And that's precisely why YouTube is the go-to place even for a lot of copyrighted content: they're willing to play ball with the copyright holders (and arguably, roll over and play dead). That gives them access to a broad array of copyrighted content (like music videos) while ensuring that some revenue ends up in the hands of the copyright holder (if not the artist) by keeping out the copies.

Other sources will always be patchy; YouTube will be the go-to source. Even for material they don't wish to host on YouTube, many people will go searching there for it first, and they can provide an advertisement (such as a trailer) that links them to their own preferred site to buy/rent the content.

Others can try to break into that game by playing nice with the big studios, which heavily promote their own content and that drives a lot of eyeballs. But most people don't want to distinguish between that and the cat videos; it's all just entertainment. So unless that player is willing to put in an enormous effort duplicating YouTube's work, it's going to be a tough game to get started in.

Thanks /. for removing the - from my comment!

It may be people at work were kidding me: However, apparently it is common to drive into the sea at Talinn.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/phot...
http://www.bencoombs.net/page7...
As for temp:
Helsinki Airport recorded a temperature of 34.0 C (93.2 F) on 29 July 2010 and a low of 35.9 C (33 F) on 9 January 1987. - so maybe I'm thinking with wind chill.

I had the great pleasure of staying in Helsinki for Dec/Jan - love the Finns. It finally got down to -44 or so and there was much celebration at work as the gulf had frozen over and the booze run to Tallinn could be done by car. I gratefully declined the invite to go along for the ride.

As I understand it, they usually report peak wattage rather than total energy production. It doesn't produce anything at night, and less most of the day. So the price per actual generated kWh may be closer to 10 or 12 cents. Which happens to be right around the national average, though considerably less than most of California.

In the end, I don't think it's purely a price thing. They're hoping to have a positive impact on the world as well. But if they can do it while netting about the same price as they would have spent anyway, or even a slight bargain, that makes it a no-brainer. If it's slightly more, it's still well within their total corporate goals.

Strictly, the GP did say "ship guns". The Paris gun was a rail-mounted gun. You can go bigger when your supply lines don't have to float along with you.

Plus, you can use the entire planet for recoil. I wonder how badly the Paris gun would rock a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Yeah, I know. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not going to use it, but I will not correct anybody using it the new way.

My teeth still clench when I hear "X and I" in the objective case, but it's not worth complaining about, either. I will, however, complain about "literally" being used as a general intensifier. I know it has a long history, but there are still real-world cases where it's unclear which definition is meant, and that's a genuine problem.

"Comprised" has become spoiled, to use the lexicographer's term for it. The proper use of it ("The USSR comprised 15 republics") sounds pedantic. Improper use ("Salt is comprised of sodium and chlorine") is lame, because the word "composed" is so similar and unarguably proper. At best, they're synonyms; at worst, that redundancy looks foolish.

So it ends up being not used at all in formal speech until it has completed its turn to its new meaning. And that new meaning is going to be a slightly prissy-sounding synonym for "composed".

I'd be interested in reading the source to see what the argument is. Off the top of my head, the Irish Potato Famine strikes me as a pretty real famine. It was certainly exacerbated by political pressures, and they were growing monocultures in the first place because of the pressure for productivity. But it was a real crop failure, and they learned to reduce their dependence on a single crop.

Certainly it could have been handled better, and far fewer people would have died. But I still think the death toll would have counted as a famine, or at best a famine barely averted by aid. I'd put it in a different category from starvation caused by war or corruption. Even the Great Chinese Famine could be chalked up to politics without too much of a stretch, but there are still crop failures due to drought and disease.

Since the agricultural revolutions of the past few centuries and especially the last few decades, we're so awash in food that aid will always be stymied by people rather than lack of calories. But I'd put the tipping close closer to 40 years than 400.

The terminator gene solves the gene-spreading problem, but it introduces the problem of leaving farmers permanently at the hands of Monsanto. They are forced to buy new seeds every year.

They can, of course, opt out, but then they miss out on Monsanto's improvements. So we've got a conflict of expectations not entirely unlike Slashdot's frequent outrage about EULAs that effectively mean you don't own your own software, or even hardware.

As I understand it, most farmers buy seeds anyway, because the plants don't breed true to type. But there was particular worry about poor nations, where the farmers are closer to being completely broke, and this looked suspiciously like indentured servitude.

I'm not taking a position on the argument here, just clarifying what it's about.

They had to push that back. This is the year of Linux on the Flying Car. We'll get to Linux on the Desktop right after that.

Oh, I certainly don't: there's a permanent speed trap there.

It's conceivable that there's a reason for it. The road as a whole should be a major arterial, but it's got an awful lot of stop lights. (This is just outside of Washington, DC, which has practically no proper arterials.) At rush hour, allowing people to go faster on this section than the overall speed of the road would be worse for traffic.

What's really needed is to substantially restrict access to that road and make it a highway, though I'm sure that the businesses and residences along that road would hate it. The problem is systemic: there are no arteries and nobody wants to turn their stretch of road into one. There are zero interstates, so the roads are under a variety of local jurisdictions. I'm sure plenty of people complained to the county and state about that segment of road, but it's just a disaster for the whole region to deal with. And so it isn't.

Er, anyway, that's kinda beside the point, which is really that what's needed is for the traffic engineers to design for steady flow and for people to follow it, even if they'd be more comfortable at some other speed, especially when lanes are limited. But it's easier said than done in a metropolitan area.

It's best if people all move at more or less the same speed. It keeps them better spaced. People driving much slower than that can cause as many difficulties as people driving much faster.

We recognize the dangers of driving too fast, and most people try to keep it to near the speed limit, at least as long as the limit is set properly. Some are set very badly, and that's hazardous. You get a mix of people traveling at a safe but illegal speed with people obeying the law.

Fortunately, I've found that most speed limits aren't too badly off. I'm sure there are jurisdictions where they're deliberately mis-setting them as revenue generators, but I don't encounter many of them. (I can name one not too far from my house, where a four-lane divided road with minimal access has a 30 MPH speed limit... and a speed camera on a big downhill leg. That's going to get people killed, because everybody who knows about the speed limit jams on their brakes and goes 25. And the road is a major arterial, or it could be, if they didn't deliberately limit the flow rate so badly. The road is, of course, a nightmare at rush hour and a speed-trap revenue source the rest of the time.)

How the f*** does Inhofe get to vote "yes" on this, when he's said "it's a hoax" loudly and repeatedly in the past? He's still the chair of the Environment committee. Is there any chance that this change of heart at least going to keep him from railroading scientists?

We don't really get to ask that question. It's subsumed by the existing question about whether we're contributing significantly. Since the answer turned out to be "no", there's no point in asking the next question.

Mind you, "no" is a stupid answer, but that's the point. There's no way to discuss the right question, because we're still too busy being stupid about the wrong question.