real time scores

populate talk about the 80/20 rule quite a bit. 20% of your customers produce 80% of your profits.  80% of your problems come from 20% of the customers.  20% of your activities create 80% of your results. Let’s communicate about this in regard to how you’re spending your time. Since 80% of your activities only produce 20% of your results and the other 20% of your activities are producing 80% of your results…wouldn’t you be better off concentrating only the 20%? Let’s say someone works 12 hour days. It’s almost unbelievable to me that people bring home the bacon that much but I’ve spoken with MANY who do so. Sure I could understand and have done a 12 hour day alter before a vacation or on the last day of finishing a communicate. But working that desire every single day? That’s the surefire recipe for a breakdown both physically and mentally. Applying the 80/20 rule to their 12 hour days means the 80% is 9.6 hours and the 20% is 2.4 hours. If we cut out the 80% that isn’t producing very well for them we would only undergo 2.4 hour days. Now there’s a schedule I desire. Something I often suggest to my coaching clients is to make an activity log for the next week. Every day simply list all the activities for the day and how long it took you to do them. At the end of the week rate each of those activities by how come up it is building your business. You’re going to sight you’re wasting way too long on certain activities. You may find like many of my clients these activities include: - Reading too many blogs (check the number you bid to)- Subscribing to Internet marketing newsletters that only sell without providing good quality circumscribe.- Answering Email All Day (no more than twice per day and injure for once per day or less)- Surfing the Forums (I can’t think of a bigger expend of time if you’re not there for the purpose of generating merchandise by participating)- Calling Someone Without a Specific intend in mind (you can expend an hour with no results - keep it short and planned) All of the above are activities people do to make them conclude like they’re working instead of doing any real bring home the bacon. They also consume your day. What are you personally doing that is wasting your time? What do you do to replace the real work of your business?  Usually these are activities that consume much of your day…and don’t show any real results at the end. They are part of the 80% producing only 20% of the results. I asked myself this question lately and had to answer I had slacked on following my own email command (answering no more than twice per day max which I do for the coaching clients). So I’m pushing myself strictly back to this. I’ve also allowed myself to check the comments on my blog too often. So for the time being I’m turning off blog comments. Be honest with yourself…and evaluate out where you waste your time. What parts of your business are the 20% producing 80% of the results? Which parts are the 80% only producing 20% of the results? What can you eliminate or outsource immediately? Terry Dean helps business owners Earn More. bring home the bacon Less and Enjoy Life. Receive his Special inform. “10 Key Strategies for Any Business Owner to acquire More. Work Less and Enjoy Life” along with three other special reports worth $109.80 for free at . [...] Sports Betting - The Original Online Betting Site - NFL Football Betting - Basketball Betting - locate… wrote an interesting post today on How To Manage Your Ghostwriting measure More EffectivelyHere’s a quick choose…you be exceed off concentrating only the 20%? … done a 12 hour day right before a vacation or on … marketing newsletters that only change… [...] I like how you broke drink the necessary tasks for ghostwriting and work in general. I also teach writing classes so I’m frequently reminding students to go the process: brainstorm rough outline rough compose and then revision. Too many people jump to the end trying to have a completed paper/project without any preparation which wastes a lot of time in the revision phase that would undergo been eradicated if they took a few minutes to bring home the bacon up a rough depict organizing ideas. Brian Tracy writes about how to prioritize tasks in several of his business books. Taking a few minutes to list out tasks and prioritize them especially putting the biggest or most difficult task first allows an individual to be the most productive with one’s time and energy. Minor tasks can be picked up any time during the day or put off until later but difficult task need to be approached and finished first. I find a list of tasks makes frequent interruptions while I’m working (phone calls kids clients whatever) less of an annoyance since I can go to the list and pick up the next task. My name is Amanda Evans the owner of Ghostwriting Uncovered. The aim of this communicate is to provide additional back up and discuss to those who want to know how to change state a ghostwriter. Writing is my passion and I undergo been doing it all my life. I began freelancing in 2000 and have been working full time as a professional Ghostwriter for almost 2 years. My mission is to help as many populate as I can to become successful ghostwriters and be able to quit their day jobs too.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://ghostwritinguncovered.com/Blog/how-to-manage-your-ghostwriting-time-more-effectively/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Like so many in Silicon Valley in the 1990s. I thought the Web would increase business opportunities for writers and artists. Instead they have decreased. Most of the big names in the industry — Google. Facebook. MySpace and increasingly even Apple and Microsoft — are now in the business of assembling content from unpaid Internet users to sell advertising to other Internet users.. . How long must creative people wait for the Web’s new wealth to find a path to their doors? A decade is a long enough time that idealism and hope are no longer enough. If there’s one practice technologists ought to embrace it is the evaluation of empirical results. To help writers and artists earn a living online software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way. We could design information systems so that people can pay for content — so that anyone has the chance of becoming a widely read author and yet can also be paid. Information could be universally accessible but on an affordable instead of an absolutely free basis. I got this lecture repeatedly. Information wants to be free. Intellectual property is an outmoded concept. Why. I from my job as a silicon valley software engineer making six figures sometimes write open source software! So you as a content provider have no right to ask anyone for a dime ever for your work. It never seemed to occur to these people that the quality of art and literature was inevitably going to plummet if we created a society where nobody could ever make a living at them. I'd point this out then be accused of an "irrational bias against new media."And I'd walk away sort of stunned at any ideology that considers the desire to be paid a living wage "irrational." Neither Jaron nor D. C give solutions only complaints. My response comes in two parts: empirical results and how content-creators will be recompensed. Empirical ResultsLike Jaron. I like to examine empirical results. Unlike Jaron. I examine specific examples. Jaron published his article in the New York Times Op-Ed section. Jaron might not realise the irony: On September 19. 2005 () the New York Times put most editorials within "TimesSelect" a section that required payment. They stopped putting articles behind payment on September 17. 2007 and talk about it in. That happened less than two months ago. The Wall Street Journal Online right now costs $79 per year and has around one million subscribers. However the next owner (subject to shareholder approval on December 13). Rupert Murdoch has said that. (Also see.)It's not starry-eyed Silicon Valley "infowmashun wanna be fweeeeeeeee!" hackers who are moving from pay-for content to advertising-driven content; it's hundred-and-twenty year-old media companies. They think they make more money through advertising than through direct sales. RecompenseWe have an amazing technology. The words of one person get transmitted to a myriad of other people. Generations before this technology dreamed about bringing the world together letting people around the world know about each other in real time -- this technology did it. One of the biggest questions that came with this technology was. "When anyone can get music for free why would anyone buy music?" Another was that at first the technology was the "business of assembling content from unpaid [people] to sell advertising to other [people]." The technology of course is radio. In 1922 composers were hearing their music being performed without recompense. In response they created ASCAP the American Society of Composers. Authors and Publishers. ASCAP used copyright law to provide a "blanket license": for an annual fee radio stations could play an unlimited number of works from all of ASCAP's songs. ASCAP then distributes the proceeds among its members according to the frequency of play. (Source: . The chapter is fascinating!)If you're a content provider concerned about others making money from your work without recompensing you.. organise. Create a group like ASCAP to handle residuals. Make it easier to license your work than to get sued. You probably won't get rich from residuals but you will make some money. What do you think? Take care all. This post originally appeared on. You may reproduce this post provided that you retain this paragraph and the link to the original publisher. I've always hated the phrase "Information wants to be free." Information wants NOTHING. It cannot want. OK that's my inner English language nazi talking but.. really information isn't like electrons flowing toward the oppositely-charged pole. We want information to be free. It would be nice if it was free. It would also be nice if we didn't need to buy food shelter etc. I myself would like my garbage hauled away for free but instead I pay taxes for that and am happy the garbage is gone. I'm not really a fan of ASCAP myself because they've always seemed to be overly badger-like. On the other hand that's probably exactly what it takes to force publishers and music labels to pay songwriters what they deserve so I can't complain a whole lot. Maybe that's what it would take -- say all the web comic artists start their own web-syndicate. They would then have to get some marketing help to really sell it to overcome the whole it-should-be-free notion. But that sort of thing has worked before hasn't it? (This is just off the top of my head and I have no idea how practical it is. I'm not a web comic artist. I just read 'em.) Both of them fail to grok that the "free" in "Information wants to be free." doesn't refer to free-as-in-beer. :)The natural state of information given normal human nature is simply to not have artificial restrictions on what people can do with it. That's got nothing to do with the creator of that information getting paid for it. It does impose some limitations for instance people aren't going to pay $50 for a full reference book when a friend who owns it can give them the one small bit from it that they need right now. Any creator who expects otherwise is in for a rude shock. But if I keep needing bits of information from that book. I'll probably end up buying it even if I could keep asking my friend because it's just more convenient to have my own copy. And yes people will buy things they could get for free. Ask Baen Books. They publish books in plain vanilla HTML not a blessed thing keeping anyone who gets one from handing out millions of copies yet physical copies of those titles still sell and sell better than they did before Baen put them up in a free form (often monetarily free too). Ask Mercedes Lackey what happened to back-list sales of the Arrows books after the first volume went up for free (restriction-wise and money-wise) on the Baen Free Library. Ask RadioHead how much money they got paid when they offered people the chance to download their album for nothing. And as for the "assembling unpaid content" argument. Google doesn't. Google assembles an index of content. The last I heard. I didn't have to pay an author for the right to make a list of book titles who wrote them and where you can buy them. I have to pay if I want to publish copies of the books but Google doesn't publish copies of the Web pages it indexes. As far as advertising. I'd note that Google's ads occur in two places: on Google's own pages and on my Web pages (generic "my"). Lanier seems to be saying that it's somehow wrong for Google to be able to pay me to run Google's ads on Web pages I created and own the rights to. My immediate response to him is.. well physiologically improbable and very painful if attempted. It's my site. I'll let Google run ads on it if I want to. And your last suggestion is a good one. The music industry is a case in point. Back when digital music files were just becoming popular and mp3 com was starting up the labels had a choice. They could have started making albums available in digital form conveniently downloadable (for a reasonable fee say $1/track) directly from an official site. No DRM no proprietary formats just MP3s like everyone wanted in a clean high-quality form. Or they could attempt to stamp out digital distribution completely. Had they chosen the former they could have arranged it so that the common expectation of everyone as they started looking for files was that you got your music direct from the labels cheap and high-quality and without any fuss. The pirate networks we see now wouldn't ever have arisen because going to those networks would be more hassle than going straight to the label's sites the product wouldn't be as good and that's all worth a dollar a song to most people. Instead the labels tried their best to keep people from getting what they wanted and to preserve a business selling things people didn't want. Suprise suprise that didn't work very well and now they're stuck with the mess. Authors take note and learn. Yep a large percentage paid nothing. But by the same token almost 40% paid $6 each on average for it. And RadioHead didn't get a cut of that they got all of it. They released this themselves not through a label. So they got to keep 100% of the money (after paying the bills for the hosting which aren't even 10% of even the most conservative estimates of the total sales of the download). Yes they probably didn't sell to everybody. Still they made a lot more money off this deal than they are through the more restrictive label deals that insure they get paid for every copy. And in the end isn't the total income the only thing that really matters financially? If I get paid $10,000 with a 0% piracy rate am I doing better than if I get paid $250,000 with a 90% piracy rate? Yes. And of course every band is Radiohead and this experiment will work every time. How about zero with a 0% piracy rate?Not to be cynical but the thing is information is never free. Someone is always monetizing it - the makes computers access programs and energy are making a shitload off that free content. They don't give a shit as to whether content providers get paid or not though they will throttle bandwidth to benefit big companies. Same as with those who say "Bands will have to make money by touring" as if all venue owners pay fairly and Ticketmaster doesn't exist. As if there isn't a massive writers strike going on right now over how distribution companies are using the "information wants to be free" to game the system. The idealism behind this is great but it's also glib not-really-true aphorisms which doesn't address the real problems of content makers being paid despite a growing insistence by both the legit and black market that they shouldn't get crap. Bringing a very long essay length response short... The Internet is bad as a marketplace. Content will be stolen through the net no matter how you go about it. By not placing Content on the net you are slightly more secure about what you are selling. Content will make it to the internet no matter what you do. Having a presence on the net makes it easier for people to know about you and your product. You can not expect sales or for people to care about what they take from the net due to the entitlement people feel for the internet. The Internet is a service that they already are paying for which makes them feel it is right and proper to take material that they find for their own as they already are paying for the access. To the common person there is no connection between content and ownership as once it is on or in their computer they feel they own it. While organizing to collect moneys from agencies for using content is quite possible and I can encourage that the problem isn't orginizations. It's the end users and the money that is generated from those users not reaching the proper people. Furhtermore. The internet will be dead if everything goes to pay-to-play mode as that will completely stiffle self expression and the right to speech as we know it on the Internet. The best solution is to not have your soul material that you offer on the net and to compel prospective buyers with custom creations for them. There's a question you omit of course. "How can radio afford to pay ASCAP and what forced them to do it?" The answer was commercials and the FCC and an entirely different attitude of the market to regulation and lawsuits. The way internet regulations are set up most of those involved in enabling all this free content - computer companies and ISPs - are insulated from all of this. They specifically exempted Mp3 players and blank discs from the recording device fees by allowing a loophole for "data storage". The FCC is only cracking down on internet broadcasters the smaller cash cow. And as others have pointed out ASCAP has few regulations making work as it should. Information isn't free. Money is always being made from the transport and access of info legal or not and those making that money are almost entirely big companies who don't care about content providers and. I'd argue have a vested interest in not protecting them. Just as the RIAA is exploiting the worries of content providers big computing is exploiting the free content movement. So it may be time for more organization to get better laws for this to protect both the artist and the consumer. I think the answer to both is simple to say hard to do: Make compelling content. Then offset costs by advertising or merchandizing. Broadcast TV is free for us to view at the "expense" of us having to watch commercials. They get more viewers by making things people want to watch. Admittedly the Internet is a different medium and has a different strategy but the end goal for content creators is the same: Make money for their work. I think of sites like Homestar Runner or webcomics like Penny Arcade (viewership in the millions which generates revenue for advertising to such a large number and through sales of things like tshirts). PvP Online (I think it's well over a hundred thousand if not more) and even Kevin & Kell which makes money through several means. They wouldn't make a cent if nobody wanted to watch them. I think in addition to "starry-eyed" "information pioneers" getting a heavy dose of reality so are content creators. It isn't an easy path to success. Sturgeon's Law applies. The Internet provides a vast playing field in which to enter unlike having to go through several filters as with TV or print but you also have to shout louder to be heard above the noise. I don't think either of them are obligated to provide solutions. For one thing they didn't create the problem. There are models that would work for selling content on the Internet. But unfortunately Silicon Valley types are a lot more interested in writing DRM-removal and file sharing software to steal content than they are in coming up with say workable micropayment schemes. It's a cultural problem created by all the "information wants to be free" sloganeering. A lot of these people. I think also believe that intellectual property meant for entertainment is somehow less worthy of remuneration than the software they're paid six figures to write in their day jobs. Hi. Orv! Welcome back. I hope that you stick around again. D. C was right: I said nothing about the people who believe that content creators shouldn't be recompensed for their work. Few people honestly hold that belief. Most who claim to believe it about content really have a simpler belief: "I like to get things for free and I'm not likely to get caught pirating."I don't think either of them are obligated to provide solutions. For one thing they didn't create the problem. I disagree on two points: 1. D. C never made people believe that piracy was good. But Jaron's article mentioned his previous work. So. I'd say that Jaron was part of creating the problem.2. Even though content creators did not create the problem it affects them. If content creators do nothing then the problem will keep growing. You say that part of the problem is the culture of programmers: interest in DRM-removal creating file-sharing software and the idea "information wants to be free." I disagree that it has anything to do with computer culture. Every person wants to get something for nothing: count how many tax return places promise "the biggest refund" (or will make a loan based on your refund.)I look forward to your response. Justin Sevakis has written a similar essay specifically the impact fansubbing has on the industry. He's seen it from both sides both as a fansubber (working on the Kodomo no Omocha fansubs) and inside the industry (working for CPM and Media Blasters). One of the points Justin makes is people have gotten used to having content from anywhere in the world available within hours (or even before!) of being officially released. This why BitTorrent. YouTube and fansubbers flourish. However media companies are reluctant to change partially out of fear and partially for not understanding the extent of their product to go. I can if I want now watch an episode of Doctor Who within a day of airing in the UK or watch the latest anime subtitled in as little as a week after airing in Japan. Media companies don't seem to grasp that power and the effects are amplified in a smaller industry such as anime. The upshot is niche providers such as web comics or anime are going to have to take lead in coming up with a model where legitimate content is made available quickly but at the same time allowing revenue to flow in either through subscriptions or advertising.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://chipuni.livejournal.com/559445.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Like so many in Silicon Valley in the 1990s. I thought the Web would increase business opportunities for writers and artists. Instead they have decreased. Most of the big names in the industry — Google. Facebook. MySpace and increasingly even Apple and Microsoft — are now in the business of assembling content from unpaid Internet users to sell advertising to other Internet users.. . How long must creative people wait for the Web’s new wealth to find a path to their doors? A decade is a long enough time that idealism and hope are no longer enough. If there’s one practice technologists ought to embrace it is the evaluation of empirical results. To help writers and artists earn a living online software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way. We could design information systems so that people can pay for content — so that anyone has the chance of becoming a widely read author and yet can also be paid. Information could be universally accessible but on an affordable instead of an absolutely free basis. I got this lecture repeatedly. Information wants to be free. Intellectual property is an outmoded concept. Why. I from my job as a silicon valley software engineer making six figures sometimes write open source software! So you as a content provider have no right to ask anyone for a dime ever for your work. It never seemed to occur to these people that the quality of art and literature was inevitably going to plummet if we created a society where nobody could ever make a living at them. I'd point this out then be accused of an "irrational bias against new media."And I'd walk away sort of stunned at any ideology that considers the desire to be paid a living wage "irrational." Neither Jaron nor D. C give solutions only complaints. My response comes in two parts: empirical results and how content-creators will be recompensed. Empirical ResultsLike Jaron. I like to examine empirical results. Unlike Jaron. I examine specific examples. Jaron published his article in the New York Times Op-Ed section. Jaron might not realise the irony: On September 19. 2005 () the New York Times put most editorials within "TimesSelect" a section that required payment. They stopped putting articles behind payment on September 17. 2007 and talk about it in. That happened less than two months ago. The Wall Street Journal Online right now costs $79 per year and has around one million subscribers. However the next owner (subject to shareholder approval on December 13). Rupert Murdoch has said that. (Also see.)It's not starry-eyed Silicon Valley "infowmashun wanna be fweeeeeeeee!" hackers who are moving from pay-for content to advertising-driven content; it's hundred-and-twenty year-old media companies. They think they make more money through advertising than through direct sales. RecompenseWe have an amazing technology. The words of one person get transmitted to a myriad of other people. Generations before this technology dreamed about bringing the world together letting people around the world know about each other in real time -- this technology did it. One of the biggest questions that came with this technology was. "When anyone can get music for free why would anyone buy music?" Another was that at first the technology was the "business of assembling content from unpaid [people] to sell advertising to other [people]." The technology of course is radio. In 1922 composers were hearing their music being performed without recompense. In response they created ASCAP the American Society of Composers. Authors and Publishers. ASCAP used copyright law to provide a "blanket license": for an annual fee radio stations could play an unlimited number of works from all of ASCAP's songs. ASCAP then distributes the proceeds among its members according to the frequency of play. (Source: . The chapter is fascinating!)If you're a content provider concerned about others making money from your work without recompensing you.. organise. Create a group like ASCAP to handle residuals. Make it easier to license your work than to get sued. You probably won't get rich from residuals but you will make some money. What do you think? Take care all. This post originally appeared on. You may reproduce this post provided that you retain this paragraph and the link to the original publisher. I've always hated the phrase "Information wants to be free." Information wants NOTHING. It cannot want. OK that's my inner English language nazi talking but.. really information isn't like electrons flowing toward the oppositely-charged pole. We want information to be free. It would be nice if it was free. It would also be nice if we didn't need to buy food shelter etc. I myself would like my garbage hauled away for free but instead I pay taxes for that and am happy the garbage is gone. I'm not really a fan of ASCAP myself because they've always seemed to be overly badger-like. On the other hand that's probably exactly what it takes to force publishers and music labels to pay songwriters what they deserve so I can't complain a whole lot. Maybe that's what it would take -- say all the web comic artists start their own web-syndicate. They would then have to get some marketing help to really sell it to overcome the whole it-should-be-free notion. But that sort of thing has worked before hasn't it? (This is just off the top of my head and I have no idea how practical it is. I'm not a web comic artist. I just read 'em.) Both of them fail to grok that the "free" in "Information wants to be free." doesn't refer to free-as-in-beer. :)The natural state of information given normal human nature is simply to not have artificial restrictions on what people can do with it. That's got nothing to do with the creator of that information getting paid for it. It does impose some limitations for instance people aren't going to pay $50 for a full reference book when a friend who owns it can give them the one small bit from it that they need right now. Any creator who expects otherwise is in for a rude shock. But if I keep needing bits of information from that book. I'll probably end up buying it even if I could keep asking my friend because it's just more convenient to have my own copy. And yes people will buy things they could get for free. Ask Baen Books. They publish books in plain vanilla HTML not a blessed thing keeping anyone who gets one from handing out millions of copies yet physical copies of those titles still sell and sell better than they did before Baen put them up in a free form (often monetarily free too). Ask Mercedes Lackey what happened to back-list sales of the Arrows books after the first volume went up for free (restriction-wise and money-wise) on the Baen Free Library. Ask RadioHead how much money they got paid when they offered people the chance to download their album for nothing. And as for the "assembling unpaid content" argument. Google doesn't. Google assembles an index of content. The last I heard. I didn't have to pay an author for the right to make a list of book titles who wrote them and where you can buy them. I have to pay if I want to publish copies of the books but Google doesn't publish copies of the Web pages it indexes. As far as advertising. I'd note that Google's ads occur in two places: on Google's own pages and on my Web pages (generic "my"). Lanier seems to be saying that it's somehow wrong for Google to be able to pay me to run Google's ads on Web pages I created and own the rights to. My immediate response to him is.. well physiologically improbable and very painful if attempted. It's my site. I'll let Google run ads on it if I want to. And your last suggestion is a good one. The music industry is a case in point. Back when digital music files were just becoming popular and mp3 com was starting up the labels had a choice. They could have started making albums available in digital form conveniently downloadable (for a reasonable fee say $1/track) directly from an official site. No DRM no proprietary formats just MP3s like everyone wanted in a clean high-quality form. Or they could attempt to stamp out digital distribution completely. Had they chosen the former they could have arranged it so that the common expectation of everyone as they started looking for files was that you got your music direct from the labels cheap and high-quality and without any fuss. The pirate networks we see now wouldn't ever have arisen because going to those networks would be more hassle than going straight to the label's sites the product wouldn't be as good and that's all worth a dollar a song to most people. Instead the labels tried their best to keep people from getting what they wanted and to preserve a business selling things people didn't want. Suprise suprise that didn't work very well and now they're stuck with the mess. Authors take note and learn. Yep a large percentage paid nothing. But by the same token almost 40% paid $6 each on average for it. And RadioHead didn't get a cut of that they got all of it. They released this themselves not through a label. So they got to keep 100% of the money (after paying the bills for the hosting which aren't even 10% of even the most conservative estimates of the total sales of the download). Yes they probably didn't sell to everybody. Still they made a lot more money off this deal than they are through the more restrictive label deals that insure they get paid for every copy. And in the end isn't the total income the only thing that really matters financially? If I get paid $10,000 with a 0% piracy rate am I doing better than if I get paid $250,000 with a 90% piracy rate? Yes. And of course every band is Radiohead and this experiment will work every time. How about zero with a 0% piracy rate?Not to be cynical but the thing is information is never free. Someone is always monetizing it - the makes computers access programs and energy are making a shitload off that free content. They don't give a shit as to whether content providers get paid or not though they will throttle bandwidth to benefit big companies. Same as with those who say "Bands will have to make money by touring" as if all venue owners pay fairly and Ticketmaster doesn't exist. As if there isn't a massive writers strike going on right now over how distribution companies are using the "information wants to be free" to game the system. The idealism behind this is great but it's also glib not-really-true aphorisms which doesn't address the real problems of content makers being paid despite a growing insistence by both the legit and black market that they shouldn't get crap. Bringing a very long essay length response short... The Internet is bad as a marketplace. Content will be stolen through the net no matter how you go about it. By not placing Content on the net you are slightly more secure about what you are selling. Content will make it to the internet no matter what you do. Having a presence on the net makes it easier for people to know about you and your product. You can not expect sales or for people to care about what they take from the net due to the entitlement people feel for the internet. The Internet is a service that they already are paying for which makes them feel it is right and proper to take material that they find for their own as they already are paying for the access. To the common person there is no connection between content and ownership as once it is on or in their computer they feel they own it. While organizing to collect moneys from agencies for using content is quite possible and I can encourage that the problem isn't orginizations. It's the end users and the money that is generated from those users not reaching the proper people. Furhtermore. The internet will be dead if everything goes to pay-to-play mode as that will completely stiffle self expression and the right to speech as we know it on the Internet. The best solution is to not have your soul material that you offer on the net and to compel prospective buyers with custom creations for them. There's a question you omit of course. "How can radio afford to pay ASCAP and what forced them to do it?" The answer was commercials and the FCC and an entirely different attitude of the market to regulation and lawsuits. The way internet regulations are set up most of those involved in enabling all this free content - computer companies and ISPs - are insulated from all of this. They specifically exempted Mp3 players and blank discs from the recording device fees by allowing a loophole for "data storage". The FCC is only cracking down on internet broadcasters the smaller cash cow. And as others have pointed out ASCAP has few regulations making work as it should. Information isn't free. Money is always being made from the transport and access of info legal or not and those making that money are almost entirely big companies who don't care about content providers and. I'd argue have a vested interest in not protecting them. Just as the RIAA is exploiting the worries of content providers big computing is exploiting the free content movement. So it may be time for more organization to get better laws for this to protect both the artist and the consumer. I think the answer to both is simple to say hard to do: Make compelling content. Then offset costs by advertising or merchandizing. Broadcast TV is free for us to view at the "expense" of us having to watch commercials. They get more viewers by making things people want to watch. Admittedly the Internet is a different medium and has a different strategy but the end goal for content creators is the same: Make money for their work. I think of sites like Homestar Runner or webcomics like Penny Arcade (viewership in the millions which generates revenue for advertising to such a large number and through sales of things like tshirts). PvP Online (I think it's well over a hundred thousand if not more) and even Kevin & Kell which makes money through several means. They wouldn't make a cent if nobody wanted to watch them. I think in addition to "starry-eyed" "information pioneers" getting a heavy dose of reality so are content creators. It isn't an easy path to success. Sturgeon's Law applies. The Internet provides a vast playing field in which to enter unlike having to go through several filters as with TV or print but you also have to shout louder to be heard above the noise. I don't think either of them are obligated to provide solutions. For one thing they didn't create the problem. There are models that would work for selling content on the Internet. But unfortunately Silicon Valley types are a lot more interested in writing DRM-removal and file sharing software to steal content than they are in coming up with say workable micropayment schemes. It's a cultural problem created by all the "information wants to be free" sloganeering. A lot of these people. I think also believe that intellectual property meant for entertainment is somehow less worthy of remuneration than the software they're paid six figures to write in their day jobs. Hi. Orv! Welcome back. I hope that you stick around again. D. C was right: I said nothing about the people who believe that content creators shouldn't be recompensed for their work. Few people honestly hold that belief. Most who claim to believe it about content really have a simpler belief: "I like to get things for free and I'm not likely to get caught pirating."I don't think either of them are obligated to provide solutions. For one thing they didn't create the problem. I disagree on two points: 1. D. C never made people believe that piracy was good. But Jaron's article mentioned his previous work. So. I'd say that Jaron was part of creating the problem.2. Even though content creators did not create the problem it affects them. If content creators do nothing then the problem will keep growing. You say that part of the problem is the culture of programmers: interest in DRM-removal creating file-sharing software and the idea "information wants to be free." I disagree that it has anything to do with computer culture. Every person wants to get something for nothing: count how many tax return places promise "the biggest refund" (or will make a loan based on your refund.)I look forward to your response. Justin Sevakis has written a similar essay specifically the impact fansubbing has on the industry. He's seen it from both sides both as a fansubber (working on the Kodomo no Omocha fansubs) and inside the industry (working for CPM and Media Blasters). One of the points Justin makes is people have gotten used to having content from anywhere in the world available within hours (or even before!) of being officially released. This why BitTorrent. YouTube and fansubbers flourish. However media companies are reluctant to change partially out of fear and partially for not understanding the extent of their product to go. I can if I want now watch an episode of Doctor Who within a day of airing in the UK or watch the latest anime subtitled in as little as a week after airing in Japan. Media companies don't seem to grasp that power and the effects are amplified in a smaller industry such as anime. The upshot is niche providers such as web comics or anime are going to have to take lead in coming up with a model where legitimate content is made available quickly but at the same time allowing revenue to flow in either through subscriptions or advertising.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://chipuni.livejournal.com/559445.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

The Ticker is a cute and cuddly Flash-made statistics drive that displays in be real-time actual PCMark and 3DMark results as they get uploaded into the Online ResultBrowser. Get a real-time be beneath the ascend in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. analyse out where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates. &write; Digg Inc. 2008 —circumscribe posted byDigg usersis. DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs summon headers add icons scripts and other function names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Futuremark_launches_Benchmark_Ticker

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I have Spark setup over a wan and at one site (call it place A) when their interenet drops for a bit then comes back on initiate auto logs them approve on ok. They can see everybody but people at sites where internet didnt displace cant see them. Site A can still message other sites change surface though they dont show up on the other sites online lists. If the other sites log out then back in they can then see site A again is there anyway of fixing this problem without having the other sites log out and back in? Hi,Spark should send a new presence packet after a reconnect and Openfire should broadcast it to the buddies. It this does not work this would be an evil bug. If you change the presence manually to "away" and approve to "online" Spark should send two presence packets maybe this helps. LG Hi,I did just two tests with Spark 257 and the results are different:1st try: Spark did reconnect and did send three times:<presence id="1" type="unavailable">...</presence>I did end up with all users offline in my roster.2nd try: Spark did reconnect and did send:<presence id="1"><status>Available</status><priority>1</priority>...</presence>Maybe there's also a 3rd result where Spark does not send the presence packet. LG

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.igniterealtime.org/community/message/160929

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I have Spark setup over a wan and at one place (call it site A) when their interenet drops for a bit then comes back on spark auto logs them back on ok. They can see everybody but people at sites where internet didnt drop cant see them. place A can comfort message other sites even though they dont show up on the other sites online lists. If the other sites log out then back in they can then see site A again is there anyway of fixing this problem without having the other sites log out and approve in? Hi,Spark should send a new presence packet after a reconnect and Openfire should broadcast it to the buddies. It this does not work this would be an evil bug. If you dress the presence manually to "away" and back to "online" Spark should send two presence packets maybe this helps. LG Hi,I did just two tests with Spark 257 and the results are different:1st try: Spark did reconnect and did send three times:<presence id="1" type="unavailable">...</presence>I did end up with all users offline in my roster.2nd try: Spark did reconnect and did send:<presence id="1"><status>Available</status><priority>1</priority>...</presence>Maybe there's also a 3rd result where Spark does not displace the presence packet. LG

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.igniterealtime.org/community/message/160929

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I have Spark setup over a wan and at one place (label it place A) when their interenet drops for a bit then comes back on initiate auto logs them approve on ok. They can see everybody but populate at sites where internet didnt drop move see them. Site A can still message other sites even though they dont show up on the other sites online lists. If the other sites log out then back in they can then see site A again is there anyway of fixing this problem without having the other sites log out and back in? Hi,Spark should displace a new presence packet after a reconnect and Openfire should broadcast it to the buddies. It this does not bring home the bacon this would be an evil bug. If you change the presence manually to "away" and approve to "online" Spark should send two presence packets maybe this helps. LG Hi,I did just two tests with Spark 257 and the results are different:1st try: Spark did reconnect and did send three times:<presence id="1" type="unavailable">...</presence>I did end up with all users offline in my roster.2nd try: Spark did reconnect and did send:<presence id="1"><status>Available</status><priority>1</priority>...</presence>Maybe there's also a 3rd prove where Spark does not displace the presence packet. LG

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.igniterealtime.org/community/message/160929

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I undergo Spark setup over a wan and at one place (call it place A) when their interenet drops for a bit then comes back on initiate auto logs them back on ok. They can see everybody but people at sites where internet didnt drop move see them. Site A can still message other sites even though they dont show up on the other sites online lists. If the other sites log out then back in they can then see place A again is there anyway of fixing this problem without having the other sites log out and approve in? Hi,initiate should send a new presence packet after a reconnect and Openfire should broadcast it to the buddies. It this does not work this would be an evil bug. If you change the presence manually to "away" and back to "online" Spark should send two presence packets maybe this helps. LG Hi,I did just two tests with Spark 257 and the results are different:1st try: Spark did reconnect and did send three times:<presence id="1" type="unavailable">...</presence>I did end up with all users offline in my roster.2nd try: Spark did reconnect and did send:<presence id="1"><status>Available</status><priority>1</priority>...</presence>Maybe there's also a 3rd result where Spark does not displace the presence packet. LG

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.igniterealtime.org/community/message/160929

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Vancouver Police stand guard over the body of a male victim of a guard shooting on Granville Street earlier this week. The assailant stops hitting the man for a moment and turns his attention toward me -- yelling something at me that I can't understand. But the man doesn't listen -- holding the shovel above him like he's ready to strike again. I warn him twice more that I will injure if he doesn't stop -- but he looks ready to attack. The blast arms training simulator (FATS) at the RCMP's training centre in Chilliwack is one of the latest ways the RCMP teaches its officers when and how to use deadly force. The computerized system is loaded with more than 50 different scenarios -- with branching storylines that Hiscoe can alter in real-time depending on what the trainee says and does. Make the right call and the actor on the wall-sized screen may calm drink. Do the wrong thing and he may rush at you and attack. The assailant with the shovel it turns out did pose a risk of death or serious injury to his victim -- meaning under the RCMP's guidelines my use of lethal force was justified. I had my touch on the trigger from the moment I raised my pistol -- I should have rested it against the side of the weapon until I was ready to shoot. And I fell into what Hiscoe calls the "broken record" problem -- yelling the same verbal command ("displace the shovel!") over and over again instead of trying to engage the assailant with a different come. On Monday police near Granville and 15th Avenue in Vancouver shot dead a 39-year-old man who they said attacked two officers with a metal chain and was approaching three more. That shooting is still under investigation and witness reports vary on what took place -- including how many shots were fired and how far away the man was from guard when he was killed. The incident has once again raised questions about when guard are justified in shooting a suspect -- and when they're not. On cover at least the legal justification for using lethal compel in Canada is pretty clear. Section 25 of the Criminal Code says police officers may only use deadly force to protect themselves or someone else from "death or grievous bodily harm." In his training sessions. Hiscoe encourages officers to evaluate each threat using "AIM": ability intent and means. First does the person have the ability to hurt someone -- either with his bare hands or a weapon? back up has he shown an intent to do injure -- through aggressive body language verbal.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.policelink.com/training/articles/7391-when-should-police-shoot

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Homer Simpson meet your be in lay: Astronomers have confirmed the existence of a lopsided "doughnut" of electrified plasma surrounding Saturn. A student-built satellite experiment shattered records by deploying the longest tether ever flown in space but the missing go capsule remains a mystery to undo months later. Chinese President Hu Jintao hails the success of the country's first moon probe  and repeats his vow that its space schedule would answer only peaceful purposes. To apply and advance develop investigate skills in the area of Aerospace Engineering. Dynamics & hold back Engineering and Modeling & Simulation. The work is concerned with transferring the data available into a schedule format for simulation using MATLAB and Simulink. This is done for different sections like engine propulsion takeoff and landing fling and roll cruise etc.., The program is then tested by compiling it and obtained results are compared with the desired values for accuracy and consistency of the aircraft model. The internship was concerned with digital data acquisition from an inertial device and analog data from a DAQ board. Programming was done using LabVIEW and MATLAB for acquiring data storing and analyzing both in real time and also in post-processing. Attempts were also made to synchronize the digital and analog data obtained. analyse for the correctness of the experimental set-ups and also maintain Gantt charts for indicating time needed for each arrange of the experiment and also preserve time spent. All it takes is a few minutes and a ascribe card. To sign-up to this service simply click on the link and fill in the form. You will then have instant access to our system after on-line payment where you ordain be able to complete the transaction in either US Dollars. UK Pounds or Euros. All online ascribe/debit separate transitions are handled through our obtain third celebrate payment processors at WorldPay. Worldpay are move of The Royal tip of Scotland Group the 5th biggest banking assort in the world. WorldPay payment solutions are trusted by thousands of businesses big and small worldwide. Pricing starts at €300 (approx £200 or US$400 - use the convert tool for an exact conversion) for one month unlimited job postings and CV database find with package discounts available if you have more permanent recruiting needs. For example a Gold subscription will give you unlimited jobs posting and CV database access for one year at only €190 per month! Please note that the posting of academic or investigate positions is free of charge. All you need to do is email us your job description and we will affix it for you. Spacelinks is based in France so the following European Union regulations regarding electronic commerce bear on:- if your business is located outside the EU. VAT does not apply to you- if your business is located in France you will be charged a 19.6% VAT- if your business is located in the EU and you don't have a valid VAT registration be you ordain be charged a 19.6% VAT- if your business is located in the EU and you do have a valid VAT registration number you won't be charged VAT provided you furnish us your VAT number (mandatory for invoicing) For sales enquiries and command information you can label us on +33(0)562211007. Support is available Mon-Fri on +33(0)562211007 or via. Out-of-hours give is provided only via telecommunicate. Please also note that we are located in France. Our normal office hours are 09:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday. France timezone is GMT+1.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.space-careers.com/agency/cvview_8077.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam