I use all my fingers when I write on a keyboard. Back in school (we had a few classes were we practised touch) when I was forced to position my fingers according to the "correct method" I wrote slower and caught myself looking down on the keyboard now and again. Touch might be a fine technique for some, helping them improve their form and using all their fingers. But some, particularly those that use computers extensively for one reason (hobby) or another, can learn to type fast on their own and without "sticking to" a "correct method". Knowing what I know about the educational system I would say that informing students about the benefits off practising using all their fingers is good, but forcing them to use an approved method can have negative consequences. I distinctly recall our teacher arrogantly informing us that touch was the "only way" to truly write fast and that those of us that had used computers a lot before were basically handicapped. Despite this we, myself and two others in that particular group, beat him, the other students, and the recommended average words per minute score; when we wrote as we normally did.
My point is that one should be careful what is made mandatory and how; the system doesn't allow for much flexibility.
The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification.
Isn't the catch here that it would prohibit religions claiming they are the "true faith" and that all other faiths are heretical or blasphemous and thus vilifying religions other than their own? That being said I am all in favour of criticism of religions, if they want to believe they better suck it up and turn the other cheek or whatever. The freedom to express your opinion should be valued higher than the feelings of touchy religious people. Religions or religious institutions deserve no special privileges at all, and no special protection under the law.
More education gives people a more broad experience of the world in that it opens up areas they may not have otherwise been exposed to. Sometimes this is frustrating (witness many/.ers bitching about how they had to take english lit classes when they just wanted to be engineers) and obnoxious, but it helps folks to avoid the tendency to becoming hyperspecialized drones.
I agree that a wide basic education is a good thing. Exposing people to various ideas and concepts could help broaden their mind and perspective. Though whether or not the current implementation actually work, or if it "helps folks avoid the tendency to become hyperspecialized drones" is hard, if not impossible, to judge. Some no doubt have a positive experience, and some probably don't. Some find new things they like, and some fallout of the educational system all-together because they are unable to pass a course that isn't related to their field of interest. I guess my personal opinion is that the choices should be left into the hands of the student, and not forced upon them; regardless of how good the intention might be.
A lot of people who were self-taught think that anyone who wants to know about something will just go look it up - but usually these self-taught individuals are completely unaware of huge swaths of ideas and terrain that have been explored because they weren't required to take classes in subjects that initially didn't interest them.
Speculation and conjecture.
...it turns out that the "expreimental design in psychology" course that I took was INCREDIBLY fascinating
I would agree that a side course in some sort of psychology can be very helpful in any career (and perhaps life in general); if passed and understood.
EVERYONE in the world can benefit from learning new things.
Agreed.
If your college degree is only helping in your job, or if you're going to college solely to get a better job - well, that's certainly your right, but you're really missing out on 90% of what an education can (and IMO, should) be.
I guess at the end of the day I am very much in favour of choice and freedom. Dictating to others how they should learn, what they should learn, and how they should learn it; is something that could, in my view, hamper if not out right destroy a persons enjoyment and interest in a particular field or course. Let people decide for themselves what they want to learn and why. If something should be mandatory it could be lectures presenting students to their choices of study and possible career-paths, and give them access to people working, or teachers lecturing, in those fields; then let them decide for themselves.
To be perfectly honest, most people don't really need a college eduction. The thing is, our society seems to make more and more people take college classes. When people have no real use for the classes, the natural outcome is degree mills and cheaper education. A 2 month on the job training would do better than college for 65% of most jobs.
Agreed. At the end of the day what is important is that the individual in question knows what is needed for the job at hand, and some way of showing that to prospective employers. How they acquire that knowledge is really secondary.
Now I would agree that Universities does have their place in a versatile and comprehensive educational system, but they are not the only way to a "higher education" and for some the University experience can quickly get sidetracked by non-educational activities. Though I am not going to judge whether that is good or bad, probably both; depending upon the person in question.
Online courses, interactive educational tools, growing databases/webservices with lectures and instructions on video, audio and/or eBooks have their place as well. These things help make knowledge available to more people at a lower cost than previously possible. And as I said, that you have the necessary knowledge, and in some cases experience, to get an entry level job is what is important; not that you got that knowledge through a University.
The natural limits imposed by real books (only one person can borrow each copy at a time and photocopying too much of it is a PITA) are almost certain to be a replaced by artificial limits imposed by the digitial library system.
Maybe, maybe not. Hard to predict, though I would speculate that different nations will probably implement it differently. Though a virtual system itself have no inherent "limits" like you suggest. And if, for instance, the library increasingly over the next decades start using publicly available material and books then the licensing issue becomes moot. This is of course pure speculation from both of us and not in anyway a problem with the concept of a virtual library itself.
And what happens when there is something like the kindle incident we saw recently?
Now I don't know what incident you are referring to, but I wouldn't worry about any "kindle incident" unless the library for some reason decides to store all their material entirely on kindles. Digital storage can, and should, be backed up every which way.
I don't think that's how the science works. When you are reporting in percentages, the difference between 1000 and 10000 is insignificant.
Indeed. Which is why I suggested that to arrive at a more comprehensive and accurate estimation one would have to take larger samples and to ensure that those samples are taken from more than one district of the region one wish to cover. Taking a sample of 1000 people and then try to make an estimation about a population of about 61 million is, as I said, far too insignificant a number to allow for accurate predictions.
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did.
Agreed. I would say that for a better and more precise statistic one would have to take samples of say 15.000 people (or more) and to take several samples from varied parts of the UK. 1,176 people from a population of of about 61 million spread across varied geographical, economical, political, social, cultural and religious demographics seems far far far too small to make any sort of estimation one way or another.
And to replace those old pulpy devices that have transmitted information since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s, they have spent $10,000 to buy 18 electronic readers made by Amazon.com and Sony. Administrators plan to distribute the readers, which they're stocking with digital material, to students looking to spend more time with literature.
Those who don't have access to the electronic readers will be expected to do their research and peruse many assigned texts on their computers.
"Instead of a traditional library with 20,000 books, we're building a virtual library where students will have access to millions of books," said Tracy, whose office shelves remain lined with books. "We see this as a model for the 21st-century school."
Seems to me that whoever wrote the summary and the guy who is quoted don't get what's going on. Reading a good old book might have its charm, and something I personally enjoy immensely, but with an eye for education, research and the future, a "virtual library" were you can, potentially, search through an index instantly, and even search and cross-reference passages from different works have quite a few practical advantages. Among which is that the number of students that can access any specific work is limited only by the numbers of computers and readers availible; and not by the number of copies in stock.
Libraries are on their way out, we're already slipping into an information dark age.
I don't know how things are going where you live, but in Norway the public libraries are going on as before. Not only that but many, soon enough all, are digitizing their archive of books, newspapers and other papers so that they can be accessed by computers in the library. Some of the computers also provide internet access for free.
This study seems like a barely concealed reason to bring attractive women into the lab. In fact I would wager that this is the first time the line "Want to come to my lab for some 'test'?" has actually worked.
Americans don't seem to realize what a "global economy" truly entails.
One could speculate that when Americans said "global economy" they meant a global economy dominated and controlled by themselves; with their influence waning others are more inclined to openly challenge, obstruct or tax American interests without fear of American using their formerly all-mighty dollar to give them a spanking.
The decision by the European Commission to extend its investigation into the deal, worth $7.4 million, is especially sensitive because the U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the merger. Regulators in the United States questioned Oracle's market power in some areas of its business but raised fewer concerns than the Europeans about open-source software.
In announcing the decision, Neelie Kroes, the European Union's competition commissioner, appeared to signal a different approach Thursday, warning that the acquisition could hamper development of an important software product owned by Sun, which specializes in computer hardware. The product, MySQL, is the most widely used corporate database software in the world, and it competes with products produced by Oracle.
...
"Europeans still have a lot more concerns than Americans about companies using strong or dominant positions to create a bottlenecks for competitors in the information and technology sectors," said Peter Alexiadis, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who is based in Brussels.
"Any whiff of dominance over different platforms used to deliver information raises particular concerns," he said. "This may in part explain why Europeans, who are used to multiple business traditions, might be less inclined to view Oracleâ(TM)s traditional strengths in databases as not posing competitive concerns."
If I were to speculate I would say that they are probably still around, just that many of those that didn't die had a higher resistance for that particular virus/disease; and that those people are our ancestors. That being said we also have things like hygiene now that might remove some of the factors contributing to a lower tolerance for diseases/viruses/etc.
Or maybe they have gone underground and is plotting their revenge.
Which is why Disney-Marvel crossovers, like Phantom Duck teaming up with Wolverine to stop Magneto from stealing Scrooge's money, is going to be such a breath of fresh air.
Look at a large amount of government systems. Everything is to the cheapest bidder. But the cheapest bidder isn't always the best or product, and contains issues. Also known as 'good enough.'
As with most things you buy, what is cheapest upfront might not be the cheapest in the long run. Arguably doing it right the first time might save you maintenance costs down the road.
But most kids in my generation didn't read unless forced to. Today, all the kids read a lot, even if all they read is the internet and text messages on their phones.
Precisely. And as those kids grow up the age and mentality of those that actively participate in internet debates and with various forms of social media will increase. The possibility for someone with the inclination to either participate in debates regarding any topic that might interest them, or their chance to self educated on almost any subject, is unmatched throughout history. It might still be years, and possibly decades, before we see the true fruition of this change.
Ok, cynicism aside. But it seems that a lot of people do just that. They see Wikipedia as some sort of game they want to "win". There are of course a few (often rather "old") contributors that earned their status with important, insightful and accurate information, but more and more people climb that "ladder" only by gaming the system. That these people then will have the power to dictate what becomes canon and what doesn't is a bit of a chill up my spine.
I would suggest tuning the level of cynicism up to the next level and realize that every system/ladder/hierarchy in existence has "climbers" on every level of the organization (and yes this includes elected office). There are always those who are motivated by a desire to raise their own flag, as it were, instead of a genuine desire to contribute in any meaningful way.
If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.
Giving into speculation I would perhaps say that if P2P distribution were legal if it wasn't for profit there probably would be a drop in sale of DvDs/bluerays and CDs; or those same products through various internet services. However I reckon people would still go to the cinema now and again, and people would most definitely purchase concert tickets to go see bands they like.
The ones I would be most worried about are writers and visual artists (books, comics, illustrated novellas and etc); while they aren't exactly in trouble (yet) one could assume that the quality of various readers will increase over the next years and decades. When it is possible to download a book or a comic book and read that in high quality on a device of some sort then it isn't hard to imagine that you could download such material for free if "non-profit" distribution of media is legal. So while I am pretty sure film makers and musicians can continue to earn a profit from their skills and talents it would be far harder for writers and artists who are dependant entirely upon selling copies of their work.
I was just wondering how this system would work inside a nation or region that is actively trying to censor internet access or jam any "illegal networks"; or if it is possible to create a system from this concept that would work in such nations.
According to the firm's analysis of YouTube traffic and ad strategies, the site is on track to generate about $240 million in revenue in 2009, up about 20% year over year.
But the cost of bandwidth, content licensing, ad-revenue shares, hardware storage, sales and marketing and other expenses will total about $711 million, putting YouTube squarely in the red, the Credit Suisse report estimated. Bandwidth accounts for about 51% of expenses -- with a run rate of $1 million per day -- with content licensing accounting for 36%.
To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20% of those users are on the site at any given time. Credit Suisse's analysis then assumed each user downloads a video at 400 kilobits per second, to yield a peak bit run-rate for YouTube of 30 million megabits per second.
On the other hand, Norway is top of the "Human Development Index", but would you want to deal with the long winters and seasonal affective disorder?
I reckon any Scandinavian country is still very free with a high quality of life. Personally I live in Norway, among the people I know is a couple from Texas; he works for Google (or Yahoo I forget which); they were living in New York a few years back, but decided that if they were going to pay that much (since apparently New York is an expensive place to live) they might as well move to Norway. They cleared it with Google/Yahoo, made the application and moved over. Three years (or so) they still don't speak Norwegian as well as they would like (since everyone always speaks English when they are around out of curtsey) and they seem very happy about spending the rest of their lives here. One of the benefits for them of course is that they get access, for themselves and their son (who has been born here), to medical services, kindergarten services, and if/when their son want to go to college he gets a scholarship and a loan just as all citizens of Norway (oh and tuition at the universities of Norway is about $50 per semester and the money goes directly to the student organization connected to that University and they in turn use that money and government funds to provide cheap apartments, medical services, daycare, and other services and concerts for students, by students).
Then again there is a bit of rain and snow over the winter so unless you learn to live with it (and get a sense of humour) I guess living here can be a drag.
I agree. Of course I like various forms of meat and steak; but I try to balance my diet with other substances; like vegetables, fruit, salads and other relatively health articles. While I do not feel comfortable telling people what they should or shouldn't eat; the amount of meat being consumed; or even more importantly the amount of meat (and other food articles) that are simply wasted by the system; is staggering.
While I can not see a simple solution to improving the way we produce and consume food; I believe many changes will come over the next decades and beyond. One of them being the almost ridiculous reliance on cheap oil. Cheap oil means cheap corn, means cheap cow stuffing, meaning cheap meat. When oil prices increase, and they will increase (especially with China and India seeing a massive growth in oil consumption), food prices will soar. Or at least some food products will see a great price increase for a period of time; until the what, how and where we eat adapts to the new state of affairs, or we find new and better ways to produce food at the current scale. But at the moment every link in the chain is reliant upon the price of oil; sowing, harvesting and transportation to name but a few.
While creating "better cows" with less methane production is definitely a good thing; if it works as advertised; it isn't the only thing. If you want to learn a bit more about the food production, as regards to the USA, I found Michael Pollan's Deep Agriculture interesting.
That seems a bit of an excessive reaction. Today's High Definition is tomorrows Default. While it is hard for me to speculate about your age or your expected lifespan; say you live for another fifty years or more; I would be very surprised if you didn't move over to watching all movies in what would today be called "hi-def" as the quality of the original recording/edit increases.
Now 300 might have been a special case, since as someone said further up the thread it was done almost exclusively in front of green/blue screens. Compare that to movies, or for that matter, television shows that are done in High Definition (like say Conan*O Brian, or Fringe); given Fringe does use CGI now and again; but for the most part the clarity of image of those two shows is far superior to mostly anything that isn't HD.
"The highest applicable Swedish court, RegeringsrÃtten, has ruled that IP numbers are protected (in Swedish) since they can be traced to individuals. This means that only government agencies are allowed to track and store IP adresses, leaving "anti-piracy" advocates with no legal way to find possible copyright infringers."
This is pretty much the way things are, and have been, in Norway now for many years. And so far I have heard none of my friends in IT, nor anyone in the media, complain about "And no way for server admins to track what virus infected bots are trying to break into their systems."being a problem.
Well, humorous as "The Thing" reference was meant to be, one has to wonder how controlled the lab environment was when this thing was discovered passing thru filters.
And the fact that a bug not seen in 102,000 years is known not to be a pathogen (when virtually NOTHING else is known about it) seems of little comfort.
I felt a need to lighten the mood seeing as this is definitely a remnant of the Star Spawn and it heralds the awakening of the sleeper! ai! ai! ai!
Slashdot Mirror
I use all my fingers when I write on a keyboard. Back in school (we had a few classes were we practised touch) when I was forced to position my fingers according to the "correct method" I wrote slower and caught myself looking down on the keyboard now and again. Touch might be a fine technique for some, helping them improve their form and using all their fingers. But some, particularly those that use computers extensively for one reason (hobby) or another, can learn to type fast on their own and without "sticking to" a "correct method". Knowing what I know about the educational system I would say that informing students about the benefits off practising using all their fingers is good, but forcing them to use an approved method can have negative consequences. I distinctly recall our teacher arrogantly informing us that touch was the "only way" to truly write fast and that those of us that had used computers a lot before were basically handicapped. Despite this we, myself and two others in that particular group, beat him, the other students, and the recommended average words per minute score; when we wrote as we normally did.
My point is that one should be careful what is made mandatory and how; the system doesn't allow for much flexibility.
The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification.
Isn't the catch here that it would prohibit religions claiming they are the "true faith" and that all other faiths are heretical or blasphemous and thus vilifying religions other than their own? That being said I am all in favour of criticism of religions, if they want to believe they better suck it up and turn the other cheek or whatever. The freedom to express your opinion should be valued higher than the feelings of touchy religious people. Religions or religious institutions deserve no special privileges at all, and no special protection under the law.
More education gives people a more broad experience of the world in that it opens up areas they may not have otherwise been exposed to. Sometimes this is frustrating (witness many /.ers bitching about how they had to take english lit classes when they just wanted to be engineers) and obnoxious, but it helps folks to avoid the tendency to becoming hyperspecialized drones.
I agree that a wide basic education is a good thing. Exposing people to various ideas and concepts could help broaden their mind and perspective. Though whether or not the current implementation actually work, or if it "helps folks avoid the tendency to become hyperspecialized drones" is hard, if not impossible, to judge. Some no doubt have a positive experience, and some probably don't. Some find new things they like, and some fallout of the educational system all-together because they are unable to pass a course that isn't related to their field of interest. I guess my personal opinion is that the choices should be left into the hands of the student, and not forced upon them; regardless of how good the intention might be.
A lot of people who were self-taught think that anyone who wants to know about something will just go look it up - but usually these self-taught individuals are completely unaware of huge swaths of ideas and terrain that have been explored because they weren't required to take classes in subjects that initially didn't interest them.
Speculation and conjecture.
...it turns out that the "expreimental design in psychology" course that I took was INCREDIBLY fascinating
I would agree that a side course in some sort of psychology can be very helpful in any career (and perhaps life in general); if passed and understood.
EVERYONE in the world can benefit from learning new things.
Agreed.
If your college degree is only helping in your job, or if you're going to college solely to get a better job - well, that's certainly your right, but you're really missing out on 90% of what an education can (and IMO, should) be.
I guess at the end of the day I am very much in favour of choice and freedom. Dictating to others how they should learn, what they should learn, and how they should learn it; is something that could, in my view, hamper if not out right destroy a persons enjoyment and interest in a particular field or course. Let people decide for themselves what they want to learn and why. If something should be mandatory it could be lectures presenting students to their choices of study and possible career-paths, and give them access to people working, or teachers lecturing, in those fields; then let them decide for themselves.
To be perfectly honest, most people don't really need a college eduction. The thing is, our society seems to make more and more people take college classes. When people have no real use for the classes, the natural outcome is degree mills and cheaper education. A 2 month on the job training would do better than college for 65% of most jobs.
Agreed. At the end of the day what is important is that the individual in question knows what is needed for the job at hand, and some way of showing that to prospective employers. How they acquire that knowledge is really secondary.
Now I would agree that Universities does have their place in a versatile and comprehensive educational system, but they are not the only way to a "higher education" and for some the University experience can quickly get sidetracked by non-educational activities. Though I am not going to judge whether that is good or bad, probably both; depending upon the person in question.
Online courses, interactive educational tools, growing databases/webservices with lectures and instructions on video, audio and/or eBooks have their place as well. These things help make knowledge available to more people at a lower cost than previously possible. And as I said, that you have the necessary knowledge, and in some cases experience, to get an entry level job is what is important; not that you got that knowledge through a University.
The natural limits imposed by real books (only one person can borrow each copy at a time and photocopying too much of it is a PITA) are almost certain to be a replaced by artificial limits imposed by the digitial library system.
Maybe, maybe not. Hard to predict, though I would speculate that different nations will probably implement it differently. Though a virtual system itself have no inherent "limits" like you suggest. And if, for instance, the library increasingly over the next decades start using publicly available material and books then the licensing issue becomes moot. This is of course pure speculation from both of us and not in anyway a problem with the concept of a virtual library itself.
And what happens when there is something like the kindle incident we saw recently?
Now I don't know what incident you are referring to, but I wouldn't worry about any "kindle incident" unless the library for some reason decides to store all their material entirely on kindles. Digital storage can, and should, be backed up every which way.
I don't think that's how the science works. When you are reporting in percentages, the difference between 1000 and 10000 is insignificant.
Indeed. Which is why I suggested that to arrive at a more comprehensive and accurate estimation one would have to take larger samples and to ensure that those samples are taken from more than one district of the region one wish to cover. Taking a sample of 1000 people and then try to make an estimation about a population of about 61 million is, as I said, far too insignificant a number to allow for accurate predictions.
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did.
Agreed. I would say that for a better and more precise statistic one would have to take samples of say 15.000 people (or more) and to take several samples from varied parts of the UK. 1,176 people from a population of of about 61 million spread across varied geographical, economical, political, social, cultural and religious demographics seems far far far too small to make any sort of estimation one way or another.
And to replace those old pulpy devices that have transmitted information since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400s, they have spent $10,000 to buy 18 electronic readers made by Amazon.com and Sony. Administrators plan to distribute the readers, which they're stocking with digital material, to students looking to spend more time with literature.
Those who don't have access to the electronic readers will be expected to do their research and peruse many assigned texts on their computers.
"Instead of a traditional library with 20,000 books, we're building a virtual library where students will have access to millions of books," said Tracy, whose office shelves remain lined with books. "We see this as a model for the 21st-century school."
Seems to me that whoever wrote the summary and the guy who is quoted don't get what's going on. Reading a good old book might have its charm, and something I personally enjoy immensely, but with an eye for education, research and the future, a "virtual library" were you can, potentially, search through an index instantly, and even search and cross-reference passages from different works have quite a few practical advantages. Among which is that the number of students that can access any specific work is limited only by the numbers of computers and readers availible; and not by the number of copies in stock.
Libraries are on their way out, we're already slipping into an information dark age.
I don't know how things are going where you live, but in Norway the public libraries are going on as before. Not only that but many, soon enough all, are digitizing their archive of books, newspapers and other papers so that they can be accessed by computers in the library. Some of the computers also provide internet access for free.
This study seems like a barely concealed reason to bring attractive women into the lab. In fact I would wager that this is the first time the line "Want to come to my lab for some 'test'?" has actually worked.
Americans don't seem to realize what a "global economy" truly entails.
One could speculate that when Americans said "global economy" they meant a global economy dominated and controlled by themselves; with their influence waning others are more inclined to openly challenge, obstruct or tax American interests without fear of American using their formerly all-mighty dollar to give them a spanking.
The decision by the European Commission to extend its investigation into the deal, worth $7.4 million, is especially sensitive because the U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the merger. Regulators in the United States questioned Oracle's market power in some areas of its business but raised fewer concerns than the Europeans about open-source software.
...
In announcing the decision, Neelie Kroes, the European Union's competition commissioner, appeared to signal a different approach Thursday, warning that the acquisition could hamper development of an important software product owned by Sun, which specializes in computer hardware. The product, MySQL, is the most widely used corporate database software in the world, and it competes with products produced by Oracle.
"Europeans still have a lot more concerns than Americans about companies using strong or dominant positions to create a bottlenecks for competitors in the information and technology sectors," said Peter Alexiadis, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who is based in Brussels.
"Any whiff of dominance over different platforms used to deliver information raises particular concerns," he said. "This may in part explain why Europeans, who are used to multiple business traditions, might be less inclined to view Oracleâ(TM)s traditional strengths in databases as not posing competitive concerns."
From E.U. to Review Oracle's Takeover of Sun Microsystems
If I were to speculate I would say that they are probably still around, just that many of those that didn't die had a higher resistance for that particular virus/disease; and that those people are our ancestors. That being said we also have things like hygiene now that might remove some of the factors contributing to a lower tolerance for diseases/viruses/etc.
Or maybe they have gone underground and is plotting their revenge.
Which is why Disney-Marvel crossovers, like Phantom Duck teaming up with Wolverine to stop Magneto from stealing Scrooge's money, is going to be such a breath of fresh air.
Look at a large amount of government systems. Everything is to the cheapest bidder. But the cheapest bidder isn't always the best or product, and contains issues. Also known as 'good enough.'
As with most things you buy, what is cheapest upfront might not be the cheapest in the long run. Arguably doing it right the first time might save you maintenance costs down the road.
But most kids in my generation didn't read unless forced to. Today, all the kids read a lot, even if all they read is the internet and text messages on their phones.
Precisely. And as those kids grow up the age and mentality of those that actively participate in internet debates and with various forms of social media will increase. The possibility for someone with the inclination to either participate in debates regarding any topic that might interest them, or their chance to self educated on almost any subject, is unmatched throughout history. It might still be years, and possibly decades, before we see the true fruition of this change.
Ok, cynicism aside. But it seems that a lot of people do just that. They see Wikipedia as some sort of game they want to "win". There are of course a few (often rather "old") contributors that earned their status with important, insightful and accurate information, but more and more people climb that "ladder" only by gaming the system. That these people then will have the power to dictate what becomes canon and what doesn't is a bit of a chill up my spine.
I would suggest tuning the level of cynicism up to the next level and realize that every system/ladder/hierarchy in existence has "climbers" on every level of the organization (and yes this includes elected office). There are always those who are motivated by a desire to raise their own flag, as it were, instead of a genuine desire to contribute in any meaningful way.
If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.
Giving into speculation I would perhaps say that if P2P distribution were legal if it wasn't for profit there probably would be a drop in sale of DvDs/bluerays and CDs; or those same products through various internet services. However I reckon people would still go to the cinema now and again, and people would most definitely purchase concert tickets to go see bands they like.
The ones I would be most worried about are writers and visual artists (books, comics, illustrated novellas and etc); while they aren't exactly in trouble (yet) one could assume that the quality of various readers will increase over the next years and decades. When it is possible to download a book or a comic book and read that in high quality on a device of some sort then it isn't hard to imagine that you could download such material for free if "non-profit" distribution of media is legal. So while I am pretty sure film makers and musicians can continue to earn a profit from their skills and talents it would be far harder for writers and artists who are dependant entirely upon selling copies of their work.
I was just wondering how this system would work inside a nation or region that is actively trying to censor internet access or jam any "illegal networks"; or if it is possible to create a system from this concept that would work in such nations.
However, they have infrastructure costs of somewhere around $300 million a year, which they haven't been able to cover with advertising.
According to this article - "YouTube May Lose $470 Million In 2009"
According to the firm's analysis of YouTube traffic and ad strategies, the site is on track to generate about $240 million in revenue in 2009, up about 20% year over year.
But the cost of bandwidth, content licensing, ad-revenue shares, hardware storage, sales and marketing and other expenses will total about $711 million, putting YouTube squarely in the red, the Credit Suisse report estimated. Bandwidth accounts for about 51% of expenses -- with a run rate of $1 million per day -- with content licensing accounting for 36%.
To arrive at the estimated $360 million bandwidth tab for YouTube, the analysts assumed the site will receive 375 million unique visitors in 2009 and that a maximum of 20% of those users are on the site at any given time. Credit Suisse's analysis then assumed each user downloads a video at 400 kilobits per second, to yield a peak bit run-rate for YouTube of 30 million megabits per second.
On the other hand, Norway is top of the "Human Development Index", but would you want to deal with the long winters and seasonal affective disorder?
I reckon any Scandinavian country is still very free with a high quality of life. Personally I live in Norway, among the people I know is a couple from Texas; he works for Google (or Yahoo I forget which); they were living in New York a few years back, but decided that if they were going to pay that much (since apparently New York is an expensive place to live) they might as well move to Norway. They cleared it with Google/Yahoo, made the application and moved over. Three years (or so) they still don't speak Norwegian as well as they would like (since everyone always speaks English when they are around out of curtsey) and they seem very happy about spending the rest of their lives here. One of the benefits for them of course is that they get access, for themselves and their son (who has been born here), to medical services, kindergarten services, and if/when their son want to go to college he gets a scholarship and a loan just as all citizens of Norway (oh and tuition at the universities of Norway is about $50 per semester and the money goes directly to the student organization connected to that University and they in turn use that money and government funds to provide cheap apartments, medical services, daycare, and other services and concerts for students, by students).
Then again there is a bit of rain and snow over the winter so unless you learn to live with it (and get a sense of humour) I guess living here can be a drag.
Or we could raise and eat fewer cows.
I agree. Of course I like various forms of meat and steak; but I try to balance my diet with other substances; like vegetables, fruit, salads and other relatively health articles. While I do not feel comfortable telling people what they should or shouldn't eat; the amount of meat being consumed; or even more importantly the amount of meat (and other food articles) that are simply wasted by the system; is staggering.
While I can not see a simple solution to improving the way we produce and consume food; I believe many changes will come over the next decades and beyond. One of them being the almost ridiculous reliance on cheap oil. Cheap oil means cheap corn, means cheap cow stuffing, meaning cheap meat. When oil prices increase, and they will increase (especially with China and India seeing a massive growth in oil consumption), food prices will soar. Or at least some food products will see a great price increase for a period of time; until the what, how and where we eat adapts to the new state of affairs, or we find new and better ways to produce food at the current scale. But at the moment every link in the chain is reliant upon the price of oil; sowing, harvesting and transportation to name but a few.
While creating "better cows" with less methane production is definitely a good thing; if it works as advertised; it isn't the only thing. If you want to learn a bit more about the food production, as regards to the USA, I found Michael Pollan's Deep Agriculture interesting.
I'll never watch another Hi-Def movie again.
That seems a bit of an excessive reaction. Today's High Definition is tomorrows Default. While it is hard for me to speculate about your age or your expected lifespan; say you live for another fifty years or more; I would be very surprised if you didn't move over to watching all movies in what would today be called "hi-def" as the quality of the original recording/edit increases.
Now 300 might have been a special case, since as someone said further up the thread it was done almost exclusively in front of green/blue screens. Compare that to movies, or for that matter, television shows that are done in High Definition (like say Conan*O Brian, or Fringe); given Fringe does use CGI now and again; but for the most part the clarity of image of those two shows is far superior to mostly anything that isn't HD.
So I guess my point is; never say never.
"The highest applicable Swedish court, RegeringsrÃtten, has ruled that IP numbers are protected (in Swedish) since they can be traced to individuals. This means that only government agencies are allowed to track and store IP adresses, leaving "anti-piracy" advocates with no legal way to find possible copyright infringers."
This is pretty much the way things are, and have been, in Norway now for many years. And so far I have heard none of my friends in IT, nor anyone in the media, complain about "And no way for server admins to track what virus infected bots are trying to break into their systems."being a problem.
Well, humorous as "The Thing" reference was meant to be, one has to wonder how controlled the lab environment was when this thing was discovered passing thru filters.
And the fact that a bug not seen in 102,000 years is known not to be a pathogen (when virtually NOTHING else is known about it) seems of little comfort.
I felt a need to lighten the mood seeing as this is definitely a remnant of the Star Spawn and it heralds the awakening of the sleeper! ai! ai! ai!