If by Broadcom shareholders, you mean the hedge fund that bought the shares at $26.00 milliseconds before finding out that the majority of buyers maximum buying price was $26.40 and then then selling the shares at $26.39 meaning that original sellers and actual buyers lost $0.39/share to a very few companies with an extremely unique advantage.
In fact, the buyers were trying to keep the price from rocketing too fast by splitting up their buying orders into smaller chunks, but because all of their orders were funneled through the same exchange service, those systems saw the trend.
I see your point, and I agree. Games and video (as well as books/magazines or any form of expression I suppose) should all at least be held to the same standard.
I'm not sure I see how this falls under First Amendment protection? The material isn't being destroyed, and they aren't making it a crime for a minor to have the material, but merely a restriction at the time of purchase.
I'm old enough that this wouldn't prevent me from getting whatever game I wanted. Can someone explain what the difference between this and say the laws against selling porno to minors is? If anything it would force parents to be involved (because the parent would have to buy the game) and at least know what their kid has. Sure, kids would find some ways around it (everyone had a friend, who's friend had a playboy when you were 10), but having one barrier between Manhunt and my kid would make me feel a bit more in control.
I do question the enforceability of something like this, for instance, if the local store won't sell to the kid, they can just buy it on eBay (cheaper there anyways), or get it through Gamefly. I doubt those companies are going to put special restrictions in place because of one state.
In that case, why not just get a Gamefly subscription. Half price of a game is at least 2 months subscription. Also, why sell it for half price? You could probably hock it on ebay for 60-80% retail value. Or trade it for a different one at switchgames.com.
Actually, they keep advertising 'itunes tagging' as a feature for HD radio so apparently FM HD radio has some sort of button to tag a song for purchase on itunes when you sync up later.Looks like you have to have your ipod tied into the radio to get it, and a quick google search showed a few car radios that have it. their marketing on it
I think he is referring to user's being more involved in the development process. He explicitly mentions broadening the term developer to mean users of the software. I haven't seen many ways to contribute to open source development other then
a) code contributions
b) bug reports
This means only programmers are determining feature road maps and other design decisions (such as which bugs to even fix).
In the commercial world, engineers are not the only designers. A marketing department with a (hopefully) excellent understanding of the target market acts as the user liaison so that engineers focus on things the market needs, not just what the engineer wants to work on.
I disagree. I think most users have a pretty good idea of what they want, they just generally don't have a clue on how they want it implemented. Most users don't consider many consequences of 'what they want' thats where a developer comes in.
For instance, a user would know that a particular interaction was clunky, or that certain data would be valuable to have at hand in a UI, but likely would have no clue (or probably care) how it was improved or how to store and generate the data.
Actually, users could write marketing spec, just not design specs. Most marketing specs I've seen are initially way out there, and are then revised to come in line with what is feasible in a reasonable time with the help of engineers.
Which they have to report as business income, basically advertising. In fact, the amount taxed would be the 10% amount, but they appear to want taxes on the full item sale price which seems ridiculous.
If the states can't businesses residing in their state to pay taxes, that's not Amazon's problem.
The accounting muscle comes in when filling out and submitting the tax payment on a quarterly basis. Even if a system were designed to calculate all the taxes owed, each state, you would have to deal with 50 different state filing systems. Then, what if the cities and counties want their share.
More to the point, this is regarding affiliates. Why should someone who refers someone to another location be taxed based on the location of the referrer. If I go to my local Safeway (supermarket), and see a posting on their community board for a motorcycle just across the state line, should the seller have to pay taxes to both states?
add a bit of code to my web site to collect sales tax correctly all over the country
Don't forget that quarterly, you'll have to file and submit all those pennies to 50 different locations. Then, what if the city and county steps in and says, "you know what, all these people are in our city are buying stuff outside our city, we want taxes for that." Do you think you would still be in business if you had the overhead to deal with taxes for 50 different locations, let alone how ever many cities/counties would start wanting taxes from you.
There is already a solution for this. The taxes are the responsibilty of the buyer (its called 'use tax'). They are the ones that are evading taxes, not the seller.
Here's a better idea. All the stores could add a note to their invoices that says what the state, city, and county use tax is for their zip code. This could be easily done via a computer lookup, leaves payment responsibility where it should be (the buyer), and notifies them how much they need to account for at the end of the year when they file their taxes.
First, the discussion was 'broken window fallacy' now its 'massive new taxes'
I looked at both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act and 2 studies there (one from EPA and a conservative one) and neither support your claim of causing anything to double in price.
Certainly things may cost more, but that is a choice we have to make. The choice is about whether we all can hoard our money and have lots of things, or have fewer things and an environment we (and future generations) can live in.
I honestly don't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters. At least not the point where their legs should broken, etc...
Sure, they may not be making as good a use as you might, but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away.
Now, if it is a site that is fraudulent, I can understand that, but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting. I can also understand trademark infringement (to some extent) but this whole "my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me" seems a little over the top.
I'm curious what the information they are providing is. (I, like you, think it is free elsewhere).
Are they just point to info on google adsense or other stuff like that? Or does it start with, "create a fake news site with this TOS and take credit card numbers...
If so someone could create a site that aggregates their keyword names and points out not only the scam, but the worthless crap they're selling.
Only if your definition of 'immediately' is 'over the course of 11 years'
Hell, by the time the bill is passed, studies done ( 1 year after passing), task forces gathered (6 months after bill passing), and all the other stuff, the economy will be out of the 'shitter', since most economists think we'll be recovering fine in 2010, before any real effects are felt. That also gives companies plenty of time to start 'priming the pump' to take advantage of demand for newer efficient products.
instead of improving the new crap to make it better
Not sure what 'new crap' you are talking about that won't be improved but:
much of these costs will be embedded into items you purchase and you will have no way to avoid it
absolutely. That's the point.
when wind, solar and other renewable energy sources can't compete
If you are comparing them solely on the cost of energy production then yes, they don't compete. But then you are disregarding the effect the pollution of the non-renewable source has. If you factor that in for society (by making companies pay more as heavier polluters) then they absolutely compete. Do you think that any of the other ways to deal with pollution/global warming wouldn't cost society in some way (it always ends up paid by the consumers).
Except, you are assuming that the current 'window' (pollution) has no cost to anyone except the person replacing it.
It would be a better comparison if that baker's window emitted toxic fumes, or radiation to everyone around his shop.
Also, your example illustrates my point. He could produce more, thereby increasing QOL for his consumers to have either more muffins at the same price, or the same muffins at a lower price. Or he can produce the same muffins at the current price, but provide it to his consumers with lower emissions, as well as work for the new equipment makers.
Its a question about what you want your economy to produce:
1. People who get to have lots of muffins (and increasingly more each year).
2. People who get to have the same amount of muffins but better environment.
Personally, I think #2 is a better choice because our QOL for food/stuff is high enough, and I'd rather our economy worked toward a better environment instead of just lots more stuff to fill the home with. But thats just my opinion.
What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?
That is the system we currently have today, which doesn't work.
Now, if someone builds a new power plant (for example) today, they have to take into account this new market. If they make choices that reduce their overall pollution index for the new plant:
1. They pay less taxes
2. May be able to make extra money by selling the difference between their pollution index and the allowed pollution index.
Now if you are an older plant with higher emissions, the maintenance cost will go up, which motivates to either refurbish or build a more efficient one. Or, if it is able to produce goods at such a high profit, they can buy permits from the previous company.
This is all about incentives to make choices that are better environmentally, and since corporations only maximize profit, that's how you motivate them.
Yes, but they may buy the SUV with better gas mileage, therefore motivating SUV makers to innovate new ways to be more efficient to be better then the competition.
And, people may buy the TV that is more efficient (or a slightly smaller one), again motivating and rewarding the efficient producers.
Still more, people may start looking more at renewable energy sources (Solar, wind, etc) to supplement the non-renewable ones.
1. New products will need to be designed that use their energy more efficiently. Which produces jobs.
2. Industries will have to buy new products to increase their efficiency to stay within limits.
3. People who have jobs from 1 will be spending money again.
#2 will likely increase the amount consumers pay for some goods, but as long as more consumers are working, it should work out. The economy is a cycle, and it just matters what that cycle is producing. It works to raise quality of life. This time, though, QOL isn't about products (TVs, Cars, etc) its about our living environment.
But wouldn't that only matter if they were planning to distribute the ported ScummVM, and not the application built with it? Or is there an integral part included in the application from the ScummVM?
I mean, no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c++ compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows. I believe, even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source (not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it).
More than half the stations broadcasting the "analog nightlight" service will remain on air for 30 days. And the rest will be on for at least two weeks. In total, these stations will reach 69 percent of TV households.
You forgot the all too obvious... Rent it! maybe even convince some friends to pitch in for the rental (or go for GameFly) and do your own review. Something you can't do for the $10 downloadable games.
Slashdot Mirror
If by Broadcom shareholders, you mean the hedge fund that bought the shares at $26.00 milliseconds before finding out that the majority of buyers maximum buying price was $26.40 and then then selling the shares at $26.39 meaning that original sellers and actual buyers lost $0.39/share to a very few companies with an extremely unique advantage.
In fact, the buyers were trying to keep the price from rocketing too fast by splitting up their buying orders into smaller chunks, but because all of their orders were funneled through the same exchange service, those systems saw the trend.
I see your point, and I agree. Games and video (as well as books/magazines or any form of expression I suppose) should all at least be held to the same standard.
I'm not sure I see how this falls under First Amendment protection? The material isn't being destroyed, and they aren't making it a crime for a minor to have the material, but merely a restriction at the time of purchase.
Yea, thats what I got from that statement too.
The easy way is to go directly in through the remote Web GUI.
slightly harder to go in through the browser running inside the network.
I do question the enforceability of something like this, for instance, if the local store won't sell to the kid, they can just buy it on eBay (cheaper there anyways), or get it through Gamefly. I doubt those companies are going to put special restrictions in place because of one state.
In that case, why not just get a Gamefly subscription. Half price of a game is at least 2 months subscription.
Also, why sell it for half price? You could probably hock it on ebay for 60-80% retail value. Or trade it for a different one at switchgames.com.
You forgot
Profit
If you can't profit with that many accounts receivable you're really doing something wrong.
Actually, they keep advertising 'itunes tagging' as a feature for HD radio so apparently FM HD radio has some sort of button to tag a song for purchase on itunes when you sync up later.Looks like you have to have your ipod tied into the radio to get it, and a quick google search showed a few car radios that have it. their marketing on it
they don't fixate on technology because it is new, they don't march to the beat of an ideological imperative
Just to be sure, you're talking about this company?
Curious.
I think he is referring to user's being more involved in the development process. He explicitly mentions broadening the term developer to mean users of the software. I haven't seen many ways to contribute to open source development other then
a) code contributions
b) bug reports
This means only programmers are determining feature road maps and other design decisions (such as which bugs to even fix).
In the commercial world, engineers are not the only designers. A marketing department with a (hopefully) excellent understanding of the target market acts as the user liaison so that engineers focus on things the market needs, not just what the engineer wants to work on.
I disagree. I think most users have a pretty good idea of what they want, they just generally don't have a clue on how they want it implemented. Most users don't consider many consequences of 'what they want' thats where a developer comes in.
For instance, a user would know that a particular interaction was clunky, or that certain data would be valuable to have at hand in a UI, but likely would have no clue (or probably care) how it was improved or how to store and generate the data.
Actually, users could write marketing spec, just not design specs. Most marketing specs I've seen are initially way out there, and are then revised to come in line with what is feasible in a reasonable time with the help of engineers.
Which they have to report as business income, basically advertising. In fact, the amount taxed would be the 10% amount, but they appear to want taxes on the full item sale price which seems ridiculous.
If the states can't businesses residing in their state to pay taxes, that's not Amazon's problem.
The accounting muscle comes in when filling out and submitting the tax payment on a quarterly basis. Even if a system were designed to calculate all the taxes owed, each state, you would have to deal with 50 different state filing systems. Then, what if the cities and counties want their share.
More to the point, this is regarding affiliates. Why should someone who refers someone to another location be taxed based on the location of the referrer. If I go to my local Safeway (supermarket), and see a posting on their community board for a motorcycle just across the state line, should the seller have to pay taxes to both states?
add a bit of code to my web site to collect sales tax correctly all over the country
Don't forget that quarterly, you'll have to file and submit all those pennies to 50 different locations.
Then, what if the city and county steps in and says, "you know what, all these people are in our city are buying stuff outside our city, we want taxes for that." Do you think you would still be in business if you had the overhead to deal with taxes for 50 different locations, let alone how ever many cities/counties would start wanting taxes from you.
There is already a solution for this. The taxes are the responsibilty of the buyer (its called 'use tax'). They are the ones that are evading taxes, not the seller.
Here's a better idea. All the stores could add a note to their invoices that says what the state, city, and county use tax is for their zip code. This could be easily done via a computer lookup, leaves payment responsibility where it should be (the buyer), and notifies them how much they need to account for at the end of the year when they file their taxes.
First, the discussion was 'broken window fallacy' now its 'massive new taxes'
I looked at both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act and 2 studies there (one from EPA and a conservative one) and neither support your claim of causing anything to double in price.
Certainly things may cost more, but that is a choice we have to make. The choice is about whether we all can hoard our money and have lots of things, or have fewer things and an environment we (and future generations) can live in.
I honestly don't quite get the beef everyone has with cybersquatters. At least not the point where their legs should broken, etc...
Sure, they may not be making as good a use as you might, but why should that be the determination of who gets to take it away.
Now, if it is a site that is fraudulent, I can understand that, but that is a different allegation then cybersquatting. I can also understand trademark infringement (to some extent) but this whole "my brand is x so anyone with an x in their domain name should belong to me" seems a little over the top.
Are they just point to info on google adsense or other stuff like that? Or does it start with, "create a fake news site with this TOS and take credit card numbers...
If so someone could create a site that aggregates their keyword names and points out not only the scam, but the worthless crap they're selling.
immediately increase the burden
FTA
17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by midcentury
Only if your definition of 'immediately' is 'over the course of 11 years'
Hell, by the time the bill is passed, studies done ( 1 year after passing), task forces gathered (6 months after bill passing), and all the other stuff, the economy will be out of the 'shitter', since most economists think we'll be recovering fine in 2010, before any real effects are felt. That also gives companies plenty of time to start 'priming the pump' to take advantage of demand for newer efficient products.
instead of improving the new crap to make it better
Not sure what 'new crap' you are talking about that won't be improved but:
much of these costs will be embedded into items you purchase and you will have no way to avoid it
absolutely. That's the point.
when wind, solar and other renewable energy sources can't compete
If you are comparing them solely on the cost of energy production then yes, they don't compete. But then you are disregarding the effect the pollution of the non-renewable source has. If you factor that in for society (by making companies pay more as heavier polluters) then they absolutely compete. Do you think that any of the other ways to deal with pollution/global warming wouldn't cost society in some way (it always ends up paid by the consumers).
It would be a better comparison if that baker's window emitted toxic fumes, or radiation to everyone around his shop.
Also, your example illustrates my point. He could produce more, thereby increasing QOL for his consumers to have either more muffins at the same price, or the same muffins at a lower price. Or he can produce the same muffins at the current price, but provide it to his consumers with lower emissions, as well as work for the new equipment makers.
Its a question about what you want your economy to produce:
1. People who get to have lots of muffins (and increasingly more each year).
2. People who get to have the same amount of muffins but better environment.
Personally, I think #2 is a better choice because our QOL for food/stuff is high enough, and I'd rather our economy worked toward a better environment instead of just lots more stuff to fill the home with. But thats just my opinion.
What business person wants lower profit, and by extension, lower carbon emissions?
That is the system we currently have today, which doesn't work.
Now, if someone builds a new power plant (for example) today, they have to take into account this new market. If they make choices that reduce their overall pollution index for the new plant:
1. They pay less taxes
2. May be able to make extra money by selling the difference between their pollution index and the allowed pollution index.
Now if you are an older plant with higher emissions, the maintenance cost will go up, which motivates to either refurbish or build a more efficient one. Or, if it is able to produce goods at such a high profit, they can buy permits from the previous company.
This is all about incentives to make choices that are better environmentally, and since corporations only maximize profit, that's how you motivate them.
And, people may buy the TV that is more efficient (or a slightly smaller one), again motivating and rewarding the efficient producers.
Still more, people may start looking more at renewable energy sources (Solar, wind, etc) to supplement the non-renewable ones.
1. New products will need to be designed that use their energy more efficiently. Which produces jobs.
2. Industries will have to buy new products to increase their efficiency to stay within limits.
3. People who have jobs from 1 will be spending money again.
#2 will likely increase the amount consumers pay for some goods, but as long as more consumers are working, it should work out. The economy is a cycle, and it just matters what that cycle is producing. It works to raise quality of life. This time, though, QOL isn't about products (TVs, Cars, etc) its about our living environment.
I mean, no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c++ compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows. I believe, even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source (not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it).
Or am I missing something?
More than half the stations broadcasting the "analog nightlight" service will remain on air for 30 days. And the rest will be on for at least two weeks. In total, these stations will reach 69 percent of TV households.
You forgot the all too obvious...
Rent it!
maybe even convince some friends to pitch in for the rental (or go for GameFly) and do your own review. Something you can't do for the $10 downloadable games.