Because historically, smaller groups of very poweful people will always do everything to control the masses. Sure, P2P is great and all, and nature's self-organization is a good model, but human society works like that only in certain limited ways. Free market is supposed to work like that in theory, but in practice, it's obvious the market is not really free.
Those with money and power will continue to control and influence the masses while giving the masses the illusion of lack of centralized control.
RIAA, MPAA, governments, banking and financing industries, are all out to centralize control of flow of things. They are not going to give up that power easily. This is partly why we have social classes, and that in the world, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer, why government's agricultural subsidy create farmers who are not wealthy, but become addicts to subsidy, and why certain companies make so much money from them.
about being able to do partial rollouts of various systems, keeping loose coupling between them and planning a migration path that doesn't require changes to everything all at the same time. The problem with the "business software" and the required customization, however, highlights the problem with packaged, closed-source software. Open Source software does not require you to be at the latest and greatest version. However, software vendors are often only willing to support the newest versions and discontinue support for older versions.
There will be a great market for companies who specializes in supporting older versions of software that the original software vendor no longer supports.
This reminds me of an old joke about a dim-witted family where the mom writes a letter to the son: "I am writing this slowly because I know you can't read fast."
The purpose of corporation is making money to the shareholder, period. Of course method matters. You can't just go around screwing people either. Corporations must run the business to provide maximal return within legal boundaries. Not only that, it must also do so within generally acceptable ethical boundaries, so as to not offend those that it conducts business with and hurt business and decrease shareholder value.
For example, McDonald's, under pressure from consumer groups, create guidelines and oversight structure to require that its meat suppliers adhere to specific safety standards for slaughter. This results in more humane slaughter of animals and safer working conditions (not by any means good, but slightly better than before) for the slaughterhouse workers.
McDonald's could have just said screw the slaughterhouse workers, because the meat will be more expensive to buy and mean lower profits (not really significantly so), but it loses negative publicity and improve its corporate image (very important) which in turn means good business and better bottomline and more return to shareholders.
That the corporation's main (not "only") purpose is making money for the shareholders does not make it evil. It is what the people who run the corporation do that makes them evil. The corporation is neither good nor evil. Corporations exists to make money. Laws and choice keep corporations from "acting" evil, which is why monopolies are bad.
Corporation are not evil per se. They exist to make money for their shareholders. They believe monitoring web browsing habits of people (who are voluntarily doing so) can better help them service their customers (only the means, not the ends) and make more money. They are doing the right thing from their perspective. They are not a totalitarian regime forcing this on everyone. Same with credit cards. If you don't want people to know what you are purchasing, use cash.
The only bad thing about all of this tyranny of convenience is that in the future, there will be no choices, because the convenient choices come to dominate. Imagine if in the future, we can no longer pay by cash because everyone has bought into convenient cashlessness. That, is the true danger.
I think you need to define "one instance", and you need to find out whether "run" is included, as in "run one instance..."
The reason that's important is you could INSTALL one instance and RUN multiple instances on one machine at a time. Most applications (MS Word, Excel, etc.) allows multiple instances to RUN on one machine, but not necessarily allow multiple instances to be INSTALLED on one machine.
In those cases, in any case, we know the intention is really, one user per license per machine. In many application servers that used, say, Terminal Services on Windows (Remote Desktop), where people are actually running their windows sessions on the server, they need to have a license for an application per desktop, but it's dynamically allocated by use.
Actually, because it's liquid, it wouldn't. It can cover the surfaces where the fire is burning, but because it's not gaseous, it would not displace air completely (unless you completely displace the air in a room by flooding it from floor to ceiling, but you don't need that much to put out a fire).
No, I am well aware of J#, but it is not Java either, whether it's indistinguishable or not. Java with full blessing of compliance to what Sun says is Java is really Java....of course, that may be meaningless anyway.
I think both Sun and Microsoft (note I did not say general public) will be better off is Sun just sells out Java to Microsoft. Look at it this way: Sun and Microsoft officially get together to put Java on the.Net platform. Java gets more play,.Net gets official Java.
I believe after the settlement, Sun and Microsoft will like each other a lot more - Sun because it has become weak and not terribly competitive, and Microsoft is happy that Sun is finally off its back, and given the state of software industry today, Sun is not in a good position as a software vendor, and though I don't know the numbers, but I don't think Java is making Sun much money (If it was, then they would not have had that much money trouble). I believe Sun is refusing to open up Java because they still want to milk more money from it, and one of the ways is to make a deal with Microsoft.
But Microsoft has C#, right? Yes...but C# is not Java, and there are plenty of people loyal to Java who are not willing to switch to C#. But if an official Java version is available on the Windows platform and is blessed by Sun, then developers would be much more willing to use it.
I understand the mantra of Java is write once run anywhere, but if you could at the same time, run on 90% of desktops really well (as a good Microsoft implementation would), then it's that much better.
All that remains is for Sun to sell Java to Microsoft.
I don't know about the TV image qualities where you are, but Cable TV certainly improved image qualities. Ok, ok, this is not an improvement on image quality, but on transmission, but to the people sitting at home, it didn't make a difference. Why do I bring it up? Because Cable TV allowed for additional channels and offered image quality good enough that people are willing to pay to subscribe to it. And quite frankly, no matter how good the pictures, if you don't have good transmission/reception, it's still pretty crappy.
I say, RTFB (Book). What!? You haven't? It's too damn big? Well go read it and THEN come back and complain.
On the other hand, I think that people's attitude toward his work is not a problem of the merit of the his work. Rather, it is the way he seemed so self-important when pointing out something that seems deceptively simple that many people have covered before (Cellular Automata).
The universe is not governed by vastly complicated equations wrought by the human mind. And Wolfram pointing that out simply offended people who believed otherwise.
but this kind of products seem really stupid, and building a business around it, well...
I mean, besides the novelty of it, is it something that really serves a purpose? Or is it just one more of those kind of executive desk toys?
But if they insist, then perhaps what they SHOULD do is consult Edward Tufte and create entire lines of products for displaying statistical/quantitative information in a way that would be truly meaningful and useful.
It doesn't matter. If you only open the port to someone who presents a correct knocking sequence, then for all practical purposes, the system can be configured so that it's completely invisible (like the IP address doesn't even exist). This way, you could even implement a web server that doesn't simply response to port 80, until the proper knocking sequence has been presented.
No, there is no violation of privacy, since you have to give up that information VOLUNTARILY if you wanted the discount card in the first place. Violation of privacy implies that it is being done against your will or without your knowledge.
And in this case, since they 'OWN' the data (that's right, you gave it to them, it's theirs now), and they are not selling it or giving it away to other parties, it is hardly a violation of privacy.
If you give false information, well, that's your problem.
that the music industry and everybody between the artists and us, the consumers, have been ripping us off, so much so that even on $.99 per song, they have that much room to play with and still make money. I mean, if they can sell at.99 Canadian per song, that just means that whole CD albums should be less than $10. And for all these years, we've seen CD album prices at...$15+? Of course, since they are not actually creating landfill destined discs of plastic, with jewel cases and inserts, they are costing even less than traditional CDs, even though they are having to pay for maintaining the service online, equipment, people, etc., I think it's still cheaper in the long run, since all they are doing is selling bits that can be copied over and over again at virtually no cost. They should be offering songs at $.50 each, IMO. I think we should be able to drive the prices down. We need to opt for cheaper music services until they reach that level.
When it comes to all things online being equal, most people would opt for the cheaper price. That's the whole point of competition after all. If they are selling the same thing, wouldn't you go for the cheaper alternative? People "vote" with their money in market competition.
Of course, if you are concerned about privacy and other issues, if you care, then you could certainly not buy from Walmart, but I think for most people, cost is more important.
The mantra of the statistician and researchers: Correlation does not equal causation.
Is it caffeine? Is it coffee? If it was caffeine, would it make sense to do more tests on other caffeine laden beverages? Tea, for example. But wait, maybe tea has some effects to help against diabetes too. Hmm...caffeinated soft drinks. But maybe in sodas, the effects will cancel each other out because of the high-fructose corn syrup, if, caffeine is indeed the factor.
Coffee and tea both have "lots of antioxidants" does that mean they are both good against diabetes? Is that what it means? lots of antioxidants = anti-diabetic?
...is something that is half the price and looks almost as good. You can't kill iPod by making more expensive competitors! iPod is already too expensive.
Raising $200K for a childrens hospital does NOT make them NOT a bunch of gun nuts. Right to bear arms is one thing, but certainly, a lot of gun violence and gun deaths would not be an issue if there were no guns, right? And another thing, why is the NRA raising money for a childrens hospital, except to try to improve its image as a compassionate and caring organization?
Yes, parents should just do their job. Stores should just not sell certain games to minors. They should card them like they do with alcohol and cigarettes. While we are at it - marketers should just stop marketing to kids, especially that ChannelOne crap that is basically doing just that.
But then, I have to agree with another poster - why are games considered speech? And certainly, it is commercial speech. It's ok for us to say we want to stop spam and junk mail, because they are not considered speech that should be protected by First Amendment rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Because historically, smaller groups of very poweful people will always do everything to control the masses. Sure, P2P is great and all, and nature's self-organization is a good model, but human society works like that only in certain limited ways. Free market is supposed to work like that in theory, but in practice, it's obvious the market is not really free.
Those with money and power will continue to control and influence the masses while giving the masses the illusion of lack of centralized control.
RIAA, MPAA, governments, banking and financing industries, are all out to centralize control of flow of things. They are not going to give up that power easily. This is partly why we have social classes, and that in the world, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer, why government's agricultural subsidy create farmers who are not wealthy, but become addicts to subsidy, and why certain companies make so much money from them.
about being able to do partial rollouts of various systems, keeping loose coupling between them and planning a migration path that doesn't require changes to everything all at the same time. The problem with the "business software" and the required customization, however, highlights the problem with packaged, closed-source software. Open Source software does not require you to be at the latest and greatest version. However, software vendors are often only willing to support the newest versions and discontinue support for older versions.
There will be a great market for companies who specializes in supporting older versions of software that the original software vendor no longer supports.
This reminds me of an old joke about a dim-witted family where the mom writes a letter to the son: "I am writing this slowly because I know you can't read fast."
That is still damn cheap. How many miles to space?
The purpose of corporation is making money to the shareholder, period. Of course method matters. You can't just go around screwing people either. Corporations must run the business to provide maximal return within legal boundaries. Not only that, it must also do so within generally acceptable ethical boundaries, so as to not offend those that it conducts business with and hurt business and decrease shareholder value.
For example, McDonald's, under pressure from consumer groups, create guidelines and oversight structure to require that its meat suppliers adhere to specific safety standards for slaughter. This results in more humane slaughter of animals and safer working conditions (not by any means good, but slightly better than before) for the slaughterhouse workers.
McDonald's could have just said screw the slaughterhouse workers, because the meat will be more expensive to buy and mean lower profits (not really significantly so), but it loses negative publicity and improve its corporate image (very important) which in turn means good business and better bottomline and more return to shareholders.
That the corporation's main (not "only") purpose is making money for the shareholders does not make it evil. It is what the people who run the corporation do that makes them evil. The corporation is neither good nor evil. Corporations exists to make money. Laws and choice keep corporations from "acting" evil, which is why monopolies are bad.
Corporation are not evil per se. They exist to make money for their shareholders. They believe monitoring web browsing habits of people (who are voluntarily doing so) can better help them service their customers (only the means, not the ends) and make more money. They are doing the right thing from their perspective. They are not a totalitarian regime forcing this on everyone. Same with credit cards. If you don't want people to know what you are purchasing, use cash.
The only bad thing about all of this tyranny of convenience is that in the future, there will be no choices, because the convenient choices come to dominate. Imagine if in the future, we can no longer pay by cash because everyone has bought into convenient cashlessness. That, is the true danger.
I think you need to define "one instance", and you need to find out whether "run" is included, as in "run one instance..."
The reason that's important is you could INSTALL one instance and RUN multiple instances on one machine at a time. Most applications (MS Word, Excel, etc.) allows multiple instances to RUN on one machine, but not necessarily allow multiple instances to be INSTALLED on one machine.
In those cases, in any case, we know the intention is really, one user per license per machine. In many application servers that used, say, Terminal Services on Windows (Remote Desktop), where people are actually running their windows sessions on the server, they need to have a license for an application per desktop, but it's dynamically allocated by use.
Actually, because it's liquid, it wouldn't. It can cover the surfaces where the fire is burning, but because it's not gaseous, it would not displace air completely (unless you completely displace the air in a room by flooding it from floor to ceiling, but you don't need that much to put out a fire).
No, I am well aware of J#, but it is not Java either, whether it's indistinguishable or not. Java with full blessing of compliance to what Sun says is Java is really Java....of course, that may be meaningless anyway.
I think both Sun and Microsoft (note I did not say general public) will be better off is Sun just sells out Java to Microsoft. .Net platform. Java gets more play, .Net gets official Java.
Look at it this way: Sun and Microsoft officially get together to put Java on the
I believe after the settlement, Sun and Microsoft will like each other a lot more - Sun because it has become weak and not terribly competitive, and Microsoft is happy that Sun is finally off its back, and given the state of software industry today, Sun is not in a good position as a software vendor, and though I don't know the numbers, but I don't think Java is making Sun much money (If it was, then they would not have had that much money trouble). I believe Sun is refusing to open up Java because they still want to milk more money from it, and one of the ways is to make a deal with Microsoft.
But Microsoft has C#, right? Yes...but C# is not Java, and there are plenty of people loyal to Java who are not willing to switch to C#. But if an official Java version is available on the Windows platform and is blessed by Sun, then developers would be much more willing to use it.
I understand the mantra of Java is write once run anywhere, but if you could at the same time, run on 90% of desktops really well (as a good Microsoft implementation would), then it's that much better.
All that remains is for Sun to sell Java to Microsoft.
er...sponsorship wouldn't fix.
Hosting the show's audio for free is as good as paying the show to stay with them.
I don't know about the TV image qualities where you are, but Cable TV certainly improved image qualities. Ok, ok, this is not an improvement on image quality, but on transmission, but to the people sitting at home, it didn't make a difference. Why do I bring it up? Because Cable TV allowed for additional channels and offered image quality good enough that people are willing to pay to subscribe to it. And quite frankly, no matter how good the pictures, if you don't have good transmission/reception, it's still pretty crappy.
I say, RTFB (Book). What!? You haven't? It's too damn big? Well go read it and THEN come back and complain.
On the other hand, I think that people's attitude toward his work is not a problem of the merit of the his work. Rather, it is the way he seemed so self-important when pointing out something that seems deceptively simple that many people have covered before (Cellular Automata).
The universe is not governed by vastly complicated equations wrought by the human mind. And Wolfram pointing that out simply offended people who believed otherwise.
but this kind of products seem really stupid, and building a business around it, well...
I mean, besides the novelty of it, is it something that really serves a purpose? Or is it just one more of those kind of executive desk toys?
But if they insist, then perhaps what they SHOULD do is consult Edward Tufte and create entire lines of products for displaying statistical/quantitative information in a way that would be truly meaningful and useful.
It doesn't matter. If you only open the port to someone who presents a correct knocking sequence, then for all practical purposes, the system can be configured so that it's completely invisible (like the IP address doesn't even exist). This way, you could even implement a web server that doesn't simply response to port 80, until the proper knocking sequence has been presented.
No, there is no violation of privacy, since you have to give up that information VOLUNTARILY if you wanted the discount card in the first place. Violation of privacy implies that it is being done against your will or without your knowledge.
And in this case, since they 'OWN' the data (that's right, you gave it to them, it's theirs now), and they are not selling it or giving it away to other parties, it is hardly a violation of privacy.
If you give false information, well, that's your problem.
that the music industry and everybody between the artists and us, the consumers, have been ripping us off, so much so that even on $.99 per song, they have that much room to play with and still make money. I mean, if they can sell at .99 Canadian per song, that just means that whole CD albums should be less than $10. And for all these years, we've seen CD album prices at...$15+?
Of course, since they are not actually creating landfill destined discs of plastic, with jewel cases and inserts, they are costing even less than traditional CDs, even though they are having to pay for maintaining the service online, equipment, people, etc., I think it's still cheaper in the long run, since all they are doing is selling bits that can be copied over and over again at virtually no cost. They should be offering songs at $.50 each, IMO. I think we should be able to drive the prices down. We need to opt for cheaper music services until they reach that level.
When it comes to all things online being equal, most people would opt for the cheaper price. That's the whole point of competition after all. If they are selling the same thing, wouldn't you go for the cheaper alternative? People "vote" with their money in market competition.
Of course, if you are concerned about privacy and other issues, if you care, then you could certainly not buy from Walmart, but I think for most people, cost is more important.
we have concept art of a live action version of an anime, which, after all, is based on...
Throw CG into it, then it's a bigger mess. Since it will be likely that they will use CG for parts of this.
The mantra of the statistician and researchers:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Is it caffeine? Is it coffee? If it was caffeine, would it make sense to do more tests on other caffeine laden beverages? Tea, for example. But wait, maybe tea has some effects to help against diabetes too. Hmm...caffeinated soft drinks. But maybe in sodas, the effects will cancel each other out because of the high-fructose corn syrup, if, caffeine is indeed the factor.
Coffee and tea both have "lots of antioxidants" does that mean they are both good against diabetes? Is that what it means? lots of antioxidants = anti-diabetic?
...is something that is half the price and looks almost as good.
You can't kill iPod by making more expensive competitors! iPod is already too expensive.
Raising $200K for a childrens hospital does NOT make them NOT a bunch of gun nuts. Right to bear arms is one thing, but certainly, a lot of gun violence and gun deaths would not be an issue if there were no guns, right?
And another thing, why is the NRA raising money for a childrens hospital, except to try to improve its image as a compassionate and caring organization?
Yes, parents should just do their job. Stores should just not sell certain games to minors. They should card them like they do with alcohol and cigarettes. While we are at it - marketers should just stop marketing to kids, especially that ChannelOne crap that is basically doing just that.
But then, I have to agree with another poster - why are games considered speech? And certainly, it is commercial speech. It's ok for us to say we want to stop spam and junk mail, because they are not considered speech that should be protected by First Amendment rights?
Don't all iMacs (the flatpanel lamp) burn DVD-RAM? Oh, wait, I see you point about them not selling too many DVD-RAM drives... :D
So wait...you are telling me that the problem is Microsoft is not willing to make a Hebrew localized version of Office for Mac OS X?
Mac OS X + Hebrew = a very small percentage of world wide office application users, compared to Windows + English, at least.