudulent clicks, so you can be sure pay-per-like will do the same.
It's just not a lot more complex than that.
One thing, TV stations are 6MHz wide, not 8MHz. This is true with NTSC and PAL/SECAM, I would imagine it's true worldwide.
filler filler filler (do we even need to fill anymore? I'm going to err on the safe side).
There was only one of that UHF tower. And RF power falls with the square of the distance. Actually, it falls off a lot worse than that at UHF frequencies, which is why UHF stations get so much power to transmit with in the first place.
You don't have a million Watt LTE tower, but you have a lot of 10 Watt towers and you are in general a lot closer to them. And you can have a half watt LTE transmitter (your phone) in the same room as your TV.
My phone sitting on the coffee table 1 meter away at 0.5W versus a tower 10km away at 1M watts, the LTE transmitter in my room alone presents a 50x stronger RF power density, and that's before you talk about the other LTE towers which are transmitting constantly and other LTE devices in this room and others.
In the US, TV channels have been reclaimed for cellular service twice. First channels 70-83 were turned into the original 800Mhz cellular range (really 850Mhz) and now 60-76 has been carved out for the new 700MHz 3G/4G frequencies.
How is this somehow not sensible?
The US has interference issues as much as Australia does as much as the UK does. Frequencies which used to be TV channels now have (much stronger) cellular transmissions on them. Because TVs were designed to tune to those frequencies, they don't have blocking filters for those frequencies, making interference possible.
In Australia, 126MHz of bandwidth will be reassigned from UHF TV to cellular.
Interference in the US has been minimal (at most) and I doubt the UK or Australia will have much difficulty either.
There are two more episods in the July 9th episode, they only did the first stage of Mount Midoriyama.
I do agree that the American show emphasizes competition against each other with the line "who will be the first" instead of "will anyone".
But I do have to ask, how on-point can a review be if the reviewer didn't even watch the show enough to notice it didn't actually go to the end?