The control of media means more money for the record company.
When I ran the music department of an independent store, I learned first-hand just how much control they exercise over the music industry. I knew six months in advance what songs were going to make the charts, because those songs were the ones the labels pushed off on radio stations. The line from the salesman would sound something like this:
"This is the next album from Blonde Dance Clone #4. Tracks 5 and 8 are going to be all over the radio before it comes out, and 5 will probably be in the top 10. We plan to have five million copies distributed for release. We've got endcaps, freestanding displays, placards, hanging signs, and posters. Later we'll have a pile of promotional goodies."
What downloads do to that industry even with no impact on sales is they make demand less predictable, which means their margins are reduced. That's what scared them from the start...the loss of their ability to dictate our tastes in music and control the top 40 charts. Napster especially meant that they could no longer shove their choice of music down our throats via radio because radio was no longer a primary source of new music for millions of users.
A record label that sells hundreds of millions of albums a year doesn't care about someone who might move 10,000 or even 50,000. It's not even that an artist wouldn't make money that they don't sign them...it's that the artist wouldn't make *enough*
I like having an easy-to-remember tag for "Scientific developments that could cause serious problems if done wrong or misused."
Among these are:
creating life in a test tube genetically modifying viruses advanced AI in combat robots Anything to do with nuclear materials Building a car around a tank of compressed hydrogen
The alternative would be to specify access rights for each individual image, and that would be a nightmare for users AND facebook developers. Better to just leave it be.
If you want only five of your closest friends to see that picture of you making out with your sorority sister, here's a thought...EMAIL IT TO THEM. Or tranfer it via IM. Or whatever. But DO NOT upload it to any hosting site, because even if it's 100% secure from the outside, you have no idea how many people have access to it from inside the hosting company.
1) resize your browser window to 200 pixels wide. 1a) For a more authentic experience, open any PCMagazine.com article in a second window and maximize it in the background 2) Instead of scrolling line-by-line, page down. Say "next" out loud each time you do so. 3) Enjoy your simulated "online magazine" article experience 4)... 5) Profit...for someone
And no matter how hard a webmaster tries, it's impossible to prevent someone from getting pictures off a site. You can prevent "Save as", you can even do things like set the displayed image as a table background with a transparent picture over it, but you can't keep them from taking a simple screen cap and cropping it. Even if you could, it's always possible to point a good camera at a good monitor and get a near-perfect reproduction.
If you don't want specific pictures of yourself being available to everyone, don't make them available to anyone. No matter how "secure" you make it, the internet makes it possible for just one person with the time and know-how to circumvent security and share the content (or the method of circumvention itself) with the rest of the world. Tangent: The same can be applied to copy protection schemes...it just takes one person to render them useless at preventing all but casual "hey can you copy that disk for me?" piracy.
Ron, you've [worked on] both "[Star] Treks" ([The Next Generation] and [Deep Space 9]), and there are often these [episodes that] once in a while [were] not [focused on the] main characters.
It's so cluttered with those things it's hard to read.
I won't bother with the rest of your post, as experience teaches that people like you have no interest in an actual conversation; you simply chant "I'm right I'm right I'm right" until everyone else gives up and goes elsewhere, allowing you to declare victory.
What this country needs is for some fact and common sense to be injected into this debate. A few things we all need to remember:
Evolution is a theory. I won't go into the scientific definition of theory here; that's covered quite well in this document that was previously talked about on Slashdot. Evolution is not a fact (at least, not according to science) because it is untestable at this time. The mechanics behind evolution--adaptation and natural selection--are testable, and can generally be accepted as fact by all involved. Evolution, like all theories, takes observable, testable facts and presents a model based on those facts for the purpose of explaining observations.
We look at biodiversity, we look at the fossil record, we look at millions upon millions of scientific observations and we see what appear to be patterns. Science looks at those patterns and attempts to explain them. The result is the ever-changing theory of evolution.
What's more, there are two brands of evolution. There's the evolutionary mechanism, that is the process by which speciation can occur between two isolated populations of the same species. Then there's the evolutionary history, which attempts to create an ancestry for life based on fossil records and observations of current species. The former is almost undeniable; there exists little if any scientific data that contradicts our current model of evolutionary mechanics. The latter changes frequently and is perfectly questionable, and should be treated as such.
There should be no conflict with the idea of evolution and religion. There is simply no need for them to be at odds. Now, if one should choose to disbelieve specific evolutionary histories, that's really no big deal...the truth is, there are huge gaps in the fossil records and those "family trees" can never be 100% accurate. They just do the best with the data they have.
So maybe public schools should just skip teaching the lineage of any give creature and stick to the mechanisms that drive evolution and the general concept of it.
Adding resistance would require additional energy be put into the system (lifting the weights + reseting the additional resistance) so it *would* increase the total energy. I think several people misunderstood what I was saying: the resistance isn't free, it costs energy to restore just like the weights do.
Like I said, it would require additional resistance, essentially increasing the weight and thus the energy it could absorb. Of course, it would then require more effort on the user's part to reset the weights...but I'm just trying to lay out some idea of how it would actually be possible.
IANAE (that would be engineer) but I'm thinking that by adding resistance other than weight, like a spring, you would be able to increase the required energy input.
Without looking too deeply into the design of this lamp, I'm assuming that the weights take hours to drop, something like a grandfather clock's. A lot more energy would be absorbed than if the weights dropped freefall.
For the average male, yes. But this is slashdot. One only needs the strength of a wet noodle to post here, and actual exercise is frowned upon. As is leaving the basement for fresh air and/or a little sun.
I can't imagine how we'd ever see the Big Bang, as the light from it would be on the leading edge of the universe expanding ever outward. If the universe is expanding from a single point in space, we're probably not that far away from being able to determine where that point, within a sizable margin of error.
If we were to look away from the point of origin, we should be able to see the same leading edge, whatever is closest to the Big Bang light that emits its own light so that we can see it. This assumes, of course, that we can see that far.
I saw a video that came out of Microsoft a few years ago that did just what you're talking about. They were experimenting with the concept due to icon-based GUIs being so terribly inefficient on large displays or spanned across three or four displays. There were some really cool features shown in that video, I wish I still had a link to it.
First of all, it was our "chief executive" (superintendent) who approved this policy. So they'd be facing their own signature when they tried to raise a stink over the policy if it ever happened.
And then of course there's the fact that I've already said that administrative staff are exempt from the policy and can leave their PCs on all night if they want, though they risk a shutdown from power failure and that sort of thing (more common around here than they should be)
They're remarkably small. We tested one of our computers recently to determine just how much it costs to leave them on 24/7 compared to shutting them down 12-14 hours every night...the cost difference district-wide was something like $20,000 a year. That's out of a $50,000,000 district budget.
Yeah I know every bit helps and our primary purpose in the effort *was* to reduce power consumption, but still...it's a drop in the bucket.
We do ask the users. We also work in the schools we support. We know that by 5 PM when we go home the parking lots are vacant, or nearly so. The few teachers who do regularly stay after are aware of the policy and don't complain at all.
But hey, you keep right on thinking we live in an ivory tower full of servers. I'd hate to burst that lovely bubble you've built up;)
Good thing none of us made the decision. Our director doesn't set the technology policies, he recommends them to the superintendent, who then approves/denies/modifies them.
They really should get their own computer instead of sneaking into a public school. Do you have any idea what kind of trouble that can get you into these days?
Slashdot Mirror
The control of media means more money for the record company.
When I ran the music department of an independent store, I learned first-hand just how much control they exercise over the music industry. I knew six months in advance what songs were going to make the charts, because those songs were the ones the labels pushed off on radio stations. The line from the salesman would sound something like this:
"This is the next album from Blonde Dance Clone #4. Tracks 5 and 8 are going to be all over the radio before it comes out, and 5 will probably be in the top 10. We plan to have five million copies distributed for release. We've got endcaps, freestanding displays, placards, hanging signs, and posters. Later we'll have a pile of promotional goodies."
What downloads do to that industry even with no impact on sales is they make demand less predictable, which means their margins are reduced. That's what scared them from the start...the loss of their ability to dictate our tastes in music and control the top 40 charts. Napster especially meant that they could no longer shove their choice of music down our throats via radio because radio was no longer a primary source of new music for millions of users.
A record label that sells hundreds of millions of albums a year doesn't care about someone who might move 10,000 or even 50,000. It's not even that an artist wouldn't make money that they don't sign them...it's that the artist wouldn't make *enough*
Not at all.
Scientists: "Hey, we've got this nifty bipedal robot that can walk up stairs."
Slashdot: "What could POSSIBLY go wrong?"
Scientists: "Umm...it falls down the stairs?"
I like having an easy-to-remember tag for "Scientific developments that could cause serious problems if done wrong or misused."
Among these are:
creating life in a test tube
genetically modifying viruses
advanced AI in combat robots
Anything to do with nuclear materials
Building a car around a tank of compressed hydrogen
The alternative would be to specify access rights for each individual image, and that would be a nightmare for users AND facebook developers. Better to just leave it be.
If you want only five of your closest friends to see that picture of you making out with your sorority sister, here's a thought...EMAIL IT TO THEM. Or tranfer it via IM. Or whatever. But DO NOT upload it to any hosting site, because even if it's 100% secure from the outside, you have no idea how many people have access to it from inside the hosting company.
1) resize your browser window to 200 pixels wide. ...
1a) For a more authentic experience, open any PCMagazine.com article in a second window and maximize it in the background
2) Instead of scrolling line-by-line, page down. Say "next" out loud each time you do so.
3) Enjoy your simulated "online magazine" article experience
4)
5) Profit...for someone
And no matter how hard a webmaster tries, it's impossible to prevent someone from getting pictures off a site. You can prevent "Save as", you can even do things like set the displayed image as a table background with a transparent picture over it, but you can't keep them from taking a simple screen cap and cropping it. Even if you could, it's always possible to point a good camera at a good monitor and get a near-perfect reproduction.
If you don't want specific pictures of yourself being available to everyone, don't make them available to anyone. No matter how "secure" you make it, the internet makes it possible for just one person with the time and know-how to circumvent security and share the content (or the method of circumvention itself) with the rest of the world. Tangent: The same can be applied to copy protection schemes...it just takes one person to render them useless at preventing all but casual "hey can you copy that disk for me?" piracy.
I keep mine in the hall closet. What's the big deal?
So you mean as a result of Google Street View people might begin behaving as if...*gasp*...someone could see them FROM THE STREET???
OH THE HORRORS!
It's so cluttered with those things it's hard to read.
And you are a troll.
See what I did there?
I won't bother with the rest of your post, as experience teaches that people like you have no interest in an actual conversation; you simply chant "I'm right I'm right I'm right" until everyone else gives up and goes elsewhere, allowing you to declare victory.
What this country needs is for some fact and common sense to be injected into this debate. A few things we all need to remember:
Evolution is a theory. I won't go into the scientific definition of theory here; that's covered quite well in this document that was previously talked about on Slashdot. Evolution is not a fact (at least, not according to science) because it is untestable at this time. The mechanics behind evolution--adaptation and natural selection--are testable, and can generally be accepted as fact by all involved. Evolution, like all theories, takes observable, testable facts and presents a model based on those facts for the purpose of explaining observations.
We look at biodiversity, we look at the fossil record, we look at millions upon millions of scientific observations and we see what appear to be patterns. Science looks at those patterns and attempts to explain them. The result is the ever-changing theory of evolution.
What's more, there are two brands of evolution. There's the evolutionary mechanism, that is the process by which speciation can occur between two isolated populations of the same species. Then there's the evolutionary history, which attempts to create an ancestry for life based on fossil records and observations of current species. The former is almost undeniable; there exists little if any scientific data that contradicts our current model of evolutionary mechanics. The latter changes frequently and is perfectly questionable, and should be treated as such.
There should be no conflict with the idea of evolution and religion. There is simply no need for them to be at odds. Now, if one should choose to disbelieve specific evolutionary histories, that's really no big deal...the truth is, there are huge gaps in the fossil records and those "family trees" can never be 100% accurate. They just do the best with the data they have.
So maybe public schools should just skip teaching the lineage of any give creature and stick to the mechanisms that drive evolution and the general concept of it.
Adding resistance would require additional energy be put into the system (lifting the weights + reseting the additional resistance) so it *would* increase the total energy. I think several people misunderstood what I was saying: the resistance isn't free, it costs energy to restore just like the weights do.
Like I said, it would require additional resistance, essentially increasing the weight and thus the energy it could absorb. Of course, it would then require more effort on the user's part to reset the weights...but I'm just trying to lay out some idea of how it would actually be possible.
IANAE (that would be engineer) but I'm thinking that by adding resistance other than weight, like a spring, you would be able to increase the required energy input.
Without looking too deeply into the design of this lamp, I'm assuming that the weights take hours to drop, something like a grandfather clock's. A lot more energy would be absorbed than if the weights dropped freefall.
(I could be completely wrong here)
For the average male, yes. But this is slashdot. One only needs the strength of a wet noodle to post here, and actual exercise is frowned upon. As is leaving the basement for fresh air and/or a little sun.
You must be new here.
I can't imagine how we'd ever see the Big Bang, as the light from it would be on the leading edge of the universe expanding ever outward. If the universe is expanding from a single point in space, we're probably not that far away from being able to determine where that point, within a sizable margin of error.
If we were to look away from the point of origin, we should be able to see the same leading edge, whatever is closest to the Big Bang light that emits its own light so that we can see it. This assumes, of course, that we can see that far.
I saw a video that came out of Microsoft a few years ago that did just what you're talking about. They were experimenting with the concept due to icon-based GUIs being so terribly inefficient on large displays or spanned across three or four displays. There were some really cool features shown in that video, I wish I still had a link to it.
First of all, it was our "chief executive" (superintendent) who approved this policy. So they'd be facing their own signature when they tried to raise a stink over the policy if it ever happened. And then of course there's the fact that I've already said that administrative staff are exempt from the policy and can leave their PCs on all night if they want, though they risk a shutdown from power failure and that sort of thing (more common around here than they should be)
They're remarkably small. We tested one of our computers recently to determine just how much it costs to leave them on 24/7 compared to shutting them down 12-14 hours every night...the cost difference district-wide was something like $20,000 a year. That's out of a $50,000,000 district budget.
Yeah I know every bit helps and our primary purpose in the effort *was* to reduce power consumption, but still...it's a drop in the bucket.
I think it's done using /every. I don't recall, it's been a year since I looked at the batch files.
We do ask the users. We also work in the schools we support. We know that by 5 PM when we go home the parking lots are vacant, or nearly so. The few teachers who do regularly stay after are aware of the policy and don't complain at all.
;)
But hey, you keep right on thinking we live in an ivory tower full of servers. I'd hate to burst that lovely bubble you've built up
Good thing none of us made the decision. Our director doesn't set the technology policies, he recommends them to the superintendent, who then approves/denies/modifies them.
I believe that would require local admin privileges, which they don't have.
They really should get their own computer instead of sneaking into a public school. Do you have any idea what kind of trouble that can get you into these days?