The difference is that those cards (if you're talking about collector cards, correct me otherwise) have value in their uniqueness. e.g. this Ronaldinho card with the low identifier 34 is one of only 50 similar cards printed. People buy several stacks of football cards, hoping one of them will contain a really rare card. I'm not going to buy several copies of the same CD just to get the really rare autographed picture!
Sure, there are lots of ways to monetize on artists other than selling their CDs. Concerts, t-shirts, posters, etc. are all good ways. But CDs themselves are not.
As a wired article recently stated: if the marginal cost of something is zero, the price will eventually be zero.
Forget bundling with CDs. Unless you want to sell "collector" CDs that have been signed (which I'm sure there's an albeit limited market for), selling plain CDs are not going to remain a profitable business.
This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.
I assume that by "symbolic" you mean that it creates a precedent (if there isn't one already) to add to the existing case law. IANAL (but soon to be law student), but I think an RIAA victory in this court, even if appealed, will make things harder for the defendant and anyone else in the same situation currently or in the future (until overruled).
As an Math undergrad I must say that all my teachers have a deep understanding of the things they are trying to teach me. Unfortunately, some teachers have problems relaying that information to me in a way that I can understand it and that's the major difficulty with teaching.
I agree that does not fit the old saying of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".
However, what your statement does reflect in my mind is the attitude that a lot of universities have - especially the major research universities - of hiring professors with a much greater focus on their research than on teaching. Universities have incentives (both monetary and reputation) to do so, but in the end it is often hard to find a prolific researcher who is also good at teaching.
That's also why at certain universities, you find the professor doesn't even have time to teach, and most classes are taught by teaching assistants, who are either Ph.D. students or upperclassmen - and in my mind, that's not what your tuition is supposed to go to.
That's one of the reasons I did not go to a powerhouse research university, but picked a college with a reputation for having professors involved in their students' work.
I'm not saying there is no malware for Macs, but of the 5 you listed, only one of them is really *decently* hidden, the last one that can be found in a pirated copy of iWork 09.
All the others require the user to either accept a transfer or installation and in several cases even type in his root password. And for the one that came in the pirated iWork 09 installer, you're downloading pirated software - not the most trusted sources, imho.
To quote one of the articles (the second one you listed):
This is not a virus, and users must actually launch the app for it to install its payload. [...] Many Mac OS X-based malware seems to be similar in nature, requiring users to actually launch the installer and give it permission to install the payload. Unlike Windows-based malware, you shouldn't need to install any anti-malware apps to annoy you and slow down your Mac. Just make sure to follow the basic rules of Internet safety -- don't install applications that aren't legitimate or visit Web sites that you don't trust.
Sure, there is malware for Macs, but there are a lot fewer things that automatically install when you open an email or visit a website.
then what you are doing to converting otherwise solid carbon (== not a problem for global warming) into gaseous carbon (== a problem) and that would not be carbon neutral.
So we have...
1. Convert plant material (containing solid carbon) to fuel
2. Convert fuel to energy and exhausts (containing gaseous carbon)
What we need is a step 3:
3. Grow plants/algae/etc. that convert gaseous carbon to solid carbon
In this case it appears we need step 3 to produce cellulose.
So as long as your factory - in addition to converting the cellulose to fuel - is also creating the cellulose using photosynthesis (and taking carbon from the air), it's likely you're carbon neutral.
Take carbon from air, convert to fuel, exhaust to air, repeat.
You've got some work to do before you can convince me or anyone that demographic homogeneousness (it's a real word hones' guvna) has anything to do with whether you should look after your citizens or not.
I wouldn't argue that. As I said, "personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education". And to use your words, I completely believe you should look after your citizens, regardless of demographic homogeneity (that is a word). I just don't think it's as easy in less homogeneous countries, and you can't just say "the way they do it in Sweden works for Sweden so it'll work for us".
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means.
I agree that Denmark, Norway and Sweden are good examples of quite successful socialism. This being said, I don't think you can just apply the same system to any country. One of the reasons these countries have been so successful with socialism is because they're very homogeneous. You can argue that recent (past 10 years) waves of immigration have partly erased this homogeneity, but it'd be foolish to imply that Scandinavian countries aren't still way more homogeneous than for instance the U.S.
Personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education - I just think it's much harder to accomplish in the U.S. than just saying "let's copy Scandinavian countries".
Also making an appearance is the Dell Dock, which despite the Mac-like connotations of the name is no more than a prettied-up program launcher which slides in and out from the top of the screen as needed. I can see this appealing to average users who may even take the time to customise it with their own groups and program shortcuts, but it says something about the Windows OS that Dell feels the need to add another launcher to the desktop.[...] Dell Dock: it looks a little Mac OS-ish but is really just a shortcut bar for launch your most-used apps
Is it just me, or does this thing look exactly like the Mac OSX dock, and perform a very similar function?
Given the recent patent, which Apple received for the dock, I wonder if this represents a patent infringement (or if Dell has licensed it)?
I just got done reading an article about the Economic Panic of 1873 and how that depression more closely resembles what's currently happening. This might explain why Bryan was talking about bank failures. It was still fresh in their minds.
Let's face it, these guys are either smarter (maybe not in all aspects, but with respect to their work) or more devoted to their work than you are, and that's why they succeed and are paid huge salaries. No need to be bitter.
Well, I wasn't only referring to the Ivy League, but the top MBAs in general, many of which aren't Ivies.
You make a fair point that there are still a lot of inequalities with respect to race and gender mostly. But you have to consider the recent (last 10 years) affirmative action applied by these schools.
In a way, I'm *technically* opposed to affirmative action, because I believe it occasionally gives someone who is less qualified an opportunity at the expense of another more qualified, simply because of a genetic trait such as gender or race. This being said, I completely recognize the inequalities in our society, and believe in the need for affirmative action, at least until the inequalities can be reduced.
And looking now and the people graduating from these programs, there IS a great diversity in these schools. Most importantly, a much greater diversity in the graduating class than in the application pool.
But regardless, I think my comment still stands. Those who get into the top 10 MBA programs are often brilliant. And no, I don't have an MBA or any graduate degree for that matter, so I'm not speaking for myself.
You have Ivy League Full Time MBA. These tend to make the biggest Jerks of bosses. These Kids think they are special and entitled and tend to treat people under them like dirt while they bring the company to the ground.
Next it is the Ivy League Part TIme MBA. These guys often have real business experience and know what it feels to be the little guy. But being from such a well known school they still often get high end jobs much quicker then their experience shows and still kill the company.
Wow, someone here sure sounds a little frustrated.
You fail to consider that what you call "Ivy League Full Time MBAs" have an average age of 27-28, meaning generally 5-6 years of business experience. Also, given the tough requirements to get in to one of the top 5-10 MBA schools (I'm sure you weren't only referring to Ivies, but also for instance Sloan, Stanford and Kellogg), these are already overachievers by the time they start their MBA. They've already climbed fast, worked their asses off, and gained much more experience than most people. And they're smart.
I'm pretty sure that if graduates from top MBAs consistently ran companies into the ground, companies wouldn't be hiring them, and they wouldn't be top MBA schools anymore.
Let's face it, these guys are either smarter (maybe not in all aspects, but with respect to their work) or more devoted to their work than you are, and that's why they succeed and are paid huge salaries. No need to be bitter.
For people who are still struggling to understand what's going on with the whole financial crisis, here's a great primer I was directed to:
Subprime Primer.
It's a very simplified explanation of what's happened. From what I understand, it all comes down to everyone believing that real-estate value wouldn't stop rising.
Except that if I remember correctly, that investment was made by the American people via tax dollars. That's kind of important to remember.
That just isn't correct. For the ancient copper networks laid in the time of the Bell Telephone Company, you are right this was government funded and the RBOCs still own the rights of way. But that's not where most of today's communication goes.
Modern networks - and I believe practically all cable networks - were funded by the cable companies themselves, which is in part why it took so long to build out cable in many areas. For instance, Baltimore didn't get cable until the 90s, whereas more affluent suburbs had cable in the 80s.
Fiber networks (metro and longhaul) have also been funded by the companies laying them out, and not by taxpayer money. For instance, all of Verizon's FiOS investments are funded by Verizon, without government funding.
The only exception to this are RLECs, which have been funded in part with USF (Universal Service Fund) funds, through which non-rural customers pay a USF fee to subsidize the rural customers. It's not tax money, but it's money that all of us pay and it goes to the RLECs. USF-funded fiber builds are a minuscule portion of the fiber builds, and metro fiber and longhaul fiber make up virtually all of the fiber - neither of which are paid for by taxpayer money.
This being said, it would be incorrect to say that the government does not play a role. The government gives "rights of way" to these companies (similar to railroad companies - is it surprising that Sprint was born out of the Southern Pacific Railroad?), which in effect makes it much cheaper for these companies to deploy their networks (otherwise they would have to buy lots of real estate!).
So yes, the government has a hand in this, but no, you didn't pay for cable or fiber networks.
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment."
So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.
I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but just because he says they should be able to make profit on their investment doesn't mean they can "do as they see fit."
In fact, I'm not sure what you meant by "do as they see fit". But I can tell you that if companies aren't allowed to make profit from investments in fiber, there aren't many companies that are going to see a point in making such investments. And then the only way we'll see any fiber build-outs is through the government, and I'm not sure that's the best thing.
Maybe you didn't provide enough of a quote, and what you said is true, but the way I read it here your quote does not imply your conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't looked into this, but I would guess that probably wouldn't be much better than just the thrust provided by the fan, correct?
The difference is that those cards (if you're talking about collector cards, correct me otherwise) have value in their uniqueness. e.g. this Ronaldinho card with the low identifier 34 is one of only 50 similar cards printed. People buy several stacks of football cards, hoping one of them will contain a really rare card. I'm not going to buy several copies of the same CD just to get the really rare autographed picture!
Sure, there are lots of ways to monetize on artists other than selling their CDs. Concerts, t-shirts, posters, etc. are all good ways. But CDs themselves are not.
As a wired article recently stated: if the marginal cost of something is zero, the price will eventually be zero.
Forget bundling with CDs. Unless you want to sell "collector" CDs that have been signed (which I'm sure there's an albeit limited market for), selling plain CDs are not going to remain a profitable business.
I've scanned your signed picture and posted it on bittorrent. Enjoy!
This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA.
I assume that by "symbolic" you mean that it creates a precedent (if there isn't one already) to add to the existing case law. IANAL (but soon to be law student), but I think an RIAA victory in this court, even if appealed, will make things harder for the defendant and anyone else in the same situation currently or in the future (until overruled).
As an Math undergrad I must say that all my teachers have a deep understanding of the things they are trying to teach me. Unfortunately, some teachers have problems relaying that information to me in a way that I can understand it and that's the major difficulty with teaching.
I agree that does not fit the old saying of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".
However, what your statement does reflect in my mind is the attitude that a lot of universities have - especially the major research universities - of hiring professors with a much greater focus on their research than on teaching. Universities have incentives (both monetary and reputation) to do so, but in the end it is often hard to find a prolific researcher who is also good at teaching.
That's also why at certain universities, you find the professor doesn't even have time to teach, and most classes are taught by teaching assistants, who are either Ph.D. students or upperclassmen - and in my mind, that's not what your tuition is supposed to go to.
That's one of the reasons I did not go to a powerhouse research university, but picked a college with a reputation for having professors involved in their students' work.
All the others require the user to either accept a transfer or installation and in several cases even type in his root password. And for the one that came in the pirated iWork 09 installer, you're downloading pirated software - not the most trusted sources, imho.
To quote one of the articles (the second one you listed):
Sure, there is malware for Macs, but there are a lot fewer things that automatically install when you open an email or visit a website.
It's a lot harder than you think to hit a mosquito with a chair.
The US (USAF?) does need a major overhaul of its nuclear handling policies; this crap would've never flown under SAC.
You don't even have to read TFA - the summary tells you this happened in 1968. That was under SAC.
then what you are doing to converting otherwise solid carbon (== not a problem for global warming) into gaseous carbon (== a problem) and that would not be carbon neutral.
So we have...
1. Convert plant material (containing solid carbon) to fuel
2. Convert fuel to energy and exhausts (containing gaseous carbon)
What we need is a step 3:
3. Grow plants/algae/etc. that convert gaseous carbon to solid carbon
In this case it appears we need step 3 to produce cellulose.
So as long as your factory - in addition to converting the cellulose to fuel - is also creating the cellulose using photosynthesis (and taking carbon from the air), it's likely you're carbon neutral.
Take carbon from air, convert to fuel, exhaust to air, repeat.
You've got some work to do before you can convince me or anyone that demographic homogeneousness (it's a real word hones' guvna) has anything to do with whether you should look after your citizens or not.
I wouldn't argue that. As I said, "personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education". And to use your words, I completely believe you should look after your citizens, regardless of demographic homogeneity (that is a word). I just don't think it's as easy in less homogeneous countries, and you can't just say "the way they do it in Sweden works for Sweden so it'll work for us".
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means.
I agree that Denmark, Norway and Sweden are good examples of quite successful socialism. This being said, I don't think you can just apply the same system to any country. One of the reasons these countries have been so successful with socialism is because they're very homogeneous. You can argue that recent (past 10 years) waves of immigration have partly erased this homogeneity, but it'd be foolish to imply that Scandinavian countries aren't still way more homogeneous than for instance the U.S.
Personally, I do believe in socialized healthcare and education - I just think it's much harder to accomplish in the U.S. than just saying "let's copy Scandinavian countries".
Shouldn't that be "das Jahr des Linuxdesktopkomputor"
You tell me - my username isn't CrazyGermanGuy!
Das Jahr des Linux Desktop-Computer.
Also making an appearance is the Dell Dock, which despite the Mac-like connotations of the name is no more than a prettied-up program launcher which slides in and out from the top of the screen as needed. I can see this appealing to average users who may even take the time to customise it with their own groups and program shortcuts, but it says something about the Windows OS that Dell feels the need to add another launcher to the desktop.[...]
Dell Dock: it looks a little Mac OS-ish but is really just a shortcut bar for launch your most-used apps
Is it just me, or does this thing look exactly like the Mac OSX dock, and perform a very similar function?
Given the recent patent, which Apple received for the dock, I wonder if this represents a patent infringement (or if Dell has licensed it)?
Don't click the link above unless you have something stuck in your stomach that you're trying to get out.
I just got done reading an article about the Economic Panic of 1873 and how that depression more closely resembles what's currently happening. This might explain why Bryan was talking about bank failures. It was still fresh in their minds.
More likely he was referring to the Panic of 1907.
Weather forecast: chilly.
Let's face it, these guys are either smarter (maybe not in all aspects, but with respect to their work) or more devoted to their work than you are, and that's why they succeed and are paid huge salaries. No need to be bitter.
Well, I wasn't only referring to the Ivy League, but the top MBAs in general, many of which aren't Ivies.
You make a fair point that there are still a lot of inequalities with respect to race and gender mostly. But you have to consider the recent (last 10 years) affirmative action applied by these schools.
In a way, I'm *technically* opposed to affirmative action, because I believe it occasionally gives someone who is less qualified an opportunity at the expense of another more qualified, simply because of a genetic trait such as gender or race. This being said, I completely recognize the inequalities in our society, and believe in the need for affirmative action, at least until the inequalities can be reduced.
And looking now and the people graduating from these programs, there IS a great diversity in these schools. Most importantly, a much greater diversity in the graduating class than in the application pool.
But regardless, I think my comment still stands. Those who get into the top 10 MBA programs are often brilliant. And no, I don't have an MBA or any graduate degree for that matter, so I'm not speaking for myself.
You have Ivy League Full Time MBA. These tend to make the biggest Jerks of bosses. These Kids think they are special and entitled and tend to treat people under them like dirt while they bring the company to the ground.
Next it is the Ivy League Part TIme MBA. These guys often have real business experience and know what it feels to be the little guy. But being from such a well known school they still often get high end jobs much quicker then their experience shows and still kill the company.
Wow, someone here sure sounds a little frustrated.
You fail to consider that what you call "Ivy League Full Time MBAs" have an average age of 27-28, meaning generally 5-6 years of business experience. Also, given the tough requirements to get in to one of the top 5-10 MBA schools (I'm sure you weren't only referring to Ivies, but also for instance Sloan, Stanford and Kellogg), these are already overachievers by the time they start their MBA. They've already climbed fast, worked their asses off, and gained much more experience than most people. And they're smart.
I'm pretty sure that if graduates from top MBAs consistently ran companies into the ground, companies wouldn't be hiring them, and they wouldn't be top MBA schools anymore.
Let's face it, these guys are either smarter (maybe not in all aspects, but with respect to their work) or more devoted to their work than you are, and that's why they succeed and are paid huge salaries. No need to be bitter.
are the guys you vote for positioned such that you agree with them on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC THEY STAND FOR?
If so, then I can only imagine you are a politician yourself, and the only box you check on the ballot is your own name.
I'm not sure even most politicians agree with EVERY SINGLE TOPIC they stand for.
With a laser weapon, you don't worry about wind or many other factors. Ricochet is also not a real concern.
Until the enemy starts wearing disco balls instead of helmets.
Help! After reading the third piece, I googled myself and sure enough, Google owns me too!!
For people who are still struggling to understand what's going on with the whole financial crisis, here's a great primer I was directed to: Subprime Primer.
It's a very simplified explanation of what's happened. From what I understand, it all comes down to everyone believing that real-estate value wouldn't stop rising.
Except that if I remember correctly, that investment was made by the American people via tax dollars. That's kind of important to remember.
That just isn't correct. For the ancient copper networks laid in the time of the Bell Telephone Company, you are right this was government funded and the RBOCs still own the rights of way. But that's not where most of today's communication goes.
Modern networks - and I believe practically all cable networks - were funded by the cable companies themselves, which is in part why it took so long to build out cable in many areas. For instance, Baltimore didn't get cable until the 90s, whereas more affluent suburbs had cable in the 80s.
Fiber networks (metro and longhaul) have also been funded by the companies laying them out, and not by taxpayer money. For instance, all of Verizon's FiOS investments are funded by Verizon, without government funding.
The only exception to this are RLECs, which have been funded in part with USF (Universal Service Fund) funds, through which non-rural customers pay a USF fee to subsidize the rural customers. It's not tax money, but it's money that all of us pay and it goes to the RLECs. USF-funded fiber builds are a minuscule portion of the fiber builds, and metro fiber and longhaul fiber make up virtually all of the fiber - neither of which are paid for by taxpayer money.
This being said, it would be incorrect to say that the government does not play a role. The government gives "rights of way" to these companies (similar to railroad companies - is it surprising that Sprint was born out of the Southern Pacific Railroad?), which in effect makes it much cheaper for these companies to deploy their networks (otherwise they would have to buy lots of real estate!).
So yes, the government has a hand in this, but no, you didn't pay for cable or fiber networks.
This quote is probably the most important...
So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.
I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but just because he says they should be able to make profit on their investment doesn't mean they can "do as they see fit."
In fact, I'm not sure what you meant by "do as they see fit". But I can tell you that if companies aren't allowed to make profit from investments in fiber, there aren't many companies that are going to see a point in making such investments. And then the only way we'll see any fiber build-outs is through the government, and I'm not sure that's the best thing.
Maybe you didn't provide enough of a quote, and what you said is true, but the way I read it here your quote does not imply your conclusion.