The New York Times is one of the most respected publications in the world. It's not going anywhere.
You do know that the New York Times is bleeding red ink on a scale similar to GM and Chrysler, right? Do you expect the government to bail the NYT out as well?
I've never understood how the NYT is a "respected" publication. They have had a reputation for "reporting" stories of the way they would like things to be rather than how they actually are since the 1930's (Pulitzer prize for reporting that the Ukrainian famine wasn't happening, when in fact it was, more recently a star reporter reporting from West Virginia without ever leaving New York City).
It comes down to one thing, price. The more someone paid for something, the less likely they are to admit that it doesn't work as they would like. Most of the time people didn't pay anything for any Open Source Software that they have, therefore when they get frustrated they drop it. On the other hand if someone paid over $100 for software, they are much more likely to stick with it and work through the frustration.
Re:Another software service with no way to make $$
on
Skype Kills Extras Program
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I have never understood how Skype intends to make money.
They make money on people who need to talk with people who use regular phones.
I have never understood how Skype intends to make money. I use it for free communication over the Internet with friends who live at a distance. It saves me long distance charges/cell phone minutes, but I don't pay anything for it. If it cost, I would switch to some other means of communication.
Yes, but their wording contrasts the $100.00 to the $1.00 that I guessed a cybercriminal could buy my info for, which is designed to cause me to think "oh my info is worth more than I thought it was." When in fact it is worth less than I thought it was (I guessed $1.00, they say $0.43).
I filled out the questions and got this at the end
...you guessed that a cybercriminal could buy you for $1.00. In the underground economy, you're really worth about $100.00. And that's on a good day. Your entire digital life could go on the auction block for as little as $0.43...
So is my information worth $100.00 or is it worth $0.43? It doesn't seem like they have a clue, but then this is Symantec we are talking about, so I guess we already knew that.
I believe that PA recently passed a law exempting people from obtaining the consent of on duty police officers in order to record them. However, I may be mistaken, the bill may have not made it into law.
Pennsylvania is one of the states with such a law. However, the Pennsylvania statute explicitly excepts those locations where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, such as a restaurant. I think that there is a good chance that this case would fall under such an exception
I haven't seen anyone suggest that Google is going to make money off of this directly. The suggestion is that by controlling this information, Google will be able to control who has access to it. I have seen several articles which say that this settlement gives Google exclusive right to scan these works.
Additionally, the idea of copyright is that if I own the copyright on something, you need my express permission to copy it. What if I published something and then decide that it contains major flaws and want to stop people from using it to promote some odious agenda? (say I did a study of variations in intelligence between various groups and published a paper that seemed to say that one group was less intelligent than others and it started to be used by a racist group to promote its agenda).
Of course, the real solution is to fix how long copy right lasts, then authors could restrict access to their works for the length of copyright, but somebody like Google could be sure that something has an expired copyright. Personally, I favor something like 20 years from the date of publication (but I would be happy with something slightly shorter or slightly longer).
BTW that "poverty line" is for a family of four, how many people are supporting a family of four on one salary right out of college? What jobs have starting salaries 2-3 times what a teacher makes? That you can get with nothing more than a Bachelor's degree? Where you only have to work 9 months out of the year?
Let's look at a couple of states
Connecticut per capita income $43,173
Average teacher's salary $59,304
New Jersey per capita income $40,427
Average teacher's salary $58,156
Mississippi per capita income $23,448
Average teacher's salary $40,576
So, how exactly are teacher's underpaid?
But its a pandemic, like the Spanish Flu from 1918 and the Hong Kong Flu from 1968. The 1918 flu pandemic killed millions all around the world . Of course the Hong Kong flu killed only about 34,000 in the U.S. compared with a yearly average of about 36,000 in the U.S. from ordinary flu. But beware its a flu pandemic, it might kill millions./s
Damn you "W!" You held progress back by at least 8 years and maybe more. (On the other hand, perhaps his dumbassed-ness led to further research into easier and more accessible means of getting stem cells...) Anyway, damn you "W" just the same.
You do realize that this research was eligible for federal funding under George W. Bush, right?
As a matter of fact, because of his limitations on embryonic stem cell research, more money was available for this sort of research than would have been otherwise.
The only reason that medical research has "plateaued" is because treatment for the easy and/or obvious stuff has been developed:
Smallpox--infectious, frequently deadly---cured, infectious agent is extinct
Polio--infectious, results in devastating disability or death---effective vaccine developed and deployed
The fact of the matter of the drugs used to treat diabetes the majority were developed in the last 20 years. The reason that improvements appear to be incremental is because all of the developments that lead to massive increases in life expectancy are done.
I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.
Back when I was into Laserdisk the startling thing was the improved sound quality when I ran it through even a mediocre stereo. It felt like I was back in a theater. If you are sitting there on a couch talking to a friend while watching a movie I doubt quality will improve your experience but if you watch a film properly on quality equipment the experience is similar to a theater only without the sticky floors, crying babies and teenage girls talking.
I highlighted the two aspects that indicate that your understanding of what is an appealing new technology are out of touch with reality.
Laserdisk was a technology whose primary appeal was the inability of the consumer to record to it. Since the consumer did not view that as a desirable feature, Laserdisk failed (there were other reasons, but they all amounted to the fact that Laserdisk did not have any features that most consumers found worth the effort).
You talk about the theater experience as if it is better than watching at home. The only thing I have ever found compelling about watching a movie in the theater is the large screen. Large screen televisions now make that obsolete.
I don't entirely disagree, the current system is broken. But what do you do when your competitor sues you for patent infringement?
You do not have control over whether or not your competitor sues you for patent infringement, so you are still going to need those lawyers.
By Chinese standard, the fact that the US has so much porn is just unheard of. Porn is not only illegal but also considered immoral.
Hold it, I thought only right wing Christian nutjobs wanted to make porn illegal? Are you trying to tell me that the Chinese government is controlled by right wing Christian nut jobs?
The purpose of defensive patents is to be in a position to sue the other guy if he uses his patents to sue you. Defensive patents don't protect you against patent trolls, they protect you against competitors. If MS uses anything covered by these patents, they are now in a weaker position to sue a company that uses/distributes Linux.
Put it another way, if government is already letting corporations do as they please (abusing monopolies, causing pollution, reducing working conditions or whatever) then there's not much left for them to ask for, is there?
How do you think corporations usually get monopolies in the first place?
I always find it amusing when people talk about corporations generally opposing government regulation. Most large corporations favor heavy government regulation of their industry, it is a barrier to entry making it harder for someone new to compete with them. Large corporations may oppose specific regulations, but they almost always favor the government regulating the business they are in.
I'm a rather well informed individual, and I can find pretty much no source which objectively explains the bill to non-lawyers and non-wonks. Sure, lay people can just RTFB, but how many people can actually make any sense of it, or keep track of the constant changes, and consequences of debates?
That is a good reason right there to oppose this bill (or any other that is equally complex).
I should know better than to feed the trolls. I expressed an opinion that is consistent with the results of recent polls (there is little support for this Administration's goals on healthcare reform) and you said that I was "spitting on democracy". You may disagree with my interpretation of those polling results, but my interpretation is not some unsupported leap to a wished for conclusion.
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.
All that means is that the police raided Sony rather than contacting them first. I'm sure that Sony could have offered a bigger bribe than the artist (unless of course the artist is backed by one of the drug cartels, in which case, the bribe was only a small part of the incentive).
It's very, very unfortunate that Mac OS X is now reverting to the primitive CP/M way. It causes a loss of essential functionality that Mac power users have always depended on: to know that a document will always be opened in the application with which you've created it.
Suppose I don't want the file to open in the application I created it in? I know of several applications that I only want to open a document in when I want to edit the document, the rest of the time I prefer opening the document in alternative applications.
Slashdot Mirror
The New York Times is one of the most respected publications in the world. It's not going anywhere.
You do know that the New York Times is bleeding red ink on a scale similar to GM and Chrysler, right? Do you expect the government to bail the NYT out as well?
I've never understood how the NYT is a "respected" publication. They have had a reputation for "reporting" stories of the way they would like things to be rather than how they actually are since the 1930's (Pulitzer prize for reporting that the Ukrainian famine wasn't happening, when in fact it was, more recently a star reporter reporting from West Virginia without ever leaving New York City).
It comes down to one thing, price. The more someone paid for something, the less likely they are to admit that it doesn't work as they would like. Most of the time people didn't pay anything for any Open Source Software that they have, therefore when they get frustrated they drop it. On the other hand if someone paid over $100 for software, they are much more likely to stick with it and work through the frustration.
I have never understood how Skype intends to make money.
They make money on people who need to talk with people who use regular phones.
That's what I use a regular phone for.
I have never understood how Skype intends to make money. I use it for free communication over the Internet with friends who live at a distance. It saves me long distance charges/cell phone minutes, but I don't pay anything for it. If it cost, I would switch to some other means of communication.
Yes, but their wording contrasts the $100.00 to the $1.00 that I guessed a cybercriminal could buy my info for, which is designed to cause me to think "oh my info is worth more than I thought it was." When in fact it is worth less than I thought it was (I guessed $1.00, they say $0.43).
But this is in MA, not PA...
And the poster I was replying to was talking about Illinois.
...you guessed that a cybercriminal could buy you for $1.00. In the underground economy, you're really worth about $100.00. And that's on a good day. Your entire digital life could go on the auction block for as little as $0.43...
So is my information worth $100.00 or is it worth $0.43? It doesn't seem like they have a clue, but then this is Symantec we are talking about, so I guess we already knew that.
I believe that PA recently passed a law exempting people from obtaining the consent of on duty police officers in order to record them. However, I may be mistaken, the bill may have not made it into law.
Pennsylvania is one of the states with such a law. However, the Pennsylvania statute explicitly excepts those locations where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, such as a restaurant. I think that there is a good chance that this case would fall under such an exception
I haven't seen anyone suggest that Google is going to make money off of this directly. The suggestion is that by controlling this information, Google will be able to control who has access to it. I have seen several articles which say that this settlement gives Google exclusive right to scan these works.
Additionally, the idea of copyright is that if I own the copyright on something, you need my express permission to copy it. What if I published something and then decide that it contains major flaws and want to stop people from using it to promote some odious agenda? (say I did a study of variations in intelligence between various groups and published a paper that seemed to say that one group was less intelligent than others and it started to be used by a racist group to promote its agenda).
Of course, the real solution is to fix how long copy right lasts, then authors could restrict access to their works for the length of copyright, but somebody like Google could be sure that something has an expired copyright. Personally, I favor something like 20 years from the date of publication (but I would be happy with something slightly shorter or slightly longer).
BTW that "poverty line" is for a family of four, how many people are supporting a family of four on one salary right out of college? What jobs have starting salaries 2-3 times what a teacher makes? That you can get with nothing more than a Bachelor's degree? Where you only have to work 9 months out of the year?
Let's look at a couple of states
Connecticut
per capita income $43,173
Average teacher's salary $59,304
New Jersey
per capita income $40,427
Average teacher's salary $58,156
Mississippi
per capita income $23,448
Average teacher's salary $40,576
So, how exactly are teacher's underpaid?
But its a pandemic, like the Spanish Flu from 1918 and the Hong Kong Flu from 1968. The 1918 flu pandemic killed millions all around the world . Of course the Hong Kong flu killed only about 34,000 in the U.S. compared with a yearly average of about 36,000 in the U.S. from ordinary flu. But beware its a flu pandemic, it might kill millions. /s
Damn you "W!" You held progress back by at least 8 years and maybe more. (On the other hand, perhaps his dumbassed-ness led to further research into easier and more accessible means of getting stem cells...) Anyway, damn you "W" just the same.
You do realize that this research was eligible for federal funding under George W. Bush, right?
As a matter of fact, because of his limitations on embryonic stem cell research, more money was available for this sort of research than would have been otherwise.
The only reason that medical research has "plateaued" is because treatment for the easy and/or obvious stuff has been developed:
Smallpox--infectious, frequently deadly---cured, infectious agent is extinct
Polio--infectious, results in devastating disability or death---effective vaccine developed and deployed
The fact of the matter of the drugs used to treat diabetes the majority were developed in the last 20 years. The reason that improvements appear to be incremental is because all of the developments that lead to massive increases in life expectancy are done.
One of the five people playing won!
From the summary it looks like the five players teamed up to find him.
I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.
Back when I was into Laserdisk the startling thing was the improved sound quality when I ran it through even a mediocre stereo. It felt like I was back in a theater. If you are sitting there on a couch talking to a friend while watching a movie I doubt quality will improve your experience but if you watch a film properly on quality equipment the experience is similar to a theater only without the sticky floors, crying babies and teenage girls talking.
I highlighted the two aspects that indicate that your understanding of what is an appealing new technology are out of touch with reality.
Laserdisk was a technology whose primary appeal was the inability of the consumer to record to it. Since the consumer did not view that as a desirable feature, Laserdisk failed (there were other reasons, but they all amounted to the fact that Laserdisk did not have any features that most consumers found worth the effort).
You talk about the theater experience as if it is better than watching at home. The only thing I have ever found compelling about watching a movie in the theater is the large screen. Large screen televisions now make that obsolete.
I don't entirely disagree, the current system is broken. But what do you do when your competitor sues you for patent infringement?
You do not have control over whether or not your competitor sues you for patent infringement, so you are still going to need those lawyers.
By Chinese standard, the fact that the US has so much porn is just unheard of. Porn is not only illegal but also considered immoral.
Hold it, I thought only right wing Christian nutjobs wanted to make porn illegal? Are you trying to tell me that the Chinese government is controlled by right wing Christian nut jobs?
The purpose of defensive patents is to be in a position to sue the other guy if he uses his patents to sue you. Defensive patents don't protect you against patent trolls, they protect you against competitors. If MS uses anything covered by these patents, they are now in a weaker position to sue a company that uses/distributes Linux.
Put it another way, if government is already letting corporations do as they please (abusing monopolies, causing pollution, reducing working conditions or whatever) then there's not much left for them to ask for, is there?
How do you think corporations usually get monopolies in the first place?
I always find it amusing when people talk about corporations generally opposing government regulation. Most large corporations favor heavy government regulation of their industry, it is a barrier to entry making it harder for someone new to compete with them. Large corporations may oppose specific regulations, but they almost always favor the government regulating the business they are in.
What corporate sponsorship is that? Or haven't you noticed that most of the corporations are on board for this?
I'm a rather well informed individual, and I can find pretty much no source which objectively explains the bill to non-lawyers and non-wonks. Sure, lay people can just RTFB, but how many people can actually make any sense of it, or keep track of the constant changes, and consequences of debates?
That is a good reason right there to oppose this bill (or any other that is equally complex).
I should know better than to feed the trolls. I expressed an opinion that is consistent with the results of recent polls (there is little support for this Administration's goals on healthcare reform) and you said that I was "spitting on democracy". You may disagree with my interpretation of those polling results, but my interpretation is not some unsupported leap to a wished for conclusion.
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.
All that means is that the police raided Sony rather than contacting them first. I'm sure that Sony could have offered a bigger bribe than the artist (unless of course the artist is backed by one of the drug cartels, in which case, the bribe was only a small part of the incentive).
It's very, very unfortunate that Mac OS X is now reverting to the primitive CP/M way. It causes a loss of essential functionality that Mac power users have always depended on: to know that a document will always be opened in the application with which you've created it.
Suppose I don't want the file to open in the application I created it in? I know of several applications that I only want to open a document in when I want to edit the document, the rest of the time I prefer opening the document in alternative applications.