But eBay is a Golliah, so taking them on would be nigh impossible. On the other hand, if yours was the only online auction site that offered "Buy It Now" type functionallity, you might be able to eke out a percentage of the market.
So, the real question is, if they licensed it exclusivly to one of eBay's competitors, would they then be able to get an injunction?
his is why democracy is the worst system except all the others, and the one I'd rather try to get to work rather than spew pointless invective upon it.
American democracy is an inferior system to the republic that the US's founders set up, and the parlimentary system that Britain uses. Both have proven superior.
A while back our County contracted for computer literacy testing for merit pay purposes for the office workers. The contractor asked which word processor the workers used and was told Microsoft Word, Well the contractors showed up and administered the test using pagemaker! The people who passed with reasonable scores knew word processors, the people who didn't just memorized click streams. If you can't jump back and forth between similar programs your just sorry and your job will probably be sent to a third world country.
So, your job's pay was dependent on you knowing how to use pagemaker, even though you don't use it in your day-to-day job? How is that merit pay?
I understand most people should be able to pick up on any word processor put in front of them, but that's not relevent to the question at hand. Maybe the people were Microsoft-product literate. A better test would be to ask the people to do the work in a Finnish version of Office. Those who got reasonable scores would know the keyboard shortcuts and how the menus are laid out, which is all an enduser needs.
And, about your last statement, my reply would be: If you cannot use proper grammar, you're just sorry and your job should probably be sent to a third-world country. See how that's more relevent to word processor skills than knowing 'F7' means spellcheck?
To everyone in the second camp, I have an easy demonstartion of what Office 2007 can do that Open Office cannot: Easily interface with Office 2007, which is on the school's computers. Whether the school computers should have Office 2007 is a totally different subject. Hence, parents with students in the school who want this feature should update.
And if I'm wrong, tell me about it here, sure. But TAKE ACTION, and write an op-ed to the local paper and advise them that OpenOffice.org will offer a free alternative office suite.
I don't disagree that it shouldn't have been patented. What I disagree with is Amazon can patent something equally dumb, and it will stop me from infringing. But if I were to patent something dumb, like the idea of buying stuff with one-click, then they can infringe on my patent with impunity.
And, your example is wrong. Coke cannot patent the formula (recipe formulas, unlike mathematical formulas in the form of software algorithims, are not patentable.) And Pepsi is horrible.
I dislike software patents, and I dislike patent trolls. But think of the consequences of this decision: Only large companies with "market share" or a "brand name" are afforded the protection of software patents. Which only promotes the status quo by keeping all lobbists in favor of it. On the other hand, a big company can use patent law to protect their legal monopoly.
I know it's not news that laws apply differently to the rich and powerful, but I thought that at least there was a veener of similarity.
I'm serious, I want to know what features have been added (and I don't mean changed to the GUI that make it prettier) that actually ADD FUNCTIONALITY.
The new speech recognition engine (bundled with Office 2003 and/or Vista Something) is way better.
The Office 2003 change tracking system is superior to Office 2000 as well.
And I have heard that the Office 2007 GUI is easier to use (I've already learned to use the Office 2003 GUI, so even an upgrade there is meaningless to me). People who don't think that GUI is important is one of the primary reasons (other than compatibility), that I uninstalled OpenOffice. It has been a few years since I looked at OpenOffice, maybe things have improved?
But as a whole, I also find that too many important OSS becomes bloated (I switched from FireFox to Opera for that reason, cue Slashdot holy war #1663). That was a secondary reason behind me uninstalling OpenOffice.
Like many people on/. you seem to believe costs determine price. This is not the case. The justification is that people are willing to pay twice as much for a CD.
the problem is people ARENT willing to pay twice as much any more. hence everyone downloading music. peoples value of a song has degraded so much, most people arent even willing to pay one dollar for a song. the only reason anyone put up w it before was because broadband/p2p/mp3 players were NOT ubiquitous.
I disaree. The various labels might be using an old-style of distribution, but they would change the price on a CD to maximize their profits. Part of it may be to increase the percieved value of their artists to increase revenue from shows. Part of it may be that it satisfies the maximum profit point (revenue/unit - cost/unit)*units. Selling only half the CDs but making more than twice as much a unit is a win for them. They try to increase sales not by reducing the cost (which probably wouldn't help enough), but by increasing the costs of those who are trying to avoid buying them.
The RIAA doesn't get a percentage of iTunes sales, the labels do.
excuse me for not being 100% semantically correct. the RIAA is a blanket name for the collective labels.ill correct my letter to say "to be split at your discretion between the respective label and Apple". happy?
I objected to your phrasing not to be pedantic, but because the RIAA is an American trade/lobbying organization. They have no revenue. It's a misunderstanding I will address later.
While customers certainly have a right to insist on a price before purchasing, insisting on dividing the revenue up amongst parties seems beyond what customers normally insist upon. Fifty percent to the artists seems beyond excessive. Labels assume a lot of risk and costs as far as bribing DJs to get it on the air, and such. Apple has a massive marketing machine. Most musicians are the least important cog. I'd rather have 2% of a much larger pie than have the 10 people who heard of my music d/l it off my site for a buck a song.
u sound just like one of the record label board of directors. theres a big problem in the way people like you think. the artists could easily exist without the record labels...the record labels would cease to exist without the musicians. i believe the artists are not getting what they deserve. if the government boosted income tax to 90%, would you sit around and argue "the government sets the tax levels, therefore ill just sit back and assume whatever they are doing is correct?" and how does apple have a "massive marketing machine?" i havent seen a single tv commercial, billboard sign, or radio advertisement dedicated to the itunes music store.
Are you serious? Have you heard of this advertisment for the music store called the iTunes mp3 playing software? Or the iPod? Or the 8,000,000 advertisments on TV/whatever for the iPod? Certainly, Apple expects to make more on selling content than the device. See video game consoles, cell phones, and F/OSS software. The product is the advertisment for the service/content that is the real revenue generator.
Secondly, as far as labels go, obviously each artist who signs thinks it is a good deal. Who are you to gainsay them? But beyond that, in America (and in Britan before that), there was a TV show where the grand prize was that a record label would make you into a star. You needed some musical ability, but seriously, the PR machine they throw behind the artist is impressive.
If you are in Germany, why would the RIAA care. Yes you are American. And?
i dont understand your logic here. if i am in germany when i buy a britney spears album produced by jive (owned by sony bmg)...where does the money go? does it j
Software projects need a benevolent dictatorship. If anything, there is too little in Linux. Look at MS, even a poor standard is better than none. Too many GUIs lead to people not liking to use Linux. I just want my OS to work, I don't want to have to make 8,000 choices. I want 1 answer to thc question of how do I do 'X', not a dissertation on the 8,000 ways that may apply depending on the settings I have chosen.
Furthermore, when you start multiplying the meanings that a word or phrase can have, you start reducing its usefulness. When it cannot make a specific idea clear, in contexts where the meaning may be ambiguous one now has to use even more words to get their idea across.
I think I speak for everyone when I say: Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
That's far enough for me. I'm already thinking I can snake a line out of my office. How long does it take to charge, that's the question for me, because that determines how long after I get home from the office I can go back out.
Can you name one instance where a corporate policy used to regulate the workforce has ever been lessened?
Trivial. The payment of workers in company script, which allowed companies to regulate how the workforce spends their money, has been entirely elimiated.
Because, if it were truly dangerous to human life, then humans would avoid it the same way we avoid other poisons and strong hallucinogens. If it truly were evil then it wouldn't have a world-wide reputation (among actual users, as opposed to ignorant witch-hunters) as a peaceful drug, as a way to relax, and as a way to enjoy life.
What is it about ten thousand years of historical record that is wiped away by eighty years of government lies?
Would you be alright with me cutting, pasting, and attributing your comments in response to a thread about tobacco elsewhere on the tubes? Although, I would like to trade 80 to 60, as I believe that will be accurate.
I know, I know: RTFA is a joke. RTFS is dead. RTFT happens on occasion. But would you mind RMFP (My F* Post) before replying. They want the avatars you use on company time to adhere to some decorum. Even if you use them also at home. TFA doesn't say explicitly, but implies these are IBM's avatars you may use from home (RTFA for context, I don't feel like retyping it here.) So, yes, they are saying in the game they work for IBM.
Wow, there are an amazing number of things wrong with your letter.
Like many people on/. you seem to believe costs determine price. This is not the case. The justification is that people are willing to pay twice as much for a CD. Also, I tend to get more hours of enjoyment out of a CD than a movie (a good CD at least), because of the replayability.
The RIAA doesn't get a percentage of iTunes sales, the labels do.
While customers certainly have a right to insist on a price before purchasing, insisting on dividing the revenue up amongst parties seems beyond what customers normally insist upon. Fifty percent to the artists seems beyond excessive. Labels assume a lot of risk and costs as far as bribing DJs to get it on the air, and such. Apple has a massive marketing machine. Most musicians are the least important cog. I'd rather have 2% of a much larger pie than have the 10 people who heard of my music d/l it off my site for a buck a song.
If you are in Germany, why would the RIAA care. Yes you are American. And?
Why would any part of this be believed? It's not like anything beyond the usual has happened in the past few weeks. Likely, you have been downloading music for a long time, and are claiming a recent start to increase your moral position.
When logged onto Second Life at work (or presumably using the same account you use at work), they want you to project the corporate image. This seems reasonable, although perhaps overly anal.
Slashdot Mirror
NOOO... who told you? I mean, I hate Megatron... Are favorite Pokemon any more secure?
Sorry, I meant: taking them on, in the marketplace, as a startup,
Oh, that's why there isn't any malware for MacOSX/Linux. I knew there was nothing to that OSS->Security arguments.
But eBay is a Golliah, so taking them on would be nigh impossible. On the other hand, if yours was the only online auction site that offered "Buy It Now" type functionallity, you might be able to eke out a percentage of the market.
So, the real question is, if they licensed it exclusivly to one of eBay's competitors, would they then be able to get an injunction?
American democracy is an inferior system to the republic that the US's founders set up, and the parlimentary system that Britain uses. Both have proven superior.
So, your job's pay was dependent on you knowing how to use pagemaker, even though you don't use it in your day-to-day job? How is that merit pay?
I understand most people should be able to pick up on any word processor put in front of them, but that's not relevent to the question at hand. Maybe the people were Microsoft-product literate. A better test would be to ask the people to do the work in a Finnish version of Office. Those who got reasonable scores would know the keyboard shortcuts and how the menus are laid out, which is all an enduser needs.
And, about your last statement, my reply would be: If you cannot use proper grammar, you're just sorry and your job should probably be sent to a third-world country. See how that's more relevent to word processor skills than knowing 'F7' means spellcheck?
Diet Coke was made to taste like New Coke, which was made to tast like Pepsi.
To everyone in the second camp, I have an easy demonstartion of what Office 2007 can do that Open Office cannot: Easily interface with Office 2007, which is on the school's computers. Whether the school computers should have Office 2007 is a totally different subject. Hence, parents with students in the school who want this feature should update.
And if I'm wrong, tell me about it here, sure. But TAKE ACTION, and write an op-ed to the local paper and advise them that OpenOffice.org will offer a free alternative office suite.
I don't disagree that it shouldn't have been patented. What I disagree with is Amazon can patent something equally dumb, and it will stop me from infringing. But if I were to patent something dumb, like the idea of buying stuff with one-click, then they can infringe on my patent with impunity.
And, your example is wrong. Coke cannot patent the formula (recipe formulas, unlike mathematical formulas in the form of software algorithims, are not patentable.) And Pepsi is horrible.
I dislike software patents, and I dislike patent trolls. But think of the consequences of this decision: Only large companies with "market share" or a "brand name" are afforded the protection of software patents. Which only promotes the status quo by keeping all lobbists in favor of it. On the other hand, a big company can use patent law to protect their legal monopoly.
I know it's not news that laws apply differently to the rich and powerful, but I thought that at least there was a veener of similarity.
The new speech recognition engine (bundled with Office 2003 and/or Vista Something) is way better.
The Office 2003 change tracking system is superior to Office 2000 as well.
And I have heard that the Office 2007 GUI is easier to use (I've already learned to use the Office 2003 GUI, so even an upgrade there is meaningless to me). People who don't think that GUI is important is one of the primary reasons (other than compatibility), that I uninstalled OpenOffice. It has been a few years since I looked at OpenOffice, maybe things have improved?
But as a whole, I also find that too many important OSS becomes bloated (I switched from FireFox to Opera for that reason, cue Slashdot holy war #1663). That was a secondary reason behind me uninstalling OpenOffice.
How much should they get?
That's why I have three bottles of Scotch for if I ever get there.
Or having a cat who fubared your keyboard, so you're typing posts via ascii codes.
I disaree. The various labels might be using an old-style of distribution, but they would change the price on a CD to maximize their profits. Part of it may be to increase the percieved value of their artists to increase revenue from shows. Part of it may be that it satisfies the maximum profit point (revenue/unit - cost/unit)*units. Selling only half the CDs but making more than twice as much a unit is a win for them. They try to increase sales not by reducing the cost (which probably wouldn't help enough), but by increasing the costs of those who are trying to avoid buying them.
I objected to your phrasing not to be pedantic, but because the RIAA is an American trade/lobbying organization. They have no revenue. It's a misunderstanding I will address later.
Are you serious? Have you heard of this advertisment for the music store called the iTunes mp3 playing software? Or the iPod? Or the 8,000,000 advertisments on TV/whatever for the iPod? Certainly, Apple expects to make more on selling content than the device. See video game consoles, cell phones, and F/OSS software. The product is the advertisment for the service/content that is the real revenue generator.
Secondly, as far as labels go, obviously each artist who signs thinks it is a good deal. Who are you to gainsay them? But beyond that, in America (and in Britan before that), there was a TV show where the grand prize was that a record label would make you into a star. You needed some musical ability, but seriously, the PR machine they throw behind the artist is impressive.
Software projects need a benevolent dictatorship. If anything, there is too little in Linux. Look at MS, even a poor standard is better than none. Too many GUIs lead to people not liking to use Linux. I just want my OS to work, I don't want to have to make 8,000 choices. I want 1 answer to thc question of how do I do 'X', not a dissertation on the 8,000 ways that may apply depending on the settings I have chosen.
The Cyberiad was the first CG TV show, however, only the pilot episode was aired.
Based of course on the Lew stories (the book is amazing, highly recommend it.)
I think I speak for everyone when I say: Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
That's far enough for me. I'm already thinking I can snake a line out of my office. How long does it take to charge, that's the question for me, because that determines how long after I get home from the office I can go back out.
Trivial. The payment of workers in company script, which allowed companies to regulate how the workforce spends their money, has been entirely elimiated.
Would you be alright with me cutting, pasting, and attributing your comments in response to a thread about tobacco elsewhere on the tubes? Although, I would like to trade 80 to 60, as I believe that will be accurate.
I know, I know: RTFA is a joke. RTFS is dead. RTFT happens on occasion. But would you mind RMFP (My F* Post) before replying. They want the avatars you use on company time to adhere to some decorum. Even if you use them also at home. TFA doesn't say explicitly, but implies these are IBM's avatars you may use from home (RTFA for context, I don't feel like retyping it here.) So, yes, they are saying in the game they work for IBM.
Wow, there are an amazing number of things wrong with your letter.
When logged onto Second Life at work (or presumably using the same account you use at work), they want you to project the corporate image. This seems reasonable, although perhaps overly anal.
Actually, no, not anymore. Carlos Slim has more, and that cannot stand.