Since you mentioned the Fort Hood shootings, what griped me was that they were reporting without facts. News outlets reported there were three shooters. Then, one shooter was killed and two were still at large. I know that was a symptom of trying to out-scoop the competition, but it is also evidence reporting without facts. This happens all of the time.
Another example is the balloon-boy. Not a single reporter stopped to ask the question, "can that balloon lift 30 lbs?" The answer is no, but that did not stop the media frenzy that lasted hours until the balloon landed.
Sometimes (most of the time?) news outlets are more about the entertainment value than the informative value of a story.
Since the lead vehicle will be driven by a professional driver there is a good chance it will be a semi. If it is, the owner can make additional revenue through advertising. Set up a big video board on the back of the truck and sell ad space. The cars behind are a captive audience. I can already see trucks heading to Vegas advertising casinos. Wait. Maybe I should get a patent.
Except that these were people that probably would not have watched the show to begin with because they had more important things to do (or to watch another show). So if a show gets 20% more viewers with those using DVRs (using your numbers), and almost half of them watch the commercials, that is almost 110% of ad viewership.
In my lifetime I have seen Disney go from Theater->TV->VHS->DVD->Digital as their major source of income. Disney, like most/all media companies rely on format changes over time. Putting movies in the vault for a decade is a stall tactic for the next media format, where, they hope, people will buy the movie multiple times. I am skeptical that Disney (or any media company) would choose a permanent format for their customers to use forever. Unless they are planning on the internet disappearing in the next decade people will "own" digital files for a long time to come. Unless they are planning on 3D hologram devices in 10-15 years that project a table-top movie, I can't see how they are going to bleed their customers in the next cycle.
This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand. How do they reconcile the two philosophies? Maybe it's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the cynical side of me thinks they are counting on new file formats (.avi->.dis) being introduced in the future that will not be compatible with Keychest. In any case, Disney thinking in the best interest of the customer does not seem to be what is happening here.
I have 2 predictions for Android (though this might seem obvious to some people.)
First, if Android overtakes Apple, it will be because Android eats into the market share of other mobile handsets/OSes. It probably won't hurt Apple as much as other companies.
Second, Android probably won't overtake Apple any time soon. Having a single company means a focused business strategy. Having many companies involved means a market strategy that is unfocused and hard to define. For every 2 steps forward the Android companies make, they will take 1 step backwards. There are just too many disparate interests involved. If Android surpasses the iPhone, it will be long after 2012.
I would add to your list the third-person plural pronoun in place of the third-person singular that many people use to be gender neutral. I know many English teachers hate it, but it is commonly used, hence a de facto part of our grammar. Also, it beats the hell out of constantly switching back and forth between she and he, using s/he or he/she (she/he) or using "one".
I thought that was the point of Moore's law: to double the nuber of transistors on a circuit every 18 months-two years. The "law" is more of a business strategy or practice than a true law. That would, by definition, make it self fulfilling. The reason most people think it is a law proper is that chip manufacturers have been able to continue this strategy for so long.
Except that this is a fish they bought at a store for their dinner. It wasn't killed for the experiment. It had been dead for quite some time. It was actually done as a joke, but the joke had unexpected results. The GGP may have been hypothesizing about remnant neural activity, but there is little evidence to support that hypothesis.
Exactly, most reputable on-line schools have you take tests at a third party location.
I am currently taking classes on-line for my masters degree though Western Governor's University. I take the course exams at the same place I took my exams for my bachelors degree, at the Brigham Young University testing center. There isn't too much different. I keep in contact with my professors by e-mail. I have a syllabus and course material. I read the text books. I have an on-line community of people (students and teachers) that I converse with. On-line schools have come a long way in the last few years and are getting better.
There are several comments making the same point as yours, but since you are the highest rated I will respond to you. I think the point of the summary wasn't that newspapers are allowed, it was that newspapers aren't allowed, but jurors don't need to sign any special forms to say they won't read them. If You don't sign anything special for a newspaper, why should you have to for an iPhone?
All joking aside, do we really want damages $80,000 per song (and yes I know this happened in Mexico, no legal precedent there, blah, blah...)? The problem is that if this fantasy outcome does happen, it reinforces the precedent that songs really are worth $80,000. That is not a good outcome, no matter the immediate satisfaction we most people might have.
Sure, I want Sony to have their asses handed to themselves on a plate, but please don't let this solidify the idea that songs are worth what the RIAA says. A better outcome is for Tenenbaum or Thomas to be thrown out on appeals.
And for the record, I don't think this is a copyright case. It looks more like contract law. The rules will be a little different.
I would respectfully disagree. There is a school of thought that says that schooling (college) exists to make people more marketable, productive (job wise), and skilled. I liken that to the mindset that corporate research & development needs to be directed at the bottom line. The problem is that basic scientific research is still necessary for long term R&D.
Likewise, people are not just cogs in a corporate machine. Yes, people need to be more skilled, productive and marketable. But a broader, more liberal (in the general term, not the political term) education helps people to be better citizens, mentors and basic human beings.College is not necessary for that, but the strength of college is getting people together to learn together and challenge their assumptions and biases.
As a side note, I notice that most of the people that I know that are anti-college have never been, or only attended a semester of community college. I don't know what all this means, but I think there might be two things happening. One, people that are anti-college feel that colleges are elitist cliques and see themselves as outsiders that will never (by choice or circumstance) never fit in. Second, I think they might be projecting their high-school experience onto college. My high-school and college experiences were so different from each other, but I still hear people say how they hated college because it was just an extension of high-school.
Enough rambling. Others may feel different, but I think college is worthwhile, even if it just to get an AA in general education. Ultimately, it can affect the bottom line of the more than the 65% of the jobs that don't NEED a college degree to perform their basic tasks.
From the article (I know it is not required reading on Slashdot) I don't get the impression he was aiming his remarks at the Government. He was talking to business people. Some of those were even members of his own family. True, the Government controls the way patents are granted, but companies control how they are used. "Sitting on patents stifles the industry" was the message he was sending.
Yeah. The headline should have said something more like "Microsoft Poland Photoshops Black Guy for White One" or "Microsoft Replaces Black Man for a White Man in Polish Ad Image."
But This is Slashdot. What do you expect. I hear that someday they are going to have editors to proofread story submissions and headlines.
Slashdot Mirror
So, are taxes evil?
Ohm I God. That was shockingly lame. Next joule make some re-volting joke about his peter and impedance.
It might come down to efficiency. Putting meat on a pig naturally is probably not as efficient as meat formed in a factory.
Initially the meat broth could come from scrap meats. Eventually it could just be artificial proteins. This is just one step. Others will follow.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake
Well, after this fluff piece, I would say the internet just got lighter.
Since you mentioned the Fort Hood shootings, what griped me was that they were reporting without facts. News outlets reported there were three shooters. Then, one shooter was killed and two were still at large. I know that was a symptom of trying to out-scoop the competition, but it is also evidence reporting without facts. This happens all of the time.
Another example is the balloon-boy. Not a single reporter stopped to ask the question, "can that balloon lift 30 lbs?" The answer is no, but that did not stop the media frenzy that lasted hours until the balloon landed.
Sometimes (most of the time?) news outlets are more about the entertainment value than the informative value of a story.
Since the lead vehicle will be driven by a professional driver there is a good chance it will be a semi. If it is, the owner can make additional revenue through advertising. Set up a big video board on the back of the truck and sell ad space. The cars behind are a captive audience. I can already see trucks heading to Vegas advertising casinos. Wait. Maybe I should get a patent.
Except that these were people that probably would not have watched the show to begin with because they had more important things to do (or to watch another show). So if a show gets 20% more viewers with those using DVRs (using your numbers), and almost half of them watch the commercials, that is almost 110% of ad viewership.
In my lifetime I have seen Disney go from Theater->TV->VHS->DVD->Digital as their major source of income. Disney, like most/all media companies rely on format changes over time. Putting movies in the vault for a decade is a stall tactic for the next media format, where, they hope, people will buy the movie multiple times. I am skeptical that Disney (or any media company) would choose a permanent format for their customers to use forever. Unless they are planning on the internet disappearing in the next decade people will "own" digital files for a long time to come. Unless they are planning on 3D hologram devices in 10-15 years that project a table-top movie, I can't see how they are going to bleed their customers in the next cycle.
This coming from a company that puts movies in the vault for a decade to increase demand. How do they reconcile the two philosophies? Maybe it's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, but the cynical side of me thinks they are counting on new file formats (.avi->.dis) being introduced in the future that will not be compatible with Keychest. In any case, Disney thinking in the best interest of the customer does not seem to be what is happening here.
I have 2 predictions for Android (though this might seem obvious to some people.)
First, if Android overtakes Apple, it will be because Android eats into the market share of other mobile handsets/OSes. It probably won't hurt Apple as much as other companies.
Second, Android probably won't overtake Apple any time soon. Having a single company means a focused business strategy. Having many companies involved means a market strategy that is unfocused and hard to define. For every 2 steps forward the Android companies make, they will take 1 step backwards. There are just too many disparate interests involved. If Android surpasses the iPhone, it will be long after 2012.
I would add to your list the third-person plural pronoun in place of the third-person singular that many people use to be gender neutral. I know many English teachers hate it, but it is commonly used, hence a de facto part of our grammar. Also, it beats the hell out of constantly switching back and forth between she and he, using s/he or he/she (she/he) or using "one".
I thought that was the point of Moore's law: to double the nuber of transistors on a circuit every 18 months-two years. The "law" is more of a business strategy or practice than a true law. That would, by definition, make it self fulfilling. The reason most people think it is a law proper is that chip manufacturers have been able to continue this strategy for so long.
The female voice-over announcer sounded forkable to me... OK, I got nothing.
Except that this is a fish they bought at a store for their dinner. It wasn't killed for the experiment. It had been dead for quite some time. It was actually done as a joke, but the joke had unexpected results. The GGP may have been hypothesizing about remnant neural activity, but there is little evidence to support that hypothesis.
Exactly, most reputable on-line schools have you take tests at a third party location.
I am currently taking classes on-line for my masters degree though Western Governor's University. I take the course exams at the same place I took my exams for my bachelors degree, at the Brigham Young University testing center. There isn't too much different. I keep in contact with my professors by e-mail. I have a syllabus and course material. I read the text books. I have an on-line community of people (students and teachers) that I converse with. On-line schools have come a long way in the last few years and are getting better.
There are several comments making the same point as yours, but since you are the highest rated I will respond to you. I think the point of the summary wasn't that newspapers are allowed, it was that newspapers aren't allowed, but jurors don't need to sign any special forms to say they won't read them. If You don't sign anything special for a newspaper, why should you have to for an iPhone?
Yeah. I have a Mac. The Windows interface is kind of a giveaway that it is probably not that my computer has a virus.
All joking aside, do we really want damages $80,000 per song (and yes I know this happened in Mexico, no legal precedent there, blah, blah...)? The problem is that if this fantasy outcome does happen, it reinforces the precedent that songs really are worth $80,000. That is not a good outcome, no matter the immediate satisfaction we most people might have.
Sure, I want Sony to have their asses handed to themselves on a plate, but please don't let this solidify the idea that songs are worth what the RIAA says. A better outcome is for Tenenbaum or Thomas to be thrown out on appeals.
And for the record, I don't think this is a copyright case. It looks more like contract law. The rules will be a little different.
I would respectfully disagree. There is a school of thought that says that schooling (college) exists to make people more marketable, productive (job wise), and skilled. I liken that to the mindset that corporate research & development needs to be directed at the bottom line. The problem is that basic scientific research is still necessary for long term R&D.
Likewise, people are not just cogs in a corporate machine. Yes, people need to be more skilled, productive and marketable. But a broader, more liberal (in the general term, not the political term) education helps people to be better citizens, mentors and basic human beings.College is not necessary for that, but the strength of college is getting people together to learn together and challenge their assumptions and biases.
As a side note, I notice that most of the people that I know that are anti-college have never been, or only attended a semester of community college. I don't know what all this means, but I think there might be two things happening. One, people that are anti-college feel that colleges are elitist cliques and see themselves as outsiders that will never (by choice or circumstance) never fit in. Second, I think they might be projecting their high-school experience onto college. My high-school and college experiences were so different from each other, but I still hear people say how they hated college because it was just an extension of high-school.
Enough rambling. Others may feel different, but I think college is worthwhile, even if it just to get an AA in general education. Ultimately, it can affect the bottom line of the more than the 65% of the jobs that don't NEED a college degree to perform their basic tasks.
From the article (I know it is not required reading on Slashdot) I don't get the impression he was aiming his remarks at the Government. He was talking to business people. Some of those were even members of his own family. True, the Government controls the way patents are granted, but companies control how they are used. "Sitting on patents stifles the industry" was the message he was sending.
Actually, Andreesen only bought 65% of Skype for $1.95B.
Did April 1st come early this year?
Yeah. The headline should have said something more like "Microsoft Poland Photoshops Black Guy for White One" or "Microsoft Replaces Black Man for a White Man in Polish Ad Image."
But This is Slashdot. What do you expect. I hear that someday they are going to have editors to proofread story submissions and headlines.
A software metaphor to describe cars. Is this a corollary to "in Soviet Russia..." jokes? :)