"And don't they realize that the very value of a PDF is intrinsically lower than that of a hardbound book? "
Absolutely false. The cost of production might be lower, but the value is determined by the consumer, not directly by the characteristics of the item.
To me, the PDF would actually be MORE valuable, since I commute a long distance and would be able to read them on my laptop without lugging around some heavy tomes. Easier to tag, cross-reference, etc. How about indexing the books and being able to instantly (well, near-instantly, these are pdfs after all) call up all references to a certain spell in all the books?
In short, value is ascribed by the perceived utility of the object, not by production and distribution costs.
"Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.
This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water"
Completely untrue, if the ice is free-floating. This only holds if the ice is held under water by the ice on top of it & physiscal restraints on movement of the ice.
Try this one: Take a large-diameter container, place enough ice cubes in it such that when it is filled with water, there is a single layer of cubes with room for them to move around a bit. Fill container until water almost spills over.
Observe the level of the ice -- there is some that sticks up out of the water over the level of the container. What happens when the ice melts? The water level remains the same -- this is because the ice displaces the volume of water it would occupy were it to melt.
And whoever is running the caches will soon be distributing ads along with the content. You know, to 'offset cost increases' while 'maintaining current pricing structures'. Cynical, I know, but the economies of scale would result in a few major companies holding most of the 'local' cache servers. At that point advertisers would get their foot in the door, since they'd only have to approach a few companies to reach their market(s).
Moisture condensation is as big of a problem as static discharge. Cheaper to humidify than to dehumidify (though dehumidification can be rolled into cooling systems pretty easily), also less fluctuations in humidity than coastal regions -- so easier to maintain an ideal RH.
Good for you, that you have no need of it. And does your personal lack of need make this not a useful browser to everyone else?
My in-laws will benefit from this... you should see their eyes glaze over when 'RSS' or 'Firefox extension' leaves my lips. Let them have their fun and write their silly blogs, while you can go ahead and do whatever it is you do.
And, like it or not, the ultimate success[1] of Open Source browsers depends upon solutions that do what Joe Sixpack wants without requiring major tweaking.
And by ultimate success, I mean breaking the IE stranglehold completely -- we're getting there but there's still a long road to walk.
I know there are a lot of labs in central/eastern Washington, not so familiar with the Columbia River basin in OR -- are there a lot of research facilities there?
If there is a God, I'm afraid you're praying to the wrong one.
FTA:
"No one says the 'G' word," said Diane Sherwood, executive director of the Port of Klickitat, Wash., directly across the river from The Dalles, who is not bound by such agreements. "It's a little bit like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in Harry Potter."
Sounds a little too much like He-Who-Lies-Dead-But-Dreaming, and I don't think we need a GoogleCthulhu (beta) in the wild.
Plenty of reasons for Google to build there. Not just cheap electricity, also cheap water. And arid conditions east of the mountains = longer equipment life.
Then, there is the labor considerations -- lots of well-educated labor in the surrounding area who would be willing to relocate a couple hundred miles in order to work for Google, plus lots of cheap uneducated labor -- there is a pretty significant oversupply of unskilled / low-skilled labor in the PacNW. You know, for custodial staff etc.
I agree that blanket advertising is annoying, but the biggest advertisers aren't looking to narrowly target tgeir ads -- they are looking for broad brand awareness as much as immediate ad-generated sales. Target, for example, wants EVERYONE to see their ads as much as possible. These are the ads that really set up braodcast with an advantage.
Interesting point about semi-locally hosted video servers. But for a pay-per-download type service, this would mean each provider would need a local server, or we'd end up with middlemen again (like the broadcast networks). The only way to get rid of advertising is to have direct sales from the content producers... the middlemen will always find a way to insert advertising (remember the promises of ad-free cable? Internet-distributed content will be little different).
"We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty."
You can contend all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS does, indeed, have the power to overturn treaties. No treaty is enforceable until passed by Congress, and anything with legislative force passed by Congress (such as a treaty) can go to the SCOTUS for review if a case is filed with them. Whether they choose to hear it or not is a different matter.
"no they are not making billions every minute but that is not the definition of success."
Absolutely. Success is having a better ROI than the opportunity cost -- and if we're talking about a change in delivery mechanism for video media in general, then you've got to make more money than traditional broadcast would. As I said, there's a role for niche players, which download.tv is -- but there's a more profitable role for broadcast.
Whether or not some internetTV companies are thriving, traditional boradcast is thriving more -- and the scaling issues for internetTV are nightmarish.
I suggest you think about what would have to happen if internetTV were to be the main, or even a serious competitor to broadcast media, delivery channel. After all, it's not the little internetTV companies that are buying lawmakers, it's the megacorps.
"Internet based delivery means ads/promotions etc can be targetted at smaller groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on your religion, job, social class, whether you drive, read books, listen to music, cook, etc etc."
It also means that people won't watch the ads. The entire ad industry would contract (to our benefit, IMO) unless law forces us to watch the provided ads along with the content (you know, like the DMCA can do, in effect) -- and we'd end up with more pervasive marketing and less blatant advertising. The broadcast industry is not going to allow their major source of revenue to shrink if they can help it, and mass-market advertisers aren't going to willingly give up their best way to reach people (yes, I understand that niche marketing definitely has it's place in internet content delivery).
"The people who own the copyright on music/movies/games/tv shows etc have the capability to either handle distribution themselves, or have it done for them by ISPs, initially at least."
Broadcast content creators don't get their revenues from subcriptions or download fees (with the notable exception of HBO, to a certain extent). They get their revenues from advertising placement, and that revenue comes from bundling. Only a major content distributor can offer the kind of ad distribution that a Nike or a Unilever needs -- we'll still see branded 'channels' if the content delivery goes primarily internet.
"Once again, and I feel I've been very clear on this point, the government is not saying, "Your children cannot have access to this material," (like it does with alcohol) rather it's saying, "An adult needs to decide it's ok for the kid.""
I guess you're unfamiliar with pornography laws, then. Adults have been and are charged with crimes relating to providing pornography to a minor... even when that minor is their ward. Sure, some of it is about the intent and how it's approached. But even so, this 'tool' you keep referring to is a load of BS. Ease of parenting is no excuse for erosion of rights. If you want a nanny state, go to the UK. I'm quite sick of the lack of personal and parental responsibility laws like this are passed to address.
Sure there's a market for internet-distributed video content. But the major players (major media conglomerates) will make sure that broadcast (whether via cable or air) remains in the lead for video content delivery. Why? Because it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's where the big ad money is.
Never mind the fact that tiered internet is going to slaughter any kind of competitive content delivery marketplace.
So, Mr. Pulver, go ahead and start your Videonage. Good luck getting mass media and the governments in their pockets to let go of their stranglehold. Good luck paying for all your high-speed bandwidth and priority handling, and good luck finding a revenue source.
/Sorry, had a big cynicism sandwich for lunch -- but I really don't think an 'internet' version of another utility-type product is going to work out until the entire structure of the entertainment industry changes (which means, not in our lifetimes).
Did I miss something in the article? What Hawking is referring to is in effect creating a redundant server to take over in case of failure. Nothing more. It's discussing one rationale for colonizing space, no more, no less -- and my post was in response to a 'fix things here' post, explaining why their view didn't mesh with mine, or TFAs.
Instead of fixing our problems and looking for solutions, lets go into space to get away from it all.
Are you just trolling, did you read the article... or even the summary? It's not running, it's creating a limited backup.
If you're maintaining a critical server, do you not have redundant server(s) in case of catastrophic failure? Maybe a RAID array? Sure, you'll be doing your damnedest to prevent the failure, but don't you prepare for the potential failure anyway?
Also, re: overpopulation: Colonies will not do anything to solve this problem. Shipping excess population off might alleviate some of the pressure for a bit, but it just delays the inevitable -- plus the cost of transporting billions of people has got to be astronomical (pardon the pun). Better off solving the overpopulation problem first, before we transfer it to other worlds.
Well, first, it's not an overly broad definition of censorship -- look at the SCOTUS 1st Amendment rulings of the past century -- you'll see that their definition of censorship is very broad as well -- eg, anything that discourages publication is censorship -- whether or not it involves literally expunging content.
"If you don't believe that developing minds are influenced by their environment, then I sincerely hope that child services takes an interest in how you raise your children should you currently or ever have any."
Nice combination straw man and ad hominem argument, moron.
My point is that government has no business telling me what content is appropriate for my children. That decision is mine and my wife's, period -- what resources we choose to use to make those decisions are our choice as well. And I'll take it a step further and say that what my children choose to purchase is their business and our business only -- my responsibilities as a parent include making sure my kids aren't buying things we deem inappropriate.
You're missing the entire point -- it's not about the vagueness of the definitions or the toughness of the punishments -- it's a simple yes/no question that has been debated many times by the Supreme Court: Does the government have the right to restrict the ability of people to purchase content (NOTE: this is NOT broadcast media) based upon the merits of that content?
The answer to this question is a resounding no, with the exception of pornography, which is still hotly debated among many legal circles.
It is NOT acceptable to have legislation telling us how to raise our kids. This is not a tool for parents, it's a tool for fundamentalists.
Sure, you can cherry-pick a narrow definition. Why don't you instead look at the many, many broader definitions -- censhorship is definitely what this is, though it applies to only a part of the population.
"all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds." (emphasis mine)
No, that's not what they're saying. They are saying that minors MUST have supervision when acquiring material that some people find objectionable.
You're missing two key points:
1. The definition of objectionable material is arbitrary but universally enforced in OK
2. This is government legislating what material they feel is appropriate for children in a specific media. Blatant censorship -- and will be struck down as such.
Sorry to get riled up, but please do not spout that apologist BS -- censorship runs counter to every ideal this nation was founded on, and still boils down to the fact that some people want to control what everyone can see.
1. Read lots of 'blogging' references. 2. Find & replace 'blog' with 'podcast'. 3. Find a publisher. 4. Profit
Yes, I understand that there are differences between blogging and podcasting -- but not that many in the long run. One could easily recycle so much 'blogging' material for 'podcasting' that I frankly see little need to discuss podcasting.
And pardon the apostrophes for 'blog' and 'podcast' -- it's just that I hate both terms and resist allowing them into my personal dictionary. Now get off my lawn.
Well, first off, FTA: "In fact, he notes, it may be the same type of method the brain actually uses. " (emphasis mine)
Second, we can all very easily deduce that our interpretation of sound deals with a very low signal-to-noise ratio. How many background sounds are we dealing with constantly? How surprising is it that analyzing sound subtraction (cancellation) from the noise is as effective as analyzing addition?
I'm no hearing expert, and I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to algorhythmic sound analysis -- props to the researchers who worked on this -- but wow, isn't that obvious in retrospect?
"I think the state run universities are the ones that give the entire country a bad reputation."
Try again. Many of the state schools in the US are world-reknowned for specific departments. Yes, they need to provide a baseline for lots of students in their state, which will dilute some of the quality.
Specific programs, expecially graduate programs, at state schools can be among the best in the world. Yes, some state schools are mediocre at best -- but it's the crappy private schools that really take the cake.
BTW, this is what happens when you require a college degree for the most basic office jobs. You dilute the value of a REAL college education. If you want to bring the baseline quality up, stop requiring your office supplies manager to have a bachelor's degree.
Slashdot Mirror
"And don't they realize that the very value of a PDF is intrinsically lower than that of a hardbound book? "
Absolutely false. The cost of production might be lower, but the value is determined by the consumer, not directly by the characteristics of the item.
To me, the PDF would actually be MORE valuable, since I commute a long distance and would be able to read them on my laptop without lugging around some heavy tomes. Easier to tag, cross-reference, etc. How about indexing the books and being able to instantly (well, near-instantly, these are pdfs after all) call up all references to a certain spell in all the books?
In short, value is ascribed by the perceived utility of the object, not by production and distribution costs.
"Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.
This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water"
Completely untrue, if the ice is free-floating. This only holds if the ice is held under water by the ice on top of it & physiscal restraints on movement of the ice.
Try this one: Take a large-diameter container, place enough ice cubes in it such that when it is filled with water, there is a single layer of cubes with room for them to move around a bit. Fill container until water almost spills over.
Observe the level of the ice -- there is some that sticks up out of the water over the level of the container. What happens when the ice melts? The water level remains the same -- this is because the ice displaces the volume of water it would occupy were it to melt.
Um, Specularity?
Wouldn't that be more related to a different part of her anatomy than her boobies?
And whoever is running the caches will soon be distributing ads along with the content. You know, to 'offset cost increases' while 'maintaining current pricing structures'. Cynical, I know, but the economies of scale would result in a few major companies holding most of the 'local' cache servers. At that point advertisers would get their foot in the door, since they'd only have to approach a few companies to reach their market(s).
Moisture condensation is as big of a problem as static discharge. Cheaper to humidify than to dehumidify (though dehumidification can be rolled into cooling systems pretty easily), also less fluctuations in humidity than coastal regions -- so easier to maintain an ideal RH.
Good for you, that you have no need of it. And does your personal lack of need make this not a useful browser to everyone else?
My in-laws will benefit from this... you should see their eyes glaze over when 'RSS' or 'Firefox extension' leaves my lips. Let them have their fun and write their silly blogs, while you can go ahead and do whatever it is you do.
And, like it or not, the ultimate success[1] of Open Source browsers depends upon solutions that do what Joe Sixpack wants without requiring major tweaking.
And by ultimate success, I mean breaking the IE stranglehold completely -- we're getting there but there's still a long road to walk.
I know there are a lot of labs in central/eastern Washington, not so familiar with the Columbia River basin in OR -- are there a lot of research facilities there?
FTA:
Sounds a little too much like He-Who-Lies-Dead-But-Dreaming, and I don't think we need a GoogleCthulhu (beta) in the wild.
Plenty of reasons for Google to build there. Not just cheap electricity, also cheap water. And arid conditions east of the mountains = longer equipment life.
Then, there is the labor considerations -- lots of well-educated labor in the surrounding area who would be willing to relocate a couple hundred miles in order to work for Google, plus lots of cheap uneducated labor -- there is a pretty significant oversupply of unskilled / low-skilled labor in the PacNW. You know, for custodial staff etc.
I agree that blanket advertising is annoying, but the biggest advertisers aren't looking to narrowly target tgeir ads -- they are looking for broad brand awareness as much as immediate ad-generated sales. Target, for example, wants EVERYONE to see their ads as much as possible. These are the ads that really set up braodcast with an advantage.
Interesting point about semi-locally hosted video servers. But for a pay-per-download type service, this would mean each provider would need a local server, or we'd end up with middlemen again (like the broadcast networks). The only way to get rid of advertising is to have direct sales from the content producers... the middlemen will always find a way to insert advertising (remember the promises of ad-free cable? Internet-distributed content will be little different).
"We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty."
You can contend all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS does, indeed, have the power to overturn treaties. No treaty is enforceable until passed by Congress, and anything with legislative force passed by Congress (such as a treaty) can go to the SCOTUS for review if a case is filed with them. Whether they choose to hear it or not is a different matter.
"no they are not making billions every minute but that is not the definition of success."
Absolutely. Success is having a better ROI than the opportunity cost -- and if we're talking about a change in delivery mechanism for video media in general, then you've got to make more money than traditional broadcast would. As I said, there's a role for niche players, which download.tv is -- but there's a more profitable role for broadcast.
Whether or not some internetTV companies are thriving, traditional boradcast is thriving more -- and the scaling issues for internetTV are nightmarish.
I suggest you think about what would have to happen if internetTV were to be the main, or even a serious competitor to broadcast media, delivery channel. After all, it's not the little internetTV companies that are buying lawmakers, it's the megacorps.
I agree totally, I was just taking the piss a bit.
"Internet based delivery means ads/promotions etc can be targetted at smaller groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on your religion, job, social class, whether you drive, read books, listen to music, cook, etc etc."
It also means that people won't watch the ads. The entire ad industry would contract (to our benefit, IMO) unless law forces us to watch the provided ads along with the content (you know, like the DMCA can do, in effect) -- and we'd end up with more pervasive marketing and less blatant advertising. The broadcast industry is not going to allow their major source of revenue to shrink if they can help it, and mass-market advertisers aren't going to willingly give up their best way to reach people (yes, I understand that niche marketing definitely has it's place in internet content delivery).
"The people who own the copyright on music/movies/games/tv shows etc have the capability to either handle distribution themselves, or have it done for them by ISPs, initially at least."
Broadcast content creators don't get their revenues from subcriptions or download fees (with the notable exception of HBO, to a certain extent). They get their revenues from advertising placement, and that revenue comes from bundling. Only a major content distributor can offer the kind of ad distribution that a Nike or a Unilever needs -- we'll still see branded 'channels' if the content delivery goes primarily internet.
"Oh the irony is delicious."
That's the point of that line.
"Once again, and I feel I've been very clear on this point, the government is not saying, "Your children cannot have access to this material," (like it does with alcohol) rather it's saying, "An adult needs to decide it's ok for the kid.""
I guess you're unfamiliar with pornography laws, then. Adults have been and are charged with crimes relating to providing pornography to a minor... even when that minor is their ward. Sure, some of it is about the intent and how it's approached. But even so, this 'tool' you keep referring to is a load of BS. Ease of parenting is no excuse for erosion of rights. If you want a nanny state, go to the UK. I'm quite sick of the lack of personal and parental responsibility laws like this are passed to address.
"An asteroid could unexpectedly fall from space and do us in ... Some might be bigger, or travelling in groups."
What, like a flock of asteroids?
You're right, we need to have redundant population reserves in case a roving pack of asteroids decides to take out life on Earth.
Seriously, though, good point -- it's not just man-made catastrophic events we have to worry about.
Sure there's a market for internet-distributed video content. But the major players (major media conglomerates) will make sure that broadcast (whether via cable or air) remains in the lead for video content delivery. Why? Because it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's where the big ad money is.
Never mind the fact that tiered internet is going to slaughter any kind of competitive content delivery marketplace.
So, Mr. Pulver, go ahead and start your Videonage. Good luck getting mass media and the governments in their pockets to let go of their stranglehold. Good luck paying for all your high-speed bandwidth and priority handling, and good luck finding a revenue source.
/Sorry, had a big cynicism sandwich for lunch -- but I really don't think an 'internet' version of another utility-type product is going to work out until the entire structure of the entertainment industry changes (which means, not in our lifetimes).
Did I miss something in the article? What Hawking is referring to is in effect creating a redundant server to take over in case of failure. Nothing more. It's discussing one rationale for colonizing space, no more, no less -- and my post was in response to a 'fix things here' post, explaining why their view didn't mesh with mine, or TFAs.
If you're maintaining a critical server, do you not have redundant server(s) in case of catastrophic failure? Maybe a RAID array? Sure, you'll be doing your damnedest to prevent the failure, but don't you prepare for the potential failure anyway?
Also, re: overpopulation: Colonies will not do anything to solve this problem. Shipping excess population off might alleviate some of the pressure for a bit, but it just delays the inevitable -- plus the cost of transporting billions of people has got to be astronomical (pardon the pun). Better off solving the overpopulation problem first, before we transfer it to other worlds.
Well, first, it's not an overly broad definition of censorship -- look at the SCOTUS 1st Amendment rulings of the past century -- you'll see that their definition of censorship is very broad as well -- eg, anything that discourages publication is censorship -- whether or not it involves literally expunging content.
"If you don't believe that developing minds are influenced by their environment, then I sincerely hope that child services takes an interest in how you raise your children should you currently or ever have any."
Nice combination straw man and ad hominem argument, moron.
My point is that government has no business telling me what content is appropriate for my children. That decision is mine and my wife's, period -- what resources we choose to use to make those decisions are our choice as well. And I'll take it a step further and say that what my children choose to purchase is their business and our business only -- my responsibilities as a parent include making sure my kids aren't buying things we deem inappropriate.
You're missing the entire point -- it's not about the vagueness of the definitions or the toughness of the punishments -- it's a simple yes/no question that has been debated many times by the Supreme Court: Does the government have the right to restrict the ability of people to purchase content (NOTE: this is NOT broadcast media) based upon the merits of that content?
The answer to this question is a resounding no, with the exception of pornography, which is still hotly debated among many legal circles.
It is NOT acceptable to have legislation telling us how to raise our kids. This is not a tool for parents, it's a tool for fundamentalists.
Sure, you can cherry-pick a narrow definition. Why don't you instead look at the many, many broader definitions -- censhorship is definitely what this is, though it applies to only a part of the population.
"all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds." (emphasis mine)
No, that's not what they're saying. They are saying that minors MUST have supervision when acquiring material that some people find objectionable.
You're missing two key points:
1. The definition of objectionable material is arbitrary but universally enforced in OK
2. This is government legislating what material they feel is appropriate for children in a specific media. Blatant censorship -- and will be struck down as such.
Sorry to get riled up, but please do not spout that apologist BS -- censorship runs counter to every ideal this nation was founded on, and still boils down to the fact that some people want to control what everyone can see.
1. Read lots of 'blogging' references.
2. Find & replace 'blog' with 'podcast'.
3. Find a publisher.
4. Profit
Yes, I understand that there are differences between blogging and podcasting -- but not that many in the long run. One could easily recycle so much 'blogging' material for 'podcasting' that I frankly see little need to discuss podcasting.
And pardon the apostrophes for 'blog' and 'podcast' -- it's just that I hate both terms and resist allowing them into my personal dictionary. Now get off my lawn.
Well, first off, FTA: "In fact, he notes, it may be the same type of method the brain actually uses. " (emphasis mine)
Second, we can all very easily deduce that our interpretation of sound deals with a very low signal-to-noise ratio. How many background sounds are we dealing with constantly? How surprising is it that analyzing sound subtraction (cancellation) from the noise is as effective as analyzing addition?
I'm no hearing expert, and I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to algorhythmic sound analysis -- props to the researchers who worked on this -- but wow, isn't that obvious in retrospect?
"I think the state run universities are the ones that give the entire country a bad reputation."
Try again. Many of the state schools in the US are world-reknowned for specific departments. Yes, they need to provide a baseline for lots of students in their state, which will dilute some of the quality.
Specific programs, expecially graduate programs, at state schools can be among the best in the world. Yes, some state schools are mediocre at best -- but it's the crappy private schools that really take the cake.
BTW, this is what happens when you require a college degree for the most basic office jobs. You dilute the value of a REAL college education. If you want to bring the baseline quality up, stop requiring your office supplies manager to have a bachelor's degree.