The problem isn't the private sector. If it were true that quality in the private sector was always hurt by profit motive, then private sector businesses would always produce substandard quality vs. public works. However, in the private sector, quality does get produced, because there is a segment of the market that demands it, and therefore there are companies that are motivated by profit to produce that quality (e.g. Apple Computer, BMW, Rolex, etc.). The problem is not that the private sector can't produce a quality product, but rather that the government doesn't demand it. If the government were to take into consideration more than just going with the cheapest bidder in all instances, we would get better quality. Of course, that has to be balanced against the unfortunate side-effect that if more subjective issues than price are taken into account, you are more likely to get croneyism, but I really think there's a better balance than the way the government operates now.
I think it could make an interesting production. I'd hate to see it replace movies, though. I don't think an interactive production could ever hold the depth of a well-crafted film or book.
Exactly. It seems to me that you could make a good argument that the firmware is not being linked to the kernel, and therefore is not required to be under the GPL. All the module is doing (if I understand things correctly) is taking a binary firmware file and uploading it to the device. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than using a GPL'd FTP client to upload a non-GPL'd binary to a fileserver, and I'm pretty sure even RMS wouldn't say that was a violation of the GPL.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no logical reason to have two rules, when one precludes the other one. If I only make $455 in a week, that's a little over $11 / hour, which is far less than $27.63. Therefore, if the article is correct, the figure of $27.63 is arbitrary and redundant. I could just as easily say you're exempt if you make over $30,000 / hour and give as much useful information. However, since even the government isn't usually stupid enough to add a rule that is entirely useless and redundant (especially at the same time they're adding the rule that makes it redundant), I'm guessing that there's either more to the story than the article is letting on, or one of those numbers is incorrect.
Just a little nit-pick in an otherwise great comment.
In most cases the insurance company will participate actively in any court cases, and will have the final decision about things like appeal and settlement. No insurance company in its right mind would allow their insurees to decide not to appeal a verdict because they're insured.
When I first read the Slashdot summary, I thought they had arrested the projectionist for using night vision goggles, and I thought, "what the hell?" Then I read the article (I know, I know), and I thought, "good, serves them right. Maybe things like this will help keep piracy in check enough to keep some of the truly unreasonable things from happening."
Note: No, I don't really think this will lead to curbing the blatant violations of our rights that are happening, but I can hope, can't I?
You know, if Fox were to bring back all the great shows they've cancelled over the years, they could singlehandedly wipe out reality TV (largely because they wouldn't have any time to show it).
You forget, though. Around here, the best solution is always the technical solution. A non-technical solution (like promoting your project to get more users) is boring. You're much better off spending forty more hours hand tuning the software to run optimally on every processor out there./sarcasm
Sun is not always the best choice. In many (even most) situations, Windows or Linux on x86 are the best choice for a variety of reasons. However, if you think there's no legitimate market for the mid-end servers that Sun produces, then you're sorely mistaken. Windows and Linux are both decent choices for low-end servers*, and Linux clusters are increasingly becoming choices for the high-end range. When you look at the mid-end server range, though, Windows falls apart and although Linux is probably an acceptable choice, I'd say that Sun is still a very strong competitor, and probably will be for a long time to come.
Those who read the article will see that this is far from Sun getting out of the chip business and moving to Windows, but rather a retooling that will allow them to return to profitablility in the near future. Instead of the UltraSparc V, they're going to stick with modifications to the UltraSparc IV for the time being while they work on putting out their multicore followup, the Nigara. Personally, I'm glad to see this. Sun has been a stagnating company in the hardware department for a while now, and I think a good shakeup is what they need. There will always be a need for the rock-solid server market that they fill, and x86 just doesn't cut it in a lot of cases. So, don't worry, Sun isn't going anywhere, and if they did, someone else would step in to fill their place (and it wouldn't be MS &/| Intel).
A third provision to keep in mind is that damage must be shown. If I say that you had sex with a petrified Natalie Portman, while pouring hot grits down your pants in a comment on Slashdot, you would have a hard time proving libel, because no reasonable Slashdot reader is going to actually believe the statement and so no harm was done to your reputation.
Can't argue with you there. The people doing the cheating are pretty low. I personally won't take a penny in salary until any employees who work for me are fully paid (I'm a principle owner in a small business).
Yes, I get it. Life sucks. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the hard working people out there who are trying to raise kids on very little income. I'd still like to see some evidence before I'll believe that a penalty that doubles every minute is standard operating procedure. Especially since a little Internet research seemed to imply that SOP is a flat $1/minute penalty.
... and just for the record, I don't live in Silicon Valley. I live in a working class midwester city, next door to run-down, low income apartments that are home to a single mother with three kids (and a dog), an older couple, and a mentally retarded gentleman (plus a couple of empty apartments).
Well, I didn't say $1,000 was reasonable, just that it was feasible that you might get it. If you're going to bilk the poor with an unreasonable rate (which is what the parent to my post was saying happens a lot), then you might as well make it something that you might feasibly get. One thousand dollars is clearly unreasonable. However, it's a value that you might conceivably get out of someone with little education (which isn't all poor, but is many). Especially if you put them on a "payment plan", where they pay you say $50 a month. It's slimy, but you might get away with it. On the other hand, if you push your penalty into the realm of fantasy (the trillions of dollars that you could easily rack up if the rate doubled every minute), then your chances of getting anything go straight to nil. That was my entire point (which I'm sure you'll agree with).
I know there are some real bastards out there, but I'd like to see some evidence before I'll believe that standard operating procedure anywhere involves a penalty that would charge someone more than the national debt for being 45 minutes late to pick up their child. It's not like they'd actually ever get such a penalty. It would seem to me to be much better to charge a large (but feasible) hourly rate for being late (like, say $1,000 / hour). If you charge someone $1 trillion, you'll get nothing. If you charge them $1,000, you might actually get it.
They have worked at the rate they signed for. Now it's time to sign again, and they've decided they want more money. I don't want to see the Simpsons go off the air any more than you do, but they still have the right to negotiate for more money when it comes time to sign a new contract. It pisses me off when people that entertainers or athletes make so much money that they no longer have the right to bargain with their employers (who, in many cases, make a whole lot more money than the actor or athlete). Sometimes, entertainers or athletes who go on strike are being stupid, because they end up destroying their livelihood in the process of trying to get more money. In this case, though, I think the Simpsons voice actors see a show that may not last too much longer, and they're just trying to get what they can before it goes away (remember, for a lot of them, this may be the last significant job they ever have).
Well, I don't know how they do solve the problem, but I know how I'd solve the problem if it were me. Don't let a single outsourcing company develop the whole program. If the game engine is designed in the U.S., and then parts of it are outsourced to different overseas companies, no company would ever have enough of the game to be able to pirate it (at least not without it being obvious who did the pirating). Then, a smaller team of American coders does the finishing work, combining the pieces into a marketable whole.
The problem is that by and large things tailored for the disabled are more expensive to design and manufacture than mass market items. There are also fewer people with disabilities than without. These two things unfortunately combine to mean that the things your girlfriend needs are going to be more expensive.
Think of it this way, if a product takes 10 developers (making $40K / year) six months to develop, then I have to make $400,000 before I can even think about making a profit. If 20,000 people want my product, that's $20 per unit minimum. Now, what if the product actually takes those developers a year to make, and there are only 2000 people who need the added features (and thus want to buy the product). By my calculations, that's $400 per unit to just break even, let alone make a profit. Although my numbers are of course scaled down, I think they illustrate the point well. I seriously doubt the manufacturers of your girlfriend's phone (or any of the other tools that help make her life easier) are making an abnormal profit just because they're marketing to the disabled.
As for the computer game, as nice as it would be for them to be able to add the features you would like, it may not be feasible. Just because the feature may seem like it would be simple, depending on the architecture of their code, it may in fact require a major overhaul. Also, what makes deafness special? Should they also add features to make the game easier to play for the blind? How about those with reduced motor skills? If they had to accomodate every need of every person who might potentially play their game, they'd probably end up bankrupt and nobody would get to play the game. I seriously doubt there is any malintent on their part. There may even be developers of the game who have deaf friends and relatives who they'd like to be able to play the game. That doesn't mean they have the resources to accomodate those desires.
Sorry if I sound a little bit ranting, but I have a small company, and we're just about to release a software product. All of us at the company would love it if that product accomodated the needs of disabled people who would like to use it. Unfortunately, it doesn't yet have those features. If we waited until we could implement them, the company would almost certainly not survive.
It seems to me that it's not at all clear who the "good guy" in this whole thing is. In fact, I really don't think there is a "good guy". Neither is there a "bad guy". Both companies deserve to make a profit, and I would not be at all surprised to find out that $0.06 per customer makes a big difference in the profit margins of both companies. What seems to be happening is that neither one of the companies wants to cut into their margins, and they're both willing to risk a little bad press and the possible loss of some customers to protect it. There's nothing evil (or heroic) about that, though. It's just business.
... and since I'm a DirecTV subscriber, I can sit back and enjoy the fireworks without being personally affected.:-)
Of course, their web page is probably handled by a web hosting company, a large percentage of which use Linux. This doesn't mean that Jessie James has ever even heard of Linux.
Ever been to an AutoZone? The computers they have in there are NOT Linux. They aren't even less than 10 years old.
They're those old outdated computers that places like JC Penny and Sears use.
Umm... last time I checked Linux was able to run on computers that were ten years old. The whole point of the suit seems to be that AutoZone replaced the OS on their computers with Linux, but has to be using SCO proprietary libraries placed into Linux by IBM, because all of their old software that they used to run on SCO still works.
Disclaimer: Don't flame me. I don't actually believe that Linux contains SCO proprietary libraries. I'm just saying what I think SCO is trying to claim.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't the private sector. If it were true that quality in the private sector was always hurt by profit motive, then private sector businesses would always produce substandard quality vs. public works. However, in the private sector, quality does get produced, because there is a segment of the market that demands it, and therefore there are companies that are motivated by profit to produce that quality (e.g. Apple Computer, BMW, Rolex, etc.). The problem is not that the private sector can't produce a quality product, but rather that the government doesn't demand it. If the government were to take into consideration more than just going with the cheapest bidder in all instances, we would get better quality. Of course, that has to be balanced against the unfortunate side-effect that if more subjective issues than price are taken into account, you are more likely to get croneyism, but I really think there's a better balance than the way the government operates now.
Interesting idea.
I think it could make an interesting production. I'd hate to see it replace movies, though. I don't think an interactive production could ever hold the depth of a well-crafted film or book.
Exactly. It seems to me that you could make a good argument that the firmware is not being linked to the kernel, and therefore is not required to be under the GPL. All the module is doing (if I understand things correctly) is taking a binary firmware file and uploading it to the device. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than using a GPL'd FTP client to upload a non-GPL'd binary to a fileserver, and I'm pretty sure even RMS wouldn't say that was a violation of the GPL.
Something doesn't add up about this article.
$455 * 52 weeks = $23,600 / year
however
($27.63 * 40) * 52 weeks = $57,470.40 / year
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no logical reason to have two rules, when one precludes the other one. If I only make $455 in a week, that's a little over $11 / hour, which is far less than $27.63. Therefore, if the article is correct, the figure of $27.63 is arbitrary and redundant. I could just as easily say you're exempt if you make over $30,000 / hour and give as much useful information. However, since even the government isn't usually stupid enough to add a rule that is entirely useless and redundant (especially at the same time they're adding the rule that makes it redundant), I'm guessing that there's either more to the story than the article is letting on, or one of those numbers is incorrect.
Just a little nit-pick in an otherwise great comment.
In most cases the insurance company will participate actively in any court cases, and will have the final decision about things like appeal and settlement. No insurance company in its right mind would allow their insurees to decide not to appeal a verdict because they're insured.
When I first read the Slashdot summary, I thought they had arrested the projectionist for using night vision goggles, and I thought, "what the hell?" Then I read the article (I know, I know), and I thought, "good, serves them right. Maybe things like this will help keep piracy in check enough to keep some of the truly unreasonable things from happening."
Note: No, I don't really think this will lead to curbing the blatant violations of our rights that are happening, but I can hope, can't I?
You know, if Fox were to bring back all the great shows they've cancelled over the years, they could singlehandedly wipe out reality TV (largely because they wouldn't have any time to show it).
You forget, though. Around here, the best solution is always the technical solution. A non-technical solution (like promoting your project to get more users) is boring. You're much better off spending forty more hours hand tuning the software to run optimally on every processor out there. /sarcasm
Sun is not always the best choice. In many (even most) situations, Windows or Linux on x86 are the best choice for a variety of reasons. However, if you think there's no legitimate market for the mid-end servers that Sun produces, then you're sorely mistaken. Windows and Linux are both decent choices for low-end servers*, and Linux clusters are increasingly becoming choices for the high-end range. When you look at the mid-end server range, though, Windows falls apart and although Linux is probably an acceptable choice, I'd say that Sun is still a very strong competitor, and probably will be for a long time to come.
Those who read the article will see that this is far from Sun getting out of the chip business and moving to Windows, but rather a retooling that will allow them to return to profitablility in the near future. Instead of the UltraSparc V, they're going to stick with modifications to the UltraSparc IV for the time being while they work on putting out their multicore followup, the Nigara. Personally, I'm glad to see this. Sun has been a stagnating company in the hardware department for a while now, and I think a good shakeup is what they need. There will always be a need for the rock-solid server market that they fill, and x86 just doesn't cut it in a lot of cases. So, don't worry, Sun isn't going anywhere, and if they did, someone else would step in to fill their place (and it wouldn't be MS &/| Intel).
A third provision to keep in mind is that damage must be shown. If I say that you had sex with a petrified Natalie Portman, while pouring hot grits down your pants in a comment on Slashdot, you would have a hard time proving libel, because no reasonable Slashdot reader is going to actually believe the statement and so no harm was done to your reputation.
Can't argue with you there. The people doing the cheating are pretty low. I personally won't take a penny in salary until any employees who work for me are fully paid (I'm a principle owner in a small business).
Yes, I get it. Life sucks. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the hard working people out there who are trying to raise kids on very little income. I'd still like to see some evidence before I'll believe that a penalty that doubles every minute is standard operating procedure. Especially since a little Internet research seemed to imply that SOP is a flat $1/minute penalty.
... and just for the record, I don't live in Silicon Valley. I live in a working class midwester city, next door to run-down, low income apartments that are home to a single mother with three kids (and a dog), an older couple, and a mentally retarded gentleman (plus a couple of empty apartments).
Well, I didn't say $1,000 was reasonable, just that it was feasible that you might get it. If you're going to bilk the poor with an unreasonable rate (which is what the parent to my post was saying happens a lot), then you might as well make it something that you might feasibly get. One thousand dollars is clearly unreasonable. However, it's a value that you might conceivably get out of someone with little education (which isn't all poor, but is many). Especially if you put them on a "payment plan", where they pay you say $50 a month. It's slimy, but you might get away with it. On the other hand, if you push your penalty into the realm of fantasy (the trillions of dollars that you could easily rack up if the rate doubled every minute), then your chances of getting anything go straight to nil. That was my entire point (which I'm sure you'll agree with).
I know there are some real bastards out there, but I'd like to see some evidence before I'll believe that standard operating procedure anywhere involves a penalty that would charge someone more than the national debt for being 45 minutes late to pick up their child. It's not like they'd actually ever get such a penalty. It would seem to me to be much better to charge a large (but feasible) hourly rate for being late (like, say $1,000 / hour). If you charge someone $1 trillion, you'll get nothing. If you charge them $1,000, you might actually get it.
Work at the rate you signed for, or leave.
They have worked at the rate they signed for. Now it's time to sign again, and they've decided they want more money. I don't want to see the Simpsons go off the air any more than you do, but they still have the right to negotiate for more money when it comes time to sign a new contract. It pisses me off when people that entertainers or athletes make so much money that they no longer have the right to bargain with their employers (who, in many cases, make a whole lot more money than the actor or athlete). Sometimes, entertainers or athletes who go on strike are being stupid, because they end up destroying their livelihood in the process of trying to get more money. In this case, though, I think the Simpsons voice actors see a show that may not last too much longer, and they're just trying to get what they can before it goes away (remember, for a lot of them, this may be the last significant job they ever have).
At least they were honest about it, instead of trying to pretend they're some random geek who stumbled onto their site.
Well, I don't know how they do solve the problem, but I know how I'd solve the problem if it were me. Don't let a single outsourcing company develop the whole program. If the game engine is designed in the U.S., and then parts of it are outsourced to different overseas companies, no company would ever have enough of the game to be able to pirate it (at least not without it being obvious who did the pirating). Then, a smaller team of American coders does the finishing work, combining the pieces into a marketable whole.
The problem is that by and large things tailored for the disabled are more expensive to design and manufacture than mass market items. There are also fewer people with disabilities than without. These two things unfortunately combine to mean that the things your girlfriend needs are going to be more expensive.
Think of it this way, if a product takes 10 developers (making $40K / year) six months to develop, then I have to make $400,000 before I can even think about making a profit. If 20,000 people want my product, that's $20 per unit minimum. Now, what if the product actually takes those developers a year to make, and there are only 2000 people who need the added features (and thus want to buy the product). By my calculations, that's $400 per unit to just break even, let alone make a profit. Although my numbers are of course scaled down, I think they illustrate the point well. I seriously doubt the manufacturers of your girlfriend's phone (or any of the other tools that help make her life easier) are making an abnormal profit just because they're marketing to the disabled.
As for the computer game, as nice as it would be for them to be able to add the features you would like, it may not be feasible. Just because the feature may seem like it would be simple, depending on the architecture of their code, it may in fact require a major overhaul. Also, what makes deafness special? Should they also add features to make the game easier to play for the blind? How about those with reduced motor skills? If they had to accomodate every need of every person who might potentially play their game, they'd probably end up bankrupt and nobody would get to play the game. I seriously doubt there is any malintent on their part. There may even be developers of the game who have deaf friends and relatives who they'd like to be able to play the game. That doesn't mean they have the resources to accomodate those desires.
Sorry if I sound a little bit ranting, but I have a small company, and we're just about to release a software product. All of us at the company would love it if that product accomodated the needs of disabled people who would like to use it. Unfortunately, it doesn't yet have those features. If we waited until we could implement them, the company would almost certainly not survive.
It's a lot like the gun and candy etc. that you see in the check out lines at grocery stores
Well, that's what you get for doing your grocery shopping at the WalMart near Charlton Heston's house ;-)
It seems to me that it's not at all clear who the "good guy" in this whole thing is. In fact, I really don't think there is a "good guy". Neither is there a "bad guy". Both companies deserve to make a profit, and I would not be at all surprised to find out that $0.06 per customer makes a big difference in the profit margins of both companies. What seems to be happening is that neither one of the companies wants to cut into their margins, and they're both willing to risk a little bad press and the possible loss of some customers to protect it. There's nothing evil (or heroic) about that, though. It's just business.
... and since I'm a DirecTV subscriber, I can sit back and enjoy the fireworks without being personally affected. :-)
Here! Here!
I've only got a 15" (and 5.6 lb) version, but it is by far the best laptop I've ever used.
Of course, their web page is probably handled by a web hosting company, a large percentage of which use Linux. This doesn't mean that Jessie James has ever even heard of Linux.
The Lowes by me isn't running CDE anymore. Last time I was in there, they had GNOME, running Gnome-Terminal and Mozilla.
Umm... last time I checked Linux was able to run on computers that were ten years old. The whole point of the suit seems to be that AutoZone replaced the OS on their computers with Linux, but has to be using SCO proprietary libraries placed into Linux by IBM, because all of their old software that they used to run on SCO still works.
Disclaimer: Don't flame me. I don't actually believe that Linux contains SCO proprietary libraries. I'm just saying what I think SCO is trying to claim.