Ha! In Australia its the regulation that makes the market competitive. The American's who ran our version of pre-breakup AT&T (Telstra) got very frustrated at not being able to kick their competitors off their network (a former government asset), and left.
You know, you say one thing: "In Australia its the regulation that makes the market competitive" and then immediately refute it: "The American's who ran our version of pre-breakup AT&T". What is Telstra? A telecommunications and media company formerly owned by the government. So the problems with competition in the market come from government regulation. If the Australian government had never had a telecommunications company, there would have been no need for government regulation to create a competitive market. If after privatizing Telstra, the government refused to grant Telstra any special privileges, in time, market competition would have taken care of the problem.
Never give the government kudos for "fixing" a problem that the government created. (I used quotes around the word fixing, because often the government takes an action that appears to fix a problem but over time it is discovered it either made the problem worse or created new problems just as bad as the one that action was intended to fix. I do not know whether that holds true in this particular case or not.)
I'm not sure I see this as a good thing. There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story. I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.
I guess you haven't heard of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe? And their expose of President Obama's former employer ACORN?
Ya know "objective reporting" is a myth. Prior to 1950 the Philadelphia Inquirer proudly trumpeted that it was pro-Republican. Many papers had the words directly in their names - "The Peoria Democrat".
And I see nothing wrong with that. Newspapers were invented as a way for the owner to express his views. If you didn't like those views, create a competing newspaper. That's what liberty and "free press" means... to say whatever you want to say, even if it's biased towards your own view.
That is absolutely correct, the newspapers of today would do better if they openly admitted their political bias. And if they stopped trying to demean those who openly admit supporting the opposing view point just for the "sin" of supporting a view (when in fact it is for supporting the opposing view).
And that answers the question that several posters had as to why we don't have better home automation systems. The amount people are willing to pay for them is not enough more than the cost of creating them to be worth the effort of doing so.
I agree about the money portion, but it's already apparently hit the nytimes. Isn't that "main stream media in the states" ?
It depends on whether you mean media that the majority considers a reliable source, or the media that considers itself the arbiters of what is news. If it is the former, then the answer is no, if it is the latter than the answer is a resounding yes.
The question, I ask all the people who posted replies, is, "What is all that worth to you? Will it cost more to implement than the value you put on it?"
The answer to those questions is that home automation costs more than what it is worth to the overwhelming majority of people (at least until recently). Many of the people who invested in home automation have discovered that the value received from doing so was significantly less than the cost.
I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.
To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.
Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.
If you base your business model on using the services of a bigger company to offer services to your customers, it is just a matter of time until that bigger company decides that they would rather get the money you are making than the money you are paying them. The only exception to that is if the service you are providing is a lot of work on a day to day basis (as opposed to being very difficult to develop, but then it basically runs itself), and is only of interest to a small niche market.
What purpose are you accomplishing with this home automation? I have seen these predictions and calls for home automation for years, but I have never seen a compelling reason for doing so.
Automatic inventory of what food you have in and generate a shopping list? Great, if I always kept the same stock of food in the house, or it didn't cost a lot more to have food delivered than it does to go to the store to buy it.
Automatic control of the microwave, stovetop, oven, etc? I still have to put the food in to these devices and then remove it when it is cooked, most of the food I cook requires intervention during cooking.
I could go on, but I just don't see what I get out of investing in these gadgets for home automation.
In the U.S., most states ban the sale of horse meat for human consumption.
I'm vegetarian so it's not like it troubles me, but I'd be fascinated to know the reason for this if true. What reasoning would support the eating of deer, cow, sheep, chicken, turkey and other things, but rule out horses?
Sentiment, people like horses and think of them as pets in similar fashion to dogs and cats. Personally, I have no interest in eating horse meat, but I, also, see no reason it should be illegal.
Further, you assume the Washington tax is "fair". What if it's not? Should Microsoft be beholden to pay an unfair tax? What is a fair tax and who gets to decide?
What makes you think that I assume the Washington tax is "fair"? I hold no such position. However, if MS wants its software licensing business to be governed by the rules in the state of Washington, it should follow the laws governing a software licensing business in Washington, including the tax structure. If MS wants its software licensing business to be taxed according to the rules in the state of Nevada, then it should bring court cases related to software licensing either in Nevada or in the state where the company it is bringing to court resides.
What is this apparently obvious ethical system you're using to decide this is not ethical? I don't think ethics means what you think it means.
adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
It is wrong to use one set of rules when it is to your advantage (the laws of the state of Nevada for tax purposes) and a different set of rules when they are more to your advantage (the laws of the state of Washington when suing for violation of software licensing).
The problem isn't MS choosing to report their income from software licensing in Nevada (where they pay no tax on it) instead of Washington (where it would be taxed). The problem is suing a New York state company over licensing issues in Washington state while reporting the income from licensing in Nevada. If Microsoft runs their software licensing business out of Nevada (as their tax reporting claims), then the appropriate venue for suing a New York state based company over licensing issues is either New York or Nevada. Is it legal? Apparently. Is it ethical? No.
I would agree with this in part, as long as the attempt to sell the idea to a company counts. A classic example of where the patent system works as intended is the intermittent windshield wiper. The car companies worked to develop an intermittent wiper and were unable to do so. An independent inventor developed the idea and tried to sell it to them. They asked him to demo the idea before they would pay for it. Once they saw how it worked, they developed their own and tried to claim "obviousness". He sued them and collected significant damages.
The defendants are given three months to comply, if not, they will face penalties of 5,000 euros ($7,500) per person, per day.Per person, per day? So in other words, if two of the three guys gets "laid off", they are reducing the grievousness of the offense by two thirds.
No, if two of the three guys want to comply, but the third locks them out and chooses not to comply all three still get fined (at least that is how such a ruling would work in the U.S). Under certain circumstances the court might consider lifting the imposed sanctions against the two locked out, but they would have to have a fairly compelling case that the only reason they didn't comply was because the third had locked them out.
Well, my memory of history is faded by now, but I'm pretty sure it was a bunch of rich lords, barons, and similar types, controlling all the poor peasants, who had no power whatsoever.
Just how DID it differ from modern times?
Well, as far as I know, in the U.S. at least the representative of a corporation can't just show up at your house and kill you because you looked at him wrong. While when the feudal system was in place that did indeed happen.
Im not clear on how this would work-- they take you to court and explain you are legally obligated to pay them....how? Would you even need a lawyer for that case?
Why cant you just ignore them? Just because they claim they have legal recourse doesnt make it true.
The reason you can't just ignore them is that they likely will take you to court and yes, you will need a lawyer. However, they would have to present evidence that at least one of the musicians played a song that needed a license from them. Unfortunately, if they could provide evidence of even one song, they could force you to pay as if all the songs played had to be licensed from them. The way the law is written, they get to collect the performance royalties for all performed music (whether the copyright owner is a member or not). The logic for this law is to prevent individuals from not joining and then suing venues for not having tracked them down and paying them.
The way this law was enforced when it was first passed, it made sense. If you were a venue that had live acts, you only had to make one contact to get the license for all of the songs being performed. If you were a venue where all of the acts only played their own original music, you didn't have to bother. Somewhere along the line it was discovered that some of the acts at the latter type of place occasionally played covers of other bands works. At that point, ASCAP/BMI realized that they could make a lot more money by harassing these people with essentially no down side to doing so.
He's just confusing Capitalism with Free Markets, and they don't require each other.
Free markets require Capitalism. While it can be debated whether or not the definition of Capitalism requires that there be free markets, it is not possible to have free markets in any economic system other than Capitalism.
Replace "bastard feudal lord from hell" with "giant corporation", and "peasant" with "individual" and you will find things have really not much changed.
You really haven't read much history have you? Take a look at what feudal society was like and then try and tell me with a straight face that there is not much difference between what we have today and the feudal system.
>Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings
Except of course when you compare nsync to backstreet boys, and then you
get 20,000 matching strings.:P
Of course you get lots of overlap between nsync and backstreet boys, the actual author of their songs was some software on the Studio's computers.
I agree that this is just a publicity stunt or an attempt by Toyota to prove that they "think outside of the box". However, the idea of putting the throttle and breaking controls where they will be controlled by the hands is a good idea (although it may prove impractical). There have been numerous studies that indicate that reaction times are significantly better with the hands than with the feet.
I take it you have never heard the Beatles song "Taxman"? Or the fact that they all moved their legal residence to somewhere other than Great Britain to avoid the 90% tax rate?
As for the idea that the top 1% income tax payers in the U.S. control 70% of the wealth is hard for me to believe, since a large slice of the wealthiest people in the U.S. pay no income tax whatsoever (they don't technically have any "income").
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! In Australia its the regulation that makes the market competitive. The American's who ran our version of pre-breakup AT&T (Telstra) got very frustrated at not being able to kick their competitors off their network (a former government asset), and left.
You know, you say one thing: "In Australia its the regulation that makes the market competitive" and then immediately refute it: "The American's who ran our version of pre-breakup AT&T". What is Telstra? A telecommunications and media company formerly owned by the government. So the problems with competition in the market come from government regulation. If the Australian government had never had a telecommunications company, there would have been no need for government regulation to create a competitive market. If after privatizing Telstra, the government refused to grant Telstra any special privileges, in time, market competition would have taken care of the problem.
Never give the government kudos for "fixing" a problem that the government created. (I used quotes around the word fixing, because often the government takes an action that appears to fix a problem but over time it is discovered it either made the problem worse or created new problems just as bad as the one that action was intended to fix. I do not know whether that holds true in this particular case or not.)
Erm. Could it be that pretty much every media outlet does that? It's not like all the news sites pipe out AP feeds verbatim.
Have you read the AP feeds? The AP does it as well.
. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
The people who advise high school students what they should major in in college.
I'm not sure I see this as a good thing. There's no obvious alternatives to salaried journalists in national papers who are willing to dig in and develop a good story. I just can't see the internet producing people like Bernstein and Woodward, Nancy Maynard, Anna Quindlen and others like them.
I guess you haven't heard of Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe? And their expose of President Obama's former employer ACORN?
Ya know "objective reporting" is a myth. Prior to 1950 the Philadelphia Inquirer proudly trumpeted that it was pro-Republican. Many papers had the words directly in their names - "The Peoria Democrat".
And I see nothing wrong with that. Newspapers were invented as a way for the owner to express his views. If you didn't like those views, create a competing newspaper. That's what liberty and "free press" means... to say whatever you want to say, even if it's biased towards your own view.
That is absolutely correct, the newspapers of today would do better if they openly admitted their political bias. And if they stopped trying to demean those who openly admit supporting the opposing view point just for the "sin" of supporting a view (when in fact it is for supporting the opposing view).
And that answers the question that several posters had as to why we don't have better home automation systems. The amount people are willing to pay for them is not enough more than the cost of creating them to be worth the effort of doing so.
I agree about the money portion, but it's already apparently hit the nytimes. Isn't that "main stream media in the states" ?
It depends on whether you mean media that the majority considers a reliable source, or the media that considers itself the arbiters of what is news. If it is the former, then the answer is no, if it is the latter than the answer is a resounding yes.
The question, I ask all the people who posted replies, is, "What is all that worth to you? Will it cost more to implement than the value you put on it?"
The answer to those questions is that home automation costs more than what it is worth to the overwhelming majority of people (at least until recently). Many of the people who invested in home automation have discovered that the value received from doing so was significantly less than the cost.
I guess the warning bell is, if your business model is to host something simple and obvious on EC2, then resell it, you can expect direct competition - in this case from Amazon themselves.
To be sustainable, you need to add something difficult, or non-obvious, or that fills a niche, or stands out in some other way.
Cloud Avenue could still do OK, if they can make their offering better than Amazon's, by whatever means - a nicer UI, better management tools, better customer support, etc.
If you base your business model on using the services of a bigger company to offer services to your customers, it is just a matter of time until that bigger company decides that they would rather get the money you are making than the money you are paying them. The only exception to that is if the service you are providing is a lot of work on a day to day basis (as opposed to being very difficult to develop, but then it basically runs itself), and is only of interest to a small niche market.
What purpose are you accomplishing with this home automation? I have seen these predictions and calls for home automation for years, but I have never seen a compelling reason for doing so.
Automatic inventory of what food you have in and generate a shopping list? Great, if I always kept the same stock of food in the house, or it didn't cost a lot more to have food delivered than it does to go to the store to buy it.
Automatic control of the microwave, stovetop, oven, etc? I still have to put the food in to these devices and then remove it when it is cooked, most of the food I cook requires intervention during cooking.
I could go on, but I just don't see what I get out of investing in these gadgets for home automation.
I'm vegetarian so it's not like it troubles me, but I'd be fascinated to know the reason for this if true. What reasoning would support the eating of deer, cow, sheep, chicken, turkey and other things, but rule out horses?
Sentiment, people like horses and think of them as pets in similar fashion to dogs and cats. Personally, I have no interest in eating horse meat, but I, also, see no reason it should be illegal.
p>
Further, you assume the Washington tax is "fair". What if it's not? Should Microsoft be beholden to pay an unfair tax? What is a fair tax and who gets to decide?
What makes you think that I assume the Washington tax is "fair"? I hold no such position. However, if MS wants its software licensing business to be governed by the rules in the state of Washington, it should follow the laws governing a software licensing business in Washington, including the tax structure. If MS wants its software licensing business to be taxed according to the rules in the state of Nevada, then it should bring court cases related to software licensing either in Nevada or in the state where the company it is bringing to court resides.
What is this apparently obvious ethical system you're using to decide this is not ethical? I don't think ethics means what you think it means.
adjective 1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
It is wrong to use one set of rules when it is to your advantage (the laws of the state of Nevada for tax purposes) and a different set of rules when they are more to your advantage (the laws of the state of Washington when suing for violation of software licensing).
The problem isn't MS choosing to report their income from software licensing in Nevada (where they pay no tax on it) instead of Washington (where it would be taxed). The problem is suing a New York state company over licensing issues in Washington state while reporting the income from licensing in Nevada. If Microsoft runs their software licensing business out of Nevada (as their tax reporting claims), then the appropriate venue for suing a New York state based company over licensing issues is either New York or Nevada. Is it legal? Apparently. Is it ethical? No.
I would agree with this in part, as long as the attempt to sell the idea to a company counts. A classic example of where the patent system works as intended is the intermittent windshield wiper. The car companies worked to develop an intermittent wiper and were unable to do so. An independent inventor developed the idea and tried to sell it to them. They asked him to demo the idea before they would pay for it. Once they saw how it worked, they developed their own and tried to claim "obviousness". He sued them and collected significant damages.
Except for horses. There won't be any meaningful limits on horse owners.
Well, horses are one of the few "pets" we do eat after all.
In the U.S., most states ban the sale of horse meat for human consumption.
The defendants are given three months to comply, if not, they will face penalties of 5,000 euros ($7,500) per person, per day. Per person, per day? So in other words, if two of the three guys gets "laid off", they are reducing the grievousness of the offense by two thirds.
No, if two of the three guys want to comply, but the third locks them out and chooses not to comply all three still get fined (at least that is how such a ruling would work in the U.S). Under certain circumstances the court might consider lifting the imposed sanctions against the two locked out, but they would have to have a fairly compelling case that the only reason they didn't comply was because the third had locked them out.
Well, my memory of history is faded by now, but I'm pretty sure it was a bunch of rich lords, barons, and similar types, controlling all the poor peasants, who had no power whatsoever.
Just how DID it differ from modern times?
Well, as far as I know, in the U.S. at least the representative of a corporation can't just show up at your house and kill you because you looked at him wrong. While when the feudal system was in place that did indeed happen.
Im not clear on how this would work-- they take you to court and explain you are legally obligated to pay them....how? Would you even need a lawyer for that case? Why cant you just ignore them? Just because they claim they have legal recourse doesnt make it true.
The reason you can't just ignore them is that they likely will take you to court and yes, you will need a lawyer. However, they would have to present evidence that at least one of the musicians played a song that needed a license from them. Unfortunately, if they could provide evidence of even one song, they could force you to pay as if all the songs played had to be licensed from them. The way the law is written, they get to collect the performance royalties for all performed music (whether the copyright owner is a member or not). The logic for this law is to prevent individuals from not joining and then suing venues for not having tracked them down and paying them.
The way this law was enforced when it was first passed, it made sense. If you were a venue that had live acts, you only had to make one contact to get the license for all of the songs being performed. If you were a venue where all of the acts only played their own original music, you didn't have to bother. Somewhere along the line it was discovered that some of the acts at the latter type of place occasionally played covers of other bands works. At that point, ASCAP/BMI realized that they could make a lot more money by harassing these people with essentially no down side to doing so.
He's just confusing Capitalism with Free Markets, and they don't require each other.
Free markets require Capitalism. While it can be debated whether or not the definition of Capitalism requires that there be free markets, it is not possible to have free markets in any economic system other than Capitalism.
Replace "bastard feudal lord from hell" with "giant corporation", and "peasant" with "individual" and you will find things have really not much changed.
You really haven't read much history have you? Take a look at what feudal society was like and then try and tell me with a straight face that there is not much difference between what we have today and the feudal system.
>Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings Except of course when you compare nsync to backstreet boys, and then you get 20,000 matching strings. :P
Of course you get lots of overlap between nsync and backstreet boys, the actual author of their songs was some software on the Studio's computers.
I agree that this is just a publicity stunt or an attempt by Toyota to prove that they "think outside of the box". However, the idea of putting the throttle and breaking controls where they will be controlled by the hands is a good idea (although it may prove impractical). There have been numerous studies that indicate that reaction times are significantly better with the hands than with the feet.
The better story is how accurate the NYT is about ..... reporting.
There fixed that for ya.
I take it you have never heard the Beatles song "Taxman"? Or the fact that they all moved their legal residence to somewhere other than Great Britain to avoid the 90% tax rate?
As for the idea that the top 1% income tax payers in the U.S. control 70% of the wealth is hard for me to believe, since a large slice of the wealthiest people in the U.S. pay no income tax whatsoever (they don't technically have any "income").