T.V. is Dying

After being taken over by the big surplus in vidcasts, podcasts, iTunes selling t.v. shows and much more, I'm totally convinced that normal television broadcasting as we know it is handing in the towel. Just think, (and I've formulated this opinion by listening to other people talk; I believe this is how most people get their opinions) that if companies, like NBC for example, broadcast all their shows on the Internet instead of normal t.v., the ratings would be even higher than they are today.

In today's television world, the major broadcasting companies make about 1/20 of a cent for each viewer watching their specific program. Now due to Apple's iTunes, people are willing to pay 2 bucks to keep a video. This has raised the amount of viewers of the actual programing and gives the company a profit for each download. Remember, you can still tape shows off of t.v with a standard recording device at no cost. These companies could decide to put all the shows out for free on the Internet (like broadcasting today) and make a smaller profit but on an ENORMOUS amount of viewers.

I think this is where we could be going. Could be wrong; sources could be wrong. I was struck by this idea and felt that I wanted to share with all my friends on the Internet. I'm sure you all care. Are you sure you care?!

technorati tags: t.v., iTunes, NBC, broadcasting, podcasts, vidcasts, profit, Internet, Apple, death,

Captin Solo is Frozen...in Legos?

LEGO Life Size Han Solo Frozen in Carbonite - 10,000 Bricks!Friday, April 22, 2005 - 82 Comments - LEGO Life Size Han Solo Frozen in Carbonite - 10,000 Bricks Nathan Sawaya is a professional LEGO artist and former LEGO Master Model Builder and he spent 3 months constructing a 10,000 piece, life size (6-foot-tall) replica of Han Solo Frozen in Carbonite almost entirely out of dark gray LEGOs.Forget those silly jigsaw puzzles. When you need to waste some time, go and get out all your old LEGOs and build some new worlds.Note to the LEGO Company: I WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THIS!

The Green Head - The Cool Stuff: LEGO Life Size Han Solo Frozen in Carbonite - 10,000 Bricks!

I had to post this! This is pretty creative. Patience does pay off.

technorati tags: Han Solo, Star Wars, Lego, carbonite

Say, "Cheese"...Click! Snap!

If you can see it, you can shoot it

Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits — using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn't covered — but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period.Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film. Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you, and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse. Cool. (For details, see "The Photographer's Right.")It gets better.You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.

It makes me want to go to a mall and take pictures of random people. At least it gives us some leeway. With all this technology coming out I really want to be more artistic with my photography.

Now should I get a digital camera? I'm kinda stuck in my old ways with my dad's manual but after seeing a demo of the new Aperture program for Mac OSX Tiger I 'm beginning to change my mind. If anybody has some good references on photographers let me know. I'm interested in textural pictures, primarily from a zoom or dealing with depth perception with a wide angle.

USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it

Population size and the Environment "Cinderella Story"

By Richard BlackEnvironment Correspondent, BBC News website Chris Rapley in Antarctica. Image: British Antarctic SurveyPopulation has become the Cinderella of the sustainability debateChris RapleySolving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six billion is unsustainably high.Writing for the BBC News website, he says population is the "Cinderella" issue of the environmental movement.But unless it is addressed, the welfare and quality of life of future generations will suffer, he adds.Professor Rapley's comments come in the first of a new series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room."If we believe that the size of the human [ecological] 'footprint' is a serious problem, and there is much evidence for this," he writes, "then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed." Read Chris Rapley's columnA number of studies suggest that humankind is consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainably fast rate.Even so, the issue of population is hardly ever discussed at environmental summits or raised by green lobby groups.Professor Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey, acknowledges it is a thorny question, invoking the spectre of forced population control and even eugenics.He does not make suggestions about how the current upward trend, from the current six billion towards eight or nine billion by 2050, can be reversed.But, he says population is one of a number of issues leading to environmental degradation of various forms, and needs a higher priority than it currently receives."Unless and until this changes," he writes, "summits such as [the recent climate change meeting] in Montreal which address only part of the problem will be limited to at best very modest success, with the welfare and quality of life of future generations the ineluctable casualty."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Population size 'green priority'

This raises the question of "what direction we should take?" and "what should be the priority?" I agree that the population is an important problem but after reading some articles in this past September issue of "Scientific American," I think the population problem will work out for itself. Don't forget, this will not be perfect and will come with many problems. Environment seems like a more "thorny" topic and should be addressed sooner. It seems like our political leaders are dragging their feet.