There is nothing scientific about this clock, and most scientists would surely admit it. It is political and is meant to sway public opinion. So what we have here are either a) fake scientists, b) real scientists shooting themselves in the foot, or c) politicians.

The whole point of the scientific method is to be grounded on evidence and be void of any political, social, or even personal biases. I have nothing against this silly clock, but as long as science lends its name to garbage such as this, science will always have a hard time in politics claiming itself to be scientific.

Right. Except, taxes is what is redundant in that statement. A chosen few allowed to dictate citizen behavior is government.

Taxes are just one tool. I agree keeping money out of how they dictate citizen behavior is a good thing, but that would entail not only taxes, but fines, criminal fines, and even how government deals with traffic violations....

A collection of monies imposed by law is almost always in the picture.

This is a very common reaction: Deny categorically, the category or entity associated with my experiment (or experience).

You can read reviews that exemplify this all the time. "I got screwed so I will never ever use them again. 1 out of 5." Will you always get screwed? Have you always been screwed? Will anyone reading the review get screwed? Not necessarily. Ergo, Verizon (insert your favorite company) survives.

In any case, the blunt interpretation here is he created a spam site with problems, got complaints, and hardly anyone paid.... This really has little to do with freemium, and everything to do with why his venture failed... It sucked.

On the topic of freemium, if a service is valuable, people will pay for it. There is no denying premium as a model. If a service is free, people will try it. There is no denying the free model either. If any service provides both free and premium services, it is by its very nature freemium. And with such a scheme so easy to setup with web based services, freemium will never go away, nor should it. Always offer what you can for free. It works, and there is no doubt about it.

Beautiful. And under these terms, the human right in questions is "the right to know".

I have the right to know. I cannot be punished for what I already know, nor should I be banned from knowing what there is to know.

This isn't in the constitution, nor is it in anyway upheld by any government. But ironically, it is what is being upheld by the internet, aka the people. And that too... is beautiful.

Parent has a strong case, but a) some people don't want to learn, and will never learn, and b) DSLRs are huge and expensive.

So MIL cameras fit right in the void. Even professional photographers carry portable cameras, and mirror-less construction is an honest breakthrough in cutting the form factor without compromising the sensor size.

I own a NEX5, and it is the best camera Sony has put out in a VERY long time. And it has really helped Sony revive the reputation of their cameras.

When choosing photo quality, the size of the sensor and the lens are the 2 biggest components. Everything else helps, but can never make up for these two components. And the screen shows you what you are shooting, and what you just shot, so the specs of the screen are extremely important. The NEX5 screen is huge, hi-res, and tilts. This means you don't have to be looking straight at the screen to view it properly. Overhead shots are a breeze, and no more bending your knees with tripods. The video is amazing too, and has its own button.

With its small form factor, proper lens, huge sensor, tilting LED screen, and HD video, this camera was an instant hit. It can also take great shots with little light.

The only nag is its controls. They are oversimplified, and the advanced features are buried in menus. If the shortcuts aren't what you use, there is no changing them, but they do cover most use cases.

The best part though, is my aunt was able to pick it up and use it right away. So without a DSLR camera, almost anyone can enjoy DSLR photos, without the weight, the geeky look, and any prior knowledge of photography.

It's been a while since the NEX5 was released, and there are a lot of MILCs now. The screens have all gotten better, and HD video is pretty much a given. At this point I am sure there are other comparable offerings from other brands, but there is no doubt in my mind that the NEX5 was a trailblazer in the MILC market.

My New Years Eve.

I was playing around with a digital antenna to get a sub channel. One reason why I quit cable was because they weren't required to support them... I wanted to watch Kohaku on UTB 18.2 Hollywood. I am forced to use this piece of trash since it was all they had at bestbuy. It literally has 1.5 out of 5 stars. As I ask myself why I am moving this box around the room having to scan for channels in this day and age, I give up because the digital channel in MY NEIGHBORHOOD isn't picked up by the scanner no matter how hard I try, given the limitations imposed by the length of the power cord and the random antenna I chose.

I'm thinking, good thing I picked up a Roku box while I was at bestbuy for plan B... I heard about it, and just assumed it was a smart device that would magically find content given it is online. Felt like there were a few unnecessary steps, but I get it to work, only to find that it just has a bunch of youtube-like channels, but no youtube!? No access to any of the upload sites. WTF? If I wanted Angry Bird I'd just get the app, thank you. So what is the hooplah? The channels suck.

I hop online to lookup Roku alternatives, thinking I must have been thinking of something else... Find Boxee, and figure that must have been the magic box. I find I don't even need to buy one. I can just install it on my computer. Brilliant!

90MB download, installed, I try to run it, "dll not found". Silence. It turns out you need to install DirectX manually, but at this point if my Windows 7 doesn't support it, and no one cared to mention it during the install, I figure Boxee doesn't deserve any more attention.

So I end up just hooking up my PC as is to the TV... Shit, it works. I can watch anything. Brilliant!!!

What are all these boxes really about!?!? ...my last WTF and OMG moment of 2011.

Is this phone cheaper? Who is buying this phone? Who is selling this phone to whom and how?

Early Android sales was much about competitors "getting something comparable to an iphone to sell" as it was about consumers "getting something comparable to an iphone on their network".

One cannot just look at product to explain sales.

Firstly, this over-generalization of scientific productivity by age group is completely irrelevant unless we are having some age group contest. Scientists do extremely specific work, none of which is ambiguous. Specificity is part of the craft. A scientist who is ambiguous about their research hasn't gotten anywhere.

Secondly, the nature of research and publication, as well as their cycles, are vast and highly dependent on the scientific community that surrounds that research, as well as the environment in which that research is being done. For example, imagine a Physics professor at an ivy league university, and compare him with a chemist that works in a lab at a giant corporation. Most universities conducting research are open and public, aiming for advancement in the field. Most corporations conducting independent research are secretive, aiming for patents and advancement in their respective markets. Scientific productivity is as much the result of a community or group as it is the product of any one man's talent or inspiration.

Finally, these inferences into how the behavior of a young scientist differs from an old scientist are stereotypical, and would only contribute to prejudice at best. Any scientist with real talent would most likely be aware of it, and it is that awareness that matters more than any age bracket. Scientists know when they are on to something. They tend to believe strongly in their work, regardless of age. That belief is what is important and it can be measured.

I agree with you in spirit, as do many others, and with much of what you said, although I have slightly more respect left for the status quo I think.

The problem with changing the system is that it isn't about reasoning or science. Unfortunately it is about politics, and when it is about politics it is about money. We need to make money speak, and to do it, we need to make money.

The pharma industry is built on patents, and the music and entertainment industry on copyright. They are all insanely rich thanks to IP law, and they will protect those laws til their demise.

First, everyone believes they have to own something to sell it. Until that belief changes, we will still be hogging our MP3s and "stealing" data that can be freely copied infinite times. It is as childish as playing house with sand castles. Too bad they make a real living out of it.

Second, we must solve the money problem. Until a new system is in place that makes more money for these so-called "innovators and creators", no legal change will happen. In fact, regardless of what they believe, if a new system makes more money than the existing system, there really is no contest. All those who were in favor of the current system will suddenly be rapping about how great system B is. All corporations want is money.

Free software won a generation over, but it failed to convert IP into money. It was the first step of the above 2. Programming makes it obvious... Every bit is the same. Every bit can be copied. Those who claim to own certain bits impede the progress of other bits.

Unfortunately free software didn't really care about #2. And that is fine. They really just cared about programming... which definitely worked in their favor winning people over. They did it for the love of the game, so to speak. Eventually money was found servicing free software but that is still not the same as monetizing IP or the software itself. Case in point, the music industry doesn't sell customer service. They would never be able to.

... is precisely the bottleneck. The throughput of one person or one entity is minuscule in comparison to the entire intellectually innovative population, and because of sole ownership, no one can build on any of these "publicly disclosed" ideas. They are public as a reference of "what you may not do without our permission" and not "what we now know how to do, feel free to run with it".

But ownership is what drives capitalism, and no ownership is not necessary. What is necessary is "freedom of use" and "fair trade" together with "ownership". I should be able to sell a car based on Google's patent (assuming it is thorough enough, which it isn't) and feel comfortable with the percentage of sales the law dictates I owe Google for my "source of expertise and inspiration". This would accomplish "freedom of use". The missing piece would be regulation of trade so that it is "fair". For example, people wouldn't be able to sell something at a loss, and they would be required to profit. This is similar to the tax laws that require "fair compensation" so that even if a corporation owes little or no taxes, payroll taxes would still be collected.

Innovation evolves, grows, and stacks. The moment someone has full claim to one brick and what can be built on top of it, construction grinds to a halt, and all the innovative builders are sent away, resulting in everyone working on their own tiny little houses which is exactly what is happening today.

Patents should be a contribution to the community, with the community dictating what fair compensation for that contribution may be. Not contributing or not sharing should not even be an option, yet that is the compensation. It is totally backwards. Those who file patents should get paid, not have to pay. Those who invent shouldn't be burdened with monetizing their ideas.

Building something together requires sharing ownership. The hogging of intelligence keeps everything primitive, and fighting in court over who came up with something first or whether someone "stole" an invention is the primitive behavior the whole system encourages.

(sorry for the rant)

No one should have the right to prevent someone from using a solution or an idea. The problem isn't with patents existing, it is with their restrictions on re-use and elaboration by other people.

When someone claims to have invented something, they're just hiding their sources of inspiration. If we all made our sources open, then we would have so much more to "invent".

Anyone should be able to use anything and profit. Instead of it being about ownership and theft, it should be about free redistribution, transparency, and paying it backwards to those you owe credit.

Innovation is only a small part of how businesses grow and make money. Kodak was deep in the film photography business... everything about the industry and everything about the company in someway had a connection. These connections and channels of revenue are built, established, then reinforced with assets. This is a process that takes decades. And as long as there are sales, it all works. When the well dries however, the whole ecosystem collapses, and innovation has little to do with it. It's all about damage control, and making up for it elsewhere.

Digital is a completely different beast than film. Kodak started at square 1 with digital cameras, as did everyone else. Those who are winning in the digital photography space have little to owe to their film camera roots... apart from maybe their brand recognition. Digital cameras are computers with a lens. They require sophisticated software from firmware to computer software for the users... It's insanely more complex. And the catch? They can't sell anymore film, development and production costs are higher, and margins are slimmer.

  In Kodak's case, they probably couldn't make up for it even if they became #1 in digital cameras. Their old corporate infrastructure, all their assets, and everything they knew how to do well would have had to go, and if that is what equals Kodak, then honestly nothing could have saved them.

Well, I'm mainly talking about the Japanese console gaming industry. Games will never go away, so if you're a competent dev house then there will always be work. But who is really making money and how?

Sony bet biggest on online distribution with their PSP Go which was a catastrophe. So if console games aren't being distributed online, and the storefronts are shrinking, that is a sign of major turmoil. That's really all I am saying. And if you prefer the Wall Street perspective, an industry that isn't growing is as good as dead.

Microsoft is winning right now, but it isn't really because of good titles or better games (they come out on ps3 also), but more due to the success of xbox live.

As for gaming cycles, ps = 1994, ps2 = 2000, ps3 = 2006, ps4 != 2012.

Although overall sales will always be good in some form or another, the blockbusters will take up more and more of the pie, and the titles that fail to brake even will continue to increase. The fact that most hits are sequels already proves that new innovation that leads to uncharted success is becoming rarer than ever before. And uncharted territory is where real growth is at.

There is just too much work between idea and release.

I can't end with a little sarcasm?

Facts: Been going for 25 years. Last time I went, a lot of the stores I remembered were either gone, or their game section was half the size. Didn't see new stores replacing them either. The used game stores have all had a hard time and sell more DVDs and game cards now to make ends meet. Game sections of major electronic stores like Yodobashi and Bic Camera have all shrunk. Titles released for XBOX and PS are fewer and further between with more sequels and less publishers. Bandai merged with Namco. Square merged with Enix. Tecmo merged with Koei. Publishers often mask the state of their development studios, but at lower levels it gets worse. Many development houses focus on one game for years, and if their game fails, they fail with it. SNK failed. Sega failed. Midway failed. As a recent example Team Bondi of LA Noire failed. Every time the next generation of consoles come out, huge consolidation and failure occurs. A lot of companies fail to scale up their capabilities to meet new development demands.

So now it's more like making big budget movies: huge costs and lengthy development cycles that carry fatal risks. Obviously the industry will never go away, but it definitely isn't how it used to be. ... and I'm mainly referring to console games.