That doesn't mean that drugs can't also fund terrorism.
The only terrorism funded by drugs seems to be in Columbia, which exactly a hot-button issue these days. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire from a Saudi construction business, and guess where all that construction money come from? It certainly wasn't Arabian ganja...
MIT did not use these because you could never generate more energy than was used to create the wind or solar generation devices in the first place
windpower.org claims an 80:1 ratio of produced energy to energy to construct and maintain for windmills. Granted they have a bias, but an 80:1 bias?
A real reason not to include wind power is the expectation that even by 2020, there almost certainly won't be enough wind farms to provide enough energy for a significant fraction of the world's autos. So in the short run, hybrids will have the most dramatic effect on fuel economy.
In my opinion, the very best option is to have the PC out in a family room or something.
That's where mine is, although my kids are too young to be looking for that sort of thing yet. But my plan also is to set up a whitelist-type system as they get older, possibly using a U.are.U fingerprint reader to control their logging in.
The story submitter misspelled seized, yet the Slashdot editor spelled seizure correctly. What is this world coming to? Have they been replaced by aliens?
if you can re-download a song you already "own", then a savvy group of college-student sorts could each put up, say, $100, and get 100n songs out of the deal, where n was the number of members...
If they're going to do that, why wouldn't they just make CD-R copies for 10 cents apiece and pass them around?
It's so easy to cheat the system, they might as well ignore that part of the equation. Instead, focus on maximizing profit from the honest customers, by giving them the service they actually want. Given that electronic duplication costs are so low, the best way to do this is to figure out the optimal system to make the most money from each customer. This isn't achieved by high prices for each song (if it's $100/song, no one buys), but by finding the sweet spot where songs are impulse purchases and the customer buys lots.
I'll bet that the artists will see less than $0.02 of that dollar.
Seems to me if you have a system like this, artists can just bypass the RIAA. Assuming Apple doesn't arrange any sort of lock-out deal with the RIAA (and I think they'd risk antitrust if they did), artists could simply deal directly with Apple to be put on their service; no RIAA monopoly involved.
It should also be noted that the 99 cent price is almost certainly not cast in stone. They should be able to run promotions, sell entire albums for less than $1/track, buy 3 get 1 free, etc. Once the service is in place, it becomes merely a technical issue to add the ability to buy a pass for the complete works of DMB, yadda yadda yadda. And since it's trivial to add more songs, out-of-catalog artists would have an opportunity to sell again.
You should log in, at least if you ever want to participate in a discussion. (You can then check your user page for replies.)
Copyright: is very specific and limited: it applies to the precise words you write or the images you produce.
Tell that to George Harrison (My Sweet Lord/She's So Fine) or Ray Parker, Jr. (Ghostbusters/I Want A New Drug). Or tell that to anyone writing Harry Potter knock-offs. There's a "penumbra" of related material that is banned, not just identical stuff.
Trademark: applies to names and logos used in branding and marketing a product, service or company.
Again, there's a penumbra here. Look at Apple going after Aqua clone themes, for example.
The real question, though, is exactly what did Apple claim Microsoft was violating? If it was patents, what are the patents? It seems like Apple sued Microsoft over a nebulous theft of "ideas", which aren't automatically protected per se.
Apple paid Xerox, in stock, for the rights to do the GUI interface. so naturally Apple was pissed they paid for something Microsoft got for free.
Apple paid a trivial price in the hopes of being legally recognized as the nigh-eternal owner of graphical user interfaces. Better Apple be pissed than have them own the licensing rights to GUIs either for 95 years (copyright) or forever (trademark, trade dress.) No X Window System, boys... we'd all be restricted to buying $5,000 Macs if we didn't want a CLI.
You, of all people, should be a proponent of said new acreage cultivation.
Why me of all people? I'm not a vegetarian, animals are just too danged tasty. Although I'd definitely love to see "lab"-grown meat replacing animals as the source, and that should significantly improve the input/output calorie ratio of meat production.
I'll pull a random number out of my ass.
Pull it out of your hat -- it's much more sanitary that way.
But anyway, let's get some real numbers. Gasoline has approximately 31,000 calories/gallon, according to howstuffworks.com. Let's say people eat approximately 2500 calories per day. Now for fuzzier numbers: how many gallons/person/day. Warranties estimate 12,000 miles/year, say one (fully-used) car for every two people, each driven on average 32 miles/day, if 25 mpg we get 1.3 gallons/per car. Multiplied by calories yields ~40,000 calories/car/day..5 cars/person nets 20,000 calories/person consumed by cars. If animal sources net us about half our daily calories, and meat production is 10% efficient, then we normally use 12,500 + 1250 vegetable calories/day. Since we'll still need that base 2500, that gives us ~11,250 more veg calories/person/day production capacity if we switched to entirely vegetarian diet. So it's ballpark, but still on the low side.
The fundamental problem, though, with biodiesel is that we simply can't produce enough to replace oil at our current consumption rates. While waste conversion is a pure win, going beyond that would require vast amounts of new acreage under cultivation.
And given that we haven't seen Amazon moving to enforce any of the very basic patents they have been accumulating, I'd guess that these are defensive patents.
To the APO's credit they did retract the patent......but only in the face of public ridicule. That just means that patents are ludicrous to any and all may get retracted; ones that are just ridiculous to anyone with a decent knowledge of their field remain.
This is very bad news for the content cartels. While many people may not know about Reason, most Libertarians do and a lot of Libertarians who actually sided with the cartels will probably be swayed over against them....and we know how much power Libertarians weild in our political arena...
Odd, that sounds amazingly like the Scientific Method....except the "claim that's what you meant all along" bit, and the old definitions are recognized as false. Granted, there's a difference between the Scientific Method and scientists...
Of course, God having created everything else 8,500 years ago is also a possibility, but unlikely given the extra effort needed.
What's "effort" or "time" to God?
I figure either science is correct, or God created the world in ~4,004 B.C., but made it exactly like it would have been had it taken 13+ billion years. And to me, it's a difference that makes no difference; heck, even in the latter case the Big Bang et al happened in God's "mind", which is effectively as "real" as the universe.
more importantly can/will they enforce a statue of limitation anywhere - when the RIAA rules the world - and fine me for each copy of 'Barry Manilow live in Taipei' that I burn and sell;)
I would certainly hope so. My god, man, more Barry Manilow?
I guess a better example would be selling your own video tape of an assasination or something. You taped it, but if you tried to see it, see you next week at Fort Benning's NSA headquarters.
Zapruder's heirs got $16 million from the gov't for the Kennedy asassination film, and still got to retain publishing rights.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean that drugs can't also fund terrorism.
The only terrorism funded by drugs seems to be in Columbia, which exactly a hot-button issue these days. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire from a Saudi construction business, and guess where all that construction money come from? It certainly wasn't Arabian ganja...
One word: nuclear [...] The idea of an electric car is utterly absurd, and I can't understand why it happened at all.
So you're proposing nuclear-powered cars?
MIT did not use these because you could never generate more energy than was used to create the wind or solar generation devices in the first place
windpower.org claims an 80:1 ratio of produced energy to energy to construct and maintain for windmills. Granted they have a bias, but an 80:1 bias?
A real reason not to include wind power is the expectation that even by 2020, there almost certainly won't be enough wind farms to provide enough energy for a significant fraction of the world's autos. So in the short run, hybrids will have the most dramatic effect on fuel economy.
In my opinion, the very best option is to have the PC out in a family room or something.
That's where mine is, although my kids are too young to be looking for that sort of thing yet. But my plan also is to set up a whitelist-type system as they get older, possibly using a U.are.U fingerprint reader to control their logging in.
The story submitter misspelled seized, yet the Slashdot editor spelled seizure correctly. What is this world coming to? Have they been replaced by aliens?
Actually goldfish are part of the carp family if I'm not mistaken.
Ok, for you replac the joke with: Are you sure it's not just running one of those aquarium screensavers?
if you can re-download a song you already "own", then a savvy group of college-student sorts could each put up, say, $100, and get 100n songs out of the deal, where n was the number of members...
If they're going to do that, why wouldn't they just make CD-R copies for 10 cents apiece and pass them around?
It's so easy to cheat the system, they might as well ignore that part of the equation. Instead, focus on maximizing profit from the honest customers, by giving them the service they actually want. Given that electronic duplication costs are so low, the best way to do this is to figure out the optimal system to make the most money from each customer. This isn't achieved by high prices for each song (if it's $100/song, no one buys), but by finding the sweet spot where songs are impulse purchases and the customer buys lots.
I'll bet that the artists will see less than $0.02 of that dollar.
Seems to me if you have a system like this, artists can just bypass the RIAA. Assuming Apple doesn't arrange any sort of lock-out deal with the RIAA (and I think they'd risk antitrust if they did), artists could simply deal directly with Apple to be put on their service; no RIAA monopoly involved.
It should also be noted that the 99 cent price is almost certainly not cast in stone. They should be able to run promotions, sell entire albums for less than $1/track, buy 3 get 1 free, etc. Once the service is in place, it becomes merely a technical issue to add the ability to buy a pass for the complete works of DMB, yadda yadda yadda. And since it's trivial to add more songs, out-of-catalog artists would have an opportunity to sell again.
You should log in, at least if you ever want to participate in a discussion. (You can then check your user page for replies.)
Copyright: is very specific and limited: it applies to the precise words you write or the images you produce.
Tell that to George Harrison (My Sweet Lord/She's So Fine) or Ray Parker, Jr. (Ghostbusters/I Want A New Drug). Or tell that to anyone writing Harry Potter knock-offs. There's a "penumbra" of related material that is banned, not just identical stuff.
Trademark: applies to names and logos used in branding and marketing a product, service or company.
Again, there's a penumbra here. Look at Apple going after Aqua clone themes, for example.
The real question, though, is exactly what did Apple claim Microsoft was violating? If it was patents, what are the patents? It seems like Apple sued Microsoft over a nebulous theft of "ideas", which aren't automatically protected per se.
Apple paid Xerox, in stock, for the rights to do the GUI interface. so naturally Apple was pissed they paid for something Microsoft got for free.
Apple paid a trivial price in the hopes of being legally recognized as the nigh-eternal owner of graphical user interfaces. Better Apple be pissed than have them own the licensing rights to GUIs either for 95 years (copyright) or forever (trademark, trade dress.) No X Window System, boys... we'd all be restricted to buying $5,000 Macs if we didn't want a CLI.
The "Right to bill sender for processing fee" law has diplomatic status
Heck, call it economic terrorism and Bush and co. will feel justified in using any means necessary...
while videos look awsome, applications look like carp!
If you got one of those amber displays, would they look like goldfish?
I really wish cable modems weren't my only option because they have outages a lot from what I hear, but it's my only choice.
I guess it depends on your provider, but I can't remember the last time my cable modem had an outage.
You, of all people, should be a proponent of said new acreage cultivation.
.5 cars/person nets 20,000 calories/person consumed by cars. If animal sources net us about half our daily calories, and meat production is 10% efficient, then we normally use 12,500 + 1250 vegetable calories/day. Since we'll still need that base 2500, that gives us ~11,250 more veg calories/person/day production capacity if we switched to entirely vegetarian diet. So it's ballpark, but still on the low side.
Why me of all people? I'm not a vegetarian, animals are just too danged tasty. Although I'd definitely love to see "lab"-grown meat replacing animals as the source, and that should significantly improve the input/output calorie ratio of meat production.
I'll pull a random number out of my ass.
Pull it out of your hat -- it's much more sanitary that way.
But anyway, let's get some real numbers. Gasoline has approximately 31,000 calories/gallon, according to howstuffworks.com. Let's say people eat approximately 2500 calories per day. Now for fuzzier numbers: how many gallons/person/day. Warranties estimate 12,000 miles/year, say one (fully-used) car for every two people, each driven on average 32 miles/day, if 25 mpg we get 1.3 gallons/per car. Multiplied by calories yields ~40,000 calories/car/day.
Perhaps Apache should be set up so that sites refuse referrals from slashdot.org by default...
The fundamental problem, though, with biodiesel is that we simply can't produce enough to replace oil at our current consumption rates. While waste conversion is a pure win, going beyond that would require vast amounts of new acreage under cultivation.
And given that we haven't seen Amazon moving to enforce any of the very basic patents they have been accumulating, I'd guess that these are defensive patents.
They licensed one-click to Apple.
To the APO's credit they did retract the patent... ...but only in the face of public ridicule. That just means that patents are ludicrous to any and all may get retracted; ones that are just ridiculous to anyone with a decent knowledge of their field remain.
mass transportation can absorb the high cost and low efficency of fuel cells
Fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines, not less.
Not in Europe they don't. Add at least 10mpg to those figures. My mid sized Volvo averages 40mpg on the highway.
Are you talking English 5 quart gallons or American 4 quart ones?
I got my first burner nearly 6 years ago when the price of media was around £15 for 10. £1.50 a disc!
I was working a multimedia-related job in 1995; we had an $8,000 burner and it cost $15 a disc.
This is very bad news for the content cartels. While many people may not know about Reason, most Libertarians do and a lot of Libertarians who actually sided with the cartels will probably be swayed over against them. ...and we know how much power Libertarians weild in our political arena...
Odd, that sounds amazingly like the Scientific Method. ...except the "claim that's what you meant all along" bit, and the old definitions are recognized as false. Granted, there's a difference between the Scientific Method and scientists...
Of course, God having created everything else 8,500 years ago is also a possibility, but unlikely given the extra effort needed.
What's "effort" or "time" to God?
I figure either science is correct, or God created the world in ~4,004 B.C., but made it exactly like it would have been had it taken 13+ billion years. And to me, it's a difference that makes no difference; heck, even in the latter case the Big Bang et al happened in God's "mind", which is effectively as "real" as the universe.
more importantly can/will they enforce a statue of limitation anywhere - when the RIAA rules the world - and fine me for each copy of 'Barry Manilow live in Taipei' that I burn and sell ;)
I would certainly hope so. My god, man, more Barry Manilow?
I guess a better example would be selling your own video tape of an assasination or something. You taped it, but if you tried to see it, see you next week at Fort Benning's NSA headquarters.
Zapruder's heirs got $16 million from the gov't for the Kennedy asassination film, and still got to retain publishing rights.