I think they're trying to say that the development of Eudora won't pull resources away from the development of Thunderbird. They're doing this by pushing most of Eudora's features into a plug-in called Penelope. They go on to say that Penelope "is" compatible with Thunderbird, however some features won't work, and they won't be testing or maintaining the ones that do.
I think it's more a fact that spelling checking is only effective on a small portion of the source code. The compiler will pick up most of your errors, and after that your source code is internal and not subject to customer scrutiny. So you're left with comment code, and variable names that you managed to spell wrong consistently.
I think it would make more sense to have something more advanced checking your variable names, and class names. Something that you can teach to check formatting, naming conventions and spelling. It seems that matching the prefixes, and suffixes is just as critical as spelling the variable name correctly. It would be nice to not have to debug code that has no prefixes.
I disagree. If a store has a reason to believe that they're are losing money because cashiers are colluding with customers then they setup measures to prevent, and deter it. The method they picked is receipt checks. I can't give you a cost benefit analysis of whatever else they could do, but a reasonable person would assume they did their own. So they check receipts, and they do it routinely. Do they have to be suspicious of every cashier? No, they don't. But, it is fair to treat everyone one the same and check every receipt. The failure comes in when the security guard checking the receipt isn't properly trained to handle the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if the security guard was told to call the manager, and the manager wasn't really told anything. Suspicion is very subjective. I think a minority of people are going to conclude that a guy who refuses to show his receipt is just asserting his rights, which leads to suspicion.
I would equate it to my right of way when I'm crossing the street. I have the right of way, but I know that it's necessary to get a driver to acknowledge it before I step in front of them. Of course, that's normally because they don't see me, or they're not paying attention.
I remember reading about the iMAC and thinking about that it was such a wonderful and forward thinking idea. Make a cheap console system that's limited to the vast majority of web surfing, playing DVDs, and various video streams. Lock everything down so you get rid of the nasty soup of conflicting applications and make it much easier to refresh or fix. Every 3 of 4 years when you need to upgrade the new version of the console is available to you. It's exactly what my parents would need. (As long as it also allowed some form of video conferencing). It's also what they need in most schools and libraries. In fact, put the user on a USB key, and just shuffle their personal data, and login information on to it. Honestly, lets plug a keyboard and mouse into a cheap version of the X-Box 360 and be done with it.
Who could possibly have been your accomplice who scanned only a portion of your items, or scanned a $20 item in place of a $100 dollar item. Employees steel too you know.
There was a posting very similar to this on The Consumerist a couple weeks ago. Oddly enough, they both involved a person who made separate transactions.
I think it will be interesting to see where these things go. Personally, I think it's best not to involve the authorities in these minor situations. As for the slippery slope argument I find it a bit weak. It seems as reasonable as leaving your backpack at the front of the store, wearing a shirt and shoes, or not wearing roller blades. They're not asking for any personal information, or personal identification. They're not asking to see what you bought at other stores, or what you have in your backpack. They're asking to validate the receipt that was printed up for you by a different employee seconds earlier, and count the items in your bag. Yah, I agree it's stupid and corny and there are better ways to handle the situation. But, this isn't some authoritarian attack on your personal space either.
Anecdotally, I carry my groceries home in reusable canvas bags. I have to get the cashier to validate me before I can use them because the scales are sensitive enough to detect the extra weight of the bag, with the first item I scan (even a 1lb tub of butter, OH MY!). There's no reason why they can't have a similar check at the point where the cashier scans the product and disables the RFID. Simply have a third cashier that validates the various items the machine is unable to accommodate. Ironically, the days I do set the door alarm off I usually just wave at the cashier to let her know I was the one that set it off, and she waves back in acknowledgment.
I agree, it's mainly the consumer that's been bought by the major labels. Everybody agrees that the major labels have a broken system, yet they still look to the major labels for their music. They still accept that there is some direct correlation between popularity and quality. They'll just narrow it down to popularity amongst peers.
The band that made it sucks. Don't listen to the band. Find something better to listen to. If everybody did that maybe good music would start getting the attention it deserves. But OH NO!!!! Everybody wants good music but they still expect it to be spoon fed to them. They think a good concert needs 10,000+ people and an expensive light show. Music also sucks because there is simply to many suckers sitting around expecting a broken system to make good music, while ignoring the fact that there are 20,000+ other labels in the world who are sincerely trying to deliver good music to you. Stop blaming the majors for your complacency. I'm certainly don't have this problem where every new album I buy sucks, and I buy over a hundred in any given year.
That's mainly what I'm thinking and why I asked the question. It seems that libertarians are confident in saying they wouldn't make the mistakes that other governments make, but they never really say how they'd deal with the root of the issue. They say they wouldn't waste money on a welfare system, but they don't really have an answer for poverty other than the free market. Of course they tend to dismiss the fact the welfare system didn't come in a replace something that was working better for the recipients.
Poppa Bush? The guy who said that you weren't really an American if you didn't believe in the Christian God? You're forgetting that libertarianism simply transfers the power to the market which is a lot more efficient at screwing the common man over. If you're a libertarian you should fundamentally be against the FDA, the FCC, net neutrality, and workers rights as they impede the free market.
But, the a la carte factor of cable is very significant benefit. It's just that for me it's worth $25 and not $50. But, I digress, there is a lot of content being provided. You can't get to far on $50 if you want and evening of entertainment for 2 people.
That's a good question, especially in light of the fact they've decided not to post them anymore. I don't know about the cost benefit for most people. If you're following a few series, the $2 per episode adds up very quickly at 26+ episodes per season. Most people just want to zone out. They just want to sit down whenever, and watch whatever. There's also the immediacy of being able to participate in the water-cooler discussion the next morning.
It's more a matter of the DVD then competing directly with the TV show. If people know they only have to wait a month to get the DVD they're more likely to forgo the hassle of watching the show weekly and just wait for the DVD. That's great for us but probably cuts quite a few points off the advertising dollars which are mostly likely paid on the shows ability to draw an audience.
It's simple economics. An early DVD release would have a fairly aggressive impact on a shows ability to draw an audience. They're not just trying to make money off the show, they're also trying to make money for the network, and the local affiliates. If you're willing to wait a month to pick up 24 on DVD then you're more likely to be checking out the competition at that particular hour. The DVD release is set to a marketing schedule. Besides, I think most people would be smart enough just to wait for the cheaper boxed set at the end anyway.
He didn't exactly list "not watching the show" as an alternative. If you really want to vote with your dollar then you simply put it some place else. Buy video games, board games, play sports, or go to the theater. Content providers aren't exactly bat shit insane for believing that 99 out of every 100 illegal downloads happened because they were free. I find it hypocritical to knock the major studios and major labels for their business practices while thinking someone can still enjoy (and promote) their product because they didn't pay for it. It's really no wonder content providers feel eliminating illegal downloads, and not improving their content or it's delivery is the right policy for their bottom line.
Sometimes the album price has much more to do with publishing rights and royalties. There's a good chance that the people who own the rights, and are owed royalties for the White Album got a considerable cut of the profit. It's the same thing with some older albums. You're still paying the production cost of getting everything transferred to CD and sometimes you're simply not going to sell that many. So they make a small number available, and nothing gets sold at bulk prices. Sometimes the reissues are released on smaller labels and HMV etc are buying them from a distributer instead of directly from a label which also effects the price, especially when they have fixed mark-up. Sometimes it's best to do a little investigation and see if you can buy the same album directly from the distributer, label, or a smaller indie store that wouldn't have as severe a mark-up. When you're seeing new albums on the shelf for $10 at the big record stores. They've usually negotiated their cost for that album down to practically nothing. At that point in the game the labels are just trying to buy exposure and get the word of their album out on to the streets. I buy perhaps 1 or 2 albums from Sunrise Records (HMV equivalent) each year only to get that deep discount on the odd release that gets that kind of distribution. Honestly, the pricing at HMV has a lot more to do with their mark-up, how they're buying them, where they're buying them from, that quantity their buying, and where the album is in it's life cycle than anything. New albums are artificially low in price, and many old albums are artificially high in price. Personally, I buy from my friend, as he owns a smaller indie record store that doesn't have a severe mark-up. He appreciates the couple hundred bucks I spend there every month too.
There's absolutely nothing unfair about this policy. LiveJournal is holding their members accountable for the content of their journals and they're simply extending it what is on the other side of the hyper link. There's correspondence from the people who run LiveJournal in the article that specifically states that the user will first be asked to remove the offending link. It's an EVERYDAY thing on the internet to use journals and blogs and a front door for distributing illicit material that's stored in other locations on the internet. Honestly, if YOU are that much smarter about how the internet works, get your webserver.
To be honest I'm not that concerned about it. Obviously, they're still at a point where they're gathering information, or the case is actually still pending. I'm certainly not assuming that a judge doesn't know how to apply the law properly. I certainly can assume that if TorrentSpy had better reasons by which to block to the ruling they would of used them. However, they're response appears to be the statement about RAM.
She's not expecting them to be able to produce historical records from RAM. The article states nothing of the the sort. She did say, that RAM is a storage medium, and that information in RAM can be stored. This of course being a simplified statement saying that if your computer is processing the information, you can save it as well. If you want to think that RAM is mysteriously cryptic 1's and 0's I'm hoping you're not writing any software that I'll be using some day.
I think you're under estimating how bad Real Player's reputation is. Besides... I think you have it backwards. You don't need a compelling reason to avoid real player, but you should have one before installing it.
When TorrentSPY says "but it's only in RAM" they're the ones making a trivial excuse with a misunderstanding of how the law works. The judge is telling them they're destroying evidence if they turn off they're computer, the judge isn't asking them for the contents of their RAM, or they're cache. She's asking them for user login information. TorrentSpy is saying it only exists in RAM. The judge is REMINDING them that bullshit to them, it's in their RAM, they access it, they can log it, and now must log it because those contents fall under the rules of discovery. TorrentSpy is using "RAM" as a red herring instead of admitting to the reality of "but, we always throw that information out."
It's similar to the judge ordering a mail order company to keep all the envelopes they open. The argument there of course being "but, your honor our policy is not to keep envelopes."
Reading the article reveals that they are specifically looking a log of IP addresses. It's actually TorrentSpy's ridiculously lame ass argument that it's "just RAM." The fact is the data the court is looking for is available to TorrentSpy and they're telling them that they have to save that information and make it available as evidence. The premise that the judge is asking for the contents of RAM is just the idiotic ramblings of slahdotters that for some reason won't read the article. The rest is just an poor understanding of the judicial system that could probably cured by paying attention to Law and Order for a couple seasons. It's ironic that there are so many musings about the judicial system not understanding technology. Even Alanis Morrisette knows that's ironic.
That's exactly right, the union doesn't work for the company. But, the members they represent absolutely do work for the company. It doesn't do them a lot of good when the union works to prevent the kind of restructuring that will allow those members to have jobs 10 years down the road. "Economic Realities" include the company no longer being able to make the money it once did.
Slashdot Mirror
Eudora The Explorer: The email client that does everything in threes.
I think they're trying to say that the development of Eudora won't pull resources away from the development of Thunderbird. They're doing this by pushing most of Eudora's features into a plug-in called Penelope. They go on to say that Penelope "is" compatible with Thunderbird, however some features won't work, and they won't be testing or maintaining the ones that do.
I think it's more a fact that spelling checking is only effective on a small portion of the source code. The compiler will pick up most of your errors, and after that your source code is internal and not subject to customer scrutiny. So you're left with comment code, and variable names that you managed to spell wrong consistently.
I think it would make more sense to have something more advanced checking your variable names, and class names. Something that you can teach to check formatting, naming conventions and spelling. It seems that matching the prefixes, and suffixes is just as critical as spelling the variable name correctly. It would be nice to not have to debug code that has no prefixes.
I disagree. If a store has a reason to believe that they're are losing money because cashiers are colluding with customers then they setup measures to prevent, and deter it. The method they picked is receipt checks. I can't give you a cost benefit analysis of whatever else they could do, but a reasonable person would assume they did their own. So they check receipts, and they do it routinely. Do they have to be suspicious of every cashier? No, they don't. But, it is fair to treat everyone one the same and check every receipt. The failure comes in when the security guard checking the receipt isn't properly trained to handle the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if the security guard was told to call the manager, and the manager wasn't really told anything. Suspicion is very subjective. I think a minority of people are going to conclude that a guy who refuses to show his receipt is just asserting his rights, which leads to suspicion. I would equate it to my right of way when I'm crossing the street. I have the right of way, but I know that it's necessary to get a driver to acknowledge it before I step in front of them. Of course, that's normally because they don't see me, or they're not paying attention.
I remember reading about the iMAC and thinking about that it was such a wonderful and forward thinking idea. Make a cheap console system that's limited to the vast majority of web surfing, playing DVDs, and various video streams. Lock everything down so you get rid of the nasty soup of conflicting applications and make it much easier to refresh or fix. Every 3 of 4 years when you need to upgrade the new version of the console is available to you. It's exactly what my parents would need. (As long as it also allowed some form of video conferencing). It's also what they need in most schools and libraries. In fact, put the user on a USB key, and just shuffle their personal data, and login information on to it. Honestly, lets plug a keyboard and mouse into a cheap version of the X-Box 360 and be done with it.
Who could possibly have been your accomplice who scanned only a portion of your items, or scanned a $20 item in place of a $100 dollar item. Employees steel too you know.
There was a posting very similar to this on The Consumerist a couple weeks ago. Oddly enough, they both involved a person who made separate transactions.
n lawfully-restrains-and-verbally-abuses-customer-fo r-not-submitting-to-receipt+showing-demands-292688 .php
Link here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/top/tigerdirect-u
I think it will be interesting to see where these things go. Personally, I think it's best not to involve the authorities in these minor situations. As for the slippery slope argument I find it a bit weak. It seems as reasonable as leaving your backpack at the front of the store, wearing a shirt and shoes, or not wearing roller blades. They're not asking for any personal information, or personal identification. They're not asking to see what you bought at other stores, or what you have in your backpack. They're asking to validate the receipt that was printed up for you by a different employee seconds earlier, and count the items in your bag. Yah, I agree it's stupid and corny and there are better ways to handle the situation. But, this isn't some authoritarian attack on your personal space either.
Anecdotally, I carry my groceries home in reusable canvas bags. I have to get the cashier to validate me before I can use them because the scales are sensitive enough to detect the extra weight of the bag, with the first item I scan (even a 1lb tub of butter, OH MY!). There's no reason why they can't have a similar check at the point where the cashier scans the product and disables the RFID. Simply have a third cashier that validates the various items the machine is unable to accommodate. Ironically, the days I do set the door alarm off I usually just wave at the cashier to let her know I was the one that set it off, and she waves back in acknowledgment.
I agree, it's mainly the consumer that's been bought by the major labels. Everybody agrees that the major labels have a broken system, yet they still look to the major labels for their music. They still accept that there is some direct correlation between popularity and quality. They'll just narrow it down to popularity amongst peers.
The band that made it sucks. Don't listen to the band. Find something better to listen to. If everybody did that maybe good music would start getting the attention it deserves. But OH NO!!!! Everybody wants good music but they still expect it to be spoon fed to them. They think a good concert needs 10,000+ people and an expensive light show. Music also sucks because there is simply to many suckers sitting around expecting a broken system to make good music, while ignoring the fact that there are 20,000+ other labels in the world who are sincerely trying to deliver good music to you. Stop blaming the majors for your complacency. I'm certainly don't have this problem where every new album I buy sucks, and I buy over a hundred in any given year.
That's mainly what I'm thinking and why I asked the question. It seems that libertarians are confident in saying they wouldn't make the mistakes that other governments make, but they never really say how they'd deal with the root of the issue. They say they wouldn't waste money on a welfare system, but they don't really have an answer for poverty other than the free market. Of course they tend to dismiss the fact the welfare system didn't come in a replace something that was working better for the recipients.
Poppa Bush? The guy who said that you weren't really an American if you didn't believe in the Christian God? You're forgetting that libertarianism simply transfers the power to the market which is a lot more efficient at screwing the common man over. If you're a libertarian you should fundamentally be against the FDA, the FCC, net neutrality, and workers rights as they impede the free market.
Why is the only choice libertarianism? Why not just deal with corrupt politicians? Do you understand what true libertarianism implies?
But, are they really libertarian or do they just use the word?
But, the a la carte factor of cable is very significant benefit. It's just that for me it's worth $25 and not $50. But, I digress, there is a lot of content being provided. You can't get to far on $50 if you want and evening of entertainment for 2 people.
That's a good question, especially in light of the fact they've decided not to post them anymore. I don't know about the cost benefit for most people. If you're following a few series, the $2 per episode adds up very quickly at 26+ episodes per season. Most people just want to zone out. They just want to sit down whenever, and watch whatever. There's also the immediacy of being able to participate in the water-cooler discussion the next morning.
It's more a matter of the DVD then competing directly with the TV show. If people know they only have to wait a month to get the DVD they're more likely to forgo the hassle of watching the show weekly and just wait for the DVD. That's great for us but probably cuts quite a few points off the advertising dollars which are mostly likely paid on the shows ability to draw an audience. It's simple economics. An early DVD release would have a fairly aggressive impact on a shows ability to draw an audience. They're not just trying to make money off the show, they're also trying to make money for the network, and the local affiliates. If you're willing to wait a month to pick up 24 on DVD then you're more likely to be checking out the competition at that particular hour. The DVD release is set to a marketing schedule. Besides, I think most people would be smart enough just to wait for the cheaper boxed set at the end anyway.
He didn't exactly list "not watching the show" as an alternative. If you really want to vote with your dollar then you simply put it some place else. Buy video games, board games, play sports, or go to the theater. Content providers aren't exactly bat shit insane for believing that 99 out of every 100 illegal downloads happened because they were free. I find it hypocritical to knock the major studios and major labels for their business practices while thinking someone can still enjoy (and promote) their product because they didn't pay for it. It's really no wonder content providers feel eliminating illegal downloads, and not improving their content or it's delivery is the right policy for their bottom line.
Sometimes the album price has much more to do with publishing rights and royalties. There's a good chance that the people who own the rights, and are owed royalties for the White Album got a considerable cut of the profit. It's the same thing with some older albums. You're still paying the production cost of getting everything transferred to CD and sometimes you're simply not going to sell that many. So they make a small number available, and nothing gets sold at bulk prices. Sometimes the reissues are released on smaller labels and HMV etc are buying them from a distributer instead of directly from a label which also effects the price, especially when they have fixed mark-up. Sometimes it's best to do a little investigation and see if you can buy the same album directly from the distributer, label, or a smaller indie store that wouldn't have as severe a mark-up. When you're seeing new albums on the shelf for $10 at the big record stores. They've usually negotiated their cost for that album down to practically nothing. At that point in the game the labels are just trying to buy exposure and get the word of their album out on to the streets. I buy perhaps 1 or 2 albums from Sunrise Records (HMV equivalent) each year only to get that deep discount on the odd release that gets that kind of distribution. Honestly, the pricing at HMV has a lot more to do with their mark-up, how they're buying them, where they're buying them from, that quantity their buying, and where the album is in it's life cycle than anything. New albums are artificially low in price, and many old albums are artificially high in price. Personally, I buy from my friend, as he owns a smaller indie record store that doesn't have a severe mark-up. He appreciates the couple hundred bucks I spend there every month too.
There's absolutely nothing unfair about this policy. LiveJournal is holding their members accountable for the content of their journals and they're simply extending it what is on the other side of the hyper link. There's correspondence from the people who run LiveJournal in the article that specifically states that the user will first be asked to remove the offending link. It's an EVERYDAY thing on the internet to use journals and blogs and a front door for distributing illicit material that's stored in other locations on the internet. Honestly, if YOU are that much smarter about how the internet works, get your webserver.
To be honest I'm not that concerned about it. Obviously, they're still at a point where they're gathering information, or the case is actually still pending. I'm certainly not assuming that a judge doesn't know how to apply the law properly. I certainly can assume that if TorrentSpy had better reasons by which to block to the ruling they would of used them. However, they're response appears to be the statement about RAM. She's not expecting them to be able to produce historical records from RAM. The article states nothing of the the sort. She did say, that RAM is a storage medium, and that information in RAM can be stored. This of course being a simplified statement saying that if your computer is processing the information, you can save it as well. If you want to think that RAM is mysteriously cryptic 1's and 0's I'm hoping you're not writing any software that I'll be using some day.
I think you're under estimating how bad Real Player's reputation is. Besides... I think you have it backwards. You don't need a compelling reason to avoid real player, but you should have one before installing it.
Nah, I think Google just responds with no search results found and a link to "do you mean Kent State?"
When TorrentSPY says "but it's only in RAM" they're the ones making a trivial excuse with a misunderstanding of how the law works. The judge is telling them they're destroying evidence if they turn off they're computer, the judge isn't asking them for the contents of their RAM, or they're cache. She's asking them for user login information. TorrentSpy is saying it only exists in RAM. The judge is REMINDING them that bullshit to them, it's in their RAM, they access it, they can log it, and now must log it because those contents fall under the rules of discovery. TorrentSpy is using "RAM" as a red herring instead of admitting to the reality of "but, we always throw that information out." It's similar to the judge ordering a mail order company to keep all the envelopes they open. The argument there of course being "but, your honor our policy is not to keep envelopes."
Reading the article reveals that they are specifically looking a log of IP addresses. It's actually TorrentSpy's ridiculously lame ass argument that it's "just RAM." The fact is the data the court is looking for is available to TorrentSpy and they're telling them that they have to save that information and make it available as evidence. The premise that the judge is asking for the contents of RAM is just the idiotic ramblings of slahdotters that for some reason won't read the article. The rest is just an poor understanding of the judicial system that could probably cured by paying attention to Law and Order for a couple seasons. It's ironic that there are so many musings about the judicial system not understanding technology. Even Alanis Morrisette knows that's ironic.
That's exactly right, the union doesn't work for the company. But, the members they represent absolutely do work for the company. It doesn't do them a lot of good when the union works to prevent the kind of restructuring that will allow those members to have jobs 10 years down the road. "Economic Realities" include the company no longer being able to make the money it once did.