Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It's only fair (Score 1) 140

If those folks could just pick up a cheap Areo subscription

There won't be any such thing as a cheap Aereo subscription though.

Once Aereo starts paying broadcasters their requested fees their product will cost as much as any basic cable subscription, because the bulk of the cost of the service is the content, and Aereo needs to cover service costs and make a profit on top of that. Aereo's entire business plan (from a revenue standpoint) was based on using OTA provisions to cut out the content costs, making their only cost the service itself. The SCOTUS ruling has put an end to that.

Aereo can "win" in as much as they may be able to force the networks to negotiate with them, but that's it. And TFS got something very wrong here: the 1996 cable reforms mean that the rates are de facto set by the networks and not the government. The older statutory royalties provisions will not apply here; for various reasons this is not how business is done today, and every last cable company is now paying rates set by negotiations.

Consequently Aereo's backup plan of simply paying less than the cable companies for the same content will also fall flat on its face. They are going to pay full price, the same as anyone else, and they're going to need to find a way to structure their business around it to make it viable. Otherwise, to invoke XKCD, this is the copyright equivalent of thinking you can protect a laptop from the government with encryption. Aereo will simply get wrenched; this isn't a battle that can be won with legal tricks, as evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling.

Comment: no different than many stories here (Score 1) 172

by WindBourne (#47431139) Attached to: Peer Review Ring Broken - 60 Articles Retracted
Seriously, we read many stories here in which big deals are made of them, but as soon as I check that it has lead by Chinese Academicians (even if they are now working in the USA), I discount it. WHy? Because over and over, I see fraud in the publications, and here, I notice that many of these stories are being pushed by ACs. In a nutshell, these ppl are putting together fraudulent publications (generally, leaving out the negatives that they came across), and then marketing them to make themselves look good.

Yes, some of you will scream that I am racists, and yet, over and over and over, this occurs.

Comment: Re:Need to make SIMPLE changes. (Score 1) 387

by WindBourne (#47421803) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
First off, I said equal or exceed HVAC usage. so, yes, an averge. And yeah, we need yearly
But the idea is to get builders to change how they build. Better insulation in homes. Use aerogel in windows. Fewer Windows. Likewise, geo-thermal HVAC is IDEAL for most new buildings, which really allows for low energy usage.
And yes, if you live in the northwest, then these are all things that you will want. That way, a minimum amount of solar panels will equal your annual HVAC.

Comment: Re:Wrong (Score 1) 387

by WindBourne (#47421773) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
By making things efficient, it gives us the ability to move to other forms of energy. We need more wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc, BUT, we also need to increase our nukes. Now, Some in Europe are choosing to shut down nukes, however, as long as they drop their energy and move off fossil fuels, that is their choice. I suspect that Germany will at some point restore new nukes.

Comment: Re:Wrong (Score 1) 387

by WindBourne (#47421229) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
I agree that we have in fact, made heavy use of inefficient energy consumption.
In fact, one of our bigger wastes, are the buildings that we continue to build. That is why I have suggested elsewhere that we stop focusing on installing solar on current homes and instead, focus on making NEW places be efficient WRT HVAC. In fact, we should also require it on rentals. That stops the issue right away and allows us time to focus on slowing down the waste more.

BTW, I have also suggested elsewhere that we need to tax all goods based on where their parts come from and the CO2 emissions of those areas. But to normalize these areas, should be based on $ GDP/emissions. China has one of the lowests, while nations like sweden is one of the tops. Therefor it is better for us to get goods from Sweden, than from China. That will force nations like China to bring their emissions way down very quickly instead, of their continuing to build 2 new coal plants each week.

Comment: Hopefully, tor will file for frivilous lawsuit (Score 1) 309

by WindBourne (#47418681) Attached to: Tor Project Sued Over a Revenge Porn Business That Used Its Service
Seriously, it is good that lawsuits are happening. That will change things. For example, if a class action were to happen to target AND MICROSOFT, we would see mass changes in America over this.

BUT, when going after innocent parties, that gets old.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.