But how often is the trip more than 300 miles? But even in that case, you still have the option with some cars they have designed to have a generator trailer which essentially turns the EV into a hybrid if you need to take a really long trip. Right now I'm a big fan of the plug-in hybrid technology which essentially gives you a completely zero-emission electric vehicle for the first 50 miles or so (90% of the population's commute falls in this range), and otherwise operates as a normal hybrid. A pure electric car (without investment in the infrastructure for rapid charging stations across the country) may not be the best solution for everyone--just 80-90% of everyone.;-)
I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case. Some of the newer EVs have a range of 300 miles, and they are charged overnight from a wall socket. Also, if you have a more efficient drive than an IC engine, you don't need the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels either.
I'm confused. MOND doesn't explain anything? It is just observational? What exactly do we know and understand about gravity that isn't basically observational? Last I checked we didn't really seem to understand gravity, we just can kind of predict what results it should produce. IANAP, obviously, just an interested amateur--but it seems to be a much simpler explanation to me that we just don't entirely understand gravity than "we missed an entire class of matter". I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really would like to understand better the reason people seem to prefer a dark matter theory. I mean, Newton defined his observation of gravity. Einstein refined it (ok, it was a big refinement but only noticeable at edge cases). The fact that there could be another edge case (gravitys effect at great distances, perhaps?) that needs refinement just seems so much more of a natural progression towards understanding to me. I appreciate your post though, it does help me to understand the preference a little more.
So how is that different than selling a used book? You don't have permission of the copyright holder and they don't get compensated. The so-called "first sale" doctrine. I understand that licensing is different than buying. I'm just wondering how any intelligent person would think that there should be a difference. It's all just media.
Wrong. He's talking about software. The software that runs on the car. Making a duplicate of (and potentially modifying) the software that is running on the car. It is all data. Are you saying that buying a car that has someone elses intellectual property on it is any different than buying another physical object (like a DVD) that has intellectual property on it? It is just another medium.
Let's see... a little word substitution and I get "No one is forced to ride the bus. If they do, they understand that they have to follow certain rules." I'm sorry, but your argument is a bit ludicrous.
It took me 3 months to heal from my PRK procedure (wow, those first 3 days were hell). For the first 2 months I had a pretty bad halo. I did read that it is very important to make sure that the laser they use is capable of creating a blend zone that is within 0.5mm of your dilated pupil width or a halo problem could could occur as light enters the pupil through both the corrected and uncorrected portions of the eye. Maybe it would be possible to have a wider ablation done to correct the halo?
We are not obliged to protect someone elses flawed business plan. Just because a company has made money in the past does not give them the right to continue to make money the same way indefinitely. Times change. Technology progresses. Companies will adapt or close down. Companies that focus on giving their users what they want will continue to survive because their users will continue to support them. I subscribe to slashdot because I like the service it provides. I really dislike most advertising. I don't click Google's adds, but I'm sure they make use of the information I give them by using their service to make money. If sourceforge comes up with a way to make money that doesn't rely on me clicking their ads, then more power to them. It is not the users responsibility to fit theirself to some corporations business model.
Options are only that--options to purchase a chunk of the company at a particular price. If you exercise that option to buy a chunk of the company when the stock price is higher than your option price, you make money. All kinds of restrictions can be placed upon those options as well, including a vesting schedule. Chances are that if he didn't exercise his options within a certain time frame after he ceased being an employee, he lost them. As the first employee at a startup, I would have asked for stock in the company instead of options. Once you own stock, it is yours.
Jesus Christ! Can people NOT READ?! Please? Tim O'Reilly's lawyers were not involved in this whole fiasco. He wasn't even contactable during the whole mess (on a lake w/ no good cell service) and didn't think that sending a C&D was the way to go about handling it either. CMP is the company who owns the trademark and whose lawyers sent the C&D. Tom made it seem like O'Reilly did the whole thing--I think that is plenty of a reason to apologize.
More than half of marriages in the U.S. do not end in a 1.5 year period. Per capita, 0.37% of the U.S. gets divorced each year. Out of 20 people in the department (married and unmarried) in 1.5 years 25% of us went through a divorce. That is well above the national average. If we were average, 0.555% of us would have divorced that year. or 0.111 of us. Even if this figure is skewed by being per capita across the entire population of the U.S. (i.e. no children, etc.), go ahead and multiply it by 10 so that 1 of us should have gotten divorced on average. We still beat that by a factor of 5.
The chance that any given marriage will fail over the entire course of that marriage is somewhere around 40%. But, that is much different than half the marriages in a department failing in such a short time.
I worked for a company that did a lot of remote network installs. 50% travel, i.e. we were typically gone every other work week (though often we could get done in 3/4 days). There were 20 of us in the department. 10 of us were married. I was there 1.5 years. 5 of us got divorced. In a 1.5 year time period. 5 of us (yes, me included).
The problem is, if you don't take this opportunity there is a good chance that you will resent having to turn down an opportunity that you are really excited about. Resentment kills relationships--it has a tendency to fester over the years. If you take the job, your wife (if she is like our wives were) could resent that you are essentially choosing your job over her (no, you can not rationalize this away by saying you are doing it "for the both of you", if she feels this way, she will continue to feel this way despite your best efforts. Feelings are feelings, they don't have to fit themselves to any arguments you come up with). Or, you can move. There are chances for resentment here as well--it really depends on your situation. I would normally say that I would try to see if she offered to move, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be resentment on her part later (remember the rule--feelings are feelings--the fact that she offered of her own free will has no bearing on the feelings she has days/months/years later).
So, frankly, you are in a very difficult situation. What to do greatly depends on the personality traits of both you and your wife. Proceed carefully and discuss things in detail. Try not to make any life-altering decisions until finding out what all of both of your options are. Find out what she would be doing for a living if you both moved to the new town. Are there things that she would like to do there? How does moving there fit in with her personal life goals. Would it be a long-term move? What happens if she gets a great job offer several years later?
Anyway, I would say be very careful about any situation that you will be away on a regular basis. Some people can handle it, but I would definitely say that they are the minority. Good luck, and I hope some of this helps.
Don't forget that they also have a nasty habit of carrying someone's product for a while, then coming up with their own "Sam's Choice" version of the product and putting it in a box that looks almost exactly like the one from the supplier. Usually right next to the original product. The supplier spends millions on advertising their product, then the consumer goes to walmart, finds the product, and sees a cheaper Wal-mart version sitting right next to it. I'm sure the suppliers love that.
I'm not saying that, as one who buys products, this is neccessarily bad. Just that it might lead to a bit of ill will, and some "monetary costs" for the supplier. Although, taken to the extreme it could deprive innovative companies of revenue that they need to continue to develop new products (if Wal-mart actually sold innovative products).
I do feel that artists and intellectuals should be compensated for their works, but for limited times. I'm also not saying that individuals should not be able to profit monetarily from their work. However, I do feel that an argument could be made that society should not be prevented from using parts of their (or my) work to create new works. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, as how we handle the "digital age" where copies of "products" are virtually free to create will show a trend as to how we might deal with the potential post-scarcity economy that could be brought about by future technological breakthroughs in nano technology/molecular manufacturing.
The fruit of your effort is yours. Period. The effort of others is theirs. Period.
Not to be coy or anything, but no one creates anything on their own. We all build everything on the shoulders of others. This isn't to demean or take away from personal accomplishment, but it would be egotistical to think that we didn't at least get some help/benefit from society and the general pool of public knowledge in our creation of a work. Surely, at least an argument could be made that society does, in fact, have some right to expect to get some knowledge returned to the pool (preferably before 80 years after the death of the creator of the work)?
Respect for private property is "also in this" for you. There are other systems of political and economic thought that do not feel the ownership of private property is moral/ethical. Without personally making a claim for either view, I think that it is at least important to point out that just because one has been raised holding a certain belief as moral/sacred, doesn't mean that everyone else is obliged to share that opinion.
Many people consider abortion immoral, and some consider the government interfering with a person's ability to make decisions about what does and does not happen in their own body immoral. Many Western cultures would find cannibalism immoral, while other cultures might find it to be something perfectly natural--even sacred. Again, just because you were brought up with a certain set of beliefs doesn't make those beliefs neccessarily superior to another set. I would argue that testing the outcome of following various beliefs might be a good step towards evaluating their merits, but not neccessarily whether or not they are moral.
With regards to "intellectual property" and copyright one could easily argue that hording knowledge is wrong. The society that one is a part of contributed to the development of that knowledge and releasing a product based on that knowledge and not allowing it to be used by others, some would say, is wrong. The compiled code has been released. It can be disassembled into the basic assembly code. A mathematical process was used to convert the easier to read code into the machine code. Again, one could argue that code once released is knowledge that should be in the public domain. Society grants certain rights to being able to profit, solely, from an original work for a limited time (which, in my personal opionion have been extended WAY too far), but an argument could be made that telling someone they can read something but not use the knowledge that they just read is an abridgement of their liberty.
I know this isn't a rebuttal of everything you said, and it certainly isn't my intention to try to make it one. I mostly just wanted to say that it might not be a completely simple issue. I also agree that strong beliefs do not neccessarily make beliefs moral (which I know was your main point), I would just hesitate a little more at declaring protection of "intellectual property" as moral without questioning whether or not society has some right to benefit from it since "no man/woman is an island", etc.
Not only that, but you would have to physically look at each vote to make sure that you were disappearing the *right* votes to accomplish your goal. Just making them disappear at random shouldn't, statistically, change the outcome of the race. I don't know about you, but it would be pretty hard to 1) hide 65,000 cards, 2) sort the cards into keep/throw away piles (9 hours if you can consistently do 2/second), and 3) Sneak the "keep" cards back in without anyone noticing. At the very least you are going to have to conspire with several people. Compare that to 1) Look at rolls to see how many votes we need, 2) Run program on laptop that spits out votes onto a card that makes them look plausible, but in your favor 3) Replace card in machine before it gets tallied.
I don't know about you, but I'm going for paper as being more 'secure' from a practical standpoint (compared to the current machines).
Well, it is a little different. The company that was 'employing' them made huge profits on each of the jobs, while the people bidding for the jobs made very little. Now, I'm not going to say that this is 'wrong', although it makes me cringe a little. There are just too many middle-men in the world for my taste. Apparently the companies that need the transcribing pay way too much for it if there are people out there willing to do it for minimum wage...
Re:Give her my number, I'll fix things just fine
on
Getting Off NetHack?
·
· Score: 1
If I remember correctly, they plan on selling them to countries in lots of a million. I'm sure with such large lots, they will be able to produce them pretty cheaply. Consumers won't be buying in lots that are quite that big...
Slashdot Mirror
But how often is the trip more than 300 miles? But even in that case, you still have the option with some cars they have designed to have a generator trailer which essentially turns the EV into a hybrid if you need to take a really long trip. Right now I'm a big fan of the plug-in hybrid technology which essentially gives you a completely zero-emission electric vehicle for the first 50 miles or so (90% of the population's commute falls in this range), and otherwise operates as a normal hybrid. A pure electric car (without investment in the infrastructure for rapid charging stations across the country) may not be the best solution for everyone--just 80-90% of everyone. ;-)
I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case. Some of the newer EVs have a range of 300 miles, and they are charged overnight from a wall socket. Also, if you have a more efficient drive than an IC engine, you don't need the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels either.
Hell, they probably could have just *asked* for the information and AT&T would have handed it over...
It is truly an exciting time to be alive...as a mouse.
I'm confused. MOND doesn't explain anything? It is just observational? What exactly do we know and understand about gravity that isn't basically observational? Last I checked we didn't really seem to understand gravity, we just can kind of predict what results it should produce. IANAP, obviously, just an interested amateur--but it seems to be a much simpler explanation to me that we just don't entirely understand gravity than "we missed an entire class of matter". I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really would like to understand better the reason people seem to prefer a dark matter theory. I mean, Newton defined his observation of gravity. Einstein refined it (ok, it was a big refinement but only noticeable at edge cases). The fact that there could be another edge case (gravitys effect at great distances, perhaps?) that needs refinement just seems so much more of a natural progression towards understanding to me. I appreciate your post though, it does help me to understand the preference a little more.
So how is that different than selling a used book? You don't have permission of the copyright holder and they don't get compensated. The so-called "first sale" doctrine. I understand that licensing is different than buying. I'm just wondering how any intelligent person would think that there should be a difference. It's all just media.
Wrong. He's talking about software. The software that runs on the car. Making a duplicate of (and potentially modifying) the software that is running on the car. It is all data. Are you saying that buying a car that has someone elses intellectual property on it is any different than buying another physical object (like a DVD) that has intellectual property on it? It is just another medium.
Let's see... a little word substitution and I get "No one is forced to ride the bus. If they do, they understand that they have to follow certain rules." I'm sorry, but your argument is a bit ludicrous.
It took me 3 months to heal from my PRK procedure (wow, those first 3 days were hell). For the first 2 months I had a pretty bad halo. I did read that it is very important to make sure that the laser they use is capable of creating a blend zone that is within 0.5mm of your dilated pupil width or a halo problem could could occur as light enters the pupil through both the corrected and uncorrected portions of the eye. Maybe it would be possible to have a wider ablation done to correct the halo?
We are not obliged to protect someone elses flawed business plan. Just because a company has made money in the past does not give them the right to continue to make money the same way indefinitely. Times change. Technology progresses. Companies will adapt or close down. Companies that focus on giving their users what they want will continue to survive because their users will continue to support them. I subscribe to slashdot because I like the service it provides. I really dislike most advertising. I don't click Google's adds, but I'm sure they make use of the information I give them by using their service to make money. If sourceforge comes up with a way to make money that doesn't rely on me clicking their ads, then more power to them. It is not the users responsibility to fit theirself to some corporations business model.
Options are only that--options to purchase a chunk of the company at a particular price. If you exercise that option to buy a chunk of the company when the stock price is higher than your option price, you make money. All kinds of restrictions can be placed upon those options as well, including a vesting schedule. Chances are that if he didn't exercise his options within a certain time frame after he ceased being an employee, he lost them. As the first employee at a startup, I would have asked for stock in the company instead of options. Once you own stock, it is yours.
Jesus Christ! Can people NOT READ?! Please? Tim O'Reilly's lawyers were not involved in this whole fiasco. He wasn't even contactable during the whole mess (on a lake w/ no good cell service) and didn't think that sending a C&D was the way to go about handling it either. CMP is the company who owns the trademark and whose lawyers sent the C&D. Tom made it seem like O'Reilly did the whole thing--I think that is plenty of a reason to apologize.
The chance that any given marriage will fail over the entire course of that marriage is somewhere around 40%. But, that is much different than half the marriages in a department failing in such a short time.
The problem is, if you don't take this opportunity there is a good chance that you will resent having to turn down an opportunity that you are really excited about. Resentment kills relationships--it has a tendency to fester over the years. If you take the job, your wife (if she is like our wives were) could resent that you are essentially choosing your job over her (no, you can not rationalize this away by saying you are doing it "for the both of you", if she feels this way, she will continue to feel this way despite your best efforts. Feelings are feelings, they don't have to fit themselves to any arguments you come up with). Or, you can move. There are chances for resentment here as well--it really depends on your situation. I would normally say that I would try to see if she offered to move, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be resentment on her part later (remember the rule--feelings are feelings--the fact that she offered of her own free will has no bearing on the feelings she has days/months/years later).
So, frankly, you are in a very difficult situation. What to do greatly depends on the personality traits of both you and your wife. Proceed carefully and discuss things in detail. Try not to make any life-altering decisions until finding out what all of both of your options are. Find out what she would be doing for a living if you both moved to the new town. Are there things that she would like to do there? How does moving there fit in with her personal life goals. Would it be a long-term move? What happens if she gets a great job offer several years later?
Anyway, I would say be very careful about any situation that you will be away on a regular basis. Some people can handle it, but I would definitely say that they are the minority. Good luck, and I hope some of this helps.
I'm not saying that, as one who buys products, this is neccessarily bad. Just that it might lead to a bit of ill will, and some "monetary costs" for the supplier. Although, taken to the extreme it could deprive innovative companies of revenue that they need to continue to develop new products (if Wal-mart actually sold innovative products).
I do feel that artists and intellectuals should be compensated for their works, but for limited times. I'm also not saying that individuals should not be able to profit monetarily from their work. However, I do feel that an argument could be made that society should not be prevented from using parts of their (or my) work to create new works. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out, as how we handle the "digital age" where copies of "products" are virtually free to create will show a trend as to how we might deal with the potential post-scarcity economy that could be brought about by future technological breakthroughs in nano technology/molecular manufacturing.
Not to be coy or anything, but no one creates anything on their own. We all build everything on the shoulders of others. This isn't to demean or take away from personal accomplishment, but it would be egotistical to think that we didn't at least get some help/benefit from society and the general pool of public knowledge in our creation of a work. Surely, at least an argument could be made that society does, in fact, have some right to expect to get some knowledge returned to the pool (preferably before 80 years after the death of the creator of the work)?
Many people consider abortion immoral, and some consider the government interfering with a person's ability to make decisions about what does and does not happen in their own body immoral. Many Western cultures would find cannibalism immoral, while other cultures might find it to be something perfectly natural--even sacred. Again, just because you were brought up with a certain set of beliefs doesn't make those beliefs neccessarily superior to another set. I would argue that testing the outcome of following various beliefs might be a good step towards evaluating their merits, but not neccessarily whether or not they are moral.
With regards to "intellectual property" and copyright one could easily argue that hording knowledge is wrong. The society that one is a part of contributed to the development of that knowledge and releasing a product based on that knowledge and not allowing it to be used by others, some would say, is wrong. The compiled code has been released. It can be disassembled into the basic assembly code. A mathematical process was used to convert the easier to read code into the machine code. Again, one could argue that code once released is knowledge that should be in the public domain. Society grants certain rights to being able to profit, solely, from an original work for a limited time (which, in my personal opionion have been extended WAY too far), but an argument could be made that telling someone they can read something but not use the knowledge that they just read is an abridgement of their liberty.
I know this isn't a rebuttal of everything you said, and it certainly isn't my intention to try to make it one. I mostly just wanted to say that it might not be a completely simple issue. I also agree that strong beliefs do not neccessarily make beliefs moral (which I know was your main point), I would just hesitate a little more at declaring protection of "intellectual property" as moral without questioning whether or not society has some right to benefit from it since "no man/woman is an island", etc.
No, they really are looking for kids searching for porn. See COPA.
Not only that, but you would have to physically look at each vote to make sure that you were disappearing the *right* votes to accomplish your goal. Just making them disappear at random shouldn't, statistically, change the outcome of the race. I don't know about you, but it would be pretty hard to 1) hide 65,000 cards, 2) sort the cards into keep/throw away piles (9 hours if you can consistently do 2/second), and 3) Sneak the "keep" cards back in without anyone noticing. At the very least you are going to have to conspire with several people. Compare that to 1) Look at rolls to see how many votes we need, 2) Run program on laptop that spits out votes onto a card that makes them look plausible, but in your favor 3) Replace card in machine before it gets tallied.
I don't know about you, but I'm going for paper as being more 'secure' from a practical standpoint (compared to the current machines).
Well, it is a little different. The company that was 'employing' them made huge profits on each of the jobs, while the people bidding for the jobs made very little. Now, I'm not going to say that this is 'wrong', although it makes me cringe a little. There are just too many middle-men in the world for my taste. Apparently the companies that need the transcribing pay way too much for it if there are people out there willing to do it for minimum wage...
So, how long have you been in sales?
Me too!
If I remember correctly, they plan on selling them to countries in lots of a million. I'm sure with such large lots, they will be able to produce them pretty cheaply. Consumers won't be buying in lots that are quite that big...