Or just replace "fairer" with "fairer for us" - fairer doesn't really mean much in business anyways. It's not that they think the artists owe them more money. It's that they want to find a way to get more money out of the whole system. Honestly, if they weren't doing that, they probably wouldn't be doing their jobs. Sure, it's easy to look at the industry and say it's outdated, say they don't provide value anymore, and should die. But is it reasonable to expect them to just roll over and die? I know if it were me, I wouldn't. If I needed to make a certain amount of money to consider the venture "successful", and the total pie got smaller, then my option is to try and get a larger piece of the pie. The counter to them actually getting that larger piece isn't to have them ask for less...it's for the other people providing value to the business to say no.
Sure, they're probably going about it the wrong way. I have to say, I think they're eventually going to fail. But that doesn't mean we should expect them to just give up. And we certainly shouldn't be surprised, or even appalled, when we hear about them attempting to stay alive.
Good point. I have witnessed this as well. I attended two AA meetings a number of years ago (court ordered, I was underage). On top of being a very sobering experience, it was also a very warming experience. I was the only person required to be there, everyone else seemed truly interested in their own salvation. From all of the various people there, in different walks of life, at different stages in the program, they all wanted to be there. The support they provided each other, the encouragement, was truly amazing.
I mentioned that I was ordered to the meetings - wasn't due to any alcoholism, just part of an underage drinking charge. I believe the intent was exposure, and it certainly had an effect on me. When I first went, I had no interest in being there, and was a little pissed. By the end of the first meeting I was simply impressed, and at the second meeting I wasn't mad at all - the meetings were too inspiring (and depressing at the same time) to be mad about.
What? Go rename a file in/etc. 90% of the time, you're going to lose some functionality. How about a file in/bin ? Or/usr/lib? It seems to me that renaming these files could have a detrimental effect. These directories are basically the linux equivalent of Program Files. And, amazingly enough, so long as I'm logged in appropriately as a user (rather than root), attempting to rename any of these files is going to result in "Permission denied".
There are plenty of things wrong with Windows/Vista/UAC - prompting you when attempting to rename a file in Program Files is not one of them.
You don't even have to read the story. Just click on the "before and after comparison" link. Two photos, side by side, without having to read anything. (There is a caption at the bottom, but I'm fairly sure you can get by without reading it...)
I disagree. We've given the telecom industry billions of dollars in tax breaks and preferential treatment (codified monopolies, rights of way, etc) to assist them in building their networks. We have the right to have some say in how they manage those networks. If they want a true free market system then let's bring it on -- I'd love to be able to negotiate with the telephone company for royalties on that pole they put on my property.
And that's the piece that the GP was missing. While I completely agree with the GP when it comes to private businesses and networks, the situation involving telephone lines, cable lines, power lines, etc is not by any means private. The have received incentives (tax breaks, direct money, exclusivity rights, etc.) and right of ways to build out their networks, giving us a distinct interest in how they handle them.
I love this idea. As an added benefit, voters would actually be directly exposed to the amount of their income that ends up going to the government, rather than having it hidden behind slightly higher prices at every level.
Yes, in some cases it is possible. However, I would argue that it is much more likely that you will either miss something that is harmful, or inadvertently place unnecessary restrictions on input.
I should note that I don't consider parameterized statements to be a replacement for input validation. You should still make sure that your input makes sense for the data it is supposed to represent. However, filtering for "harmful characters" really shouldn't need to be a part of this.
Very true. One should say that you need to ALWAYS use parameterized or prepared statements. Concatenating at any point, even within stored procedures, will expose you to SQL Injection attacks.
This is really not an appropriate solution. "everything not supposed to be there" relies on knowing what isn't supposed to be there. If you know exactly what's supposed to be there in the first place, why even have dynamic queries? Besides, is concatenating my query in code really easier than defining a query with parameters, and then just copying the parameters from the input form to the query? I've yet to see a filtering function that provides the same level of security as PreparedStatements.
There's a big difference between bids being sealed during the bidding process, and them being opened after the deadline has passed. The first practice prevents the situation you're describing, while the second practice provides for public knowledge of how tax money is spent.
However, this system has the benefit of paring the monopoly down to as small an aspect as possible. This system shows that there's no inherent need to have a monopoly on the service. The only need for a monopoly is on the infrastructure. Therefore, that's the only aspect of the business that should have a monopoly, and the other parts of the business can be opened up to the free market.
In addition, there are often a lot of other costs involved in having an employee. There are things like office space, insurance, equipment, etc. At my last job, when I was getting ready to leave, and they were looking to maintain me as a contractor, I sat down with my manager to calculate how much I cost her. It turned out that her cost for having me employed was 140% greater than my salary. I don't call that small.
But...you missed your own point. Get rid of the notion that everyone outsourced is incompetent and inhouse employees are experts. If I can't figure out how to pick competent contractors, how am I going to pick out competent employees?
So, if we assume the same level of skill on either end, we are then faced with your first point, which is having someone on site, on hand during business hours, or having to wait for someone to come in. The same case can be made for having one person on site, and having to wait for him while he's at another appointment, and having two people on site. It's an issue of scale. How many IT issues do I have, how quickly do I need them fixed, and how much is it worth to me?
So...we're back to the notion that for a small enough business, simply outsourcing may well be sufficient. Yes, I have to pick a competent outsourcer, but I'd have to pick a competent employee as well.
Just because it's not the motivation doesn't mean it's the result. And sure, a school system should have the right to impose graduation requirements. But I should have the right to choose between school systems. A national mandatory requirement seems to make it no more than forced labor.
Seems to me with hockey you may be less concerned with things being yanked, and more concerned with things being knocked around (by opposing players, boards, etc). Hence the "should be based on your sport" thing...
GP: as someone who works in retail, I HATE the reusable plastic boxes. For 15 registers we have one key to the things, so we have to get the supervisor to open it. One time when the supervisor was out to lunch it took 3 people to figure the damn thing out.
This has nothing to do with the reusable plastic boxes and everything to do with your management. Buy some more keys and train people to use them.
Why not open it to the public, but have very short hours? Lets say...1:00pm - 1:05pm every other Monday. Subject to change. Book selection is also rather limited.
And you have brilliantly illustrated why service providers should focus on providing the service, not the user interface. A streaming video service? Why would the BBC go about developing a user interface when, just by providing the raw data, a user can leverage VLC, or Mplayer, or Windows Media, or whatever best suits their needs. As an added bonus, you now have zero platforms to support, and your users have the potential for a much better experience than you could ever provide them.
It's actually fairly different. A more accurate statement is that DRM is just another form of encryption - one where the decrypting algorithm/tool is a black box. As soon as you figure out how to implement a black box in open source, an open source DRM will be possible.
Also, the GP missed the point a bit as well. It's more than political, there's a logical barrier.
And I work in higher education. The majority of my user base is in a very limited geographic location. I can tell you that I see minimal load for any student-targeted systems outside of 6pm-2am (and registration week). I also see very little load for faculty-targeted systems outside of normal business hours.
If they want to sell me heroin and I want to buy it, why not? As long as the "heroin business" consists of consensual agreements between two people, I don't see the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just replace "fairer" with "fairer for us" - fairer doesn't really mean much in business anyways. It's not that they think the artists owe them more money. It's that they want to find a way to get more money out of the whole system. Honestly, if they weren't doing that, they probably wouldn't be doing their jobs. Sure, it's easy to look at the industry and say it's outdated, say they don't provide value anymore, and should die. But is it reasonable to expect them to just roll over and die? I know if it were me, I wouldn't. If I needed to make a certain amount of money to consider the venture "successful", and the total pie got smaller, then my option is to try and get a larger piece of the pie. The counter to them actually getting that larger piece isn't to have them ask for less...it's for the other people providing value to the business to say no.
Sure, they're probably going about it the wrong way. I have to say, I think they're eventually going to fail. But that doesn't mean we should expect them to just give up. And we certainly shouldn't be surprised, or even appalled, when we hear about them attempting to stay alive.
Good point. I have witnessed this as well. I attended two AA meetings a number of years ago (court ordered, I was underage). On top of being a very sobering experience, it was also a very warming experience. I was the only person required to be there, everyone else seemed truly interested in their own salvation. From all of the various people there, in different walks of life, at different stages in the program, they all wanted to be there. The support they provided each other, the encouragement, was truly amazing.
I mentioned that I was ordered to the meetings - wasn't due to any alcoholism, just part of an underage drinking charge. I believe the intent was exposure, and it certainly had an effect on me. When I first went, I had no interest in being there, and was a little pissed. By the end of the first meeting I was simply impressed, and at the second meeting I wasn't mad at all - the meetings were too inspiring (and depressing at the same time) to be mad about.
What? Go rename a file in /etc. 90% of the time, you're going to lose some functionality. How about a file in /bin ? Or /usr/lib? It seems to me that renaming these files could have a detrimental effect. These directories are basically the linux equivalent of Program Files. And, amazingly enough, so long as I'm logged in appropriately as a user (rather than root), attempting to rename any of these files is going to result in "Permission denied".
There are plenty of things wrong with Windows/Vista/UAC - prompting you when attempting to rename a file in Program Files is not one of them.
You don't even have to read the story. Just click on the "before and after comparison" link. Two photos, side by side, without having to read anything. (There is a caption at the bottom, but I'm fairly sure you can get by without reading it...)
I disagree. We've given the telecom industry billions of dollars in tax breaks and preferential treatment (codified monopolies, rights of way, etc) to assist them in building their networks. We have the right to have some say in how they manage those networks. If they want a true free market system then let's bring it on -- I'd love to be able to negotiate with the telephone company for royalties on that pole they put on my property.
And that's the piece that the GP was missing. While I completely agree with the GP when it comes to private businesses and networks, the situation involving telephone lines, cable lines, power lines, etc is not by any means private. The have received incentives (tax breaks, direct money, exclusivity rights, etc.) and right of ways to build out their networks, giving us a distinct interest in how they handle them.
I love this idea. As an added benefit, voters would actually be directly exposed to the amount of their income that ends up going to the government, rather than having it hidden behind slightly higher prices at every level.
I see subaru ads all the time. Something about how the guy is going to let the universe was his car...and I definitely don't live in the mountains.
Yes, in some cases it is possible. However, I would argue that it is much more likely that you will either miss something that is harmful, or inadvertently place unnecessary restrictions on input.
I should note that I don't consider parameterized statements to be a replacement for input validation. You should still make sure that your input makes sense for the data it is supposed to represent. However, filtering for "harmful characters" really shouldn't need to be a part of this.
Very true. One should say that you need to ALWAYS use parameterized or prepared statements. Concatenating at any point, even within stored procedures, will expose you to SQL Injection attacks.
This is really not an appropriate solution. "everything not supposed to be there" relies on knowing what isn't supposed to be there. If you know exactly what's supposed to be there in the first place, why even have dynamic queries? Besides, is concatenating my query in code really easier than defining a query with parameters, and then just copying the parameters from the input form to the query? I've yet to see a filtering function that provides the same level of security as PreparedStatements.
There's a big difference between bids being sealed during the bidding process, and them being opened after the deadline has passed. The first practice prevents the situation you're describing, while the second practice provides for public knowledge of how tax money is spent.
Or something along these lines might help: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F71A2A
However, this system has the benefit of paring the monopoly down to as small an aspect as possible. This system shows that there's no inherent need to have a monopoly on the service. The only need for a monopoly is on the infrastructure. Therefore, that's the only aspect of the business that should have a monopoly, and the other parts of the business can be opened up to the free market.
In addition, there are often a lot of other costs involved in having an employee. There are things like office space, insurance, equipment, etc. At my last job, when I was getting ready to leave, and they were looking to maintain me as a contractor, I sat down with my manager to calculate how much I cost her. It turned out that her cost for having me employed was 140% greater than my salary. I don't call that small.
But...you missed your own point. Get rid of the notion that everyone outsourced is incompetent and inhouse employees are experts. If I can't figure out how to pick competent contractors, how am I going to pick out competent employees?
So, if we assume the same level of skill on either end, we are then faced with your first point, which is having someone on site, on hand during business hours, or having to wait for someone to come in. The same case can be made for having one person on site, and having to wait for him while he's at another appointment, and having two people on site. It's an issue of scale. How many IT issues do I have, how quickly do I need them fixed, and how much is it worth to me?
So...we're back to the notion that for a small enough business, simply outsourcing may well be sufficient. Yes, I have to pick a competent outsourcer, but I'd have to pick a competent employee as well.
Just because it's not the motivation doesn't mean it's the result. And sure, a school system should have the right to impose graduation requirements. But I should have the right to choose between school systems. A national mandatory requirement seems to make it no more than forced labor.
Seems to me with hockey you may be less concerned with things being yanked, and more concerned with things being knocked around (by opposing players, boards, etc). Hence the "should be based on your sport" thing...
There are options that don't require cutting into the food chain. I'm not sure why so many people assume biofuels == food shortage.
Because for some reason this country seems to have decided that biofuels == corn.
On top of that, don't we still have farmers paid to NOT grow crops? To keep the prices up? Get rid of that, let them grow crops for fuel.
GP: as someone who works in retail, I HATE the reusable plastic boxes. For 15 registers we have one key to the things, so we have to get the supervisor to open it. One time when the supervisor was out to lunch it took 3 people to figure the damn thing out.
This has nothing to do with the reusable plastic boxes and everything to do with your management. Buy some more keys and train people to use them.
Why not open it to the public, but have very short hours? Lets say...1:00pm - 1:05pm every other Monday. Subject to change. Book selection is also rather limited.
And you have brilliantly illustrated why service providers should focus on providing the service, not the user interface. A streaming video service? Why would the BBC go about developing a user interface when, just by providing the raw data, a user can leverage VLC, or Mplayer, or Windows Media, or whatever best suits their needs. As an added bonus, you now have zero platforms to support, and your users have the potential for a much better experience than you could ever provide them.
It's actually fairly different. A more accurate statement is that DRM is just another form of encryption - one where the decrypting algorithm/tool is a black box. As soon as you figure out how to implement a black box in open source, an open source DRM will be possible.
Also, the GP missed the point a bit as well. It's more than political, there's a logical barrier.
And I work in higher education. The majority of my user base is in a very limited geographic location. I can tell you that I see minimal load for any student-targeted systems outside of 6pm-2am (and registration week). I also see very little load for faculty-targeted systems outside of normal business hours.
If I recall correctly, "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
So...beats me...
If they want to sell me heroin and I want to buy it, why not? As long as the "heroin business" consists of consensual agreements between two people, I don't see the problem.