To add on to point 1 above: Any evidence or anecdotes regarding people who can't afford a full course of antibiotics or who complete a course of antibiotic xxx but find themselves still sick and can't pay for a second round with antibiotic yyy? Looking at the prices of prescriptions (even the copay on some of this stuff with insurance) I can easily see where there could be tough decisions for low/fixed income types.
If I could harness the vibration from my incessant leg-bouncing/foot-tapping I could probably power my laptop. Vicious cycle though - laptop use induces caffeine consumption which in turn creates twitchy bouncing which in turn provides power for further laptop use. (I'm sure this will probably eventually lead to previously mentioned pacemaker.)
It seems to me that the malware authors are putting at least if not more effort into research, development, and quality assurance than the major OS and AV vendors expend on improving their products. I wonder if that is a function of the malware authors being compensated more directly as a result of their efficiency? They don't appear to be trying to bundle a "malware suite" or get additional revenue from licensing and support.
I wonder if AV vendors would be able to deliver a better product if they cut overhead and simply focused on developing and maintaining a product that worked efficiently and effectively for a decent price. I know I would prefer an AV solution that just did anti-virus very well and didn't involve a hard-press sales call every other week to evaluate their "security suite."
Yep, according to TFA ODF, HTML, and my personal favorite Plaintext are all going to be included in the tech spec. I suspect this is more like what the parent suggests - Massachusetts is recognizing Microsoft's lock on enterprise office software, and rather than trying to dictate terms to the rest of the world they're being realistic in expecting they'll need to handle M$ format documents. Nothing to see here...
There is an alternate theory that brings up two big questions:
1) Where did the Great Green Arkleseizure come from?
2) How much time do we have until the coming of the handkerchief.
Well if you've already got to show your national ID to get on a plane or open a bank account, it's not *that* much more to require it when you rent a car. Maybe we should replace library cards with the national ID too...seems like that could be a cost-saver, plus we don't want terrorists reading dangerous books. Oh and the next time you want to take a class or go see a doctor - what could be a more authoritative way to authenticate your identity than by flashing your national ID? Maybe a terrorist group is identified to have a certain religious background - maybe we should start requiring people provide their national ID when they enter a place of worship.
*If you don't have anything to hide, why would you object?*
Every time you flash your national ID, it's authenticating you against some database. Guess who gets to see where and why you authenticate yourself?
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I have to ask myself what the problem is that they're trying to solve? Seems like an awful lot of information will be kept on the innocent in the hope that they can catch the bad guys. I'm admittedly dense, but I don't recall getting a good explanation of how this ID will actually catch the bad guys. Has the "no fly" list caught any terrorists other than that thing with Cat Stevens a while ago? Seems to me that this is just another lock - it will probably keep the honest people honest, but I don't see it slowing down the criminals too much. Plus there's a lot of potential for misuse and abuse down the road. The first step is small, just get the national id out there and make people use it to get on a plane. Then slowly and gradually the scope will creep - it's the nature of these things. When they issued social security numbers it was primarily used for people to get social security. Look at it now - it's the de facto unique identifier number for US citizens for banking, healthcare, and a number of other things.
If you throw the frog in a boiling pot he'll jump right out. Put him in a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat and he won't even notice that he's being cooked.
If the enforcement technology is ineffective, does that make violating the copyright OK?
Weak analogy: A stop sign in an intersection is easily circumvented, does that mean it's OK for me to blow right by them?
No, I'm not on the side of the mafiaa - just not sure I agree with the logic here. I'd rather see some discussion of the copyright laws themselves rather than CSS technology to "enforce" them.
My 2 cents.
As a subscriber, I can state that Sirius music channels are ad-free. Sirius talk programming does have some advertising, but a much lower amount than any traditional terrestrial radio station I've heard (including public radio). I average about two hours/day in the car during the week. I sincerely don't think I can go back to traditional radio; the constant interruption for advertising on traditional radio is like getting punched in the face after you get a break from it for a week or two. I would certainly opt for an MP3 player/iPod in the car over terrestrial radio, just to get away from the ads. The only thing I occasionally need regular radio for is traffic, weather, or local news. This is rare and usually can be accomplished with less than 15 minutes tuned to a local station. National/international news comes down quite nicely from a variety of feeds including CNN, BBC, and NPR.
Getting back to the topic of TFA, I don't see how terrestrial radio is going to ante up for RIAA fees without having to sell more ads. Most of the stations around here have converted to heavily automated formats with little if any live programming. Growing up in the 80's, most of the cassettes and then CDs I purchased were heavily influenced by what I was listening to on the radio. Granted that model is dying, but I still don't think it's completely dead yet. How many songs have you purchased after first hearing the performer on a radio? It *is* free advertising for the artist if they get radio play. I think it is fair and equitable that the radio station should be able to play music without compensating the artist; the compensation is the airtime.
Slashdot Mirror
To add on to point 1 above: Any evidence or anecdotes regarding people who can't afford a full course of antibiotics or who complete a course of antibiotic xxx but find themselves still sick and can't pay for a second round with antibiotic yyy? Looking at the prices of prescriptions (even the copay on some of this stuff with insurance) I can easily see where there could be tough decisions for low/fixed income types.
Zed: Bring out the Gimp
Maynard: The Gimp's sleeping
Zed: Well I guess you're going to have to wake him up
I'm sorry, I'm a Gimp user but every time I hear, see, or use the application I flash to that scene. Go ahead, I'm off topic and I accept my due.
Obviously you've never seen the bootleg of "Cry Cry Again"
*obscure Seinfeld reference*
If I could harness the vibration from my incessant leg-bouncing/foot-tapping I could probably power my laptop. Vicious cycle though - laptop use induces caffeine consumption which in turn creates twitchy bouncing which in turn provides power for further laptop use. (I'm sure this will probably eventually lead to previously mentioned pacemaker.)
It seems to me that the malware authors are putting at least if not more effort into research, development, and quality assurance than the major OS and AV vendors expend on improving their products. I wonder if that is a function of the malware authors being compensated more directly as a result of their efficiency? They don't appear to be trying to bundle a "malware suite" or get additional revenue from licensing and support.
I wonder if AV vendors would be able to deliver a better product if they cut overhead and simply focused on developing and maintaining a product that worked efficiently and effectively for a decent price. I know I would prefer an AV solution that just did anti-virus very well and didn't involve a hard-press sales call every other week to evaluate their "security suite."
Yep, according to TFA ODF, HTML, and my personal favorite Plaintext are all going to be included in the tech spec. I suspect this is more like what the parent suggests - Massachusetts is recognizing Microsoft's lock on enterprise office software, and rather than trying to dictate terms to the rest of the world they're being realistic in expecting they'll need to handle M$ format documents. Nothing to see here...
There is an alternate theory that brings up two big questions: 1) Where did the Great Green Arkleseizure come from? 2) How much time do we have until the coming of the handkerchief.
Well if you've already got to show your national ID to get on a plane or open a bank account, it's not *that* much more to require it when you rent a car. Maybe we should replace library cards with the national ID too...seems like that could be a cost-saver, plus we don't want terrorists reading dangerous books. Oh and the next time you want to take a class or go see a doctor - what could be a more authoritative way to authenticate your identity than by flashing your national ID? Maybe a terrorist group is identified to have a certain religious background - maybe we should start requiring people provide their national ID when they enter a place of worship. *If you don't have anything to hide, why would you object?* Every time you flash your national ID, it's authenticating you against some database. Guess who gets to see where and why you authenticate yourself? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I have to ask myself what the problem is that they're trying to solve? Seems like an awful lot of information will be kept on the innocent in the hope that they can catch the bad guys. I'm admittedly dense, but I don't recall getting a good explanation of how this ID will actually catch the bad guys. Has the "no fly" list caught any terrorists other than that thing with Cat Stevens a while ago? Seems to me that this is just another lock - it will probably keep the honest people honest, but I don't see it slowing down the criminals too much. Plus there's a lot of potential for misuse and abuse down the road. The first step is small, just get the national id out there and make people use it to get on a plane. Then slowly and gradually the scope will creep - it's the nature of these things. When they issued social security numbers it was primarily used for people to get social security. Look at it now - it's the de facto unique identifier number for US citizens for banking, healthcare, and a number of other things. If you throw the frog in a boiling pot he'll jump right out. Put him in a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat and he won't even notice that he's being cooked.
Jurassic Park anyone?
If the enforcement technology is ineffective, does that make violating the copyright OK? Weak analogy: A stop sign in an intersection is easily circumvented, does that mean it's OK for me to blow right by them? No, I'm not on the side of the mafiaa - just not sure I agree with the logic here. I'd rather see some discussion of the copyright laws themselves rather than CSS technology to "enforce" them. My 2 cents.
As a subscriber, I can state that Sirius music channels are ad-free. Sirius talk programming does have some advertising, but a much lower amount than any traditional terrestrial radio station I've heard (including public radio). I average about two hours/day in the car during the week. I sincerely don't think I can go back to traditional radio; the constant interruption for advertising on traditional radio is like getting punched in the face after you get a break from it for a week or two. I would certainly opt for an MP3 player/iPod in the car over terrestrial radio, just to get away from the ads. The only thing I occasionally need regular radio for is traffic, weather, or local news. This is rare and usually can be accomplished with less than 15 minutes tuned to a local station. National/international news comes down quite nicely from a variety of feeds including CNN, BBC, and NPR. Getting back to the topic of TFA, I don't see how terrestrial radio is going to ante up for RIAA fees without having to sell more ads. Most of the stations around here have converted to heavily automated formats with little if any live programming. Growing up in the 80's, most of the cassettes and then CDs I purchased were heavily influenced by what I was listening to on the radio. Granted that model is dying, but I still don't think it's completely dead yet. How many songs have you purchased after first hearing the performer on a radio? It *is* free advertising for the artist if they get radio play. I think it is fair and equitable that the radio station should be able to play music without compensating the artist; the compensation is the airtime.