I do notice a wee bit of hypocrisy here in that Apple refused to pay universal, but expects for AT&T to pay a similar fine.
That seems incorrect. Aren't AT&T paying so that they have exclusive rights to provide services on iPhones? In which case the fee they pay Apple is entirely logical. I'm not too up to date on the iPhone situation but I get the gist that you can ONLY get them with AT&T. Right?
Think of it this way: imagine 2 CDs, one released 20 years ago and one released today. The older one is the white album, top qaulity music and the new one is Britney spears "oops I'm singing again" If you saw the better quality album priced where it should be (probably about 20% of what it is) then you'd wonder why you should pay so much for the new stuff.
The problem with pricing not changing is because the quality does not increase with new releases. Computer games at least get better graphics, mobile phones have more features but music is of steady, even decreasing, quality. So the old prices stay high because old music is still good music.
Even now, when somebody has to put something up on the projector, the MacBook users are ready to go instantly, whereas the HP laptop users spend at least 5 minutes tinkering with stuff.
I really get the feeling you're comparing apple(hardware) to HP(hardware) to say that Apple(software) is better than windows(software). I know that my IBM laptop plugs into the VGA port of a projector, I press FN-F7 and the projector becomes the only monitor, FN-F7 again and I get both LCD and projector, once more and only LCD. Plain and easy.
The beauty of arguing on the side of Apple/Mac OS is the consistency, with windows you're always going to get so much junk that no one notices the gems. I guess that is a good thing in a consumer market though. Everyone wants an expectable level of quality from a product and unfortunately windows running on generic laptop X may not always give that.
I have and it sounds pretty damn accurate to me. For a given portion of students anyway and in the case of the ones that are stuck with baggage that makes fighting stuff like this difficult there is always at least one good friend willing to help out.
Ultimately, even if Joe Sixpack thinks JHymn is just a song about Lil' Baby Jeebus, he's still capable of typing "download brittany spears song" into Google and clicking on whatever shows up. The only reason he doesn't succeed very often is the diligence of the mafioso lawyers at sending Cease and Desist notices.
Nah, the only reason he doesn't succeed these days is the deluge for made for Google ad pages and porn sites that he gets on that search.
Heh, yeah, my university did the same thing, always nice to have a test based entirely off the course notes linked out of exactly the same web page as the course notes themselves. Everyone wants the computers at the back of the room for some reason.
MMM, Car analogy.
The trouble with this one is that cars, planes etc are self contained. With software it is running on a near infinite combination of machines that are anywhere from barely capable to super charged overclocking wetdreams. Now given that a lot of windows problems could be attributed to some unexpected intolerance in the application software and/or hardware it is being run with it is very hard to know when it is faulty.
No, he means Dell gets paid to put Norton, AOL and various other trial junk that only works in windows on their PCs. No windows = no bonus from those companies.
yep, I'd like to point out something you may of misssed: "Due to the contentious nature of our technology claim the company made a decision that during the process of validation we would seek no further funding" from the page you linked.
Sounds like they are working above board to me, but who knows what offers they are receiving behind the scenes that they are accepting.
They've actually got a decent sized research company in Ireland. I've been following it in bits and pieces on their website. Unless their forum is part of the overall "artwork" it seems the place exists and people have visited and called there trying to get info (check out www.steorn.net/forum if it is still alive. From what I've read they basically picked this up by accident while working on some sort of outdoor battery powered equipment. Their company is apparently not geared towards manufacturing in the least and given the type of claims they are making they would be laughed at should they try to sell the idea to a manufacturer so they are going through this circus act in an attempt to get people interested.
If you could modify the DMG file to "enhance" the OS you really don't need the root password anyway as you should just be able to change the password file to make the root password whatever you wanted it to be.
Yes, but then when the offer is rejected, it ends up in court. In this case the RIAA had their bluff called and backed down. It reeks of the way I'd expect an extortionist to act
RIAA:"give me 1000X the worth of my car or I tell the cops it was you that stole it"
Victim:"Go ahead, I don't have your car and you have no proof I took it"
RIAA:"Damn, never mind then"
So you're saying the plan to ship our telephone sanitizers out on the first space ship will cause us all to die of a virulent phone borne plague? Who'd a thunk it.
In that world I would expect the car companies to sell their cars to me for the price that I can make them, otherwise it would seem to me that they are using their IP monopoly to price gouge me. Of course, I don't know what portion of the car makers price is paying for the R&D, advertising and other such things
Therein lies the trouble, people see only the cost to manufacture (for music this is next to 0), think "Why am I paying many times this?" and believe that they are being ripped off. I have the feeling that the music industry overcharges anyway but definitely not by the margin between buying a CD and burning it yourself.
Is there though, in the near future Microsoft could easily offer "streaming TV for Vista" and suddenly be infringing. The trouble with limited trademarks like this is that the technologies they are being applied to can be used to do so much.
I'm no expert but it seems to me that this would be hugely better than chemo from the simple fact that you can point it. No worries with the cell stopping chems running through your whole bloodstream you only need to worry about whatever is under the electrodes. Ultimately localizing a highly damaging treatment makes it perfect when there isn't anything in the locality that can be damaged.
By an extremely round about way you are charged, Radio stations charge for advertisements of products (ironically these can include CDs) and in turn the price of the advertising is passed on to you as someone that may purchase those products. Never assume that just because something doesn't take the money out of your pocket that the money isn't leaking out the bottom anyway.
So the GP was correct, Ultimately you pay for the right to listen to music twice, once when you hear it on the radio and again when you buy it on CD.
That was the one thing I found most jarring about Deus Ex, it pretended to be non linear but each path you took inevitably led back to the same outcome. Great game and I was one of the few people that actually liked the sequel but I always felt I was being railroaded back in the direction I was supposed to be going. Completely ruined the replay value. I mean seriously - kill good guy X, oh you shouldn't have done that you're a bad man now let's get on with the next mission - save good guy X, hey thanks for saving me now let's get on with the next mission. Overall Effect of me being there: 0
Not really, the goal of an insurance company is generally to insure people that don't need it and not payout to the people that do. So if I have a heart operation scheduled in say 2 months, they won't insure me, knowing their premiums wont pay for my surgery (net loss for them) but if I have a heart condition that can only be detected by genetics this law would mean (if I'm understanding it) that they can't turn me down as an unacceptable risk. So each person that insures on genetic testing advice is more likely to be a net loss than the average person
Overall it's good since no one really likes the insurance companies but I expect what will happen over time is that the added costs that could have been avoided by booting the people genetically inclined to diseases will cause average premiums to rise. Of course, that is a fair way off, genetic testing not being very accurate and all.
Another possible abuse of this law that I just thought of is it may cover familial medical history because the main thing that shows is genetic predisposition. Really depends on the wording.
Think of the insurance companies in this one. Let's assume I'm an otherwise healthy person. I go get a genetic test done and it tells me that I am extremely likely to develop a heart condition that would cost hundreds of thousands to repair. Obviously I'd run out and get Medical insurance and there is nothing the insurance companies can do to stop that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is Slashdot so I obviously don't know if the article says there will be a way to prevent this.
I swear, Australian lawmaking seems to me to lately to be trying to take the knee jerk reaction to an art form. A great example is car accidents, every year some bunch of teenage idiots get in a car and kill themselves. Then the new tougher driving laws come in and make it supposedly harder to get a license, then some more kids kill themselves and the cycle continues. The same is true for the internet, except as far as I know the stupid laws never make it past the "She's a witch, burn her" point.
It seems to me that the media and politician's reaction to anything bad happening is "Ban it" and so far it's obvious to me that it has never worked.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, 640KB truly is enough for anyone
Think of it this way: imagine 2 CDs, one released 20 years ago and one released today. The older one is the white album, top qaulity music and the new one is Britney spears "oops I'm singing again" If you saw the better quality album priced where it should be (probably about 20% of what it is) then you'd wonder why you should pay so much for the new stuff.
The problem with pricing not changing is because the quality does not increase with new releases. Computer games at least get better graphics, mobile phones have more features but music is of steady, even decreasing, quality. So the old prices stay high because old music is still good music.
Even now, when somebody has to put something up on the projector, the MacBook users are ready to go instantly, whereas the HP laptop users spend at least 5 minutes tinkering with stuff.
I really get the feeling you're comparing apple(hardware) to HP(hardware) to say that Apple(software) is better than windows(software). I know that my IBM laptop plugs into the VGA port of a projector, I press FN-F7 and the projector becomes the only monitor, FN-F7 again and I get both LCD and projector, once more and only LCD. Plain and easy.
The beauty of arguing on the side of Apple/Mac OS is the consistency, with windows you're always going to get so much junk that no one notices the gems. I guess that is a good thing in a consumer market though. Everyone wants an expectable level of quality from a product and unfortunately windows running on generic laptop X may not always give that.
hell, you could take over everything http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337978/ from the back of a truck
I have and it sounds pretty damn accurate to me. For a given portion of students anyway and in the case of the ones that are stuck with baggage that makes fighting stuff like this difficult there is always at least one good friend willing to help out.
Because the advertisers are paying for the site that you do want to look at perhaps?
damn, that is eve a revelation to me...must turn off adblock.
Heh, yeah, my university did the same thing, always nice to have a test based entirely off the course notes linked out of exactly the same web page as the course notes themselves. Everyone wants the computers at the back of the room for some reason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wont
Had to say it, wasn't sure if you were just being a troll or legitimately didn't hear the whoosh
MMM, Car analogy.
The trouble with this one is that cars, planes etc are self contained. With software it is running on a near infinite combination of machines that are anywhere from barely capable to super charged overclocking wetdreams. Now given that a lot of windows problems could be attributed to some unexpected intolerance in the application software and/or hardware it is being run with it is very hard to know when it is faulty.
No, he means Dell gets paid to put Norton, AOL and various other trial junk that only works in windows on their PCs. No windows = no bonus from those companies.
I'm so glad I'm not an investor.
yep, I'd like to point out something you may of misssed: "Due to the contentious nature of our technology claim the company made a decision that during the process of validation we would seek no further funding" from the page you linked.
Sounds like they are working above board to me, but who knows what offers they are receiving behind the scenes that they are accepting.
They've actually got a decent sized research company in Ireland. I've been following it in bits and pieces on their website. Unless their forum is part of the overall "artwork" it seems the place exists and people have visited and called there trying to get info (check out www.steorn.net/forum if it is still alive. From what I've read they basically picked this up by accident while working on some sort of outdoor battery powered equipment. Their company is apparently not geared towards manufacturing in the least and given the type of claims they are making they would be laughed at should they try to sell the idea to a manufacturer so they are going through this circus act in an attempt to get people interested.
If you could modify the DMG file to "enhance" the OS you really don't need the root password anyway as you should just be able to change the password file to make the root password whatever you wanted it to be.
Yes, but then when the offer is rejected, it ends up in court. In this case the RIAA had their bluff called and backed down. It reeks of the way I'd expect an extortionist to act
RIAA:"give me 1000X the worth of my car or I tell the cops it was you that stole it"
Victim:"Go ahead, I don't have your car and you have no proof I took it"
RIAA:"Damn, never mind then"
Gah, car analogy, what have I done?
So you're saying the plan to ship our telephone sanitizers out on the first space ship will cause us all to die of a virulent phone borne plague? Who'd a thunk it.
In that world I would expect the car companies to sell their cars to me for the price that I can make them, otherwise it would seem to me that they are using their IP monopoly to price gouge me. Of course, I don't know what portion of the car makers price is paying for the R&D, advertising and other such things
Therein lies the trouble, people see only the cost to manufacture (for music this is next to 0), think "Why am I paying many times this?" and believe that they are being ripped off. I have the feeling that the music industry overcharges anyway but definitely not by the margin between buying a CD and burning it yourself.
Is there though, in the near future Microsoft could easily offer "streaming TV for Vista" and suddenly be infringing. The trouble with limited trademarks like this is that the technologies they are being applied to can be used to do so much.
I'm no expert but it seems to me that this would be hugely better than chemo from the simple fact that you can point it. No worries with the cell stopping chems running through your whole bloodstream you only need to worry about whatever is under the electrodes. Ultimately localizing a highly damaging treatment makes it perfect when there isn't anything in the locality that can be damaged.
By an extremely round about way you are charged, Radio stations charge for advertisements of products (ironically these can include CDs) and in turn the price of the advertising is passed on to you as someone that may purchase those products. Never assume that just because something doesn't take the money out of your pocket that the money isn't leaking out the bottom anyway. So the GP was correct, Ultimately you pay for the right to listen to music twice, once when you hear it on the radio and again when you buy it on CD.
That was the one thing I found most jarring about Deus Ex, it pretended to be non linear but each path you took inevitably led back to the same outcome. Great game and I was one of the few people that actually liked the sequel but I always felt I was being railroaded back in the direction I was supposed to be going. Completely ruined the replay value. I mean seriously - kill good guy X, oh you shouldn't have done that you're a bad man now let's get on with the next mission - save good guy X, hey thanks for saving me now let's get on with the next mission. Overall Effect of me being there: 0
Not really, the goal of an insurance company is generally to insure people that don't need it and not payout to the people that do. So if I have a heart operation scheduled in say 2 months, they won't insure me, knowing their premiums wont pay for my surgery (net loss for them) but if I have a heart condition that can only be detected by genetics this law would mean (if I'm understanding it) that they can't turn me down as an unacceptable risk. So each person that insures on genetic testing advice is more likely to be a net loss than the average person
Overall it's good since no one really likes the insurance companies but I expect what will happen over time is that the added costs that could have been avoided by booting the people genetically inclined to diseases will cause average premiums to rise. Of course, that is a fair way off, genetic testing not being very accurate and all.
Another possible abuse of this law that I just thought of is it may cover familial medical history because the main thing that shows is genetic predisposition. Really depends on the wording.
Think of the insurance companies in this one. Let's assume I'm an otherwise healthy person. I go get a genetic test done and it tells me that I am extremely likely to develop a heart condition that would cost hundreds of thousands to repair. Obviously I'd run out and get Medical insurance and there is nothing the insurance companies can do to stop that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is Slashdot so I obviously don't know if the article says there will be a way to prevent this.
I swear, Australian lawmaking seems to me to lately to be trying to take the knee jerk reaction to an art form. A great example is car accidents, every year some bunch of teenage idiots get in a car and kill themselves. Then the new tougher driving laws come in and make it supposedly harder to get a license, then some more kids kill themselves and the cycle continues. The same is true for the internet, except as far as I know the stupid laws never make it past the "She's a witch, burn her" point.
It seems to me that the media and politician's reaction to anything bad happening is "Ban it" and so far it's obvious to me that it has never worked.