When netbooks first came out, people loved them because they were ultraportable, inexpensive computing devices. Computer manufacturers immediately tried to create slightly more powerful, and much more expensive, netbooks so that they could maintain their margins. This was only mildly successful, because the key factor driving netbook sales was the inexpensive part. Apple comes out with the Ipad, which has less computing power and is even more expensive than the high end netbooks and it is a great success. There are several aspects of the Ipad that allow it to succeed at that high price point, but the biggest factor is marketing (every Ipad owner that I personally know, owns one because it is the latest "nifty, neat" device).
The point is that the market that netbooks first tapped into is still out there and nobody (as far as I can tell) is really trying to tap into it. Somebody should build a netbook that is as cheap as possible. Do not upgrade it (unless the upgrade parts are cheaper than the original ones at that point) until they can sell it for $100 and make the kind of margin they want. At that point there are two strategies that could be followed. One, gradually upgrade the device while maintaining the $100 price point and the desired margin. Or two, introduce an upgraded model at the original price point of this device and continue to sell the original for $100 until the new model comes down to that point.
Windows is not a generic term for an operating system. Therefore it is a perfectly valid trademark. On the other hand app store is a generic term for an app store. At any point since Microsoft registered the "Windows" trademark, if someone said, "I am going to create a Windows," people would have thought, "He is going to create an operating system similar to MS Windows." At any point in recent history, if someone said "I am going to create an app store," people would think, "He is going to create an online store to sell applications," not "He is going to create an online store like Apple's App Store."
The problem is that the term "App Store" has already come to mean "an online location to purchase applications for some specific device," not "An online location to purchase applications for IOS devices." Actually, since Apple uses "App Store" for both its IOS App Store and its Macintosh App Store, it is guilty of making the term App Store generic. I know that a company that owns a trademark can use it in multiple ways, but by using it this way Apple has encouraged the general populace to view app store as a generic term.
Basically, in order to hold a trademark on something it is necessary that people do not already consider the term as the generic for that type of product/use. It is my recollection that as soon as Apple opened the Apple App Store, people started to talk about the idea that other devices should have app stores. That means that as soon as Apple used the term (if not before), people started using it as a generic term.
Regulation means that only the wealthy and powerful can afford to do business. Regulation, always, increases the cost of doing business. This means that even without regulatory capture, regulation favors large business at the expense of small business and the individual. That means that even if you succeed in avoiding regulatory capture, regulation will tilt the playing field in favor of the rich and powerful.
All three experience significant regulatory capture. In Germany, if you need your roof repaired, you have to hire someone who served an apprenticeship with a master roof repairer, but, if it needs too much work, you can't hire a Master Roof Repairer, you have to hire a Master Roof Builder, which is a completely different profession. How do you think that happened if there is no regulatory capture.
The guy has a landscaping degree. Silly city-boy me not realizing the subtleties of agricultural school programs.
So, basically, you selected a guy who charges the same amount as somebody who didn't spend several thousand dollars getting a degree because you think the guy with the degree must be more qualified and knowledgeable than the guy without the degree, even though you don't know the difference between agriculture and landscaping. So, overall, who is better off, the guy you hired who started his business deeply in debt, or the guy with the mullet who started his business right out of high school because he loved working with plants?
The problem with your argument is that those who are in the bottom twenty percent are not the same people who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago. Most of the people who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago have long since moved up. So, those who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago have indeed gotten some of the new pie.
Just a small note, but my landscaper has a Masters in Agriculture from Texas A&M. I hired him exactly because of those credentials..
What are you doing? Having him run a farm on your property? If you wanted someone who had a degree that "qualified" them to landscape your property, you should have hired someone with such a degree. As it is, the guy you hired is no more qualified than that guy with the mullet and beat up pick up truck. There are college degrees in landscape design and groundskeeping. To quote Wikipedia: "Agriculture is the artificial cultivation and processing of animals, plants, fungi and other life forms for food, fibers and other byproducts."
No, the general public doesn't really care about bootloaders, but their geek friends who advise them on what cellphones to buy do. When the majority of geeks say, "Don't buy Motorola phones, they are crap," the general public is much less likely to buy Motorola phones. Even though not everyone has their opinion formed by geeks, enough do to create a market impression. And geeks have been bad mouthing Motorola phones long enough for the general public to get the idea that Motorola phones stink. Admittedly, if Motorola were to come out with a really sharp looking phone with some hot features, they could rapidly overcome this perception.
Ron Paul did not have a chance. He spent too much of his life where the only people that would listen to him were completely off their rocker. As a result of that, he either started to subscribe to some crazy ideas or he said he subscribed to some crazy ideas because that was what his audience wanted to hear. I suspect it was the former. When the only people around who will listen to your sensible ideas, also believe some crazy stuff, over time, you start to think that some of the crazy stuff they believe isn't so crazy.
It would be a violation of Private Manning's rights for the military to reveal enough about the way it is treating him to disprove the allegations. This sort of thing happens frequently. Someone makes an allegation of mistreatment against an organization that is forbidden by statute from commenting on the situation, then people say, "Well, if the allegations are baseless, why don't they tell us what is really going on?". The answer to that question is that the law specifically forbids them from doing so.
As others have pointed out, subsonic rounds do not make very good sniper bullets. So, even if the enemies switch to them, this will result in an improvement in battlefield conditions.
Considering that the detectors are working using the sounds generated by the bullet exceeding the speed of sound and not by tracking the sound of the bullet being fired, it is doubtful that fireworks would in any way interfere with these detectors.
What is in it for Paypal to release the additional data to Sony? And actually, I believe that Paypal considered the larger PR from blocking Wikileaks donations to be more positive than negative. I would bet that Paypal's calculation was that those who were upset about them blocking donations to Wikileaks would be smaller group (even when considering the greater streagth of those feelings) than those who would react positively to said action.
These raids were conducted pursuant to a court order issued in relation to a lawsuit filed by Microsoft. So, no, there was nothing wrong with Microsoft employees taking part in this raid.
The summary is actually reasonably worded for a change (although not entirely accurate). This raid happened as part of a civil lawsuit filed by Microsoft againt the operators of this botnet. Microsoft obtained a court order for the seizure of certain computers within these various facilities. They sent out a taskforce who were accompanied by U.S. Marshalls. This appears to be a perfectly legitimate action where Microsoft presented sufficient evidence in court to seize these assets and then worked with law enforcement to do so.
They may not be admissible in court, but don't think for a second they're not just going to get a bit stack of papers documenting everything on his account from day one to now.
Why would Paypal give them that, and open themselves up for a lawsuit? It is trivially easy for a company like Paypal to generate a report that lists all transactions between two dates. Paypal does not save themselves any effort by giving Sony a full data dump of Geohot's account and sets it self up for a massive PR hit if they do.
You are completely mistaken. An classic example of entrapment is this: A police officer posing as a prostitute tells someone that they will have sex with them for $X. This is why when police pose as a prostitute they always wait for the "John" to bring up money. The same is true when a police officer poses as a "John", the officer will wait for the prostitute to bring up money.
Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy?/quote>
Of course, that still leaves the question as to why would you pay for the New York Times?
You make an excellent point. My favorite example is "Postman" with Kevn Costner. The book by David Brin had everything that could make a good movie, action, well-developed, easily understood characters, a clear good vs. evil plot-line with a flawed hero. The screenwriters instead of basing the screenplay on the central theme of the book (the importance of "myth" in building a society) decided to base the movie on a theme derived from a plot device in the book (I won't try to sum that up since I was only able to watch 15 minutes of the movie before I became completely frustrated with how badly it translated the book). My problem was not that it did not do the book justice (although that in and of itself bothered me). It was that it removed the cetnral theme of the book and replaced it with one that appeared to be designed to promote a partisan political agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
When netbooks first came out, people loved them because they were ultraportable, inexpensive computing devices. Computer manufacturers immediately tried to create slightly more powerful, and much more expensive, netbooks so that they could maintain their margins. This was only mildly successful, because the key factor driving netbook sales was the inexpensive part. Apple comes out with the Ipad, which has less computing power and is even more expensive than the high end netbooks and it is a great success. There are several aspects of the Ipad that allow it to succeed at that high price point, but the biggest factor is marketing (every Ipad owner that I personally know, owns one because it is the latest "nifty, neat" device).
The point is that the market that netbooks first tapped into is still out there and nobody (as far as I can tell) is really trying to tap into it. Somebody should build a netbook that is as cheap as possible. Do not upgrade it (unless the upgrade parts are cheaper than the original ones at that point) until they can sell it for $100 and make the kind of margin they want. At that point there are two strategies that could be followed. One, gradually upgrade the device while maintaining the $100 price point and the desired margin. Or two, introduce an upgraded model at the original price point of this device and continue to sell the original for $100 until the new model comes down to that point.
Windows is not a generic term for an operating system. Therefore it is a perfectly valid trademark. On the other hand app store is a generic term for an app store. At any point since Microsoft registered the "Windows" trademark, if someone said, "I am going to create a Windows," people would have thought, "He is going to create an operating system similar to MS Windows." At any point in recent history, if someone said "I am going to create an app store," people would think, "He is going to create an online store to sell applications," not "He is going to create an online store like Apple's App Store."
The problem is that the term "App Store" has already come to mean "an online location to purchase applications for some specific device," not "An online location to purchase applications for IOS devices." Actually, since Apple uses "App Store" for both its IOS App Store and its Macintosh App Store, it is guilty of making the term App Store generic. I know that a company that owns a trademark can use it in multiple ways, but by using it this way Apple has encouraged the general populace to view app store as a generic term.
Basically, in order to hold a trademark on something it is necessary that people do not already consider the term as the generic for that type of product/use. It is my recollection that as soon as Apple opened the Apple App Store, people started to talk about the idea that other devices should have app stores. That means that as soon as Apple used the term (if not before), people started using it as a generic term.
Regulation means that only the wealthy and powerful can afford to do business. Regulation, always, increases the cost of doing business. This means that even without regulatory capture, regulation favors large business at the expense of small business and the individual. That means that even if you succeed in avoiding regulatory capture, regulation will tilt the playing field in favor of the rich and powerful.
All three experience significant regulatory capture. In Germany, if you need your roof repaired, you have to hire someone who served an apprenticeship with a master roof repairer, but, if it needs too much work, you can't hire a Master Roof Repairer, you have to hire a Master Roof Builder, which is a completely different profession. How do you think that happened if there is no regulatory capture.
The answer to regulatory capture is not fewer regulations, it is less regulatory capture.
Please give me one case where, over the long haul, regulations increased and regulatory capture did not do so as well.
You complain about the lack of economic mobility, while favoring the types of government policy that cause that lack.
The guy has a landscaping degree. Silly city-boy me not realizing the subtleties of agricultural school programs.
So, basically, you selected a guy who charges the same amount as somebody who didn't spend several thousand dollars getting a degree because you think the guy with the degree must be more qualified and knowledgeable than the guy without the degree, even though you don't know the difference between agriculture and landscaping. So, overall, who is better off, the guy you hired who started his business deeply in debt, or the guy with the mullet who started his business right out of high school because he loved working with plants?
The problem with your argument is that those who are in the bottom twenty percent are not the same people who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago. Most of the people who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago have long since moved up. So, those who were in the bottom twenty percent thirty years ago have indeed gotten some of the new pie.
Just a small note, but my landscaper has a Masters in Agriculture from Texas A&M. I hired him exactly because of those credentials. .
What are you doing? Having him run a farm on your property? If you wanted someone who had a degree that "qualified" them to landscape your property, you should have hired someone with such a degree. As it is, the guy you hired is no more qualified than that guy with the mullet and beat up pick up truck. There are college degrees in landscape design and groundskeeping. To quote Wikipedia: "Agriculture is the artificial cultivation and processing of animals, plants, fungi and other life forms for food, fibers and other byproducts."
No, the general public doesn't really care about bootloaders, but their geek friends who advise them on what cellphones to buy do. When the majority of geeks say, "Don't buy Motorola phones, they are crap," the general public is much less likely to buy Motorola phones. Even though not everyone has their opinion formed by geeks, enough do to create a market impression. And geeks have been bad mouthing Motorola phones long enough for the general public to get the idea that Motorola phones stink. Admittedly, if Motorola were to come out with a really sharp looking phone with some hot features, they could rapidly overcome this perception.
You know you can stop now. Everybody knows that you did it.
Ron Paul did not have a chance. He spent too much of his life where the only people that would listen to him were completely off their rocker. As a result of that, he either started to subscribe to some crazy ideas or he said he subscribed to some crazy ideas because that was what his audience wanted to hear. I suspect it was the former. When the only people around who will listen to your sensible ideas, also believe some crazy stuff, over time, you start to think that some of the crazy stuff they believe isn't so crazy.
It would be a violation of Private Manning's rights for the military to reveal enough about the way it is treating him to disprove the allegations. This sort of thing happens frequently. Someone makes an allegation of mistreatment against an organization that is forbidden by statute from commenting on the situation, then people say, "Well, if the allegations are baseless, why don't they tell us what is really going on?". The answer to that question is that the law specifically forbids them from doing so.
As others have pointed out, subsonic rounds do not make very good sniper bullets. So, even if the enemies switch to them, this will result in an improvement in battlefield conditions.
Considering that the detectors are working using the sounds generated by the bullet exceeding the speed of sound and not by tracking the sound of the bullet being fired, it is doubtful that fireworks would in any way interfere with these detectors.
What is in it for Paypal to release the additional data to Sony? And actually, I believe that Paypal considered the larger PR from blocking Wikileaks donations to be more positive than negative. I would bet that Paypal's calculation was that those who were upset about them blocking donations to Wikileaks would be smaller group (even when considering the greater streagth of those feelings) than those who would react positively to said action.
These raids were conducted pursuant to a court order issued in relation to a lawsuit filed by Microsoft. So, no, there was nothing wrong with Microsoft employees taking part in this raid.
The summary is actually reasonably worded for a change (although not entirely accurate). This raid happened as part of a civil lawsuit filed by Microsoft againt the operators of this botnet. Microsoft obtained a court order for the seizure of certain computers within these various facilities. They sent out a taskforce who were accompanied by U.S. Marshalls. This appears to be a perfectly legitimate action where Microsoft presented sufficient evidence in court to seize these assets and then worked with law enforcement to do so.
They may not be admissible in court, but don't think for a second they're not just going to get a bit stack of papers documenting everything on his account from day one to now.
Why would Paypal give them that, and open themselves up for a lawsuit? It is trivially easy for a company like Paypal to generate a report that lists all transactions between two dates. Paypal does not save themselves any effort by giving Sony a full data dump of Geohot's account and sets it self up for a massive PR hit if they do.
Really? Drizzle? That was the best they could do for a name of the new project?
You are completely mistaken. An classic example of entrapment is this: A police officer posing as a prostitute tells someone that they will have sex with them for $X. This is why when police pose as a prostitute they always wait for the "John" to bring up money. The same is true when a police officer poses as a "John", the officer will wait for the prostitute to bring up money.
Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy?/quote> Of course, that still leaves the question as to why would you pay for the New York Times?
I guess that explains why several studies have shown that atheists are more gullible ("ooh, ghosts are scary.") than the religious.
You make an excellent point. My favorite example is "Postman" with Kevn Costner. The book by David Brin had everything that could make a good movie, action, well-developed, easily understood characters, a clear good vs. evil plot-line with a flawed hero. The screenwriters instead of basing the screenplay on the central theme of the book (the importance of "myth" in building a society) decided to base the movie on a theme derived from a plot device in the book (I won't try to sum that up since I was only able to watch 15 minutes of the movie before I became completely frustrated with how badly it translated the book). My problem was not that it did not do the book justice (although that in and of itself bothered me). It was that it removed the cetnral theme of the book and replaced it with one that appeared to be designed to promote a partisan political agenda.