Well said, sir. There was a time when "freedom of speech" was a value which at least some major political parties supported wholeheartedly. Now both right and left seem only to go for "freedom of speech - within certain boundaries which we are going to decide for you." Still, I assume you're based in the US -- at least you have a constitution which does help. Here in the UK we are much more at the mercy of "won't somebody think of the children"-type political fashions.
I agree with you -- but with the footnote that if you want to save children, you'll do a lot better by cracking down on speeding. After all, far more kids and teens are killed in traffic accidents than by paedophiles.
The problem is, it's just not as interesting. Kill a child in a car accident, it might make the inside page of the local paper. Kill a child deliberately, it's on the front page nationwide.
Having said that, it won't be easy to change this. Because humans are interested in stories. And the story of pervert rapist vs. child is just about the purest form of good vs evil story there is. Whereas traffic accidents are a boring story, no good and evil, won't get any votes.
But if one's aim is to save kids, road safety is a much more useful place to start.
On the whole I agree, but pirated disks don't remove the intro video about piracy; on the contrary, Chinese pirated disks I've seen faithfully reproduce the packaging, complete with dire warnings about piracy.
The fact that this text obviously doesn't work makes it all the more bizarre that DVDs punish customers by making them sit through often not one but two legal screens -- one about piracy, the other about how any interviews do not reflect the views of the corporation. Couldn't they at least put these on one screen? Imagine if a magazine or a website always forced you to read the legal small print before you got to the content...
IANAL but surely this legal text is irrelevant anyway? Surely no pirate could defend themselves by saying "there was no legal warning against piracy on the video so I thought I could copy it." So why bother?
But getting groupies -- or, more generally, the ability to have sex with an unfair number of desirable persons -- has been a metric of success since the stone age. One in which the tech revolution has always fallen sadly short. Of course digital media represents a far bigger communications revolution than Rock and Roll, but how does the nightlife of the average deep-tech person compare with that of anyone in a band in the 60s?
I for one applaud the advent of groupies for youtubers, and can only hope this is a phenomenon which starts speading fast to other persons who are active online -- starting of course with/.ers...
Yes, well good point -- and while you're at it, there is Kino-Automat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_cinema ...an unsuccesful 1968 "interactive film"; which is like The Godfather compared to the appalling "I'm Your Man" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171392/ ...made for Sony's disastrous early 90s interactive cinema experiment, using cinemas with laser disk players.
I fully agree that for those who remember history to avoid repeating its mistakes, there is no shortage of discouraging precedents. I also agree that interactive filmmaking attracts a steady stream of fools and charlatans.
However, I would suggest that there are some glimmers of hope:
* broadband is a stable, worldwide medium with pretty good data speeds, going to pretty powerful computers in millions of homes and offices worldwide
* sorry, you know that of course, just trying to make a point which is that the techonlogical infrascturcutre is in place in a way that was not the case before -- I don't know the tech details of CDi, but it would have been running at about 1x or 2x CD speed, I assume, so proably around 150kbps? And only going to homes with the right player installed. That's a big disadvantage.
* when you're talking about cinema, digital cinema is still not mature, but it's been rolling out fast since 2006.
* But your key point remains valid: becuase the question is whether these new media will give rise to useful and interesting interactive presentations or not. We'll have to see. A couple of encouraging sites are http://www.subservientchicken.com/ http://www.movieactive.com/ -- which has links to UK stuff done for the National Theatre, Tate, etc. ...but I grant you, the jury is still out.
Good point -- I agree the normal use of the term "television" is to mean non-interactive broadcast content, and what I was talking about above was live-action video delivered interactively, which is not what most people mean by "TV".
However, we're probably going to need some new flexibility in terms. Because there are going to be at least three basic flavours of digital screen...
* PC
* TV
* digital Cinema ...which, as time goes by, will overlap technically ever more. But IMHO there will still be huge differences in how these screens are actually used. I suggest the key distinctions are going to be...
* What piece of furniture is in front of the screen?
- work chair
- sofa
- auditorium full of seats
* What's the feedback device?
- TV remote
- Mouse/keyboard
- Poss mobile phones with SMs/bluetooth (for some future interactive cinema thing -- I agree very speculative, pure vapourware at the moment)
- or nothing (no doubt non-interactive movies and TV will keep going strong)
* Who's watching this particular screen?
- One person
- A small group of friends/family
- dozens or hundreds of people in a cinema
* Who's watching this show right now?
- just this person/small group, vod
- millions of people/ small groups, broadcast
With all these variations, the boundaries between what people mean by "TV", "video", "movies" etc are going to get blurred. I completely agree that shows like "Lost" will keep going -- innovative content formats are not going to wipe them out. But IMHO the whole system will get a lot more complex -- and, hopefully, more interesting.
What Gates didn't say is that one of the most important devices to bring about this change in viewing habits is going to be Apple TV. I would imagine that Jobs would agree with most of what Gates says in TFA.
IMHO online delivery will obviously have a huge effect on video watching habits: 5 years? 10? It'll vary depending on how much of an early adopter you are (or your country is), but it'll come for sure.
BT Vision, recently launched in the UK, has a quite interesting hybrid model, where one interface gives you access to digital broadcasting-through-the-air (for watching news, sports, etc) as well as to VoD and the stuff you've got on your PVR. Could solve a lot of the obvious issues around live broadcasts watched by millions crashing IP networks.
Moving on slightly -- the interesting question, I think, is whether it will change the nature of film and TV: i.e. is digital, networked video just a distribution method, or is it a new medium.
A further quote from BG, from a conference a couple of years ago...
Bill Gates: "the difference between watching TV or film and playing a video game won't be the black and white difference that it is today; soon, there will be a spectrum of shades of grey".
Now before you write this off, note the following from Peter Jackson about six months ago...
Peter Jackson: "what's interesting is...conveying stories using (digital) technology which will allow an interactive component - but they're not movies and they're not games... there should be another form of entertainment... what's interesting is the crossover"
And Guillermo del Toro (director of "Blade II" and the amazing "Pan's Labyrinth"): "in the next 10 years, narrative media will shift to a hybrid of video games and movies"..."like the shift from silent movies to talkies; some movie people will be able to make the jump, but many won't."
There's a possible parallel with the development of film: in the early days, some filmmakers thought film was basically like theatre: so in their movies, the camera didn't move, the scenery was theatrical flats, the actor's whole body was shown, there were few cuts. With time, people realised film wasn't a distribution medium for theatre -- it was a whole new medium. And with it came close-ups, moving cameras, outdoor locations, etc.
IMHO we're at a similar stage now, where people are starting to see that broadband (and possibly digital cinema, later) is not just a distribution method for traditional linear film and video, it's a whole new medium with its own unique characteristics. Like any medium, it rewards those who understand and work with its characteristics.
This does NOT mean naive (and doomed) movies where you "choose-the-ending". In broadband, it means creating pieces where, within the limits of the technology, you can converse with stars, explore artworks, listen to talks customised to your interests and level of knowledge, play beach volleyball, etc. There are a number of interactive video pieces online demonstrating that this sort of thing works.
What Gates and Jobs see as the future of video devices is just the beginning of opening up the creative possiblities of video with interactivity.
Interesting post, and thanks for introducing me to the "compare" function in trends, which I haven't seen before.
However, pedantic note -- you spelled "blu-ray" incorrectly. With the silly correct spelling, the results for "blu-ray" and "hd-dvd" are roughly even...
I agree that "the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it"; and certainly this sort of non-lethal weapon could help prevent the "mourning war" or vendettas which (I think) you mentioned in an earlier excellent post on a related topic.
However, I do think one unintended consequence of non-lethal weapons is what we saw with Tasers when that student was expellend from the university library a couple of months ago. In that case, it seemed to me that if the guards had not had tasers, they would not have escalted to beating him with nightsticks, they'd have had to just haul him out physically. Because they had a non-lethal but very unpleasant weapons, they escalated to that wheras otherwise they might have been more patient.
Something similar might happen with this. You have an unruly crowd: rather than just wait it out as you might currently, instead you microwave them with this device. Thus the non-lethal weapon can result in more force being used rahter than less.
Having said that, if this is being used instead of rubber bullets let alone metal ones it's difficult to see the problem.
And of course it could vastly simplify the manfacture of baked Alaska ; )
Lovely post, but I think with people looking back at our generation it's going to be the other way round: there are going to be so many videos/ photos/ emails etc available that future generation will be utterly sick of knowing what we thought about various issues that by then will be of no interest.
You identify an ancestor who died at Gettysburg whose name you share -- it is is altogether fitting and proper to be interested in someone you're linked to, and who was connected to such an historic day; but what about his father whose main interest was the price of coal in the 1810s? And his father? etc. I think ancestor fatigue would soon set in -- and so it will be, I think, with our descendents.
I suggest the solution is not software, but brevity: keep it short; leave one 5-minute movie in which you say it all, and junk all the other emails, videos, etc. They might have time to look at that in 2082.
It seems to me that there is a need for a new pressure group or NGO to take up the rights of people who are convicted of trivial offenses online and receive disproportionate senstences as a result. Legal systems around the world are trying to adapt to the new world of the net, and overreacting to minor infringements with wildly unfair judicial sentences. But AFAIK the world of NGOs and pressure groups hasn't yet responded. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)
Who will take up this woman's case? Amnesty? No, she's not a prisoner of conscience. The EFF? AFAIK, they're too busy fighting the RIAA. So there's a need for someone to take up the cause of "proportionality in internet-related sentencing".
In this case, obviously a proportional sentence would be nothing.
But take the example of the UK hacker sentenced to 3 and a half years for writing some bad things on a memorial website a couple of months ago; there IMHO it would have been fair enough for the guy to get a week or a month in jail, but 3 1/2 years is absurd.
Viewers of porno sites is another example; I don't have a problem with stopping kiddie porn; but the jail time people are getting for looking at (and paying for) some pictures is IMHO clearly disproportionate.
People sacked for sending suggestive emails...
etc -- I'm sure we can all think of examples. It's clearly unjust -- but no-one stands up for these people. So the media continues their anti-internet hysteria, and the political/judicial system follow up with this sort of brutal sentence.
As multiple posters have pointed out, Sealand is not a country in any real sense. But what about using a ship in international waters instead? Connecting to the web via satellite? Obviously bandwidth might be pricey. But in the 60s in the UK, pirate radio stations used to operate from ships...
Well said, sir -- the best review I've read about why 1-3 went so wrong.
The only thing I'd add is that any prequel suffers from an inherent lack of dramatic tension: we know how things must stand at the close of ep 3, so a large proportion of the dramatic suspense goes out the window. Thus if he'd made eps 7-9 just as badly as he made eps 1-3, they might still have been a lot more interesting, because we wouldn't all know exactly what was going to happen at the end.
I donate to Oxfam via quirky presents every Christmas -- I buy my family goats/ condom kits/ toilets etc. The rest of the year I get sent their newsletters, which play repeteadly on one kind of story, which can also be seen in many newspapers and heard at many polite dinner tables...
"Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!"
Starbucks is big and therefore slots nicely into this story as being big and therefore evil. In the UK many nice middle-class people refuse to have Starbucks, because it's American/ multinational/ must be destroying someone's indigenous something.
IMHO this is probably a key reason why Oxfam choose Starbucks -- becuase they know "Ethiopians vs. Starbucks" a story which will resonate with their target audience.
There's just one problem with this story: it's a crude oversimplification; and if your aim is truly to liberate people in developing countries from poverty, big corporations have done a far better job than charities.
How? Through global capitalism, which in East Asia has brought about the greatest mass liberation from poverty in the history of the planet. For interesting data, check out:
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/ [undp.org]
(Click on "full report")
I'm not an expert on the situation in Ethiopia, but I find it very easy to believe Starbucks' rebuttal. My sister (unhappy recipient of various Oxfam goats etc from me) has just started work as a teacher in the UK. And was interested to note that she's being paid less than a Starbucks barista. But does this people think "oh, Starbucks pay their people well"? Hell, no -- because "Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!" remains a seductive story, almost regardless of how the big people actually behave...
Answering your question indirectly, the article says...
Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.
I leave it to others more knowlegeable to comment on whether this is convincing...
Russ Crupnick, vice president and senior industry analyst for The NPD Group (said), "Even though right now the majority of downloaded video content is adult-film content, the amount of intellectual property stolen from mainstream movie studios, networks, and record labels will continue to rise, unless strong and sustained action is taken to prevent piracy."
The implication of Mr. Crupnick's statement is that downloading adult-film content doesn't matter, even if that too is stealing intellectual property. Surely it's unfair to have one rule for movies and another for adult movies? So surely this report should lead the MPAA to come out swinging for Ben Dover and his friends?
All you have to do is wait for an illegal hunter trying to shoot the fake deer and fine him
Fine him? Fines are for wimps. The man's way to fight poaching would be to combine this dummy deer with that super cool Korean Machine Gun Sentry Robot discussed a couple of months ago. When the deer was shot at, it would return fire with its robot controlled 5.5mm machine guns. Okay, the robot sentry costs $200,000, but you could earn that back in no time by offering a website showing a live feed from the hunter-splatter-cam...
Absolutely, and for all those wannabe murderers on one's Xmas prezzie list -- the perfect way to dispose of the body without worrying about those pesky dental records...
Yes, because by simply spending enough money you can repeal the laws of physics.
Well, that was the theory behind the Strategic Defense Initiative, wasn't it? ; )
Hi Sootman
Many thanks for this extremely clear and detailed summary, very much appreciated. My girlfriend had done a little game theory, and she pointed out that, as you say, it uses the same priniciple of gameplay as the prisoner's dilemma. However, the game you describe manages to turn these principles into a much more interesting actual game, and one that can be played by large numbers of people.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to write, and have a great Christmas and new year. .
all the best .
Martin in London
For me, what makes this more than just another re-org is the depature of Lloyd Braun, a guy who green-lit Lost and was hired by Yahoo a couple of years ago to create the "Yahoo Media Group", which was going to create video content.
I was really interested in the idea of a webco serious propduicing video for online, rather than just (like youtube) harvesting user-generated content, most of which is obviously content made for TV and Cinema.
However, Lloyd Braun never really came up with anything, it appears: a recent story says "Yahoo launched Yahoo Tech, the Media Group's first major content offering". As you see at http://tech.yahoo.com/, it's a just a very normal, video-free tech-realted website. You don't need the producer of Lost to make a site like that.
He also launched "the 9" -- http://9.yahoo.com/ -- which is just a sort of user-generated content top ten. (Or nine). Again, Hollywood producers not required.
Apparently since May 06 there is now something called "Yahoo Studios", headed by another TV guy, David Katz, appointed by Lloyd Braun "to create original programs for Yahoo websites and strike content deals with entertainment companies and talent agencies". Maybe Katz will be able to come up with something.
However, by constantly hiring TV people to do this work, it strikes me they are dooming themselves to failure: the web is not TV, and Braun's departuer reflects that. But IMHO it should be possible to create good original video content for the web. Will Katz be the guy to do it?
Being "geeky" i.e. being technical/ly inventive, is not something which requires physical strength or male genitals. And given how new the field of IT is, I find it difficult to believe that the disproportionate numbers of men vs. women in IT is purely due to engrained traditions.
Okay, this particular article is ridiculous, but I'm sure we could all think of far more men able to go on a list of great geeks than women. So can we conclude that being technical/ly inventive is something that on the whole men do better?
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, sir. There was a time when "freedom of speech" was a value which at least some major political parties supported wholeheartedly. Now both right and left seem only to go for "freedom of speech - within certain boundaries which we are going to decide for you." Still, I assume you're based in the US -- at least you have a constitution which does help. Here in the UK we are much more at the mercy of "won't somebody think of the children"-type political fashions.
I agree with you -- but with the footnote that if you want to save children, you'll do a lot better by cracking down on speeding. After all, far more kids and teens are killed in traffic accidents than by paedophiles.
The problem is, it's just not as interesting. Kill a child in a car accident, it might make the inside page of the local paper. Kill a child deliberately, it's on the front page nationwide.
Having said that, it won't be easy to change this. Because humans are interested in stories. And the story of pervert rapist vs. child is just about the purest form of good vs evil story there is. Whereas traffic accidents are a boring story, no good and evil, won't get any votes.
But if one's aim is to save kids, road safety is a much more useful place to start.
On the whole I agree, but pirated disks don't remove the intro video about piracy; on the contrary, Chinese pirated disks I've seen faithfully reproduce the packaging, complete with dire warnings about piracy.
The fact that this text obviously doesn't work makes it all the more bizarre that DVDs punish customers by making them sit through often not one but two legal screens -- one about piracy, the other about how any interviews do not reflect the views of the corporation. Couldn't they at least put these on one screen? Imagine if a magazine or a website always forced you to read the legal small print before you got to the content...
IANAL but surely this legal text is irrelevant anyway? Surely no pirate could defend themselves by saying "there was no legal warning against piracy on the video so I thought I could copy it." So why bother?
But getting groupies -- or, more generally, the ability to have sex with an unfair number of desirable persons -- has been a metric of success since the stone age. One in which the tech revolution has always fallen sadly short. Of course digital media represents a far bigger communications revolution than Rock and Roll, but how does the nightlife of the average deep-tech person compare with that of anyone in a band in the 60s?
/.ers...
I for one applaud the advent of groupies for youtubers, and can only hope this is a phenomenon which starts speading fast to other persons who are active online -- starting of course with
Yes, well good point -- and while you're at it, there is Kino-Automat...
...an unsuccesful 1968 "interactive film"; which is like The Godfather compared to the appalling "I'm Your Man"
...made for Sony's disastrous early 90s interactive cinema experiment, using cinemas with laser disk players.
...but I grant you, the jury is still out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_cinema
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171392/
I fully agree that for those who remember history to avoid repeating its mistakes, there is no shortage of discouraging precedents. I also agree that interactive filmmaking attracts a steady stream of fools and charlatans.
However, I would suggest that there are some glimmers of hope:
* broadband is a stable, worldwide medium with pretty good data speeds, going to pretty powerful computers in millions of homes and offices worldwide
* sorry, you know that of course, just trying to make a point which is that the techonlogical infrascturcutre is in place in a way that was not the case before -- I don't know the tech details of CDi, but it would have been running at about 1x or 2x CD speed, I assume, so proably around 150kbps? And only going to homes with the right player installed. That's a big disadvantage.
* when you're talking about cinema, digital cinema is still not mature, but it's been rolling out fast since 2006.
* But your key point remains valid: becuase the question is whether these new media will give rise to useful and interesting interactive presentations or not. We'll have to see. A couple of encouraging sites are
http://www.subservientchicken.com/
http://www.movieactive.com/ -- which has links to UK stuff done for the National Theatre, Tate, etc.
Good point -- I agree the normal use of the term "television" is to mean non-interactive broadcast content, and what I was talking about above was live-action video delivered interactively, which is not what most people mean by "TV".
...which, as time goes by, will overlap technically ever more. But IMHO there will still be huge differences in how these screens are actually used. I suggest the key distinctions are going to be...
However, we're probably going to need some new flexibility in terms. Because there are going to be at least three basic flavours of digital screen...
* PC
* TV
* digital Cinema
* What piece of furniture is in front of the screen?
- work chair
- sofa
- auditorium full of seats
* What's the feedback device?
- TV remote
- Mouse/keyboard
- Poss mobile phones with SMs/bluetooth (for some future interactive cinema thing -- I agree very speculative, pure vapourware at the moment)
- or nothing (no doubt non-interactive movies and TV will keep going strong)
* Who's watching this particular screen?
- One person
- A small group of friends/family
- dozens or hundreds of people in a cinema
* Who's watching this show right now?
- just this person/small group, vod
- millions of people/ small groups, broadcast
With all these variations, the boundaries between what people mean by "TV", "video", "movies" etc are going to get blurred. I completely agree that shows like "Lost" will keep going -- innovative content formats are not going to wipe them out. But IMHO the whole system will get a lot more complex -- and, hopefully, more interesting.
What Gates didn't say is that one of the most important devices to bring about this change in viewing habits is going to be Apple TV. I would imagine that Jobs would agree with most of what Gates says in TFA.
IMHO online delivery will obviously have a huge effect on video watching habits: 5 years? 10? It'll vary depending on how much of an early adopter you are (or your country is), but it'll come for sure.
BT Vision, recently launched in the UK, has a quite interesting hybrid model, where one interface gives you access to digital broadcasting-through-the-air (for watching news, sports, etc) as well as to VoD and the stuff you've got on your PVR. Could solve a lot of the obvious issues around live broadcasts watched by millions crashing IP networks.
Moving on slightly -- the interesting question, I think, is whether it will change the nature of film and TV: i.e. is digital, networked video just a distribution method, or is it a new medium.
A further quote from BG, from a conference a couple of years ago...
Bill Gates: "the difference between watching TV or film and playing a video game won't be the black and white difference that it is today; soon, there will be a spectrum of shades of grey".
Now before you write this off, note the following from Peter Jackson about six months ago...
Peter Jackson: "what's interesting is...conveying stories using (digital) technology which will allow an interactive component - but they're not movies and they're not games... there should be another form of entertainment... what's interesting is the crossover"
And Guillermo del Toro (director of "Blade II" and the amazing "Pan's Labyrinth"): "in the next 10 years, narrative media will shift to a hybrid of video games and movies"..."like the shift from silent movies to talkies; some movie people will be able to make the jump, but many won't."
There's a possible parallel with the development of film: in the early days, some filmmakers thought film was basically like theatre: so in their movies, the camera didn't move, the scenery was theatrical flats, the actor's whole body was shown, there were few cuts. With time, people realised film wasn't a distribution medium for theatre -- it was a whole new medium. And with it came close-ups, moving cameras, outdoor locations, etc.
IMHO we're at a similar stage now, where people are starting to see that broadband (and possibly digital cinema, later) is not just a distribution method for traditional linear film and video, it's a whole new medium with its own unique characteristics. Like any medium, it rewards those who understand and work with its characteristics.
This does NOT mean naive (and doomed) movies where you "choose-the-ending". In broadband, it means creating pieces where, within the limits of the technology, you can converse with stars, explore artworks, listen to talks customised to your interests and level of knowledge, play beach volleyball, etc. There are a number of interactive video pieces online demonstrating that this sort of thing works.
What Gates and Jobs see as the future of video devices is just the beginning of opening up the creative possiblities of video with interactivity.
Interesting post, and thanks for introducing me to the "compare" function in trends, which I haven't seen before.
c tab=0&geo=all&date=all
However, pedantic note -- you spelled "blu-ray" incorrectly. With the silly correct spelling, the results for "blu-ray" and "hd-dvd" are roughly even...
http://www.google.com/trends?q=blu-ray%2C+hd-dvd&
But thanks again for pointing out the function.
I agree that "the most important aspect of this weapon is that it fills the gap between shout and shoot which is a big thing when you think about it"; and certainly this sort of non-lethal weapon could help prevent the "mourning war" or vendettas which (I think) you mentioned in an earlier excellent post on a related topic.
However, I do think one unintended consequence of non-lethal weapons is what we saw with Tasers when that student was expellend from the university library a couple of months ago. In that case, it seemed to me that if the guards had not had tasers, they would not have escalted to beating him with nightsticks, they'd have had to just haul him out physically. Because they had a non-lethal but very unpleasant weapons, they escalated to that wheras otherwise they might have been more patient.
Something similar might happen with this. You have an unruly crowd: rather than just wait it out as you might currently, instead you microwave them with this device. Thus the non-lethal weapon can result in more force being used rahter than less.
Having said that, if this is being used instead of rubber bullets let alone metal ones it's difficult to see the problem.
And of course it could vastly simplify the manfacture of baked Alaska ; )
Lovely post, but I think with people looking back at our generation it's going to be the other way round: there are going to be so many videos/ photos/ emails etc available that future generation will be utterly sick of knowing what we thought about various issues that by then will be of no interest.
You identify an ancestor who died at Gettysburg whose name you share -- it is is altogether fitting and proper to be interested in someone you're linked to, and who was connected to such an historic day; but what about his father whose main interest was the price of coal in the 1810s? And his father? etc. I think ancestor fatigue would soon set in -- and so it will be, I think, with our descendents.
I suggest the solution is not software, but brevity: keep it short; leave one 5-minute movie in which you say it all, and junk all the other emails, videos, etc. They might have time to look at that in 2082.
It seems to me that there is a need for a new pressure group or NGO to take up the rights of people who are convicted of trivial offenses online and receive disproportionate senstences as a result. Legal systems around the world are trying to adapt to the new world of the net, and overreacting to minor infringements with wildly unfair judicial sentences. But AFAIK the world of NGOs and pressure groups hasn't yet responded. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)
Who will take up this woman's case? Amnesty? No, she's not a prisoner of conscience. The EFF? AFAIK, they're too busy fighting the RIAA. So there's a need for someone to take up the cause of "proportionality in internet-related sentencing".
In this case, obviously a proportional sentence would be nothing.
But take the example of the UK hacker sentenced to 3 and a half years for writing some bad things on a memorial website a couple of months ago; there IMHO it would have been fair enough for the guy to get a week or a month in jail, but 3 1/2 years is absurd.
Viewers of porno sites is another example; I don't have a problem with stopping kiddie porn; but the jail time people are getting for looking at (and paying for) some pictures is IMHO clearly disproportionate.
People sacked for sending suggestive emails...
etc -- I'm sure we can all think of examples. It's clearly unjust -- but no-one stands up for these people. So the media continues their anti-internet hysteria, and the political/judicial system follow up with this sort of brutal sentence.
Time for the slashdot foundation to step in ; )
As multiple posters have pointed out, Sealand is not a country in any real sense. But what about using a ship in international waters instead? Connecting to the web via satellite? Obviously bandwidth might be pricey. But in the 60s in the UK, pirate radio stations used to operate from ships...
Well said, sir -- the best review I've read about why 1-3 went so wrong.
The only thing I'd add is that any prequel suffers from an inherent lack of dramatic tension: we know how things must stand at the close of ep 3, so a large proportion of the dramatic suspense goes out the window. Thus if he'd made eps 7-9 just as badly as he made eps 1-3, they might still have been a lot more interesting, because we wouldn't all know exactly what was going to happen at the end.
I donate to Oxfam via quirky presents every Christmas -- I buy my family goats/ condom kits/ toilets etc. The rest of the year I get sent their newsletters, which play repeteadly on one kind of story, which can also be seen in many newspapers and heard at many polite dinner tables...
"Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!"
Starbucks is big and therefore slots nicely into this story as being big and therefore evil. In the UK many nice middle-class people refuse to have Starbucks, because it's American/ multinational/ must be destroying someone's indigenous something.
IMHO this is probably a key reason why Oxfam choose Starbucks -- becuase they know "Ethiopians vs. Starbucks" a story which will resonate with their target audience.
There's just one problem with this story: it's a crude oversimplification; and if your aim is truly to liberate people in developing countries from poverty, big corporations have done a far better job than charities.
How? Through global capitalism, which in East Asia has brought about the greatest mass liberation from poverty in the history of the planet. For interesting data, check out: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/ [undp.org] (Click on "full report")
I'm not an expert on the situation in Ethiopia, but I find it very easy to believe Starbucks' rebuttal. My sister (unhappy recipient of various Oxfam goats etc from me) has just started work as a teacher in the UK. And was interested to note that she's being paid less than a Starbucks barista. But does this people think "oh, Starbucks pay their people well"? Hell, no -- because "Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!" remains a seductive story, almost regardless of how the big people actually behave...
From TFA...
"George, Harrison and I are all very excited," Spielberg said, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
I thought George Harrison has passed away? Or are they bringing him back as well as Indy? Just amazing what those boys at ILM can do...
Answering your question indirectly, the article says...
Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion. For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.
I leave it to others more knowlegeable to comment on whether this is convincing...
Russ Crupnick, vice president and senior industry analyst for The NPD Group (said), "Even though right now the majority of downloaded video content is adult-film content, the amount of intellectual property stolen from mainstream movie studios, networks, and record labels will continue to rise, unless strong and sustained action is taken to prevent piracy."
The implication of Mr. Crupnick's statement is that downloading adult-film content doesn't matter, even if that too is stealing intellectual property. Surely it's unfair to have one rule for movies and another for adult movies? So surely this report should lead the MPAA to come out swinging for Ben Dover and his friends?
All you have to do is wait for an illegal hunter trying to shoot the fake deer and fine him
/ 14/0132216 )
Fine him? Fines are for wimps. The man's way to fight poaching would be to combine this dummy deer with that super cool Korean Machine Gun Sentry Robot discussed a couple of months ago. When the deer was shot at, it would return fire with its robot controlled 5.5mm machine guns. Okay, the robot sentry costs $200,000, but you could earn that back in no time by offering a website showing a live feed from the hunter-splatter-cam...
(BTW Sentry Robot at: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11
Absolutely, and for all those wannabe murderers on one's Xmas prezzie list -- the perfect way to dispose of the body without worrying about those pesky dental records...
Yes, because by simply spending enough money you can repeal the laws of physics.
Well, that was the theory behind the Strategic Defense Initiative, wasn't it? ; )
Hi Sootman
Many thanks for this extremely clear and detailed summary, very much appreciated. My girlfriend had done a little game theory, and she pointed out that, as you say, it uses the same priniciple of gameplay as the prisoner's dilemma. However, the game you describe manages to turn these principles into a much more interesting actual game, and one that can be played by large numbers of people.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to write, and have a great Christmas and new year.
. all the best
. Martin in London
Hi Sootman
Thanks for this -- I was discussing your post with my friends last night -- we have a couple of questions, please!
* You say there were five rounds -- were the results announced at the end of each round? Did this affect the way people voted next time?
* Was it anonymous -- so if you voted red, no-one knew/ no-one would "punish" you? (However lightheartedly).
Thanks in advance for any light you can shed - and happy holidays...
Martin in London.
For me, what makes this more than just another re-org is the depature of Lloyd Braun, a guy who green-lit Lost and was hired by Yahoo a couple of years ago to create the "Yahoo Media Group", which was going to create video content.
I was really interested in the idea of a webco serious propduicing video for online, rather than just (like youtube) harvesting user-generated content, most of which is obviously content made for TV and Cinema.
However, Lloyd Braun never really came up with anything, it appears: a recent story says "Yahoo launched Yahoo Tech, the Media Group's first major content offering". As you see at http://tech.yahoo.com/, it's a just a very normal, video-free tech-realted website. You don't need the producer of Lost to make a site like that.
He also launched "the 9" -- http://9.yahoo.com/ -- which is just a sort of user-generated content top ten. (Or nine). Again, Hollywood producers not required.
Apparently since May 06 there is now something called "Yahoo Studios", headed by another TV guy, David Katz, appointed by Lloyd Braun "to create original programs for Yahoo websites and strike content deals with entertainment companies and talent agencies". Maybe Katz will be able to come up with something.
However, by constantly hiring TV people to do this work, it strikes me they are dooming themselves to failure: the web is not TV, and Braun's departuer reflects that. But IMHO it should be possible to create good original video content for the web. Will Katz be the guy to do it?
personally, I thought the "blithering asshat's" comments were the best-expressed and best-acted part of the whole video...
Being "geeky" i.e. being technical/ly inventive, is not something which requires physical strength or male genitals. And given how new the field of IT is, I find it difficult to believe that the disproportionate numbers of men vs. women in IT is purely due to engrained traditions.
Okay, this particular article is ridiculous, but I'm sure we could all think of far more men able to go on a list of great geeks than women. So can we conclude that being technical/ly inventive is something that on the whole men do better?