You claim that's clear profit, but they have made the obligation to deliver those XOs.
So, no, it is most definitely _not_ clear profit. Neither clear nor profit.
If you don't understand that, you also don't understand that, when you get your paycheck, the money out of it that you owe your landlord for the month you've been living in your apartment since you paid rent last is not really yours. You control it until you pay your rent, but it is by no means clear.
As for whether this constitutes backstabbing your strongest advocates, others have already dealt with it.
If you ordered (one+)one, you're a twice a fool if you don't just wait it out. If you didn't order one, you shouldn't be crudding up 'net with your instant accusations against people who are trying to do a lot of good but got bit by the scale of what they are doing. If everyone waited for absolute assurance nothing would go wrong before doing anything good, the only things that would get done would not be good.
Had I had the money to order, though, I would have done so in the recognition this was going to happen, and not caring.
I guess I was hoping most of the others who were ordering understood, from what we knew about costs and from the price, that there was a certain risk and were ordering in the same frame of mind that I would have been. That was perhaps naive on my part.
If I had the money, I'd donate enough money to cover hiring a logistics company to pull things out. (If I had that kind of money, I'd already be a backer, and I'd have arranged the logistics as soon as I heard they were considering the G1G1 program. But, having said that, I'm wondering if that kind of funding up front would not have potentially been picked at by iNTEL and Micro$oft as tantamount to dumping.)
But I'll say this, too. If I had the money, I'd be fishing: "Not willing to wait it out? Sell me your order." I'd refrain from the temptation to not offer full price, too. Not because I think I could resell them high, but because I want to leave naysayers as little room to say stupid things as possible.
Anyway, my advice to all who were able to get orders in, wait. Time waiting is a good way to support the project, too.
I'm with you on software liability, iff Micro$oft leads the list of liable entities.
Because, in fact, they do. They pushed the internet to the public before it was ready. Everybody else who did that understood the dangers pretty soon and backed off. Bill and Steve picked up the ball and run. Didn't seem to realize they were running towards the wrong goalposts, maybe, or maybe they just knew the fan club of the opposing team was willing to reward them richly.
I would say that, statistically, when you have more than 300 underage users free to post pictures of whatever on your site, you have to assume that at least one has posted something that would run afoul of the statutes.
What killed Mozart was not the inability to force people to buy his music.
(Yeck. I mean, seriously. Think about that. Seriously. Why would a good artist want to force people to buy his or her music? That's, like, forcing people to applaud.)
What killed him was what passed for office politics for that time and place.
He offended somebody. Somebody decided to prevent him from making a living. He died. It was tragic, but it has nothing to do with copyrights.
Some patronage/strong copyright nut will try to introduce legislation to require all sound systems to send their output to self-powered speakers over ethernet or something.
How much do docs have to spend before they start breaking even? Hmm?
You don't spend big money to make money unless you're making money in the money market (a market that, by rights, shouldn't exist) or the stock market. Even in the stock market, you usually start small.
Unfortunately, every thing you can do to make a living costs a certain amount of money.
And there are no guarantees. A doctor fixes one patient with cancer, and that patient does _not_ have to keep paying the doc forever. Nor does any other patient with cancer have to see that doc.
Lifetime guarantees are not reasonable in any field.
However, the present economy is seriously lacking in traditional ways to find useful and gainful employment, and I think that is the larger problem.
Forbes is as much out of touch with Apple's customer base as it is with the rest of the real world.
The people who Forbes caters to own (or want to own) at least two cars that cost more than my house, at least two houses where they can park both of those cars and a utility BMW or three, and either a yacht or a jet or both.
And they think that the solution to the problems in Africa have something to do with letting them eat cake. And they think that all we need for the ozone layer is a few portable ionizers installed at the poles, along with the refrigeration units to turn down the thermostat and balance the greenhouse gases.
The only reason that they own an Apple is that they've heard it's cool. Otherwise, whatever Bill sells them they buy, because Bill is one of them.
What is it that has you still chained to Mickey$oft?.net, I guess? If so, you don't need a cheaper, more general-purpose Mac, you need a MSWindows PC with a nice external design.
Or, you think you do.
What you really need, however, is RH Enterprise, and it runs just fine on a $600 box.
And not even the sidewalk from the street to the door.
Private property. First, you can lose your claim to your exclusive right of way on your own property in most states of the US if you fail to prevent public access.
An example: You have (say) a church in the middle of a block. It has a parking lot that opens on the street in front and the street in back. The parking lot tends to get used as a shortcut by people who don't want to go around the block.
In many states, if the church fails to provide gates or signs indicating that the parking lot is not a thoroughfare, the church may lose the right to close the thoroughfare. In some states, the church would have to actually close off access to the public at least one day a year to prevent the parking lot becoming a thoroughfare.
Similarly, say I have a vacant lot in the middle of the block, and the kids from the junior high at the end of the block have a habit of cutting through my vacant lot for lunch, and the neighbors, likewise, cut through to go play pool, etc. Say I want the police to do something about it, because some of those cutting through aren't on their best behavior. In many states, I can't really get the police to enforce anti-trespassing laws until I have made a serious effort to assert my control over the right-of-way on the property, efforts such as building a fence around the property.
The front yard, even without a fence, is, by custom, private property. The sidewalk to your door is access, but still private property.
Even if you don't put up a fence, custom dictates that your neighbors could get in trouble for holding an all-night beer bust on that sidewalk without your permission.
Even if you put up a fence, the newspaper carrier has a certain claim to the right to walk up the sidewalk to ring your doorbell to collect his subscription fees if you have deliberately subscribed.
Thinking about the sidewalk, even though you have a duty to shovel snow on the sidewalk by the street, you don't have any right to put up a fence that blocks access to people passing by your house.
It's going to be hard to get any traction in court if start trying to sue every salesman who comes to your door unless you lock the gate and put up signs that say things like, "No soliciting," and "No trespassing." It's going to be nigh impossible to take any legal action against a salesman you walks up to your front sidewalk and tries your get or looks around for "No trespassing" signs.
If some specific salesman (or private investigator) makes a nuisance of himself, you might get a court order that mandates that individual stay n meters away from your property, in which case, even the sidewalk on the street will be considered part of the property and will be off-limits to that person. This is what the judge thinks this case is about.
However, this case is complicated by the fact that the sidewalks in question appear to have been used in illegal activities, and the injunction has been issued to prevent evidence of that activity being gathered: No getting close enough to even take pictures of the front lawn. That's what the judge's mistake is. She has issued an injunction that was entirely inappropriate, not just making it impossible to get evidence against the owner of the house, but enabling the owner of the house to prevent the individual they are suing from getting essential evidence for his defense.
Are you so sure that the ear absolutely clips frequencies above whatever its limit is?
And saturates everything below?
Because, if it did, I could not have heard the difference.
CDs are good in the same sense that FM is good. But if we take these arguments to the ultimate conclusion, we might as well keep our masters in 44Khz sampled audio.
This thread has opened my eyes about something about slashdot.
Well, since you at least didn't say "OLPN", I'll try to answer sensibly.
Engineering always involves tradeoffs. When you talk about getting education to the people who need it most, if you insist on only the absolute best, it will cost so much it never happens. That closes the poverty loop as effectively as _any_ overt discrimination.
The XO, as it stands, has more value in it than any ordinary PC at twice the price. I can only guess that the angst on display here is a result of a bunch of geeks frustrated that _they_ were overlooked.
If you don't like the approach Negroponte took, invest in commercial uses of the tech. You know where and how if you've been reading here the last week. Sitting here burning in your greed gets you burnt, that's all.
That the ear is perfectly modeled by some transform you have that converts all waves above a certain frequency to square?
When I was nineteen, I could hear a difference between square and sine at 19KHz. I should been more explicit about that.
And it doesn't matter that the difference might have been only a matter of perceived volume which my mind converted to the tinny sound the square wave has. Even the volume difference would be a difference.
In the analog world, response does not drop off entirely at some arbitrary frequency. With digital sampling, it does.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim that's clear profit, but they have made the obligation to deliver those XOs.
So, no, it is most definitely _not_ clear profit. Neither clear nor profit.
If you don't understand that, you also don't understand that, when you get your paycheck, the money out of it that you owe your landlord for the month you've been living in your apartment since you paid rent last is not really yours. You control it until you pay your rent, but it is by no means clear.
As for whether this constitutes backstabbing your strongest advocates, others have already dealt with it.
If you ordered (one+)one, you're a twice a fool if you don't just wait it out. If you didn't order one, you shouldn't be crudding up 'net with your instant accusations against people who are trying to do a lot of good but got bit by the scale of what they are doing. If everyone waited for absolute assurance nothing would go wrong before doing anything good, the only things that would get done would not be good.
Red Cross should not be brought into this. They have enough overhead problems already.
Still do.
Had I had the money to order, though, I would have done so in the recognition this was going to happen, and not caring.
I guess I was hoping most of the others who were ordering understood, from what we knew about costs and from the price, that there was a certain risk and were ordering in the same frame of mind that I would have been. That was perhaps naive on my part.
If I had the money, I'd donate enough money to cover hiring a logistics company to pull things out. (If I had that kind of money, I'd already be a backer, and I'd have arranged the logistics as soon as I heard they were considering the G1G1 program. But, having said that, I'm wondering if that kind of funding up front would not have potentially been picked at by iNTEL and Micro$oft as tantamount to dumping.)
But I'll say this, too. If I had the money, I'd be fishing: "Not willing to wait it out? Sell me your order." I'd refrain from the temptation to not offer full price, too. Not because I think I could resell them high, but because I want to leave naysayers as little room to say stupid things as possible.
Anyway, my advice to all who were able to get orders in, wait. Time waiting is a good way to support the project, too.
I'm with you on software liability, iff Micro$oft leads the list of liable entities.
Because, in fact, they do. They pushed the internet to the public before it was ready. Everybody else who did that understood the dangers pretty soon and backed off. Bill and Steve picked up the ball and run. Didn't seem to realize they were running towards the wrong goalposts, maybe, or maybe they just knew the fan club of the opposing team was willing to reward them richly.
System security aside, the idea that 90% of users don't give a shit, and that's okay, is the whole problem here.
But users who do care don't use MSWindows.
And you, who expect another 15 years of "satisfaction" don't seem to understand why.
situation normal, all fouled up, business as usual, let's make some more money.
If you're recognizing that new each new system you write is essentially a new language, you might be ready for lisp or FORTH.
I would say that, statistically, when you have more than 300 underage users free to post pictures of whatever on your site, you have to assume that at least one has posted something that would run afoul of the statutes.
I don't have mod points today.
Could we say that's the way the system _is_ _supposed_ to work now?
Evidently, it doesn't.
What killed Mozart was not the inability to force people to buy his music.
(Yeck. I mean, seriously. Think about that. Seriously. Why would a good artist want to force people to buy his or her music? That's, like, forcing people to applaud.)
What killed him was what passed for office politics for that time and place.
He offended somebody. Somebody decided to prevent him from making a living. He died. It was tragic, but it has nothing to do with copyrights.
Exposure to the real world (as in a day job) produces better, more relevant art, especially in the young artist.
High definition is manufacturable. That's why the big companies like it.
Human content is always going to be hit and miss.
It's kind like the drunk looking for his wallet under the lamp post because it's dark over where he dropped it.
Idol worship has always been a bad idea. It corrupts both the idols and the worshippers.
Big is dead, and that is a good thing.
Some patronage/strong copyright nut will try to introduce legislation to require all sound systems to send their output to self-powered speakers over ethernet or something.
Forgot to say that. One month's wages, more or less. It just feels big when you're starting out or in the wrong field for you.
How much do docs have to spend before they start breaking even? Hmm?
You don't spend big money to make money unless you're making money in the money market (a market that, by rights, shouldn't exist) or the stock market. Even in the stock market, you usually start small.
Unfortunately, every thing you can do to make a living costs a certain amount of money.
And there are no guarantees. A doctor fixes one patient with cancer, and that patient does _not_ have to keep paying the doc forever. Nor does any other patient with cancer have to see that doc.
Lifetime guarantees are not reasonable in any field.
However, the present economy is seriously lacking in traditional ways to find useful and gainful employment, and I think that is the larger problem.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
No surprise.
Forbes is as much out of touch with Apple's customer base as it is with the rest of the real world.
The people who Forbes caters to own (or want to own) at least two cars that cost more than my house, at least two houses where they can park both of those cars and a utility BMW or three, and either a yacht or a jet or both.
And they think that the solution to the problems in Africa have something to do with letting them eat cake. And they think that all we need for the ozone layer is a few portable ionizers installed at the poles, along with the refrigeration units to turn down the thermostat and balance the greenhouse gases.
The only reason that they own an Apple is that they've heard it's cool. Otherwise, whatever Bill sells them they buy, because Bill is one of them.
Apple and more Mickey$oft.
I think it has always been that at least one of Apple's problems has been Mickey$oft.
Seriously?
.net, I guess? If so, you don't need a cheaper, more general-purpose Mac, you need a MSWindows PC with a nice external design.
What is it that has you still chained to Mickey$oft?
Or, you think you do.
What you really need, however, is RH Enterprise, and it runs just fine on a $600 box.
And not even the sidewalk from the street to the door.
Private property. First, you can lose your claim to your exclusive right of way on your own property in most states of the US if you fail to prevent public access.
An example: You have (say) a church in the middle of a block. It has a parking lot that opens on the street in front and the street in back. The parking lot tends to get used as a shortcut by people who don't want to go around the block.
In many states, if the church fails to provide gates or signs indicating that the parking lot is not a thoroughfare, the church may lose the right to close the thoroughfare. In some states, the church would have to actually close off access to the public at least one day a year to prevent the parking lot becoming a thoroughfare.
Similarly, say I have a vacant lot in the middle of the block, and the kids from the junior high at the end of the block have a habit of cutting through my vacant lot for lunch, and the neighbors, likewise, cut through to go play pool, etc. Say I want the police to do something about it, because some of those cutting through aren't on their best behavior. In many states, I can't really get the police to enforce anti-trespassing laws until I have made a serious effort to assert my control over the right-of-way on the property, efforts such as building a fence around the property.
The front yard, even without a fence, is, by custom, private property. The sidewalk to your door is access, but still private property.
Even if you don't put up a fence, custom dictates that your neighbors could get in trouble for holding an all-night beer bust on that sidewalk without your permission.
Even if you put up a fence, the newspaper carrier has a certain claim to the right to walk up the sidewalk to ring your doorbell to collect his subscription fees if you have deliberately subscribed.
Thinking about the sidewalk, even though you have a duty to shovel snow on the sidewalk by the street, you don't have any right to put up a fence that blocks access to people passing by your house.
It's going to be hard to get any traction in court if start trying to sue every salesman who comes to your door unless you lock the gate and put up signs that say things like, "No soliciting," and "No trespassing." It's going to be nigh impossible to take any legal action against a salesman you walks up to your front sidewalk and tries your get or looks around for "No trespassing" signs.
If some specific salesman (or private investigator) makes a nuisance of himself, you might get a court order that mandates that individual stay n meters away from your property, in which case, even the sidewalk on the street will be considered part of the property and will be off-limits to that person. This is what the judge thinks this case is about.
However, this case is complicated by the fact that the sidewalks in question appear to have been used in illegal activities, and the injunction has been issued to prevent evidence of that activity being gathered: No getting close enough to even take pictures of the front lawn. That's what the judge's mistake is. She has issued an injunction that was entirely inappropriate, not just making it impossible to get evidence against the owner of the house, but enabling the owner of the house to prevent the individual they are suing from getting essential evidence for his defense.
Are you so sure that the ear absolutely clips frequencies above whatever its limit is?
And saturates everything below?
Because, if it did, I could not have heard the difference.
CDs are good in the same sense that FM is good. But if we take these arguments to the ultimate conclusion, we might as well keep our masters in 44Khz sampled audio.
This thread has opened my eyes about something about slashdot.
Well, since you at least didn't say "OLPN", I'll try to answer sensibly.
Engineering always involves tradeoffs. When you talk about getting education to the people who need it most, if you insist on only the absolute best, it will cost so much it never happens. That closes the poverty loop as effectively as _any_ overt discrimination.
The XO, as it stands, has more value in it than any ordinary PC at twice the price. I can only guess that the angst on display here is a result of a bunch of geeks frustrated that _they_ were overlooked.
If you don't like the approach Negroponte took, invest in commercial uses of the tech. You know where and how if you've been reading here the last week. Sitting here burning in your greed gets you burnt, that's all.
That the ear is perfectly modeled by some transform you have that converts all waves above a certain frequency to square?
When I was nineteen, I could hear a difference between square and sine at 19KHz. I should been more explicit about that.
And it doesn't matter that the difference might have been only a matter of perceived volume which my mind converted to the tinny sound the square wave has. Even the volume difference would be a difference.
In the analog world, response does not drop off entirely at some arbitrary frequency. With digital sampling, it does.
Although hearing to the 20MHz range is a nice fantasy.