Very true. It's almost like simply taking a picture of evidence in a residence after busting down the door, even though there's no search warrant to search the residence.
I objected to Roland Piquepaille's way of submitting stories to drive traffic to his web site as well. To me, this particular article is the way it should be.
But I do check his web site from time to time, and apparently, now he's writing his stuff but posting it on ZDNet as well. It's the same stuff, but I guess he's getting paid for it too.
But I think 50 submissions a week is an exaggeration - on his web site, he writes about one article per day now...
But certainly, you could still record it when it airs and watch it for free right? So from the consumer perspective, it is a matter of being able to buy it if they didn't record it. And stop with the use of the word "steal". It's copyright infringement, not theft, that we are talking about.
China's not a poor country. It currently should be the #2 economy in the world in terms of GNP (I haven't seen data more recent than 2000, but by some measure, it should be there), passing Japan.
I think that China will get ahead of the space race because of three reasons: 1. It wants to. 2. It is growing economically fast enough to have enough money to. 3. It has a lot more people, whose lives are not as "fragile" as American's.
By #3, I mean, since it is not a democracy, they are going to be able to more risks. Their propaganda machine works well to make people nationalistic. If they are spending too much money on the space program, who's going to tell them that? If someone dies, they will continue on, and not become indecisively careful like NASA has to be because of public opinion.
I think this kind of licensing is for situations where you run multiple VMs in blades. My company recently setup a rack of 40 blades, each with 16GBs of RAM and all attached to SAN. Each blade is capable of running about 10 VMs. The same setup is duplicated at the redundant site, and a high-speed connection between the two locations, with about 92TBs of storage between them. Supposedly, the VMs can be moved around between any of the blade between the two locations, giving us the possibility of about 800 VMs...all within about 1 rack's worth of space. Now, each blade does NOT have 10 processors, but is capable of running 10 VMs easily. And though I can't say I like Microsoft for wanting to charge for virtual processors, I can understand why they'd do it.
That's almost like saying because mail order companies sent their catalogs to residents in other states, and the catalogs became their 'nexus' and therefore sales tax must be applied. That doesn't sound right to me.
If you were someone who wants to download something, and you are paying for it, why would you want simultaneously share it, the way BT works now? I'd demand fast downloads, and just shut-off my upload stream completely. Why? Because I am paying. So the P2P model would not work. On the other hand there are two possible alternatives: 1. Use BT as a infrastructural distribution model - meaning, you'd host downloads in a network of BT seeders for people to download from multiple streams simultaneously, thereby better distribute the download load. You could even use BT itself to propagate the downloads across seeding servers. 2. Use BT to allow people to make money by paying people for their download bandwidth - meaning, if I am willing to upload, then pay me for the amount of data I upload, then I wouldn't mind paying for downloads and sharing at the same time.
Sometimes, being more environmentally friendly is not about saving money - it's about consuming less. Sure, it may take 60 years to realize saving, but you are just consuming less fuel. This is the price you decide to pay to do your part for humanity. Being more fuel efficient is NOT always about saving money (though nowadays, with the gas prices going up, that's mostly what's on people's minds).
It's a vendor's perogative to complain about anything. Any company would want sole-source contracts with anybody, not just Microsoft. Is it somehow better if Oracle was the one doing it? How about the small software shop down the street?
I haven't checked the stats, but I seem to recall SAP was #1, followed by PeopleSoft, and Siebel is not far behind. Combining PeopleSoft and Siebel probably makes it #1.
More companies should do what Google does - keep apps in beta. This way, it remains "unsupported" and thereby reducing costs that'd otherwise be needed. Unless, of course, part of your revenue comes from support.
To counter your quote - if you always have to look up things in a book, you look like a fool. There are some things that you should just know. For one, you should know how to look up things. Also, you should also know where to look.
Fortunately and unfortunately, Google has made it simple to look up things now, so it is easy to look up most things, but if we are not taught how to really do research then all the things that cannot be looked up by Google (there is still plenty of knowledge outside of Google's expanding realm)
no...not the codec, the other thing that limited your viewing.
Look, the thing is, people buy movies and such so they'd have the convenience to watch it any time, at any place of their own choosing, and as many times as they want. Certainly, MPAA et al can put in the restrictions, but they are just slapping us in the face at the same time they are robbing us. Why would we pay for something that will be less convenient? Let them put these things out and let them lose their money on it.
What the hell ever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway? Why have we gone from being customers to being cattle? Why is it that the people who are NOT pirating the movies, etc., getting more angry about these things? Why do we think $25-$50 for a DVD is a reasonable price?
And while I am at it, how could the MPAA claim it's losing money that it's never made?
On the other hand (or finger), now your fingers CAN be used to pay off your debt.
Re:Cost to business? WTF?!
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is very true. However, I think that the whole idea of costs to business is bullshit for another reason - we are entitled to take days off. Granted, we are talking about people using sick days to go see the movies - but we are entitled to sick days as well.
A better system for days off is - in my company anyway, Paid Time Off. Basically, let's say you are entitled to 2 weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year, that's a total of 15 days. So they just give us 15 days off, paid, for any reason or purpose.
If you get sick very often, it cuts into your vacation days. If you are healthy, you are not penalized with having fewer days off than your unhealthier coworkers. So if I choose to go see Star Wars and take a day off, it's not costing businesses anything - because those are days we are entitled to.
Quite frankly, sick days are unfair - businesses give them under the pretenses of wanting to give employees the time, but then when they do, say it's costing the business.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. It's almost like simply taking a picture of evidence in a residence after busting down the door, even though there's no search warrant to search the residence.
I would have said Role-Playing Shooter. Hey, I think we are both creating new genres of gaming, only in your case...it might be a little illegal.
When I see the words "smoking hot", I'm expecting to see a sexy babe, not some computer stuff.
I'm personally waiting for the Westinghouse Deathstar product next.
http://www.1okuenhp.com/ (the one hundred million yen homepage - 100 yen per pixel)
I think it's because of this Digg "article": Microsoft Buys Out Opera that many people think it's true
For a small percent of the human population, they can sense 4 different types of colors - they are called tetrachromats.
It's like The Good, The Bad, & the Ugly.
No automatic negative remarks in the article nor by the editor of Slashdot...what is this world coming to?
I objected to Roland Piquepaille's way of submitting stories to drive traffic to his web site as well. To me, this particular article is the way it should be.
But I do check his web site from time to time, and apparently, now he's writing his stuff but posting it on ZDNet as well. It's the same stuff, but I guess he's getting paid for it too.
But I think 50 submissions a week is an exaggeration - on his web site, he writes about one article per day now...
But certainly, you could still record it when it airs and watch it for free right? So from the consumer perspective, it is a matter of being able to buy it if they didn't record it.
And stop with the use of the word "steal". It's copyright infringement, not theft, that we are talking about.
China's not a poor country. It currently should be the #2 economy in the world in terms of GNP (I haven't seen data more recent than 2000, but by some measure, it should be there), passing Japan.
I think that China will get ahead of the space race because of three reasons:
1. It wants to.
2. It is growing economically fast enough to have enough money to.
3. It has a lot more people, whose lives are not as "fragile" as American's.
By #3, I mean, since it is not a democracy, they are going to be able to more risks. Their propaganda machine works well to make people nationalistic.
If they are spending too much money on the space program, who's going to tell them that?
If someone dies, they will continue on, and not become indecisively careful like NASA has to be because of public opinion.
I think this kind of licensing is for situations where you run multiple VMs in blades.
My company recently setup a rack of 40 blades, each with 16GBs of RAM and all attached to SAN. Each blade is capable of running about 10 VMs. The same setup is duplicated at the redundant site, and a high-speed connection between the two locations, with about 92TBs of storage between them. Supposedly, the VMs can be moved around between any of the blade between the two locations, giving us the possibility of about 800 VMs...all within about 1 rack's worth of space.
Now, each blade does NOT have 10 processors, but is capable of running 10 VMs easily. And though I can't say I like Microsoft for wanting to charge for virtual processors, I can understand why they'd do it.
That's almost like saying because mail order companies sent their catalogs to residents in other states, and the catalogs became their 'nexus' and therefore sales tax must be applied.
That doesn't sound right to me.
If you were someone who wants to download something, and you are paying for it, why would you want simultaneously share it, the way BT works now? I'd demand fast downloads, and just shut-off my upload stream completely. Why? Because I am paying.
So the P2P model would not work. On the other hand there are two possible alternatives:
1. Use BT as a infrastructural distribution model - meaning, you'd host downloads in a network of BT seeders for people to download from multiple streams simultaneously, thereby better distribute the download load. You could even use BT itself to propagate the downloads across seeding servers.
2. Use BT to allow people to make money by paying people for their download bandwidth - meaning, if I am willing to upload, then pay me for the amount of data I upload, then I wouldn't mind paying for downloads and sharing at the same time.
Sometimes, being more environmentally friendly is not about saving money - it's about consuming less. Sure, it may take 60 years to realize saving, but you are just consuming less fuel. This is the price you decide to pay to do your part for humanity.
Being more fuel efficient is NOT always about saving money (though nowadays, with the gas prices going up, that's mostly what's on people's minds).
It's a vendor's perogative to complain about anything. Any company would want sole-source contracts with anybody, not just Microsoft. Is it somehow better if Oracle was the one doing it? How about the small software shop down the street?
I haven't checked the stats, but I seem to recall SAP was #1, followed by PeopleSoft, and Siebel is not far behind. Combining PeopleSoft and Siebel probably makes it #1.
More companies should do what Google does - keep apps in beta. This way, it remains "unsupported" and thereby reducing costs that'd otherwise be needed. Unless, of course, part of your revenue comes from support.
I think we need a new mod type - Slashdot Mondegreens, +1.
To counter your quote - if you always have to look up things in a book, you look like a fool. There are some things that you should just know. For one, you should know how to look up things. Also, you should also know where to look.
Fortunately and unfortunately, Google has made it simple to look up things now, so it is easy to look up most things, but if we are not taught how to really do research then all the things that cannot be looked up by Google (there is still plenty of knowledge outside of Google's expanding realm)
There is nothing wrong with copying, especially when you could add or improve upon features of the original.
I mean, if you didn't, there'd be no choice and no competition.
There would be only one brand of cars (all but the original car manufacture would be copycats)...
People need to get past the idea that companies can only come up with original ideas.
Copying creates competition and enlarges the market and give people more choices. Thank goodnes for all of the iPod clones.
no...not the codec, the other thing that limited your viewing.
Look, the thing is, people buy movies and such so they'd have the convenience to watch it any time, at any place of their own choosing, and as many times as they want. Certainly, MPAA et al can put in the restrictions, but they are just slapping us in the face at the same time they are robbing us. Why would we pay for something that will be less convenient? Let them put these things out and let them lose their money on it.
What the hell ever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway? Why have we gone from being customers to being cattle? Why is it that the people who are NOT pirating the movies, etc., getting more angry about these things? Why do we think $25-$50 for a DVD is a reasonable price?
And while I am at it, how could the MPAA claim it's losing money that it's never made?
On the other hand (or finger), now your fingers CAN be used to pay off your debt.
This is very true. However, I think that the whole idea of costs to business is bullshit for another reason - we are entitled to take days off. Granted, we are talking about people using sick days to go see the movies - but we are entitled to sick days as well.
A better system for days off is - in my company anyway, Paid Time Off. Basically, let's say you are entitled to 2 weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year, that's a total of 15 days. So they just give us 15 days off, paid, for any reason or purpose.
If you get sick very often, it cuts into your vacation days. If you are healthy, you are not penalized with having fewer days off than your unhealthier coworkers. So if I choose to go see Star Wars and take a day off, it's not costing businesses anything - because those are days we are entitled to.
Quite frankly, sick days are unfair - businesses give them under the pretenses of wanting to give employees the time, but then when they do, say it's costing the business.