I think a distinction needs to be drawn between donating to a cause (charity) and donating for goods or services provided. When I donate to a charity I don't expect anything in return. I also am selective about who I donate to - the reason they are collecting the money has to line up with my own beliefs. Donating for a good or service just doesn't feel right. Why should I donate to you? What are you doing with the money? If you think (as the seller) the thing has some value, but a price on it and I can decide if I think the price is worth it. If you put a price of zero on the thing, then that is what you are going to get. I mean, nobody goes to the store and voluntarily pays more than the price asked, do they?
So what do you suggest they do? Listen to their 'younger, more flexible peers'? Who would that be? Where is this source of news from younger, more flexible peers?
The fact that an event happened can not be copyrighted. A particular description of an event is not a fact, and can be copyrighted. And that has nothing to do with why newspapers try to scoop each other. They do that because they want people to buy their paper, and being first with the news is a good way to make that happen.
That is how the auto companies list the prices on the sticker, but try to actually buy a car that has just the features you want (for example, bigger engine but no alloy wheels). Most of the time you will find the options are only sold in packages, pretty much like different 'editions' of software.
I'll bet any number of stage magicians will be happy to demonstrate to you how you can personally examine a box, write a name on a piece of paper, place it in the box, and have a similar piece of paper with a different name come out of the box.
What about the hand-counted paper ballots in 2000 that people were claiming should have been discarded because the voters 'obviously' marked a different box than they intended?
OK, I stand corrected on that. However, it does not change the point. The Statue of Liberty is free to look at because the creators wanted it that way.
He got paid based on EXPECTED FUTURE sales of the car he designed. The manufacturer (the people who paid him) will get that money back on the sale of EVERY car they ACTUALLY sell. If they sell more cars than they expected they get to keep the extra money as profits. The only difference is: do I get my money all at once NOW, or do I get it as the items are actually sold. If I get my money now, whoever paid me gets to keep all the profits. If I get paid when things are sold, I get to keep the money. Of course, if I get paid later, and my product doesn't sell well, it is me who is losing out. It is amazing the number of idiots who can't grasp these simple concepts.
All consumer goods, whether it be art, cars, electronics, furniture, clothing, or anything else, is produced on spec. On spec means that the costs of producing it (including design, facilities, equipment, overhead, materials, etc) is recouped on every single 'copy' of the thing sold. Every car sold has earned some money towards the design of the car. As long as that car is sold, the design of the car is earning profits. Same with every shirt sold. Same with every CD sold. Now, in many cases (cars for instance) the cost of actually producing the physical item far outweighs the portion of money that goes to paying for the design, but the design cost is there nevertheless.
Now, you say you are designing stuff and getting paid. All that means is that your employer has effectively taken a loan against his future profits and paid you with that money. HE is still going to get paid for every copy of the thing that you designed that is sold, which will be used to pay back the loan he used to pay you, and hopefully also earn some profits. You are lucky, you get all your money now rather than having to wait a potentially long time to get paid. If you work for a good company, and the value of your work exceeds projections, you may be paid even more money as part of a bonus or profit-sharing incentive. Regardless of whether or not you earn more in the future, ALL of the money you earned comes from sales, either actual or expected.
As far comparisons to the Statue of Liberty, etc, that is just stupid. The people who designed and built the Statue of Liberty were hired to do that. The money to pay them came from the government. The Statue of Liberty was never intended to earn money. Same with your other examples. However, there are bridges that were built with private money. And guess what? The owners still expect to be paid every time someone uses the bridge, even if it was build 100 years ago.
Since there is one TV, it is not an issue. Not being able to play a game while someone else is watching TV is a concept even a three year old can understand. Not being able to check your email while someone is watching a movie is a concept only someone with an axe to grind would understand.
The point is, different people have different requirements and usage patterns. Some already have (or are willing to get) a laptop to be used as a TV input device. Some already have (or are willing to get) a Wii. An intelligent company will try to meet both groups' requirements.
Does the guy who designed your car have to go drive a racecar every weekend so he gets paid? Does the guy who designed your clothes have to go work at WalMart so he gets paid?
Yeah, IF you have a laptop. And a place to set the laptop when it is connected to the TV. And something to do with the cable when the laptop is not connected to the TV. And you don't mind getting up and going to the laptop when you want to start/stop watching a movie. And no-one in the family (including yourself) ever wants to use the laptop while a movie is playing.
Huh? What do token-ring and IPV6 have in common? Token-ring is a physical network specification, like Ethernet. IPV6 can run just fine on top of either of those protocols. IPV6 says nothing at all about the physical connection between the devices.
But the GP didn't say airwalls are more secure or harder to break into, he said they were INFALLIBLE. Then he accused others of hubris.
Nothing in the NIST standards says anything at all about connecting to the internet. It is all about how devices on the grid talk to each other. Now, if you had to come up with a protocol to be used for millions of devices to communicate with each other which makes more sense - invent a whole new protocol, or start with an existing one?
An air wall is infallible? Please explain. It seems to me that whether or not the grid is hooked up to the internet (and there is no indication from these documents that it would be), whenever communication is occurring interception/spoofing is always possible.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Centralized computing did not 'fail'. It fell out of favor because of perceived cost. Corporations and governments knew exactly how much IT was costing them. They knew how many employees were dedicated to IT. They knew how much the equipment cost. They knew how much the software cost. They knew how much electricity and cooling the datacenters used. It was a big number. They billed each department it's share of the total IT cost. Then managers discovered the PC, and said 'hey I can save a lot of money by using these instead of the centralized IT'.
Now, companies are waking up to the true costs of that 'cheap' PC-based environment. They see how much time is wasted patching all those PCs. They see the damage caused by viruses and worms when someone does something dumb on their un-patched PC. They see the effects of lost data when someones PC crashes and wasn't backed up because the backup grinds their PC to a halt for an hour or two a week. They see the damage done to their reputation when some department server is scrapped and happens to contain sensitive information.
You don't understand the technology, and instead of trying to learn you just stick your fingers in your ears and make rude comments to those trying to help. But I will try one more time anyway.
Let's say you have a TV from the 80s. You have a total of 82 channels that you can tune. That is the bandwidth of the TV. But you cable company is offering 500 channels. Does that mean that 418 channels are unavailable to you? No. You get a cable box, and it converts any channel you like into one your TV can handle.
The exact same thing is happening with SDV. On one side of the switch box (not your cable box) is a fiber cable which has a capacity (bandwidth) of thousands of channels. On the other side is coax, which has a bandwidth of a few hundred channels. This is physics that determines this, not some cable company conspiracy.
This is where the tuning adapter comes into play. You tell your cable box you want to watch channel 700. The tuning adapter in the cable box talks to the switch and tells it you want to watch channel 700. The switch looks to see if it already has channel 700 tuned in, and if so what output channel it is on. If the channel is not already tuned, it finds a free channel and uses it. The switch then tells the tuning adapter what channel it should tune to in order to get channel 700. So today when you tune to channel 700 it may appear on the coax on channel 20. Tomorrow it may appear on channel 210. When no-one is watching channel 700 it doesn't appear on the coax at all, freeing a channel to be used for something else. This allows the cable company to offer many more channels than would otherwise be available on the coax.
Likewise, DOCIS uses the same channels on the coax that TV does. If many people are watching many different TV channels, fewer channels are available for DOCIS, so more people have to share each channel, and internet performance goes down. When people are using fewer TV channels, more are available to DOCIS, less people need to share each channel, and internet performance goes up.
It don't think it means that. It says you get access to the programming, not the schedule. I take that as meaning you get the same access to 'regular' TV channels, as opposed to VOD.
OK, since you obviously know more than I do about bandwidth, please explain how my cable company is offering 150 HD channels, about 400 SD channels, about 30 on-demand channels (so every TV in the neighborhood could theoretically be watching a different on demand show), plus internet and telephone, all over a wire that has about a 750MHz bandwidth.
Then it seems it does provide a feature to you, it lets you use the cable. Also, you're wrong about why they do that. It is not to deter pirates, it is to free up bandwidth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video
The front-line reporters are the only ones who need to be paid? So the editors, management, admin (HR, payroll, etc), and support (IT, secretaries, janitors, etc) are all going to work for free? The reporters are going to be able to travel to the news for free? The buildings housing the offices are free?
What is this new technology that is allowing news gathering to be done for several orders of magnitude less money? AP, etc have been called 'wire services' for over a century now for a reason.
OK, so all you need is something like AP, but you don't need anything to support it? What sense does that make? How is it supported? Or are you saying you would be willing to pay a single huge outfit like AP for the news, but would not be willing to pay smaller companies which not only use AP content but also provide their own content (yes, the NYT has a LOT of content that is their own).
No. The AP is owned by the newspapers. All of it's funding comes from the member newspapers. Yes, there are some 'AP' reporters who are not working for a specific paper, but they are still paid by the collective of the papers.
Somehow that news station takes the experiences of billions of people over a day and condenses that down to a few minutes (or even hours) of 'news'. Deciding which stories are worth reporting, and what facts to present from those stories requires judgment, and judgment is influenced by bias.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between donating to a cause (charity) and donating for goods or services provided. When I donate to a charity I don't expect anything in return. I also am selective about who I donate to - the reason they are collecting the money has to line up with my own beliefs. Donating for a good or service just doesn't feel right. Why should I donate to you? What are you doing with the money? If you think (as the seller) the thing has some value, but a price on it and I can decide if I think the price is worth it. If you put a price of zero on the thing, then that is what you are going to get. I mean, nobody goes to the store and voluntarily pays more than the price asked, do they?
So what do you suggest they do? Listen to their 'younger, more flexible peers'? Who would that be? Where is this source of news from younger, more flexible peers?
The fact that an event happened can not be copyrighted. A particular description of an event is not a fact, and can be copyrighted. And that has nothing to do with why newspapers try to scoop each other. They do that because they want people to buy their paper, and being first with the news is a good way to make that happen.
That is how the auto companies list the prices on the sticker, but try to actually buy a car that has just the features you want (for example, bigger engine but no alloy wheels). Most of the time you will find the options are only sold in packages, pretty much like different 'editions' of software.
I'll bet any number of stage magicians will be happy to demonstrate to you how you can personally examine a box, write a name on a piece of paper, place it in the box, and have a similar piece of paper with a different name come out of the box.
What about the hand-counted paper ballots in 2000 that people were claiming should have been discarded because the voters 'obviously' marked a different box than they intended?
OK, I stand corrected on that. However, it does not change the point. The Statue of Liberty is free to look at because the creators wanted it that way.
He got paid based on EXPECTED FUTURE sales of the car he designed. The manufacturer (the people who paid him) will get that money back on the sale of EVERY car they ACTUALLY sell. If they sell more cars than they expected they get to keep the extra money as profits. The only difference is: do I get my money all at once NOW, or do I get it as the items are actually sold. If I get my money now, whoever paid me gets to keep all the profits. If I get paid when things are sold, I get to keep the money. Of course, if I get paid later, and my product doesn't sell well, it is me who is losing out. It is amazing the number of idiots who can't grasp these simple concepts.
All consumer goods, whether it be art, cars, electronics, furniture, clothing, or anything else, is produced on spec. On spec means that the costs of producing it (including design, facilities, equipment, overhead, materials, etc) is recouped on every single 'copy' of the thing sold. Every car sold has earned some money towards the design of the car. As long as that car is sold, the design of the car is earning profits. Same with every shirt sold. Same with every CD sold. Now, in many cases (cars for instance) the cost of actually producing the physical item far outweighs the portion of money that goes to paying for the design, but the design cost is there nevertheless.
Now, you say you are designing stuff and getting paid. All that means is that your employer has effectively taken a loan against his future profits and paid you with that money. HE is still going to get paid for every copy of the thing that you designed that is sold, which will be used to pay back the loan he used to pay you, and hopefully also earn some profits. You are lucky, you get all your money now rather than having to wait a potentially long time to get paid. If you work for a good company, and the value of your work exceeds projections, you may be paid even more money as part of a bonus or profit-sharing incentive. Regardless of whether or not you earn more in the future, ALL of the money you earned comes from sales, either actual or expected.
As far comparisons to the Statue of Liberty, etc, that is just stupid. The people who designed and built the Statue of Liberty were hired to do that. The money to pay them came from the government. The Statue of Liberty was never intended to earn money. Same with your other examples. However, there are bridges that were built with private money. And guess what? The owners still expect to be paid every time someone uses the bridge, even if it was build 100 years ago.
Since there is one TV, it is not an issue. Not being able to play a game while someone else is watching TV is a concept even a three year old can understand. Not being able to check your email while someone is watching a movie is a concept only someone with an axe to grind would understand.
The point is, different people have different requirements and usage patterns. Some already have (or are willing to get) a laptop to be used as a TV input device. Some already have (or are willing to get) a Wii. An intelligent company will try to meet both groups' requirements.
Does the guy who designed your car have to go drive a racecar every weekend so he gets paid? Does the guy who designed your clothes have to go work at WalMart so he gets paid?
Yeah, IF you have a laptop. And a place to set the laptop when it is connected to the TV. And something to do with the cable when the laptop is not connected to the TV. And you don't mind getting up and going to the laptop when you want to start/stop watching a movie. And no-one in the family (including yourself) ever wants to use the laptop while a movie is playing.
Huh? What do token-ring and IPV6 have in common? Token-ring is a physical network specification, like Ethernet. IPV6 can run just fine on top of either of those protocols. IPV6 says nothing at all about the physical connection between the devices.
But the GP didn't say airwalls are more secure or harder to break into, he said they were INFALLIBLE. Then he accused others of hubris.
Nothing in the NIST standards says anything at all about connecting to the internet. It is all about how devices on the grid talk to each other. Now, if you had to come up with a protocol to be used for millions of devices to communicate with each other which makes more sense - invent a whole new protocol, or start with an existing one?
An air wall is infallible? Please explain. It seems to me that whether or not the grid is hooked up to the internet (and there is no indication from these documents that it would be), whenever communication is occurring interception/spoofing is always possible.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Centralized computing did not 'fail'. It fell out of favor because of perceived cost. Corporations and governments knew exactly how much IT was costing them. They knew how many employees were dedicated to IT. They knew how much the equipment cost. They knew how much the software cost. They knew how much electricity and cooling the datacenters used. It was a big number. They billed each department it's share of the total IT cost. Then managers discovered the PC, and said 'hey I can save a lot of money by using these instead of the centralized IT'.
Now, companies are waking up to the true costs of that 'cheap' PC-based environment. They see how much time is wasted patching all those PCs. They see the damage caused by viruses and worms when someone does something dumb on their un-patched PC. They see the effects of lost data when someones PC crashes and wasn't backed up because the backup grinds their PC to a halt for an hour or two a week. They see the damage done to their reputation when some department server is scrapped and happens to contain sensitive information.
You don't understand the technology, and instead of trying to learn you just stick your fingers in your ears and make rude comments to those trying to help. But I will try one more time anyway.
Let's say you have a TV from the 80s. You have a total of 82 channels that you can tune. That is the bandwidth of the TV. But you cable company is offering 500 channels. Does that mean that 418 channels are unavailable to you? No. You get a cable box, and it converts any channel you like into one your TV can handle.
The exact same thing is happening with SDV. On one side of the switch box (not your cable box) is a fiber cable which has a capacity (bandwidth) of thousands of channels. On the other side is coax, which has a bandwidth of a few hundred channels. This is physics that determines this, not some cable company conspiracy.
This is where the tuning adapter comes into play. You tell your cable box you want to watch channel 700. The tuning adapter in the cable box talks to the switch and tells it you want to watch channel 700. The switch looks to see if it already has channel 700 tuned in, and if so what output channel it is on. If the channel is not already tuned, it finds a free channel and uses it. The switch then tells the tuning adapter what channel it should tune to in order to get channel 700. So today when you tune to channel 700 it may appear on the coax on channel 20. Tomorrow it may appear on channel 210. When no-one is watching channel 700 it doesn't appear on the coax at all, freeing a channel to be used for something else. This allows the cable company to offer many more channels than would otherwise be available on the coax.
Likewise, DOCIS uses the same channels on the coax that TV does. If many people are watching many different TV channels, fewer channels are available for DOCIS, so more people have to share each channel, and internet performance goes down. When people are using fewer TV channels, more are available to DOCIS, less people need to share each channel, and internet performance goes up.
The whole thing has nothing to do with piracy.
It don't think it means that. It says you get access to the programming, not the schedule. I take that as meaning you get the same access to 'regular' TV channels, as opposed to VOD.
OK, since you obviously know more than I do about bandwidth, please explain how my cable company is offering 150 HD channels, about 400 SD channels, about 30 on-demand channels (so every TV in the neighborhood could theoretically be watching a different on demand show), plus internet and telephone, all over a wire that has about a 750MHz bandwidth.
Then it seems it does provide a feature to you, it lets you use the cable. Also, you're wrong about why they do that. It is not to deter pirates, it is to free up bandwidth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video
If it is providing no features to you, then don't do it.
The front-line reporters are the only ones who need to be paid? So the editors, management, admin (HR, payroll, etc), and support (IT, secretaries, janitors, etc) are all going to work for free? The reporters are going to be able to travel to the news for free? The buildings housing the offices are free?
What is this new technology that is allowing news gathering to be done for several orders of magnitude less money? AP, etc have been called 'wire services' for over a century now for a reason.
OK, so all you need is something like AP, but you don't need anything to support it? What sense does that make? How is it supported? Or are you saying you would be willing to pay a single huge outfit like AP for the news, but would not be willing to pay smaller companies which not only use AP content but also provide their own content (yes, the NYT has a LOT of content that is their own).
UPI is still around, and it is not the same thing. UPI is a privately owned for-profit company which licenses it's content to newspapers, etc.
No. The AP is owned by the newspapers. All of it's funding comes from the member newspapers. Yes, there are some 'AP' reporters who are not working for a specific paper, but they are still paid by the collective of the papers.
Somehow that news station takes the experiences of billions of people over a day and condenses that down to a few minutes (or even hours) of 'news'. Deciding which stories are worth reporting, and what facts to present from those stories requires judgment, and judgment is influenced by bias.