Nicotine is very addictive in cigarettes, slightly less so in cigars and pipe, and less so when chewed, because its addictivity varies depending on how much time it takes for it to reach the brain. That's about 7s IIRC with cigarettes. Uptake much slower through other ways.
This may be, but a pinch of chewing tobacco contains about 3-5 times as much nicotine as a cigarette. People who dip don't even feel the effects from smoking one little cigarette.
Apparently, the problem is that minorities that are hired by the DOJ leave at a higher rate than whites, and that women also leave at a higher rate than men(though not as much as minorities). This would indicate that there is a cultural problem in the DOJ and it is hindering them, especially in serving minority communities. Please understand that no one is suggesting that qualified white males should not be hired or that minorities be given a preference - just that the DOJ seek to retain those that they do hire, and fix whatever is pushing them away.
The study dedicates quite a bit of discussion to this effect. Since the DOJ doesn't do a good job with exit interviews, it's extremely difficult to tell why the attrition rate is higher for women and minorities than for white men.
There are two issues going on, and its most likely a mixture of the two that causes this effect.
1) Dissatisfaction with the environment.
2) Active headhunting by the private sector. The study points out that law firms actively recruit top-performing minorities and females from the DOJ. These law firms spend more effort per hire on pulling away women/minorities than they do on white men.
Given the joint effort of these Push - Pull factors, it's not surprising that the attrition rate is higher. The problem is that the DOJ could have an enviroment where everyone is equally satisfied, but they would still lose more minorities/women because of factor #2.
Apart from that, this survey really had response issues. More women responded to the survey than men. More minority attorneys responded than white attorneys. The overall response rate was only 13%. Given these statistics, there's a big dark cloud hanging over this survey which is 'did the folks who responded have an axe to grind?' The statistics that talk about "Perceptions" should be examined a lot more carefully than they are in a quick glimpse.
The redaction part of the story is disturbing nonetheless.
Surely this will only shift the piracy to open-source applications. Why, by 2005, I'll bet there will be hundreds -- nay, thousands! -- of copies of Redhat and Mandrake circulating around Vietnam for free! And thousands of applications too! The horror!
I understand this is a joke, but piracy in the Open-source world will manifest itself in GPL violations. If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it. The Vietnamese gov't could say "we don't intend on sharing our improvements and you can't do much about it."
Now, I don't know but I doubt people here would want Open Source to be used widely at the cost of destroying the model...
When last has voting really had a profound effect? When last have we voted about issues and not FOR parties? A total swing in the political rulers have not had any noticable effect on the country... hence the opinion that there had been no real need to vote.
The Civil War, which many consider the single most important event in our country's short history was precipitated by Lincoln's election. The moment southerners realized they were effectively disenfranchised by a unified northern block vote, they decided to leave what they considered to be a voluntary union. 9-11 is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the action that occured in the war. If Lincoln had not been elected, take a moment to consider what the US might be like today in terms of policy and even just who is alive and who is not...
On a more recent note, the current concensus seems to be that Bush was incorrect to get into Iraq. This must mean that people believe election of another leader would have kept us out of Iraq, right? This event has the possibility of bringing peace to the mideast via propagation of democracy through the region. Or maybe it could result in the next worldwide Muslin/Christian conflict, building irreparable animosities (eg the Balkans) across the entire planet for centuries?
It's tough to say, but it is fairly clear to me that the accident that allowed Bush to be elected legally but perhaps "unfairly" will have fairly important but unpredictable results?
Yes, from reading the article it looks like the problem most people face is not which component provides the best price-quality ratio, but which component is the most expensive and how I can justify wasting 2 times more money than needed on that. I am sure more people would find an article useful if it was written from a somewhat realistic viewpoint
I've read a zillion of these type of articles and I'm pretty sure that none of them are intended as a step-by-step on why to build "this particular machine." I imagine about 5 people in the world actually go out and try to duplicate this rig. The article serves different purposes:
1) Evaluation of individual components. Some people out there might not spend $10K on a rig, but they might go out and buy the gold-plated CPU cooler. Another guy might like the speakers, or whatever... If you like top of the line parts, you might be interested in seeing how it contributes to a top of the line machine. IE I'm spending $100 on a CPU cooler I want to feel good about my purchase.
2) People enjoy reading about things they actually can't afford. If not for this simple fact, there wouldn't be many sports car magazines. About 2 people in the world can afford some of the cars that are written about, but a lot of people like to read about them.
3) Writing yet another article about building yet-another-beige-box doesn't attract readers. Journalists need to get people's attention. This article got linked up good. It should be some indication that the author succeeded even though some out there may be all about the non-exciting, very practical world of white bread.
I also wish IT Week would have pointed out that $599 for SBS 2003 doesn't include support of any kind... Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will point me out if I am,) but I was under the impression that with SBS you had to run it all on one server. Is this still/Was this ever the case?
Two points. A) The organization that is running MS Small Business Server has 5-50 employees needing a workstation/email account, so they probably do not have on staff a full time IT person. If they do, they have one most likely low skilled tech. I think 30-40 is about the point where you hire someone full time. Companies depending on SBS most likely use a MS Certified Partner to manage their IT problems. I doubt they are making calls to Microsoft directly to solve problems. Moreover, SBS is designed for a very generic solution, it's unlikely there are going to be advanced issues you need support from Microsoft on. The typical situation for SBS (or Open-Source equivalent product) is going to be where you have your hourly IT consultant come in and take care of it every other week. In this situation, up-front cost is less relevant to the buyer, since the TCO is going to be dwarfed by the hourly costs of the consultant you choose.
2) Yes, SBS is designed and required to work on one machine. If you demand redundancy or division of tasks, then SBS is not the product for you, instead you'll have to pull together your own infrastructure with the appropriate Windows Server, SQL, and Exchange licenses plus appropriate CALs. SBS is supposed to be idiot proof. In this way you theoretically get lower costs but of course suffer the problem of "the restrictions don't meet my situation."
And, like Icarus, the rocket foolishly soared too high, and lost control of its servo guidance mechanism, leaving us with some... six hours to live.
So, let's go live now to the charred remains of the only bridge out of town with Arnie Pie and Arnie in the Sky!
So why did they name this project Icarus again? Some clever IT worker is "fighting the power" perhaps with a subtly fiendish stab at the administration?
The article mentions that they were trying to recreate a scene from GTA. Does anyone know which scene specifically shooting a.22 at people in cars refers to? I played through Vice City and don't remember sniping folks in cars. (Could be wrong). I DO remember doing other things to people in cars though...
Had they had driven to the mall and tried to break all the windows in under 5:00 minutes, would this might be a legitimate case?
Also, I don't think there's any legal basis to threaten anyone with "stiffer penalties" simply for using a better technology to do the same thing.. What do you guys think?
I think the RIAA is signaling that in this sort of situation, they won't be willing to settle for the "small" amounts that they're currently settling for. I think under law they can claim damages far in excess of what their settlements have actually been. As some have pointed out, when you use a darknet and indicate you know what's going on is illegal. In this case, the RIAA may just say "we don't feel like leaving you with your house and car, we want everything." Since the courts aren't handing out the fines, there's no legal basis really for any of this. In a sense, this kind of posturing may backfire in that people may feel more comfortable going to the court system and rolling the dice instead of taking the more severe known outcome of a settlement.
To make a quick numerical point, $2B divided by 200 million units is $100 per unit.
Sorry...
Before everyone jumps on this typo, i meant to say 20 million units (i think that's this years sales). Just a general idea of what the sunk cost might do to margins...
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
Everyone cites this fact as if it's the divine truth, when in reality it's just an accounting issue. Sony chose to develop its console in house, spending about 2 Billion ($US) roughly on chip R&D. This year alone, they intend on spending $4.5 billion on chip research (Console rsrch and other chips).
They didn't do that so that they could sell the consoles roughly at the cost of manufacturing. They obviously expect to make up the R&D cost via game licensing revenues. To make a quick numerical point, $2B divided by 200 million units is $100 per unit. If you go around announcing that PS2 is selling for $199 and actually costs $179 to manufacture, therefore Sony is making money on every box, you're missing a significant part of the picture.
Imagine two situations: Sony drops $2B on chip research but has lower manufacturing costs. MS spends no money on research and has higher manufacturing costs. If both companies sold a small number of units, MS would have made the right decision. If both companies sold enough units, Sony would would have made the right decision. This is not the black and white issue that folks make it out to be!
Nonetheless, i happen to think Sony chose the right strategy. The console industry is about being the dominating winner, and you design a manufacturing strategy that plays to that point.
A little disclaimer: My numbers might be a bit off b/c I'm pulling them from memory. The basic principle is still there, though: Sony would not break even without significant game licensing fees. Neither would MS. They are in the same boat!
Is there some point to doing this? If we are in it just for the new technology, then there are much better ways to spend science research dollars. Is this "exploration" going to bring any tangible benefits? Is there any economic justification to this?
I agree... If we're going to spend money in the name of research, spend it on something worthwhile like Cold Fusion research.
Our current age of development (1850's to present) has relied on an ever increasing use of energy in many forms. The vast majority is fossil fuel generated. Unless we can come up with an alternative source of power, our kids can say goodbye to current standards of living and say hello to animal power. We have a ticking clock with regards to living standards and current technological prowess. If that clock runs out, theres a chance humans will never again reach the level we're at now.
FIRST, spend the money on alternative energy generation.
THEN, when you have cheaper/reliable energy sources, figure out a way to get us off this rock.
And there's no sign of forced entry, so the insurance company says "you left the key in the ignition, tough for your claim.
That story sucks and I feel bad for you, but I don't understand how there could be no sign of forced entry on a car that's been stolen. Not to sound like the Bloodhound Gang / Sherlock Bones / Encyclopedia Brown here or anything. Presumably you came back and the car was gone, and was reported as a theft.
Was the car recovered? And if so there's probably not much of a claim there...
This is the real reason the RIAA does all the suing---they're the only group with the monopoly to abuse by such terminally stupid actions.
In any case, I doubt even the American public is dumb enough not to realise ``the recording industry'' means ``the record labels''.
I think you're right that having the RIAA disciplines the members into acting in the group interest rather than their own, much like OPEC does. To say that it is the "real reason" (implying the only reason) is probably a bit too emphatic. In fact, your point that they must hold off suing their customers because of perceived damage to their reputation only further proves my point that they need a front to do their dirty work.
After all, the headline "Sony Records sues 12 year old girl" is certainly different than "RIAA sues 12 year old girl." Sony's customers might think twice about buying a tv or stereo or playstation, and not just boycotting Sony records.
The one argument that you could make is that the label loses the opportunity to sell you a CD when you download their music, but that isn't true either. I would say half of my music downloads (and I don't download very much) lead to CD purchases.
Whether that is the case or not is besides the point. If someone correctly or incorrectly wishes to copyright their material, then it's their right to limit its distribution.
By your logic, Microsoft would be allowed to confiscate and include GPL'd code into Windows under the rationale that it is "increasing the number of computers OSS code is running on (to the satisfaction of OSS authors)."
Anyways, any anecdotal evidence provided is next to worthless. I could as easily point out people I know who have quit buying CD's because file-sharing is so easy and free.
Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses.
Here's the critical issue: the RIAA doesn't and will never have a PR issue because consumers don't know what the RIAA is. The RIAA really is a front for several recording companies to do their dirty work while protecting their precious brand images.
You don't hear "Sony Records is suing a 12 year old." Rather, it's done by proxy. Were the recording companies forced to conduct their own lawsuits independently, they would be much less likely to do anything publicly. After all, the damage to brand equity would far outweigh the lost sales
In the interest of friendly discussion, you might be interested in this article. It provides some positive economic analysis of your point:
http://reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml
I don't agree with it, but you might. The fundamental problem here is that the OSS philosophy cannot necessarily be applied to all existing IP. Slashdotters see that the OSS model works, and get the idea that it's going to save the world. The primary contrast between software development and most other types of IP is that a movie or a new pharmaceutical or even a record cost real dollars to produce. OSS = sweat + time + cooperation. Until you can prove that there's a way to rally the appropriate capital investment for an IP project, I won't buy the "all info should be free" theory. And, no, I don't want the Government picking up the slack there... The last thing we need is our Govt fronting the money for some CD recording...
Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.
Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.
I think you are being incredibly fast and loose with what is traditionally considered a just and unjust law.
Dr. Martin Luther King writes this about some examples of unjust laws: 1)"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself."
Not the case here. RIAA is accountable to IP laws just as I am as a US Citizen.
2)"A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law."
Not the case here. Property laws are a fundamental of the US code, which was written by democratically elected officials. IP laws predate the RIAA.
3)"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest."
Somewhat but not really the case here. Granted, RIAA is using heavy handed tactics which I happen to think may be unconstitutional. People were sharing files though before the RIAA made a stink. Their actions now do not post-facto make file sharing OK. But to the heart of the issue you've addressed, the right to protect one's property is a fundamental right in this country. 95% of people probably are ok with it. If that is the case, and humans make their own morality (as you pointed out), how could IP laws be immoral?
Now, obviously there's some room for manuevering in the interpretation of MLK. But, I don't think that file sharing for personal enjoyment falls into the category of 'crusading for the freedom of information.' Much more likely it stinks of self-interest, ie someone else has something I want to take.
IP laws are in place for a somewhat rational reason. This is that an individual or entity who comes up with a brilliant idea does not have it immediately confiscated by the public. It is in a sense, a freedom to restrict my good idea for my own purposes.
The point made about "Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people" flies so fundamentally in the face of privacy rights that I can't believe the slashdot crowd watched this comment sail through. YES, I want laws in place protecting patient/doctor, lawyer/client, and similar types of confidentiality in place. You've gone so overboard with your concept of info sharing that you'd end up violating the fundamental rights we now hold dear.
Naturally I believe a government is free to do so if they want to. Furthermore I am sympathetic to the idea of providing citizens with a free os to ensure freedom of information etc.
Foreign governments are free to do what they want, but the consequence is a possible violation of standing free trade agreements. This was hinted at near the end of the article. Governments that provide trade barriers by subsidizing local competitors at the expense of foreign competitors are violating GATT.
If MS can prove that the subsidies materially damaged their business, then they have the right to ask for relief. If another country damages US trade by providing subsidies, the US has the right to retaliate by charging an amount equal to the subsidy if that good is imported into the US. Or, the US could choose something even more drastic.
With the US economy in the crapper, and US citizens generally pissed off about the flight of manufacturing jobs abroad, other countries should be genuinely concerned about the US retaliating by increasing tariffs. I don't necessarily advocate this, but the public as a whole tends to want to wall this country off when things start going poorly.
a lot of the "security" we've put in place post-911 is truly window-dressing.
I agree with you 100%. This response isn't arguing with your post, but your post did remind me of some thoughts i've had on this matter. The vast majority of the expenditures post 9/11 have been made to make people feel safer, rather then to actually increase their mathematical likelyhood of being safe.
In a sense, though, making sure the passengers feel safe is far more important than actually making them safe. I'm not trying to trivialize airline accidents, but we all know that hopping in a car is far more dangerous than hopping in a jet plane. The FAA doesn't have such strict regulations to bring down the number of crashes every year from 4 to 3. Those kind of numbers don't mean anything to the average person. Humans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics involved, and no one would fly if they perceived the industry to be unsafe. I consider myself a rational person, and I know all the statistics, but I still feel less safe in a plane than I do in a car. No amount of improving the 'actual' security will change that. If you've ever taken a decisions sciences course, you'll know that even the brightest people in the workforce don't make perfectly rational decisions, but rather base them on stupid little things like the order that information is presented in.
What will change everyone's fear of flying is "window dressing," and, yes, I'm willing to pay the 9/11 security tax (or whatever it's called) to fool myself into thinking that there's probably not a terrorist on the plane. The government's role isn't just to operate in a vacuum and take actions that improve safety. The US government also has an obligation to maintain confidence in the airline industry. If having armed guards standing around the airport makes people more likely to fly, then it makes sense to have armed guards, regardless of their statistical effect on safety. And yes, I'm aware that all in all those armed guards are a waste of money. But, you have to make decisions within the constraints of your environment, and I truly believe that no amount of statistical understanding will change the way that the average American or non-American makes the decision to fly or drive.
Spending money to change perceptions is sometimes a rational tradeoff. However, reducing freedoms in order to increase perceptions of safety is simply not a reasonable tradeoff.
Cynically, I personally believe that Microsoft uses the size of its firm, and its cash flow to dominate the software world economically, while the U.S. government uses Microsoft's ability to dominate this area for the purposes of spying. Just for argument's sake, how much of the intelligence used by the War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs, or any other policy is actually derived from intentionally engineered holes and spyware associated with Microsoft products? Seems a word processor, a spreadsheet, and an email program ought to be a good place to put a keylogger..
To me this is the only possible reason Microsoft could still exist.
Not to point out the obvious, but the American Gov't might have a vested interested in seeing Microsoft the entity do well simply because it brings in a fantastic amount of money to the US. A similar example might be the way that the South African government would be interested in pumping up the diamond monopoly given how that industry contributes to their economy. Unless you're really pushing the tin foil hat thesis, diamonds aren't surveillance devices, but there is still a large gov't interest in defending the monopoly.
Yes, Microsoft is about money, but I wouldn't want to risk my investment money in a company with the medium term business issues Microsoft currently face, or in a company that engages in the same sorts of dubious accounting practices as Enron (don't ask, Google) and just hasn't been caught yet.
Microsoft's accounting issues are diametric from those of Enron.
Microsoft did its best to hide revenue because the Street has a habit of punishing firms that get their earnings erratically. Stocks drop when companies beat their projections. Analysts see it as the CFO not understanding what's going on with the business... If you think Microsoft is the only company that "manages" earnings, you are incredibly mistaken. Microsoft's biggest issue is simply the size of its war chest-- not the worst kind of issue to deal with. See this BW article: Microsoft's $49 Billion "Problem."
Enron on the other hand was hiding debt in its subsidiaries to get it off the balance sheet in an attempt to appear solvent. We all know what happened there....
The two companies have basically nothing in common.
I have mixed reactions about analyzing MMORPGs as microcosms of the real world.
I think you're absolutely right about this. Just about the most important discovery you could ever make about synthetic economies is that a principal that applies in the real world also applies to these possible microcosms... On the other hand, you couldn't EVER extrapolate what you learned from say SWG's economy to our real economy because there's such a statistical bias in the sample/population.
Add to this the fact that economists nailed down just about every single aspect relating to an economy as simple as those existing in MMORPG's. There are NONE of the elements that make an economy complex beyond what you learn in Econ 101. Essentially what you have is a pre-medieval market system that facilitates the exchange of goods and services. 18th Century Economists had this stuff licked.
Granted, it's a curiousity that, yes, some economic principles exhibit themselves in these online worlds, but how great could these principles really be if they didn't? I mean this kind of research is about as groundbreaking as going into an elementary school and finding that the resale value of Lunchables fluctuates based on when kids get their allowance.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Slashdot links to article
2) Article links to Slashdot discussion
3) Slashdot links back to article
4) Article links back to Slashdot discussion
repeat...
No, Money Down!
Nicotine is very addictive in cigarettes, slightly less so in cigars and pipe, and less so when chewed, because its addictivity varies depending on how much time it takes for it to reach the brain. That's about 7s IIRC with cigarettes. Uptake much slower through other ways.
This may be, but a pinch of chewing tobacco contains about 3-5 times as much nicotine as a cigarette. People who dip don't even feel the effects from smoking one little cigarette.
Apparently, the problem is that minorities that are hired by the DOJ leave at a higher rate than whites, and that women also leave at a higher rate than men(though not as much as minorities). This would indicate that there is a cultural problem in the DOJ and it is hindering them, especially in serving minority communities. Please understand that no one is suggesting that qualified white males should not be hired or that minorities be given a preference - just that the DOJ seek to retain those that they do hire, and fix whatever is pushing them away.
The study dedicates quite a bit of discussion to this effect. Since the DOJ doesn't do a good job with exit interviews, it's extremely difficult to tell why the attrition rate is higher for women and minorities than for white men.
There are two issues going on, and its most likely a mixture of the two that causes this effect.
1) Dissatisfaction with the environment.
2) Active headhunting by the private sector. The study points out that law firms actively recruit top-performing minorities and females from the DOJ. These law firms spend more effort per hire on pulling away women/minorities than they do on white men.
Given the joint effort of these Push - Pull factors, it's not surprising that the attrition rate is higher. The problem is that the DOJ could have an enviroment where everyone is equally satisfied, but they would still lose more minorities/women because of factor #2.
Apart from that, this survey really had response issues. More women responded to the survey than men. More minority attorneys responded than white attorneys. The overall response rate was only 13%. Given these statistics, there's a big dark cloud hanging over this survey which is 'did the folks who responded have an axe to grind?' The statistics that talk about "Perceptions" should be examined a lot more carefully than they are in a quick glimpse.
The redaction part of the story is disturbing nonetheless.
Surely this will only shift the piracy to open-source applications. Why, by 2005, I'll bet there will be hundreds -- nay, thousands! -- of copies of Redhat and Mandrake circulating around Vietnam for free! And thousands of applications too! The horror!
I understand this is a joke, but piracy in the Open-source world will manifest itself in GPL violations. If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it. The Vietnamese gov't could say "we don't intend on sharing our improvements and you can't do much about it."
Now, I don't know but I doubt people here would want Open Source to be used widely at the cost of destroying the model...
When last has voting really had a profound effect? When last have we voted about issues and not FOR parties? A total swing in the political rulers have not had any noticable effect on the country... hence the opinion that there had been no real need to vote.
The Civil War, which many consider the single most important event in our country's short history was precipitated by Lincoln's election. The moment southerners realized they were effectively disenfranchised by a unified northern block vote, they decided to leave what they considered to be a voluntary union. 9-11 is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the action that occured in the war. If Lincoln had not been elected, take a moment to consider what the US might be like today in terms of policy and even just who is alive and who is not...
On a more recent note, the current concensus seems to be that Bush was incorrect to get into Iraq. This must mean that people believe election of another leader would have kept us out of Iraq, right? This event has the possibility of bringing peace to the mideast via propagation of democracy through the region. Or maybe it could result in the next worldwide Muslin/Christian conflict, building irreparable animosities (eg the Balkans) across the entire planet for centuries?
It's tough to say, but it is fairly clear to me that the accident that allowed Bush to be elected legally but perhaps "unfairly" will have fairly important but unpredictable results?
Yes, from reading the article it looks like the problem most people face is not which component provides the best price-quality ratio, but which component is the most expensive and how I can justify wasting 2 times more money than needed on that. I am sure more people would find an article useful if it was written from a somewhat realistic viewpoint
I've read a zillion of these type of articles and I'm pretty sure that none of them are intended as a step-by-step on why to build "this particular machine." I imagine about 5 people in the world actually go out and try to duplicate this rig. The article serves different purposes:
1) Evaluation of individual components. Some people out there might not spend $10K on a rig, but they might go out and buy the gold-plated CPU cooler. Another guy might like the speakers, or whatever... If you like top of the line parts, you might be interested in seeing how it contributes to a top of the line machine. IE I'm spending $100 on a CPU cooler I want to feel good about my purchase.
2) People enjoy reading about things they actually can't afford. If not for this simple fact, there wouldn't be many sports car magazines. About 2 people in the world can afford some of the cars that are written about, but a lot of people like to read about them.
3) Writing yet another article about building yet-another-beige-box doesn't attract readers. Journalists need to get people's attention. This article got linked up good. It should be some indication that the author succeeded even though some out there may be all about the non-exciting, very practical world of white bread.
I also wish IT Week would have pointed out that $599 for SBS 2003 doesn't include support of any kind... Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will point me out if I am,) but I was under the impression that with SBS you had to run it all on one server. Is this still/Was this ever the case?
Two points. A) The organization that is running MS Small Business Server has 5-50 employees needing a workstation/email account, so they probably do not have on staff a full time IT person. If they do, they have one most likely low skilled tech. I think 30-40 is about the point where you hire someone full time. Companies depending on SBS most likely use a MS Certified Partner to manage their IT problems. I doubt they are making calls to Microsoft directly to solve problems. Moreover, SBS is designed for a very generic solution, it's unlikely there are going to be advanced issues you need support from Microsoft on. The typical situation for SBS (or Open-Source equivalent product) is going to be where you have your hourly IT consultant come in and take care of it every other week. In this situation, up-front cost is less relevant to the buyer, since the TCO is going to be dwarfed by the hourly costs of the consultant you choose.
2) Yes, SBS is designed and required to work on one machine. If you demand redundancy or division of tasks, then SBS is not the product for you, instead you'll have to pull together your own infrastructure with the appropriate Windows Server, SQL, and Exchange licenses plus appropriate CALs. SBS is supposed to be idiot proof. In this way you theoretically get lower costs but of course suffer the problem of "the restrictions don't meet my situation."
And, like Icarus, the rocket foolishly soared too high, and lost control of its servo guidance mechanism, leaving us with some... six hours to live.
So, let's go live now to the charred remains of the only bridge out of town with Arnie Pie and Arnie in the Sky!
So why did they name this project Icarus again? Some clever IT worker is "fighting the power" perhaps with a subtly fiendish stab at the administration?
The article mentions that they were trying to recreate a scene from GTA. Does anyone know which scene specifically shooting a .22 at people in cars refers to? I played through Vice City and don't remember sniping folks in cars. (Could be wrong). I DO remember doing other things to people in cars though...
Had they had driven to the mall and tried to break all the windows in under 5:00 minutes, would this might be a legitimate case?
Also, I don't think there's any legal basis to threaten anyone with "stiffer penalties" simply for using a better technology to do the same thing.. What do you guys think?
I think the RIAA is signaling that in this sort of situation, they won't be willing to settle for the "small" amounts that they're currently settling for. I think under law they can claim damages far in excess of what their settlements have actually been. As some have pointed out, when you use a darknet and indicate you know what's going on is illegal. In this case, the RIAA may just say "we don't feel like leaving you with your house and car, we want everything." Since the courts aren't handing out the fines, there's no legal basis really for any of this. In a sense, this kind of posturing may backfire in that people may feel more comfortable going to the court system and rolling the dice instead of taking the more severe known outcome of a settlement.
To make a quick numerical point, $2B divided by 200 million units is $100 per unit.
Sorry...
Before everyone jumps on this typo, i meant to say 20 million units (i think that's this years sales). Just a general idea of what the sunk cost might do to margins...
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
Everyone cites this fact as if it's the divine truth, when in reality it's just an accounting issue. Sony chose to develop its console in house, spending about 2 Billion ($US) roughly on chip R&D. This year alone, they intend on spending $4.5 billion on chip research (Console rsrch and other chips).
They didn't do that so that they could sell the consoles roughly at the cost of manufacturing. They obviously expect to make up the R&D cost via game licensing revenues. To make a quick numerical point, $2B divided by 200 million units is $100 per unit. If you go around announcing that PS2 is selling for $199 and actually costs $179 to manufacture, therefore Sony is making money on every box, you're missing a significant part of the picture.
Imagine two situations: Sony drops $2B on chip research but has lower manufacturing costs. MS spends no money on research and has higher manufacturing costs. If both companies sold a small number of units, MS would have made the right decision. If both companies sold enough units, Sony would would have made the right decision. This is not the black and white issue that folks make it out to be!
Nonetheless, i happen to think Sony chose the right strategy. The console industry is about being the dominating winner, and you design a manufacturing strategy that plays to that point.
A little disclaimer: My numbers might be a bit off b/c I'm pulling them from memory. The basic principle is still there, though: Sony would not break even without significant game licensing fees. Neither would MS. They are in the same boat!
Is there some point to doing this? If we are in it just for the new technology, then there are much better ways to spend science research dollars. Is this "exploration" going to bring any tangible benefits? Is there any economic justification to this?
I agree... If we're going to spend money in the name of research, spend it on something worthwhile like Cold Fusion research.
Our current age of development (1850's to present) has relied on an ever increasing use of energy in many forms. The vast majority is fossil fuel generated. Unless we can come up with an alternative source of power, our kids can say goodbye to current standards of living and say hello to animal power. We have a ticking clock with regards to living standards and current technological prowess. If that clock runs out, theres a chance humans will never again reach the level we're at now.
FIRST, spend the money on alternative energy generation.
THEN, when you have cheaper/reliable energy sources, figure out a way to get us off this rock.
And there's no sign of forced entry, so the insurance company says "you left the key in the ignition, tough for your claim.
That story sucks and I feel bad for you, but I don't understand how there could be no sign of forced entry on a car that's been stolen. Not to sound like the Bloodhound Gang / Sherlock Bones / Encyclopedia Brown here or anything. Presumably you came back and the car was gone, and was reported as a theft.
Was the car recovered? And if so there's probably not much of a claim there...
This is the real reason the RIAA does all the suing---they're the only group with the monopoly to abuse by such terminally stupid actions.
In any case, I doubt even the American public is dumb enough not to realise ``the recording industry'' means ``the record labels''.
I think you're right that having the RIAA disciplines the members into acting in the group interest rather than their own, much like OPEC does. To say that it is the "real reason" (implying the only reason) is probably a bit too emphatic. In fact, your point that they must hold off suing their customers because of perceived damage to their reputation only further proves my point that they need a front to do their dirty work.
After all, the headline "Sony Records sues 12 year old girl" is certainly different than "RIAA sues 12 year old girl." Sony's customers might think twice about buying a tv or stereo or playstation, and not just boycotting Sony records.
The one argument that you could make is that the label loses the opportunity to sell you a CD when you download their music, but that isn't true either. I would say half of my music downloads (and I don't download very much) lead to CD purchases.
Whether that is the case or not is besides the point. If someone correctly or incorrectly wishes to copyright their material, then it's their right to limit its distribution.
By your logic, Microsoft would be allowed to confiscate and include GPL'd code into Windows under the rationale that it is "increasing the number of computers OSS code is running on (to the satisfaction of OSS authors)."
Anyways, any anecdotal evidence provided is next to worthless. I could as easily point out people I know who have quit buying CD's because file-sharing is so easy and free.
Super move RIAA: attack children. This will certainly endear you to the masses.
Here's the critical issue: the RIAA doesn't and will never have a PR issue because consumers don't know what the RIAA is. The RIAA really is a front for several recording companies to do their dirty work while protecting their precious brand images.
You don't hear "Sony Records is suing a 12 year old." Rather, it's done by proxy. Were the recording companies forced to conduct their own lawsuits independently, they would be much less likely to do anything publicly. After all, the damage to brand equity would far outweigh the lost sales
In the interest of friendly discussion, you might be interested in this article. It provides some positive economic analysis of your point:
http://reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml
I don't agree with it, but you might. The fundamental problem here is that the OSS philosophy cannot necessarily be applied to all existing IP. Slashdotters see that the OSS model works, and get the idea that it's going to save the world. The primary contrast between software development and most other types of IP is that a movie or a new pharmaceutical or even a record cost real dollars to produce. OSS = sweat + time + cooperation. Until you can prove that there's a way to rally the appropriate capital investment for an IP project, I won't buy the "all info should be free" theory. And, no, I don't want the Government picking up the slack there... The last thing we need is our Govt fronting the money for some CD recording...
Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.
Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.
I think you are being incredibly fast and loose with what is traditionally considered a just and unjust law.
Dr. Martin Luther King writes this about some examples of unjust laws:
1)"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself."
Not the case here. RIAA is accountable to IP laws just as I am as a US Citizen.
2)"A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law."
Not the case here. Property laws are a fundamental of the US code, which was written by democratically elected officials. IP laws predate the RIAA.
3)"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest."
Somewhat but not really the case here. Granted, RIAA is using heavy handed tactics which I happen to think may be unconstitutional. People were sharing files though before the RIAA made a stink. Their actions now do not post-facto make file sharing OK. But to the heart of the issue you've addressed, the right to protect one's property is a fundamental right in this country. 95% of people probably are ok with it. If that is the case, and humans make their own morality (as you pointed out), how could IP laws be immoral?
Now, obviously there's some room for manuevering in the interpretation of MLK. But, I don't think that file sharing for personal enjoyment falls into the category of 'crusading for the freedom of information.' Much more likely it stinks of self-interest, ie someone else has something I want to take.
IP laws are in place for a somewhat rational reason. This is that an individual or entity who comes up with a brilliant idea does not have it immediately confiscated by the public. It is in a sense, a freedom to restrict my good idea for my own purposes.
The point made about "Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people" flies so fundamentally in the face of privacy rights that I can't believe the slashdot crowd watched this comment sail through. YES, I want laws in place protecting patient/doctor, lawyer/client, and similar types of confidentiality in place. You've gone so overboard with your concept of info sharing that you'd end up violating the fundamental rights we now hold dear.
Naturally I believe a government is free to do so if they want to. Furthermore I am sympathetic to the idea of providing citizens with a free os to ensure freedom of information etc.
Foreign governments are free to do what they want, but the consequence is a possible violation of standing free trade agreements. This was hinted at near the end of the article. Governments that provide trade barriers by subsidizing local competitors at the expense of foreign competitors are violating GATT.
If MS can prove that the subsidies materially damaged their business, then they have the right to ask for relief. If another country damages US trade by providing subsidies, the US has the right to retaliate by charging an amount equal to the subsidy if that good is imported into the US. Or, the US could choose something even more drastic.
With the US economy in the crapper, and US citizens generally pissed off about the flight of manufacturing jobs abroad, other countries should be genuinely concerned about the US retaliating by increasing tariffs. I don't necessarily advocate this, but the public as a whole tends to want to wall this country off when things start going poorly.
a lot of the "security" we've put in place post-911 is truly window-dressing.
I agree with you 100%. This response isn't arguing with your post, but your post did remind me of some thoughts i've had on this matter. The vast majority of the expenditures post 9/11 have been made to make people feel safer, rather then to actually increase their mathematical likelyhood of being safe.
In a sense, though, making sure the passengers feel safe is far more important than actually making them safe. I'm not trying to trivialize airline accidents, but we all know that hopping in a car is far more dangerous than hopping in a jet plane. The FAA doesn't have such strict regulations to bring down the number of crashes every year from 4 to 3. Those kind of numbers don't mean anything to the average person. Humans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics involved, and no one would fly if they perceived the industry to be unsafe. I consider myself a rational person, and I know all the statistics, but I still feel less safe in a plane than I do in a car. No amount of improving the 'actual' security will change that. If you've ever taken a decisions sciences course, you'll know that even the brightest people in the workforce don't make perfectly rational decisions, but rather base them on stupid little things like the order that information is presented in.
What will change everyone's fear of flying is "window dressing," and, yes, I'm willing to pay the 9/11 security tax (or whatever it's called) to fool myself into thinking that there's probably not a terrorist on the plane. The government's role isn't just to operate in a vacuum and take actions that improve safety. The US government also has an obligation to maintain confidence in the airline industry. If having armed guards standing around the airport makes people more likely to fly, then it makes sense to have armed guards, regardless of their statistical effect on safety. And yes, I'm aware that all in all those armed guards are a waste of money. But, you have to make decisions within the constraints of your environment, and I truly believe that no amount of statistical understanding will change the way that the average American or non-American makes the decision to fly or drive.
Spending money to change perceptions is sometimes a rational tradeoff. However, reducing freedoms in order to increase perceptions of safety is simply not a reasonable tradeoff.
Cynically, I personally believe that Microsoft uses the size of its firm, and its cash flow to dominate the software world economically, while the U.S. government uses Microsoft's ability to dominate this area for the purposes of spying. Just for argument's sake, how much of the intelligence used by the War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs, or any other policy is actually derived from intentionally engineered holes and spyware associated with Microsoft products? Seems a word processor, a spreadsheet, and an email program ought to be a good place to put a keylogger..
To me this is the only possible reason Microsoft could still exist.
Not to point out the obvious, but the American Gov't might have a vested interested in seeing Microsoft the entity do well simply because it brings in a fantastic amount of money to the US. A similar example might be the way that the South African government would be interested in pumping up the diamond monopoly given how that industry contributes to their economy. Unless you're really pushing the tin foil hat thesis, diamonds aren't surveillance devices, but there is still a large gov't interest in defending the monopoly.
Yes, Microsoft is about money, but I wouldn't want to risk my investment money in a company with the medium term business issues Microsoft currently face, or in a company that engages in the same sorts of dubious accounting practices as Enron (don't ask, Google) and just hasn't been caught yet.
Microsoft's accounting issues are diametric from those of Enron.
Microsoft did its best to hide revenue because the Street has a habit of punishing firms that get their earnings erratically. Stocks drop when companies beat their projections. Analysts see it as the CFO not understanding what's going on with the business... If you think Microsoft is the only company that "manages" earnings, you are incredibly mistaken. Microsoft's biggest issue is simply the size of its war chest-- not the worst kind of issue to deal with. See this BW article: Microsoft's $49 Billion "Problem."
Enron on the other hand was hiding debt in its subsidiaries to get it off the balance sheet in an attempt to appear solvent. We all know what happened there....
The two companies have basically nothing in common.
I have mixed reactions about analyzing MMORPGs as microcosms of the real world.
I think you're absolutely right about this. Just about the most important discovery you could ever make about synthetic economies is that a principal that applies in the real world also applies to these possible microcosms... On the other hand, you couldn't EVER extrapolate what you learned from say SWG's economy to our real economy because there's such a statistical bias in the sample/population.
Add to this the fact that economists nailed down just about every single aspect relating to an economy as simple as those existing in MMORPG's. There are NONE of the elements that make an economy complex beyond what you learn in Econ 101. Essentially what you have is a pre-medieval market system that facilitates the exchange of goods and services. 18th Century Economists had this stuff licked.
Granted, it's a curiousity that, yes, some economic principles exhibit themselves in these online worlds, but how great could these principles really be if they didn't? I mean this kind of research is about as groundbreaking as going into an elementary school and finding that the resale value of Lunchables fluctuates based on when kids get their allowance.