It still sounds to me like this is a localized problem which would be better dealt with on a local level; the same goes for the dirt road issue. If Fairbanks has such a pollution problem because of wood burning stoves, shouldn't Fairbanks work on the problem maybe with technical help from the EPA? With blanket bans like this, I suspect that local manufacturers would be the most effected. Updating, testing and getting approval for new designs is the biggest burden on them. If this sort of thing is done bottom up, the effect on smaller local outfits can be addressed. I just felt that the role of the EPA was to address environmental issues that were overall problems that might cover several jurisdictions where are bottom up approach is not possible.
if you added all fine particle matter produced by all the wood burning stoves on the planet during the course of a year, would it be significant? It might be but I suspect that the resources going into implementing this new ban could be spent on a higher return source of pollution.
I totally agree. This is a M$ smear campaign more than anything. The features that they are putting into the app are designed to a) undermine Google's ability to generate revenue through ads and b) undermine Google's ability to honor its agreements with the rights holders, but M$ is spinning it as Google trying to keep them out. Whatever your opinion about ads and copyrights or whatever, Google, being a middleman, couldn't/would't keep youtube up without ad revenue and wouldn't have the vast library of video that it has if it could not offer cursory protections to rights holders.
As long as you can turn it off (and on) which out too much work, I have no problem with this. In fact it might have some other benefits.
It may give a voice to certain sector of the population that is not usually well represented; I always forget to put change my user agent info back after I have to access some specific page. I think Linux users, on average, take care of their privacy a little better maybe just because they have an inkling of how and have the tools readily available. Does this mean they are under-represented in the marketplace? Are they invisible to the extrapolation algorithms that help decide how to set up pages, how much to stock of certain products, and what might be the next fad?
As a simple example: Does Amazon know that Linux compatibility is a defining feature when X% of the population looks for a video card? Those kind of compatibility questions are rarely addressed on the product page in a useful way; I always have to look it up elsewhere.
If Ubuntu does not identify me specifically but it sends a lot of queries, they are showing that a lot of people want Linux oriented stuff. I personally would be ok with that.
Might even help in nerd oriented materials like dice and sci-fi/fantasy stuff. At least that is what I mostly search for locally and online.
I have found the opposite to be true. For a long time my new windows boxes at work were producing.docx files my clients could not open. This problem seems to have gone away, but I have occasional formatting problems going from windows office machine 1 to windows office machine 2. It is almost always a margins problem, I don't really know why. It might be something intrinsic to résumés.
The only superiority that I personally have found in Office is in Power Point, and, again this is my personal opinion, Power Point presentations should be illegal. They might just be the pretties, most inefficient way to present real information.
With the exception of large spread sheets, PDF is always the way to go. You can open them in browsers now a days and if I want it presented in a very specific way, I usually don't want anyone to edit it along the way.
I agree about the take free and add value thing up to a point. As an example in the publishing industry, Paizo does just that with Pathfinder (maybe others, I only do the Pathfinder stuff). The System Reference Documents are totally free and online in clear text and extremely searchable, really a much better format for rules than dead tree versions. The SRD are valuable in and of themselves but there is even more valuable when more people use them. In this case the freeness adds value. Paizo then sells the other stuff like print version, modules, adventures, special guides, even figurines and what not. Their stuff is really good. Also the smaller bits are easier buy because they are generally cheaper.
I seems to me that Flat World was shooting for the same type thing. Maybe it failed because it could not get schools and professors on board. I did very little if any extra reading for core/non-major related classes in college; if it wasn't on the syllabus I never even found out about it. Maybe Flat World's quality was mediocre. My point is that there might be other reasons they failed, no just the fact that "freemium" is flawed. If they are in fact working on something with EdX, they might be addressing the issue of expanding the base so that their original business can work.
But the move from VHS to digital technology was a "double-edged sword", he said.
"We get high-quality images that are easily searchable but they are often not held as long.
"With VHS people held 31 tapes, one for each day of the month, and it did not require specialist officers to get hold of the stuff.
"People are now being confronted by computers and hard drives and told to get those images and it is not as easy."
They must be doing something wrong, because for the money they are spending, either the SW or some basic training should make it pretty easy to grab X amount of time off an HD and burn it to a CD, DVD or USB drive. And as fare as holding on to it goes. I have a 650GB HD because it was the smallest one I could find that day. How high quality are these cameras?
I agree completely. The patent system was designed to promote innovation but now it seems to be promoting the export of innovation. I live and work in Argentina where IP law might be on the books but has 0 enforcement and people are innovating all over the place. I have heard people call it copying but that is not a fair assessment. They don't do the exact same thing over again. They take good ideas and make them better (not to say their aren't abuses) or apply them to things no one ever thought of. This is only possible because of the lax IP enforcement and there are great benefits to society in general which to me seems to be the spirit of IP law.
This is a very different situation. 1) Iraq did not have WMDs or nukes, which is why attacking was an option and 2) oil is not an issue. Our own behaviour has encouraged this type to rhetoric.
Isn't it a step in the right direction? At least the material is being used twice before becoming waste. I don't think anyone expects it to replace gasoline but it give more options, alleviating dependence on any one source for energy.
No, no clue what that was supposed to mean. Guessing, I would say that it refers to either the hypocrisy of arresting someone for charges (we assume) are false to avoid arresting him (illegally) for what they want to arrest him for, or a kind of "taste of your own medicine" type thing; as in the US makes a lot of noise about the bad stuff others do but hey look you guys do it too with a hockey playing cow.
reading that again it sounds like flamebait, sorry. What I mean is that the internet is an international phenomenon and while Canada or Nicaragua or whoever can decide whatever they want, most web sites and or businesses on the web are not fixed to a physical location. It's like raising corporate taxes. Companies will just go elsewhere or declare that they are doing X thing elsewhere where it is legal/cheaper.
I think everyone here is being very short sighted with your concepts. Capitalism is an excellent way to distribute resources and organize groups of people when there is something new and needs new organization or distribution. It quickly becomes dominated by someone/business that must be broken down (ie trust busting or splitting the winner to maintain the useful competition that originally distributed the resource.) This is the role of gov't, or should be; regulate and protect the public because the natural end result of capitalism is to maximize profit which at some point will mean "take advange of little guy because we just can't reasonable be more efficient and we already killed the competition."
What I am saying is that we should be looking for a cyclical phenomena. Capitalism sees this non-tangible thing/concept of IP and takes advantage. It created huge companies like MS. Google and Co. who in turn have thousands of employees who buy stuff and the system goes forward. This power has been concentrating since the IT bubble bust and now it is reaching the tipping point; something's gotta give. IV is an example of this. The exploitation must cycle again or a new thing will come up.
It's like populism, a great concept but not complete. Populism wants the best for those who have the least. If it succeeds it destroys itself and there must be a plan for what we do when "now those who had the least have more." Capitalism is the same, it does one thing really well but there must a next step for when it finishes distributing.
I totally agree. It is all about how you plan to make money (read business model). These intellectual assets are fundamentally different things from traditional assets and if you treat then like a car or some other physical thing you are going to have problems. Our current problems with patents/copyright/etc is a phenomena of this kind of thinking. We are trying to put the square peg in the round hole; intellectual/electronic/artistic things are fundamentally different from other things. Look at Red Hat, instead of trying to sell a "thing" they let the thing/asset/linux create a pull for their services. They maintain the thing and support the thing but it is not theirs. That is how they make money with the asset. Just as parent says, they have moved on to a a consultative / training / services based business structure.
who cares? The point is that it is open. Today paid programmers are doing, before nerdy basement dwellers did it, maybe tomorrow homosexual vampires will do it. Being open allows the "who" to change.
Not exactly. I assume they already provide uniforms and all other effects (back braces, etc) for the workers. I guess I am trying to say that they should get the "right" things for the employees. The right things should only be a little more expensive than what they are using right now.
But, responding directly to your comment: each employee must process X number of packages to be beneficial to the company. Multiply that number by the "useful life" of said equipment and divide by the price if the equipment. If you work from that concept, it does not matter how many employees you have. You just have to ask if that cost per package is worth it to have better service or be able to demand better work from your employees considering you are providing the needed equipment.
I whole heartedly agree with your argument except for the last part. A medical journal with the word "Daily" in its name is bound to be sensational or ignorant. While things move fast in medicine, our understanding of how and why stuff works does not. Meaningful studies almost always take years or even decades to do and then sometimes you don't even know how you screwed it up until your done and you have to start again, from zero.
Sounds like an excuse to me. In stead of taking it out on the packages, couldn't you request better work conditions? Glove, a jacket, portable heater? Divide that cost by the thousands of packages you handle per day and I don't think it would represent a price change. Every job has parts that you don't like, they wouldn't pay you if someone would do it for free.
Slashdot Mirror
It still sounds to me like this is a localized problem which would be better dealt with on a local level; the same goes for the dirt road issue. If Fairbanks has such a pollution problem because of wood burning stoves, shouldn't Fairbanks work on the problem maybe with technical help from the EPA? With blanket bans like this, I suspect that local manufacturers would be the most effected. Updating, testing and getting approval for new designs is the biggest burden on them. If this sort of thing is done bottom up, the effect on smaller local outfits can be addressed. I just felt that the role of the EPA was to address environmental issues that were overall problems that might cover several jurisdictions where are bottom up approach is not possible.
if you added all fine particle matter produced by all the wood burning stoves on the planet during the course of a year, would it be significant? It might be but I suspect that the resources going into implementing this new ban could be spent on a higher return source of pollution.
I totally agree. This is a M$ smear campaign more than anything. The features that they are putting into the app are designed to a) undermine Google's ability to generate revenue through ads and b) undermine Google's ability to honor its agreements with the rights holders, but M$ is spinning it as Google trying to keep them out. Whatever your opinion about ads and copyrights or whatever, Google, being a middleman, couldn't/would't keep youtube up without ad revenue and wouldn't have the vast library of video that it has if it could not offer cursory protections to rights holders.
As long as you can turn it off (and on) which out too much work, I have no problem with this. In fact it might have some other benefits.
It may give a voice to certain sector of the population that is not usually well represented; I always forget to put change my user agent info back after I have to access some specific page. I think Linux users, on average, take care of their privacy a little better maybe just because they have an inkling of how and have the tools readily available. Does this mean they are under-represented in the marketplace? Are they invisible to the extrapolation algorithms that help decide how to set up pages, how much to stock of certain products, and what might be the next fad?
As a simple example: Does Amazon know that Linux compatibility is a defining feature when X% of the population looks for a video card? Those kind of compatibility questions are rarely addressed on the product page in a useful way; I always have to look it up elsewhere.
If Ubuntu does not identify me specifically but it sends a lot of queries, they are showing that a lot of people want Linux oriented stuff. I personally would be ok with that.
Might even help in nerd oriented materials like dice and sci-fi/fantasy stuff. At least that is what I mostly search for locally and online.
I have found the opposite to be true. For a long time my new windows boxes at work were producing .docx files my clients could not open. This problem seems to have gone away, but I have occasional formatting problems going from windows office machine 1 to windows office machine 2. It is almost always a margins problem, I don't really know why. It might be something intrinsic to résumés.
The only superiority that I personally have found in Office is in Power Point, and, again this is my personal opinion, Power Point presentations should be illegal. They might just be the pretties, most inefficient way to present real information.
With the exception of large spread sheets, PDF is always the way to go. You can open them in browsers now a days and if I want it presented in a very specific way, I usually don't want anyone to edit it along the way.
I agree about the take free and add value thing up to a point. As an example in the publishing industry, Paizo does just that with Pathfinder (maybe others, I only do the Pathfinder stuff). The System Reference Documents are totally free and online in clear text and extremely searchable, really a much better format for rules than dead tree versions. The SRD are valuable in and of themselves but there is even more valuable when more people use them. In this case the freeness adds value. Paizo then sells the other stuff like print version, modules, adventures, special guides, even figurines and what not. Their stuff is really good. Also the smaller bits are easier buy because they are generally cheaper.
I seems to me that Flat World was shooting for the same type thing. Maybe it failed because it could not get schools and professors on board. I did very little if any extra reading for core/non-major related classes in college; if it wasn't on the syllabus I never even found out about it. Maybe Flat World's quality was mediocre. My point is that there might be other reasons they failed, no just the fact that "freemium" is flawed. If they are in fact working on something with EdX, they might be addressing the issue of expanding the base so that their original business can work.
good call, point to you
Mod Up parent, I don't think the poster RTA
is named Wang.
But the move from VHS to digital technology was a "double-edged sword", he said. "We get high-quality images that are easily searchable but they are often not held as long. "With VHS people held 31 tapes, one for each day of the month, and it did not require specialist officers to get hold of the stuff. "People are now being confronted by computers and hard drives and told to get those images and it is not as easy."
They must be doing something wrong, because for the money they are spending, either the SW or some basic training should make it pretty easy to grab X amount of time off an HD and burn it to a CD, DVD or USB drive. And as fare as holding on to it goes. I have a 650GB HD because it was the smallest one I could find that day. How high quality are these cameras?
we, the consumers, will simply pay more.
Money is being spent on innovation........
I agree completely. The patent system was designed to promote innovation but now it seems to be promoting the export of innovation. I live and work in Argentina where IP law might be on the books but has 0 enforcement and people are innovating all over the place. I have heard people call it copying but that is not a fair assessment. They don't do the exact same thing over again. They take good ideas and make them better (not to say their aren't abuses) or apply them to things no one ever thought of. This is only possible because of the lax IP enforcement and there are great benefits to society in general which to me seems to be the spirit of IP law.
This is a very different situation. 1) Iraq did not have WMDs or nukes, which is why attacking was an option and 2) oil is not an issue. Our own behaviour has encouraged this type to rhetoric.
Isn't it a step in the right direction? At least the material is being used twice before becoming waste. I don't think anyone expects it to replace gasoline but it give more options, alleviating dependence on any one source for energy.
wait for it....wait for it....
It seems that Desmond Tutu and Putin went to analogy school together.
No, no clue what that was supposed to mean. Guessing, I would say that it refers to either the hypocrisy of arresting someone for charges (we assume) are false to avoid arresting him (illegally) for what they want to arrest him for, or a kind of "taste of your own medicine" type thing; as in the US makes a lot of noise about the bad stuff others do but hey look you guys do it too with a hockey playing cow.
what Canada decides?
reading that again it sounds like flamebait, sorry. What I mean is that the internet is an international phenomenon and while Canada or Nicaragua or whoever can decide whatever they want, most web sites and or businesses on the web are not fixed to a physical location. It's like raising corporate taxes. Companies will just go elsewhere or declare that they are doing X thing elsewhere where it is legal/cheaper.
what Canada decides?
I think everyone here is being very short sighted with your concepts. Capitalism is an excellent way to distribute resources and organize groups of people when there is something new and needs new organization or distribution. It quickly becomes dominated by someone/business that must be broken down (ie trust busting or splitting the winner to maintain the useful competition that originally distributed the resource.) This is the role of gov't, or should be; regulate and protect the public because the natural end result of capitalism is to maximize profit which at some point will mean "take advange of little guy because we just can't reasonable be more efficient and we already killed the competition." What I am saying is that we should be looking for a cyclical phenomena. Capitalism sees this non-tangible thing/concept of IP and takes advantage. It created huge companies like MS. Google and Co. who in turn have thousands of employees who buy stuff and the system goes forward. This power has been concentrating since the IT bubble bust and now it is reaching the tipping point; something's gotta give. IV is an example of this. The exploitation must cycle again or a new thing will come up. It's like populism, a great concept but not complete. Populism wants the best for those who have the least. If it succeeds it destroys itself and there must be a plan for what we do when "now those who had the least have more." Capitalism is the same, it does one thing really well but there must a next step for when it finishes distributing.
I totally agree. It is all about how you plan to make money (read business model). These intellectual assets are fundamentally different things from traditional assets and if you treat then like a car or some other physical thing you are going to have problems. Our current problems with patents/copyright/etc is a phenomena of this kind of thinking. We are trying to put the square peg in the round hole; intellectual/electronic/artistic things are fundamentally different from other things. Look at Red Hat, instead of trying to sell a "thing" they let the thing/asset/linux create a pull for their services. They maintain the thing and support the thing but it is not theirs. That is how they make money with the asset. Just as parent says, they have moved on to a a consultative / training / services based business structure.
who cares? The point is that it is open. Today paid programmers are doing, before nerdy basement dwellers did it, maybe tomorrow homosexual vampires will do it. Being open allows the "who" to change.
Not exactly. I assume they already provide uniforms and all other effects (back braces, etc) for the workers. I guess I am trying to say that they should get the "right" things for the employees. The right things should only be a little more expensive than what they are using right now. But, responding directly to your comment: each employee must process X number of packages to be beneficial to the company. Multiply that number by the "useful life" of said equipment and divide by the price if the equipment. If you work from that concept, it does not matter how many employees you have. You just have to ask if that cost per package is worth it to have better service or be able to demand better work from your employees considering you are providing the needed equipment.
I whole heartedly agree with your argument except for the last part. A medical journal with the word "Daily" in its name is bound to be sensational or ignorant. While things move fast in medicine, our understanding of how and why stuff works does not. Meaningful studies almost always take years or even decades to do and then sometimes you don't even know how you screwed it up until your done and you have to start again, from zero.
Sounds like an excuse to me. In stead of taking it out on the packages, couldn't you request better work conditions? Glove, a jacket, portable heater? Divide that cost by the thousands of packages you handle per day and I don't think it would represent a price change. Every job has parts that you don't like, they wouldn't pay you if someone would do it for free.