You don't ask KFC to reveal their "seven herbs and spices" do you?
This isn't even a fair comparison. If I don't like KFC, for whatever reason, my decision to go somewhere else (or even make my own) will be virtually without cost. Why? Because chicken isn't closed-source. If I decide I don't like Microsoft, I always have to weigh my options against the very real cost of installing and learning a new OS, converting my old documents, potential compatibility issues, etc. Why? Because Microsoft is closed-source, and is often, by design, incompatible with other potential options.
Those that prefer the closed source model can go there and the rest can go open source
If we factor out those for whom Microsoft is so entrenched in their lives, the number of people who actually want to go the closed source route might well be less than what one might expect. It's not free market when there are obstacles (sometimes large and costly ones) that impede the exercise of free choice.
In fact, I've seen items in Best Buy, asked if the discount was at the register, or via rebate, and if it was the latter, I'd simply not buy it. I wondered for a while, why companies do this- why don't they just give a price break instead? Then what might be an answer dawned on me - taxes and revenue. If a company asks for the full price initially, they get to report that much more revenue. Then (I think) they can turn right around and claim the money they sent back to you as a promotional expense, thereby improving their tax position. While this makes logical sense, they also get your personal information, which they can then turn around and pimp until their heart's content - it's also why I don't take advantage of rebates.
A better solution would be to have the homeowners association pay for the sound barriers.
When I first moved into my current residence, things were relatively calm. Not quiet, but calm - I could easily handle the road(tire) noise from the cars that passed by, because it had an ebb and flow similar to the noise that ocean waves might make. Over the last few years, the city has issued permit after permit, filling in every possible empty space, adding apartment complex after apartment complex, more businesses, etc. Then some brilliant city planner decided that they'd re-design the park across the street so that instead of acting as a good medium for sound absorption (a sloped surface covered with rock), they'd fill it in and turn it into a grassy area. A natural and forseeable consequence has been a tremendous increase in traffic noise that I hear. And the boomcars driven by panty-waist little boys starving for attention - another headache. Lately, I've been hearing heavy diesel trucks, whose drivers just DELIGHT in downshifting as they come up to a stoplight at a nearby intersection.
All of this, I'd argue, is a result of poor city planning and ineffective law enforcement. I'm not responsible for creating the problem, so why should I have to pay to fix it?
Just like our politicians refuse to do anything that isn't in the best interests of their constituency. Where there's a price, or the potential for substantive political gain, there's a way.
Just that- the obvious. You see, in the movies, the bad guys went for the safe because they knew it was the safe, and they knew that there was probably something of value inside. The very fact that it IS a safe makes this apparent. The reason your analogy falls short is that with steganography, you can't even tell if it's a safe. It could be a chair, a wall, a coating of dust on a floorboard, a cobweb up in the corner, a pile of dirt, etc. It allows a very effective way to fly under the radar while still accomplishing your objective (though it does have limitations). Yet one more reason that TIA is TRASH.
I pay about $55/mo for 1.5 Mb, but in all seriousness, since their TOS forbids almost anything useful, the only time I really NEED that bandwidth is when I'm downloading the ISOs for a new version of linux, or the occasional game demo. I'm thinking I might be nearly as satisfied with a 128K DSL connection, which is $20/mo less. Granted, there's a huge diffrence in bandwidth there, but again...the time I'd use 1.5 Mbs is so limited, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the extra money.
I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something.
It's not that...it's that people in government, especially those who are in a position to create new points of control and influence, are likely to do pricisely that. The internet is the next frontier that someone needs to control. It's just human nature. Laws, or legal constructs like the U.S. Constitution protect us from ourselves in that regard.
I think it will be most interesting to see: a) just how far they take this "world cooperation" stuff, since to a degree, it tends fly in the face of the notion of sovreign nations, and b) what happens when things go really wrong - when nations start either pulling away from consensus, or simply ignoring it.
Interesting question...but who is to say that the function of managing the root servers may not eventually come under the control of the U.N., or some subsidiary with close ties and a short leash?
Re:How many watch the checker at the supermarket?
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 1
The thing with supermarkets though is that they can't make things overcharge.
They certainly can. They can conveniently forget to update the reduced price on an item whose tag says otherwise. In fact, prices change so often, there's nothing to prevent a randomly-distributed fudge factor. Few customers pay enough attention, and once they discover they've been overcharged, I'd bet that many just don't see it worth the extra time and effort it will require to to correct it. Even if they give the item to me for free, it could more than make up for it with the many who don't catch the error.
In fact, I remember a national news report - it wasn't a grocery chain, but retail chain that sold clothing and other goods. Same problem. The number of supposed "errors" and the amount of time they remained in place even after being reported, made it all just a little too far beyond the scope of simple data entry errors. Once they realized that they were going to endure the continued scrutiny of the media, they HAD to make sure there was more accuracy between the posted price, and that which the consumer was charged.
" * Pricing for other device types can be negotiated with Microsoft.
It sounds to me like the digital camera market is a "foot-in-the-door" strategy, while the requirement for licensing will eventually encompass anything that uses the FAT file system.
Personally, I'd be willing to buy a digital camera that's just a little less convenient in order to take this and rub it in Billy's face. In other words, give me a driver that will read a NON-MS file system on a digital camera, and as long as it works, I'm good to go.
BS. If I write a song, is it not my song? If it's not my song, then whose song is it, and by what means is this ownership conveyed?
How many watch the checker at the supermarket?
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 1
When I shop for food, I'm a brand-loyalist's worst nightmare. I don't buy based on brand preference, I buy based on value. That means that I buy what ever happens to be on sale, assuming that it's something I like. Typically, how this works out, is that I wait for stuff that I do like to go on sale before buying it. This means that when it's not on sale, I buy something else that's more in line with what I'm willing to pay.
That having been said, since most of the stuff I buy is based on the best price I can find, I know what each item costs at the register. Watching each item as it's scanned, I've pointed out mistakes in the amount being charged on several occasions- sometimes they give it to me for free as a matter of customer satisfaction, and other times they just adjust the price.
I wonder how much extra revenue this creates, as I assume most customers don't watch this closely, and just assume they're being charged accurately.
Let's say they stop (for argument's sake) 75% of the online piracy. By RIAA math, that should mean a 75% increase in sales (or at least some significant percentage). It's entirely possible (and, in my opinion, entirely likely), that sales will continue to slip. The moment I start laughing is when they're standing around scratching their heads (among other things), wondering why sales are still falling.
AT this point, one of two things will happen: they'll either realize that they DO produce crappy music, that they are greedy bastards, and that above all, consumers DO have standards (though on average, not very high), or they'll continue their witch hunt, making believe that there's still some massive vortex of illegal copying and downloading, sucking money right out of their pockets.
This isn't an endorsement of the so-called "harmlessness" associated with illegally copying/downloading music. Crappy or not, it's still the property of the RIAA, and they are still entitled to do with it what they please.
If people think the whole thing with usernames/passwords for every damn web site on the net is bad, I'd say that the level of annoyance and frustration associated with this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until you can't use your own computer or access your own documents because you can't be authenticated for some reason.
I personally don't mind longer clickstreams, as long as they make sense!. What really gets me going are two things: Flash-only navigation, and pages/contents that make no sense based on your task at hand. Take Comcast's web site for example- a prime example of UI nastiness.
First off, if I don't have access to a flash-enabled browser, I can't do anything associated with my account, or locate any contact information. Even after I have access to flash, there's even more trouble. Instead of providing you a list of service contacts so that you can easily scan through and locate the one in your area, you first have to know which of five or so regions you reside in (county incorporated, county unincorporated, etc). How the hell am I supposed to know this? Who cares? I only want some help with my problem, and suddenly I've got a whole new issue to deal with.
Even worse, this is the exact same request screen that appears when you're looking to BUY service from comcast, so it almost looks like they're inter-mingling their support and sales functions- quite confusing, because you're never sure if you're on the right page. My only feedback in situations like this would be to hire a competent web designer/design firm who is well aware of UI issues, and come up with a better solution.
It's important to know where your loved ones are for your own peace of mind
Pity the poor humans who didn't have this technology available. The more I think about it, the more I wonder how we ever survived, not knowing where a "loved one" was at any moment. I'm of the opinion that people who would use such a service are obsessive, and probably need help.
It will just make it that much easier to decide which manufacturers I'd consider the next time I buy a car, since there will a few that will immediately excluded.
Walmart is a huge conglomerate that, through its sheer size, can easily dictate the terms under which suppliers will operate - including their business practices, margins, etc. Despite the immense pressure for lower-cost goods, many suppliers see business with Walmart as a double-edged sword - they won't clear the margins they'd like, but it's likely that the volume will make up for it. Nonetheless, they grow dependent on their business ties with Walmart, as it often ends up representing a significant portion of their revenue.
Google has the same level of control, it seems, over those who rely on placement for their business. Play by Google's rules (which are subject to change), and you may end up OK. Try to make an end-run, and it may be a very costly mistake.
Precisely my point. If there were no piracy, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But there is, so it does.
I doubt that lawmakers are going to engage themselves in trying to ascertain whether or not unlawful activity is "really" having the stated economic impact on the injured party- no matter how you look at it, the music belongs to the RIAA, and it is they who will set the terms for its consumption. Don't like the terms? Don't buy it. But as we've seen, it's entirely counterproductive to turn right around and steal it.
You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated".
Hardly. In the case of music, this "black market" as you call it, reflects, more than anything else, an undeniable disregard for the property rights of others, as well as out-and-out laziness on the part of consumers. If you want it to change, MAKE it change. There are perfectly legitimate ways to do this that are perfectly legal. Oh....but they require something that few Americans seem to have these days - DISCIPLINE.
"No new music for a few months???? Oh, but how will I EVER survive???"
In the grand scheme of things, this is the epitome of "trite". If all the people constantly whining about the RIAA, the price of CDs, and the general quality of music would engage the market and let it work for them, we'd be talking an entirely different ballgame.
Right now, legally, the RIAA has the upper hand, and will continue to seek every opportunity to protect its interests (and it has every right to do so). The only indisputable, absolute power had be every consumer is the control they have over their wallet. USE IT!
Slashdot Mirror
You don't ask KFC to reveal their "seven herbs and spices" do you?
This isn't even a fair comparison. If I don't like KFC, for whatever reason, my decision to go somewhere else (or even make my own) will be virtually without cost. Why? Because chicken isn't closed-source. If I decide I don't like Microsoft, I always have to weigh my options against the very real cost of installing and learning a new OS, converting my old documents, potential compatibility issues, etc. Why? Because Microsoft is closed-source, and is often, by design, incompatible with other potential options.
Those that prefer the closed source model can go there and the rest can go open source
If we factor out those for whom Microsoft is so entrenched in their lives, the number of people who actually want to go the closed source route might well be less than what one might expect. It's not free market when there are obstacles (sometimes large and costly ones) that impede the exercise of free choice.
In fact, I've seen items in Best Buy, asked if the discount was at the register, or via rebate, and if it was the latter, I'd simply not buy it. I wondered for a while, why companies do this- why don't they just give a price break instead? Then what might be an answer dawned on me - taxes and revenue. If a company asks for the full price initially, they get to report that much more revenue. Then (I think) they can turn right around and claim the money they sent back to you as a promotional expense, thereby improving their tax position. While this makes logical sense, they also get your personal information, which they can then turn around and pimp until their heart's content - it's also why I don't take advantage of rebates.
A better solution would be to have the homeowners association pay for the sound barriers.
When I first moved into my current residence, things were relatively calm. Not quiet, but calm - I could easily handle the road(tire) noise from the cars that passed by, because it had an ebb and flow similar to the noise that ocean waves might make. Over the last few years, the city has issued permit after permit, filling in every possible empty space, adding apartment complex after apartment complex, more businesses, etc. Then some brilliant city planner decided that they'd re-design the park across the street so that instead of acting as a good medium for sound absorption (a sloped surface covered with rock), they'd fill it in and turn it into a grassy area. A natural and forseeable consequence has been a tremendous increase in traffic noise that I hear. And the boomcars driven by panty-waist little boys starving for attention - another headache. Lately, I've been hearing heavy diesel trucks, whose drivers just DELIGHT in downshifting as they come up to a stoplight at a nearby intersection.
All of this, I'd argue, is a result of poor city planning and ineffective law enforcement. I'm not responsible for creating the problem, so why should I have to pay to fix it?
Just like our politicians refuse to do anything that isn't in the best interests of their constituency. Where there's a price, or the potential for substantive political gain, there's a way.
Just that- the obvious. You see, in the movies, the bad guys went for the safe because they knew it was the safe, and they knew that there was probably something of value inside. The very fact that it IS a safe makes this apparent. The reason your analogy falls short is that with steganography, you can't even tell if it's a safe. It could be a chair, a wall, a coating of dust on a floorboard, a cobweb up in the corner, a pile of dirt, etc. It allows a very effective way to fly under the radar while still accomplishing your objective (though it does have limitations). Yet one more reason that TIA is TRASH.
I pay about $55/mo for 1.5 Mb, but in all seriousness, since their TOS forbids almost anything useful, the only time I really NEED that bandwidth is when I'm downloading the ISOs for a new version of linux, or the occasional game demo. I'm thinking I might be nearly as satisfied with a 128K DSL connection, which is $20/mo less. Granted, there's a huge diffrence in bandwidth there, but again...the time I'd use 1.5 Mbs is so limited, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the extra money.
It's a frontier in that there is little real control at this point. It does what it does, by itself, without the hand of government messing it up.
I thought Dell decided recently that it didn't want to have anything to do with "better".
I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something.
It's not that...it's that people in government, especially those who are in a position to create new points of control and influence, are likely to do pricisely that. The internet is the next frontier that someone needs to control. It's just human nature. Laws, or legal constructs like the U.S. Constitution protect us from ourselves in that regard.
I think it will be most interesting to see: a) just how far they take this "world cooperation" stuff, since to a degree, it tends fly in the face of the notion of sovreign nations, and b) what happens when things go really wrong - when nations start either pulling away from consensus, or simply ignoring it.
Interesting question...but who is to say that the function of managing the root servers may not eventually come under the control of the U.N., or some subsidiary with close ties and a short leash?
The thing with supermarkets though is that they can't make things overcharge.
They certainly can. They can conveniently forget to update the reduced price on an item whose tag says otherwise. In fact, prices change so often, there's nothing to prevent a randomly-distributed fudge factor. Few customers pay enough attention, and once they discover they've been overcharged, I'd bet that many just don't see it worth the extra time and effort it will require to to correct it. Even if they give the item to me for free, it could more than make up for it with the many who don't catch the error.
In fact, I remember a national news report - it wasn't a grocery chain, but retail chain that sold clothing and other goods. Same problem. The number of supposed "errors" and the amount of time they remained in place even after being reported, made it all just a little too far beyond the scope of simple data entry errors. Once they realized that they were going to endure the continued scrutiny of the media, they HAD to make sure there was more accuracy between the posted price, and that which the consumer was charged.
Did anyone happen to catch this little phrase?
" * Pricing for other device types can be negotiated with Microsoft.
It sounds to me like the digital camera market is a "foot-in-the-door" strategy, while the requirement for licensing will eventually encompass anything that uses the FAT file system.
Personally, I'd be willing to buy a digital camera that's just a little less convenient in order to take this and rub it in Billy's face. In other words, give me a driver that will read a NON-MS file system on a digital camera, and as long as it works, I'm good to go.
BS. If I write a song, is it not my song? If it's not my song, then whose song is it, and by what means is this ownership conveyed?
When I shop for food, I'm a brand-loyalist's worst nightmare. I don't buy based on brand preference, I buy based on value. That means that I buy what ever happens to be on sale, assuming that it's something I like. Typically, how this works out, is that I wait for stuff that I do like to go on sale before buying it. This means that when it's not on sale, I buy something else that's more in line with what I'm willing to pay.
That having been said, since most of the stuff I buy is based on the best price I can find, I know what each item costs at the register. Watching each item as it's scanned, I've pointed out mistakes in the amount being charged on several occasions- sometimes they give it to me for free as a matter of customer satisfaction, and other times they just adjust the price.
I wonder how much extra revenue this creates, as I assume most customers don't watch this closely, and just assume they're being charged accurately.
Let's say they stop (for argument's sake) 75% of the online piracy. By RIAA math, that should mean a 75% increase in sales (or at least some significant percentage). It's entirely possible (and, in my opinion, entirely likely), that sales will continue to slip. The moment I start laughing is when they're standing around scratching their heads (among other things), wondering why sales are still falling.
AT this point, one of two things will happen: they'll either realize that they DO produce crappy music, that they are greedy bastards, and that above all, consumers DO have standards (though on average, not very high), or they'll continue their witch hunt, making believe that there's still some massive vortex of illegal copying and downloading, sucking money right out of their pockets.
This isn't an endorsement of the so-called "harmlessness" associated with illegally copying/downloading music. Crappy or not, it's still the property of the RIAA, and they are still entitled to do with it what they please.
If people think the whole thing with usernames/passwords for every damn web site on the net is bad, I'd say that the level of annoyance and frustration associated with this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until you can't use your own computer or access your own documents because you can't be authenticated for some reason.
I personally don't mind longer clickstreams, as long as they make sense!. What really gets me going are two things: Flash-only navigation, and pages/contents that make no sense based on your task at hand. Take Comcast's web site for example- a prime example of UI nastiness.
First off, if I don't have access to a flash-enabled browser, I can't do anything associated with my account, or locate any contact information. Even after I have access to flash, there's even more trouble. Instead of providing you a list of service contacts so that you can easily scan through and locate the one in your area, you first have to know which of five or so regions you reside in (county incorporated, county unincorporated, etc). How the hell am I supposed to know this? Who cares? I only want some help with my problem, and suddenly I've got a whole new issue to deal with.
Even worse, this is the exact same request screen that appears when you're looking to BUY service from comcast, so it almost looks like they're inter-mingling their support and sales functions- quite confusing, because you're never sure if you're on the right page. My only feedback in situations like this would be to hire a competent web designer/design firm who is well aware of UI issues, and come up with a better solution.
It's important to know where your loved ones are for your own peace of mind
Pity the poor humans who didn't have this technology available. The more I think about it, the more I wonder how we ever survived, not knowing where a "loved one" was at any moment. I'm of the opinion that people who would use such a service are obsessive, and probably need help.
It will just make it that much easier to decide which manufacturers I'd consider the next time I buy a car, since there will a few that will immediately excluded.
Walmart is a huge conglomerate that, through its sheer size, can easily dictate the terms under which suppliers will operate - including their business practices, margins, etc. Despite the immense pressure for lower-cost goods, many suppliers see business with Walmart as a double-edged sword - they won't clear the margins they'd like, but it's likely that the volume will make up for it. Nonetheless, they grow dependent on their business ties with Walmart, as it often ends up representing a significant portion of their revenue.
Google has the same level of control, it seems, over those who rely on placement for their business. Play by Google's rules (which are subject to change), and you may end up OK. Try to make an end-run, and it may be a very costly mistake.
Precisely my point. If there were no piracy, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But there is, so it does.
I doubt that lawmakers are going to engage themselves in trying to ascertain whether or not unlawful activity is "really" having the stated economic impact on the injured party- no matter how you look at it, the music belongs to the RIAA, and it is they who will set the terms for its consumption. Don't like the terms? Don't buy it. But as we've seen, it's entirely counterproductive to turn right around and steal it.
You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated".
Hardly. In the case of music, this "black market" as you call it, reflects, more than anything else, an undeniable disregard for the property rights of others, as well as out-and-out laziness on the part of consumers. If you want it to change, MAKE it change. There are perfectly legitimate ways to do this that are perfectly legal. Oh....but they require something that few Americans seem to have these days - DISCIPLINE.
"No new music for a few months???? Oh, but how will I EVER survive???"
In the grand scheme of things, this is the epitome of "trite". If all the people constantly whining about the RIAA, the price of CDs, and the general quality of music would engage the market and let it work for them, we'd be talking an entirely different ballgame.
Right now, legally, the RIAA has the upper hand, and will continue to seek every opportunity to protect its interests (and it has every right to do so). The only indisputable, absolute power had be every consumer is the control they have over their wallet. USE IT!
Some top players committing to bolster the options available to those looking for an alternative to the stuff from Redmond. VERY good news.
Have grunts 12,000 miles away build exactly what has been specified cheaply isn't going to improve the situation.
No, but for the same price it would cost to employ American workers, they can tear it down and rebuild it two or three times.