My loose understanding is that this won't work for HBO via CableCARD, which means I for one am still dead in the water / stuck on Windows 7. I'd be happy to hear that that's solved, but until that point MS asking me to upgrade is pointless/annoying. :\

I didn't start blocking ads until lazy ad networks started allowing malware into their system. If you can't be responsible enough to not try to destroy my system, you shouldn't be on my system at all.

:'(

--charms dev
ps it's gone now are you happy
pss <3

I was about to tell you to RTFA but then I realized that the submitter used a really poor article. His bad.

It is reportedly confirmed for Xbox 360, PS3, and "others":
* http://www.gamezone.com/products/destiny/news/bungie-s-destiny-confirmed-for-xbox-360-ps3-and-future-console-platforms

There's been mention of the 2/12 response from Broder (previous to Musk's rebuttal), but the first post-rebuttal articles are now showing up:
* http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/conflicting-assertions-over-an-electric-car-test-drive/?smid=tw-share
Plus a general line by line analysis of Musk's comments:
* http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/

If you bought a GM car and it was in perfect condition with zero miles on it forever, then your comparison would be rock star awesome.

Other purchases degrade. Software really doesn't.

Just flew this weekend and made sure to ask for a groping so I knew how it went. Wasn't that bad.

The larger question of whether they should be doing it at all definitely remains, though.

Well, my point is that our subjective personal experience of conciousness isn't scientifically explainable. I can have a good scientific, materialistic theory of why you are concious, but I can't really explain my own. I can imagine why someone made out of the same atoms as me would subjectively experience conciousness as a biological state, but that doesn't explain why there is a "me" that experiences my own. Kind of a Decart-Godel thing "I think therefore I am" incompleteness thing.

I'm not going to delude myself into some kind of mystical or theological answer for this, though. It's as unknowable as what the "first mover" of existence was.

What unproven claim are you specifically talking about here? FWIW, I'm betting on the Big Bang myself :).

I don't delude myself into thinking I've made any kind of compelling scientific argument above; I'm just describing where I got to after several years of rumination.

However, I think I'm actually pushing back on the assumption that there is some sort of ineffable soul-like aspect of conciousness as opposed to conciousness being an entirely biology-based phenomenon like digestion or smelly feet.

Well, what a blast from my college past. I vividly recall all the late night manic chat sessions trying to decode Patricia and Paul Churchland's Neurophilosophy and Daniel Dennets Conciousness Explained.

Anyway, after years of rumination, to me it's clear that:

Quantum mechanics are definitely a part of neurobiology, and hence a critical building block of conciousness. We couldn't think without quantum mechanics. But plants couldn't photosynthesize without quantum mechanics either.

The quantum mechanical properties of neurophysiology apply just as much to clams as it does to humans. And it's just as applicable to those in a coma as to those engaged in a peak experience of some sort. So quantum mechanics definitely don't explain the conciousness of humans and in lesser degrees of other species.

Conciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Most of our evolutionary ancestors weren't concious in the sense we mean it today. Our massive brains are evolutionarily adaptive. Humans pay a big biological cost in having these big brains; very difficult childbirth, very long period of helpess infancy, wide pelvises to accomodate these giant heads, and a whole lot of extra calories and oxygen needed. But we're obviously breeding like rabbits as a species, and the primary limitation on further explosions of population are conciousness-driven (deciding not to have children, and having developed the means to do so).

Conciousness is, pretty much by definition, a really thorny thing to think about and almost perfectly designed to drive philosophers and cognitive scientists into mental loops. Since conciousness can also be described as self-insight, you get into a deep virtualization question in trying to have accurate insight into how you have insight :)!

So the trickiest part about conciousness is figuring out our own conciousness! It's a lot more easy and productive to try and consider someone else's conciousness than our own. Thinking about our own conciousness can easily get to the "eye of the universe question" - even if one has a good biological theory of conciousness, why do *I* have an experience of unique selfhood? That winds up being one of those unsolvable Big Questions, like "why is there something instead of nothing." Whether the existence of existence is explained via the Big Bang or theology, there's still the unanswerable question of what was the first mover. What started the cosmological ball rolling for there to be a universe in the first place?

Well, that was my moment of peak nerditry for the day! I'm going to go kiss a pretty girl for a while as penance...

I went to WWU. Everybody in my peer CS group either had an excellent job either during or shortly after college. Many of my extended non-CS peer group also ended up buoyed by the CS department's influence and ended up in tech jobs.

My college girlfriend, who went through Woodring (the ed. department at WWU) and was expecting to teach high school Spanish, ended up as director for a major PNW tech company, making about quintuple what she was expecting to make.

WWU, a liberal arts college, does not have its core strength nor focus in CS, but perhaps the ROI there is high enough to merit some serious discussion.

Well, if we can live with "Comparing apples to apples, and throwing out quality, streamability, and all the technical standards" we'd be living on a very different planet with very different grounds for companies to decide on media technologies.

In the real world, it gets down to comparing the cost of licensing different technologies versus the costs of encode, cost of delivery, and breadth of playback for different technologies. Today, VP8 takes about 4x the time/joules to encode, 40% higher bitrate compared to H.264 High Profile (so either use higher bitrate and get lower reach and higher cost, or lower quality at the same bitrate), and isn't supported via ASIC in any shipping devices.

VP8's challenge is to get fast enough to encode, efficient enough to deliver, and have broad support enough device support to make its licensing cost difference enough to matter. As it is, the total operating costs and reach advantages of H.264 are so much lower than VP8 that H.264 licensing costs are a rounding error.

Also, Vorbis requires at least 2x the bitrate of HE-AACv2, and also doesn't have broad device acceleration.

I got the point of the original parent and was merely making clear the disconnect. The definition of "accordingly priced" seems in your view to need to be set by (or heavily influenced by) the consumer. If that's the expectation, we should enforce that expectation.

I don't know anything about the design of your DVD player, its regionality, or any of the other fun aspects of modern technology. Most Super Audio CDs probably also don't play on your CD player: do you have a moral or commercial right to make that work? What about if your CD player doesn't support HTOA? You're not getting all of the CD: what are your rights then? If a particular bitstream doesn't work because your DVD player uses an old decoder, what are your rights then? Introducing hardware into the discussion seems to cloud an already viciously murky issue.

If you're only obtaining it under the given terms, great. If (as with the OP example) you're obtaining it under ... alternative terms, perhaps that whole "compulsory licensing" notion makes one ton of sense.

That anecdote presumes that she has a right to obtain the content on her terms or prices.

If we're going to assume that her (thrifty) needs trump the plans (or lack thereof) of the copyright holders, then perhaps the law of the land should reflect that.