Do any visually impaired users use your web site? If so, how do they do it? It seems to me that by removing all the clues to what a field is you have also blocked screen readers, etc from functioning properly.
I did not say the FAA certified the devices. I said they certified the planes. As in, 'this configuration of aircraft, with this complement of avionics, does not show any problems with the RF patterns generated by 200 laptops with wifi in the passenger compartment'. Which is completely different from 'this wifi laptop does not cause any aircraft problems'. And both are different than saying the aircraft does not show any problems with any RF generating devices at all.
I don't recall the FAA ever saying that electronic devices WILL cause a crash, only that the planes have not been certified with the devices. So, if you have not done the certification testing (expensive), the prudent thing to do is say don't use the devices. Since, as you pointed out, they can make money on it now, it makes sense to spend the money on the certifications and allow some devices.
Also, while the FAA is concerned about cell phones for the same reason as above, the FCC is more concerned. Having thousands of cell phones hop from tower to tower at 500 MPH is not something the system was designed to do.
Not everything is some conspiracy to infringe on your rights.
It may be legendary, but it also appears you made it up, since no such message exists in DB2.
Oh, you didn't mean it was a 'DB2 message', you meant it was the explanation of an SQLSTATE? The closest to that is state 22001, and the explanation is "Character data, right truncation occurred; for example, an update or insert value is a string that is too long for the column, or a datetime value cannot be assigned to a host variable, because it is too small."
So why did IBM write such a cryptic message? How about for the same reason MySQL, Oracle, Microsoft, etc did - because it is a STANDARD. Oracles explanation of this state is "string data - right truncation". Microsoft's is exactly the same as Oracles. I couldn't find where MySQL defines it anywhere.
So the only thing big bad IBM did differently is call it character (not) string data, and add the little explanation after the semicolon.
No reason at all? What if I am the doctor returning your middle-of-the-night phone call about your kid with the fever? I obviously do not want to reveal my number, because people will abuse it (call me directly instead of calling the office/answering service). The same is true of anyone in an 'on-call' situation, from doctors to tech support.
In most cases you are NOT paying for the finite resource of water, you are paying for them to get the water to you. With electricity, there are two costs: generation and distribution. Generation is a finite resource. Distribution is getting the electricity to you. If you use more electricity, you pay more distribution cost. In other words, exactly the same as ISPs. Your Koolaid analogy makes no sense at all. If you stop using water, you stop paying. If you stop using your ISP, you stop paying. What were you trying to get at? The only real difference is that with water or electric you pay for your ACTUAL usage, which I assume the 'no bandwidth cap' crowd would really hate.
As for your 'what would Charter do' question: they would build more infrastructure, which they could afford to do because they would be collecting approx 3x the money.
Actually, they will see (some of) it in the form of variable pay, because of the better than expected results.
What else would you expect them (or anyone) to do in a situation like this? If your economic prospects for the year are not looking too good do you say 'I think I'll increase my monthly expenditures, that will help'? Of course not. Do you then consider yourself to have 'shafted' all of the businesses where you didn't spend your money?
Now, if the reason your prospects are not looking good is because you're losing market share, etc, then maybe you do have to increase expenses to attract talent, but that is not the case here.
When I see some of the most traditional of athletic competitions (track races), it appears that there is a period of 'standing still' just prior to the race. I guess those people aren't taken seriously either? Or, it could be that fast reaction time combined with going from standing still to expending a tremendous amount of energy actually DOES require much physical conditioning.
While I do agree it is marketing, I don't know that I would put it in the 'dumbing down' category. I think it is there to get the TV viewers more involved. Watching the game is more exciting when you can immediately see if a play was successful or not (like you could if you were at the game). Without the line, either the cameras must use a wide shot so you can see the sideline markers, or you must wait for an indication from the ref (or announcers) as to whether the play was successful or not.
Um, no. What drives companies out of business is short-sightedness like you display. The one thing you got right is that the COST of this is very low (probably way less than $100). And for that very low COST, they are estimating that the VALUE increases by $200-$300. That leaves several hundred dollars of profit, which keeps companies in business. And what if they are over-estimating the value? Drop the price. They can chop a few hundred dollars off the price and still be profitable.
If your argument is that there is 'no value' to this, you are wrong there as well. True, you could buy a $99 Roku box that does the same thing, but that is not the whole story. You still need somewhere to put the box. You still need to supply power to the box. You still need to have available inputs on your switch/receiver/TV to connect the box. You have to do something with all those cables. You have yet another remote control laying around/getting lost/getting broken. You have to know how to hook it up in the first place (Roku has 5 FAQs on this subject alone). What if it isn't working correctly?
Tim Alessi is guessing that there are many, many people who would consider it well worth $100-$200 dollars above the cost of a Roku to solve all of the above problems. I think he is probably right.
Finally, learn what a 'loss leader' is. It is something you sell at a loss, expecting it to lead to sales of other, more profitable things (like consoles and games).
When your uncle gave up his practice, did the entire value of it just vanish into thin air, or did he sell the practice to some other doctors? Most likely, unless he was a bad business man (or he let the value of the practice run down to nothing), he sold the practice, in which case yes, he was still profiting from all those years, and the risk he took those years ago.
And when did anyone, anywhere, suggest being paid for things that happened in the past? When you buy a song you are not paying because the artist wrote it, you are paying because you want to hear it. That is now, not in the past. The contract society has made with content creators is that we pay when we use the content, not when it is created.
Yes, they do, just indirectly. Obviously I do not get to charge license fees for things I wrote for my employer. They paid me to write those things. Even if my code is total crap and never sees the light of day, I was still paid. My employer, on the other hand, does get to collect license fees for the things I wrote. And I am pretty sure I (and many, many others) would not have a job if my employer could not charge fees for things I wrote. So the only reason I have a job is because my employer can make money selling the things I wrote, and the only reason they can make money selling it is because copyright laws protect the work.
The same is true of architects and graphic designers.
The only one of your examples that is accurate is the local band. And most 'local bands' are local bands simply because they are not good enough to be more than that. So those bands are doing it for the fun of it, not to make a living. The same is not true of the other professions.
So what is to prevent some other band, which doesn't have to worry about things like taking time to write songs, from performing the exact same show and reducing their ability to sell tickets? And unless I am very mistaken, the images on t-shirts and stickers are protected by the very same copyright laws, so surely downloading those images and making your own t-shirts and stickers is perfectly acceptable, so why would anyone go to their website to buy them?
Of course you, as a burger flipper, would not continue being paid. You took no risk. You went to work for a day and got paid for it. Even if no-one came in and bought one of your flipped burgers you still got paid. However, the guy who took the risk (the business owner) WILL still be being paid every time someone eats a burger in that establishment (and I mean profit, not just the marginal cost). As long as there is a demand for his burgers, he gets paid. When he dies, the business goes to whoever is in his will and THEY get paid for every burger, and there is no artificial time limit on how long that can go on.
Now, if your contract with the guy was 'flip burgers for free for a year, and I will give you 10% of the profits for the next 70 years', then yes, I suppose you would still be expecting to get paid all those years later. And you would probably (hopefully) expect that if you died before that time your heirs would continue to receive YOUR MONEY.
What are you talking about? Every one of those jobs gets the exact same copyright protections that also apply to musicians, etc. And certainly the bulk of people in those fields are doing it to get paid. What exactly are you claiming is debunked? How many students would select computer science, architecture, graphic design, etc if there was no opportunity to be paid for doing that work?
You wrote the words, but you still don't seem to grasp the meaning: you get paid WHEN YOU WORK. People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold. You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.
If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.
If you have zero sympathy for the 'untalented hacks', why do you want their music? If some musician is truly untalented and/or produces a bad work, don't buy it, but don't just take it either.
How can a private corporation or individual censor you? True, they may refuse to publish you, but they can't prevent you from being published anywhere else (or self-published). Thinking that companies (or individuals) are somehow required to publish every little piece of crap that is presented to them is ridiculous (and a real infringement of freedom of the press).
There are two satellites. One has the signal delayed by about 5 seconds. So there is, in effect, an approx 5 second buffer. If you can't get a signal from either satellite for longer than that, you will hear a dropout. That is why you don't normally hear dropouts when going under an overpass, but if you get stuck under it you will lose the signal. This is really noticable when one of the satellites is off-line for some reason. When that happens, you get so many dropouts it is pretty much unlistenable.
So what if they have a 'monopoly' in the satellite radio space? Is satellite radio something everyone (or anyone) needs? No. If they change their price and content too much people will simply stop using that service, and switch to one of the other options. They can't become anti-competitive, so there is no monopoly.
But they have very limited bandwidth, so adding commercial stations would require removing some stations that are currently there. This would likely piss off existing subscribers, many of whom subscribed just because there aren't commercials. In addition, terrestrial broadcasters would have a very big problem with the 'free' aspect.
How is this insightful? It doesn't even show a basic understanding of the problem they are trying to solve. They are not claiming to protect your laptop, make it easier to get back, or make it harder for a thief to use. All they are claiming to do is protect your DATA from being used, by forcing a power off so you need to re-enter the hard disk encryption password. If the thing is already powered off there is no need to kill it. So exactly what 'problem' have you solved by changing the network card or adding a USB one?
It only makes sense for in-house software if you are either developing software that you don't mind your competitors get, or you are 100% certain that you will never, ever, have a need to provide that software to one of your suppliers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Do any visually impaired users use your web site? If so, how do they do it? It seems to me that by removing all the clues to what a field is you have also blocked screen readers, etc from functioning properly.
I did not say the FAA certified the devices. I said they certified the planes. As in, 'this configuration of aircraft, with this complement of avionics, does not show any problems with the RF patterns generated by 200 laptops with wifi in the passenger compartment'. Which is completely different from 'this wifi laptop does not cause any aircraft problems'. And both are different than saying the aircraft does not show any problems with any RF generating devices at all.
You are also wrong about the FCC.
I don't recall the FAA ever saying that electronic devices WILL cause a crash, only that the planes have not been certified with the devices. So, if you have not done the certification testing (expensive), the prudent thing to do is say don't use the devices. Since, as you pointed out, they can make money on it now, it makes sense to spend the money on the certifications and allow some devices.
Also, while the FAA is concerned about cell phones for the same reason as above, the FCC is more concerned. Having thousands of cell phones hop from tower to tower at 500 MPH is not something the system was designed to do.
Not everything is some conspiracy to infringe on your rights.
It may be legendary, but it also appears you made it up, since no such message exists in DB2.
Oh, you didn't mean it was a 'DB2 message', you meant it was the explanation of an SQLSTATE? The closest to that is state 22001, and the explanation is "Character data, right truncation occurred; for example, an update or insert value is a string that is too long for the column, or a datetime value cannot be assigned to a host variable, because it is too small."
So why did IBM write such a cryptic message? How about for the same reason MySQL, Oracle, Microsoft, etc did - because it is a STANDARD. Oracles explanation of this state is "string data - right truncation". Microsoft's is exactly the same as Oracles. I couldn't find where MySQL defines it anywhere.
So the only thing big bad IBM did differently is call it character (not) string data, and add the little explanation after the semicolon.
What DB2 error messages are 'cryptic'?
No reason at all? What if I am the doctor returning your middle-of-the-night phone call about your kid with the fever? I obviously do not want to reveal my number, because people will abuse it (call me directly instead of calling the office/answering service). The same is true of anyone in an 'on-call' situation, from doctors to tech support.
In most cases you are NOT paying for the finite resource of water, you are paying for them to get the water to you. With electricity, there are two costs: generation and distribution. Generation is a finite resource. Distribution is getting the electricity to you. If you use more electricity, you pay more distribution cost. In other words, exactly the same as ISPs. Your Koolaid analogy makes no sense at all. If you stop using water, you stop paying. If you stop using your ISP, you stop paying. What were you trying to get at? The only real difference is that with water or electric you pay for your ACTUAL usage, which I assume the 'no bandwidth cap' crowd would really hate.
As for your 'what would Charter do' question: they would build more infrastructure, which they could afford to do because they would be collecting approx 3x the money.
Actually, they will see (some of) it in the form of variable pay, because of the better than expected results.
What else would you expect them (or anyone) to do in a situation like this? If your economic prospects for the year are not looking too good do you say 'I think I'll increase my monthly expenditures, that will help'? Of course not. Do you then consider yourself to have 'shafted' all of the businesses where you didn't spend your money?
Now, if the reason your prospects are not looking good is because you're losing market share, etc, then maybe you do have to increase expenses to attract talent, but that is not the case here.
When I see some of the most traditional of athletic competitions (track races), it appears that there is a period of 'standing still' just prior to the race. I guess those people aren't taken seriously either? Or, it could be that fast reaction time combined with going from standing still to expending a tremendous amount of energy actually DOES require much physical conditioning.
While I do agree it is marketing, I don't know that I would put it in the 'dumbing down' category. I think it is there to get the TV viewers more involved. Watching the game is more exciting when you can immediately see if a play was successful or not (like you could if you were at the game). Without the line, either the cameras must use a wide shot so you can see the sideline markers, or you must wait for an indication from the ref (or announcers) as to whether the play was successful or not.
Um, no. What drives companies out of business is short-sightedness like you display. The one thing you got right is that the COST of this is very low (probably way less than $100). And for that very low COST, they are estimating that the VALUE increases by $200-$300. That leaves several hundred dollars of profit, which keeps companies in business. And what if they are over-estimating the value? Drop the price. They can chop a few hundred dollars off the price and still be profitable.
If your argument is that there is 'no value' to this, you are wrong there as well. True, you could buy a $99 Roku box that does the same thing, but that is not the whole story. You still need somewhere to put the box. You still need to supply power to the box. You still need to have available inputs on your switch/receiver/TV to connect the box. You have to do something with all those cables. You have yet another remote control laying around/getting lost/getting broken. You have to know how to hook it up in the first place (Roku has 5 FAQs on this subject alone). What if it isn't working correctly?
Tim Alessi is guessing that there are many, many people who would consider it well worth $100-$200 dollars above the cost of a Roku to solve all of the above problems. I think he is probably right.
Finally, learn what a 'loss leader' is. It is something you sell at a loss, expecting it to lead to sales of other, more profitable things (like consoles and games).
When your uncle gave up his practice, did the entire value of it just vanish into thin air, or did he sell the practice to some other doctors? Most likely, unless he was a bad business man (or he let the value of the practice run down to nothing), he sold the practice, in which case yes, he was still profiting from all those years, and the risk he took those years ago.
And when did anyone, anywhere, suggest being paid for things that happened in the past? When you buy a song you are not paying because the artist wrote it, you are paying because you want to hear it. That is now, not in the past. The contract society has made with content creators is that we pay when we use the content, not when it is created.
Yes, they do, just indirectly. Obviously I do not get to charge license fees for things I wrote for my employer. They paid me to write those things. Even if my code is total crap and never sees the light of day, I was still paid. My employer, on the other hand, does get to collect license fees for the things I wrote. And I am pretty sure I (and many, many others) would not have a job if my employer could not charge fees for things I wrote. So the only reason I have a job is because my employer can make money selling the things I wrote, and the only reason they can make money selling it is because copyright laws protect the work.
The same is true of architects and graphic designers.
The only one of your examples that is accurate is the local band. And most 'local bands' are local bands simply because they are not good enough to be more than that. So those bands are doing it for the fun of it, not to make a living. The same is not true of the other professions.
So what is to prevent some other band, which doesn't have to worry about things like taking time to write songs, from performing the exact same show and reducing their ability to sell tickets? And unless I am very mistaken, the images on t-shirts and stickers are protected by the very same copyright laws, so surely downloading those images and making your own t-shirts and stickers is perfectly acceptable, so why would anyone go to their website to buy them?
Of course you, as a burger flipper, would not continue being paid. You took no risk. You went to work for a day and got paid for it. Even if no-one came in and bought one of your flipped burgers you still got paid. However, the guy who took the risk (the business owner) WILL still be being paid every time someone eats a burger in that establishment (and I mean profit, not just the marginal cost). As long as there is a demand for his burgers, he gets paid. When he dies, the business goes to whoever is in his will and THEY get paid for every burger, and there is no artificial time limit on how long that can go on.
Now, if your contract with the guy was 'flip burgers for free for a year, and I will give you 10% of the profits for the next 70 years', then yes, I suppose you would still be expecting to get paid all those years later. And you would probably (hopefully) expect that if you died before that time your heirs would continue to receive YOUR MONEY.
What are you talking about? Every one of those jobs gets the exact same copyright protections that also apply to musicians, etc. And certainly the bulk of people in those fields are doing it to get paid. What exactly are you claiming is debunked? How many students would select computer science, architecture, graphic design, etc if there was no opportunity to be paid for doing that work?
You wrote the words, but you still don't seem to grasp the meaning: you get paid WHEN YOU WORK. People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold. You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.
If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.
If you have zero sympathy for the 'untalented hacks', why do you want their music? If some musician is truly untalented and/or produces a bad work, don't buy it, but don't just take it either.
Yes, that's all you take away. Oh yeah, and that PAYCHECK. Please explain the SUCK ASS comment.
How can a private corporation or individual censor you? True, they may refuse to publish you, but they can't prevent you from being published anywhere else (or self-published). Thinking that companies (or individuals) are somehow required to publish every little piece of crap that is presented to them is ridiculous (and a real infringement of freedom of the press).
There are two satellites. One has the signal delayed by about 5 seconds. So there is, in effect, an approx 5 second buffer. If you can't get a signal from either satellite for longer than that, you will hear a dropout. That is why you don't normally hear dropouts when going under an overpass, but if you get stuck under it you will lose the signal. This is really noticable when one of the satellites is off-line for some reason. When that happens, you get so many dropouts it is pretty much unlistenable.
So what if they have a 'monopoly' in the satellite radio space? Is satellite radio something everyone (or anyone) needs? No. If they change their price and content too much people will simply stop using that service, and switch to one of the other options. They can't become anti-competitive, so there is no monopoly.
But they have very limited bandwidth, so adding commercial stations would require removing some stations that are currently there. This would likely piss off existing subscribers, many of whom subscribed just because there aren't commercials. In addition, terrestrial broadcasters would have a very big problem with the 'free' aspect.
How is this insightful? It doesn't even show a basic understanding of the problem they are trying to solve. They are not claiming to protect your laptop, make it easier to get back, or make it harder for a thief to use. All they are claiming to do is protect your DATA from being used, by forcing a power off so you need to re-enter the hard disk encryption password. If the thing is already powered off there is no need to kill it. So exactly what 'problem' have you solved by changing the network card or adding a USB one?
It only makes sense for in-house software if you are either developing software that you don't mind your competitors get, or you are 100% certain that you will never, ever, have a need to provide that software to one of your suppliers, etc.
And this company which has it's PCs so locked down is OK with you storing their data on a third-party server?