you don't believe that any harm done by monopolies would outweigh the harm done by regulating them.
Ok, I believe that monopolies exist. I believe that they are not integrily harmful. However, their monpoly power can be abused. I believe that the abuse of a monopoly should be severely penalized.
I have no evidence of Clear Channel abusing any monopoly power they may have. Until they do, I prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty. I just believe that an ounce of prevention is morally wrong unless there is certain cause that a crime is going to be committed.
You would be wrong on any of those counts. Just go back and look at the events which led to the passing of the Sherman Anti-Trust bill
Yes, the Sherman Anti-Trust bill might be nice, but the Microsoft trial is more recent precedent. If Microsoft can't actually be convicted for abusing a monopoly, I doubt Clear Channel can be convicted for having the ability to abuse a monopoly power.
How can we, as capitalists ever support action by the government to prevent companies who have not broken the law from running their business the way they want.
I believe the last number I heard was that Clear Channel own 1400 stations. If they want to own 3000 stations, and can do it and be profitable, then why should they be stopped?
I guess I don't understand how we can logically prevent companies in a capitalistic economic system from doing anything they want to be successful, provided it doesn't break the law. And I'm not talking about a law limiting the number of media outlets either, I think that is dumb.
How many people do you suppose there are in an average large U.S. city wearing the same brand/model of 4-6 items of clothing? A lot fewer that we might think, I suspect. Probably few enough that it would be trivial to track all such individuals if necessary.
Are the police trying to find you right now? Probably not. I know that they are not trying to find me. If you don't break the law, you don't have to live in fear of the law.
Even though I am not sure that RFID tags will allow the police the locate suspects, I would do anything to have the ability to do that. What if your little girl was abducted, and they knew what the suspect was wearing at the time. You have a choice, never see your girl again, or use the RFID tags to locate the guy. For me, it is not a choice, I'm finding the guy.
It even has non-criminal benefits. Say your little girl gets lost. You can organise a manhunt which may last days, and try to find her. Or, you can try to locate her using the RFID tags. Again, for me it is not a choice, I'm using the RFID tags.
However, saying that, I don't really believe that RFID tags will have those capabilities, it just won't be technically possible. No one yet has shown me technically that these tags are capable for anything more then inventory control, even though I've asked many times. But if they have a potential in law enforcement, I am all over it.
Lets say I go to Sears and look at fridges three or four times because I might need a new one. Sears will know it and start sending me fridge adds.
And that is a problem how? If I was looking for a fridge, I would consider it a benefit to receive promotional materials possibly discounts from interested retailers.
I love lobbies like these. I'm going to lobby to get products clearly labeled that have a barcode stuck to them. I think that's important, you know. You just can't forgot about the thousands of people a day who purchase things not understand the purpose of a barcode.
Ok, so I'm confused. Why is this important? Why does it matter if a retailer has a little RFID tag instead of a big, ugly looking barcode? Transactions still take place as usual, don't they? I give the merchant money, they give me product. Does it really matter what the means is by which they determine how much money I give them in exchange for their product?
It seems like such a non-issue to me. Someone please tell me what the big deal is.
Combined with people who paid for Jaguar, that brings the OS update cost to ~300dollars US??
How far back should we go comparitively with Windows? You don't get new versions of Windows for free? Why should Apple give you new versions of OS X for free? Don't you think it is right that Apple expects a fair price for their product?
I said: "These systems (Rendezvous, UPnP, etc.) seem to neglect one issue that's important to me personally.".
But that doesn't make sense. If it is just important to you personally, then why bother being interested in it. Just never use it. You seem to think it problematic, but that "problem" would affect everyone.
If I plug something in to my network, I want to know exactly what it's doing and what it's not.
You seem to think that everyone wants, or should want, what, and only what you want. It's not true, people have diverse needs.
If you want your devices to just sit there dumbly, that's fine, turn uPnP off. But for the rest of us, it makes administration easy when things "just work."
If accounting needs a new printer, it is nice for me if I don't need to touch all 60 computers in accounting when I plug the printer in. It should just show up on all the computers. What's more, it should be the default printer if that's what I want.
I do ? I was going to switch from AT&T and go with Verizon for better coverage on the NorthWest and SouthWest US
Switch.
If the have better coverage, then they have better coverage. You pay them, they give you a service. As long as you are happy with that relationship, everything should be fine.
Ok, you might not agree with *all* of their business decisions. That's fine. I don't agree with all the business decisions that companies make that I do business with. And perhaps sometimes you should base your decisions on their business decisions. But for me, this is not one of those times.
Capitalism for me is me exchanging money for an equivalent or acceptable product of service. As long as that happens, I am happy, regardless of what other decisions that company makes.
BTW, I have used Verizon for a year and a half now.
How do I make sense of Window Maker's version number scheme?
Aha! I see. It is Window Maker's versioning scheme that Apple *must* follow. This is, of course, according to your reasoning because Apple based OS X on FreeBSD. FreeBSD definitely carries with it a moral obligation to use Window Maker's versioning scheme. Therefore, for Apple to make up their own versioning scheme is near sacrilege.
If 10.1.5 to 10.2 was such a major jump, it would have garnered more than a minor revision number. Minor revision numbers amount to service packs when translating Unix style to Windows style.
I think I just split a gut laughing. Did Apple run their versioning scheme past you first for your approval? Just in case you don't understand Apple's OS X versioning scheme, it is really quite simple. The 'X' in OS X is the roman numeral '10', as in 10.a.b. The 'a' is the major revision number, as in 10.1.b -> 10.2.b. That is like going from Windows 2000 to Windows 2003 in MS-speak. The 'b' is, not surprising, the patch level version number. This corresponds to a service pack in MS-speak.
But like you said, you are an authority on versioning schemes. I'm sure that next time Steve needs a new versioning scheme he'll run it by you first to make sure that it is approved.
10.1.5 to 10.2 upgrade free? No, it was $129. 10.2 was a service pack in my opinion...
From what I can tell there are more changes in 10.1.5 to 10.2 then there are between Windows 2000, and Windows 2003, yet that hasn't stopped Microsoft from charging for their service pack. Really, I mentioned before, I have an iMac. It is running 10.2. I know what the differences are, and the are more then a service pack.
It could work to criminalize doing something legal with illegal intent, but it's a dangerous road to go down.
I think that criminal intent chould be criminalized.
This story is about unauthorized access. I think that defining unauthorized access is easy. It is an access that the owner would not give explicit permission for. If I have a house and leave all the doors open, it should be obvious that that is private property, and I don't expect anyone to welcome themselves inside. However, if I have a retail store I expect people to come in. The same should apply to cyberspace. It is unauthorized if it is not obvious that the unwashed masses are expected in.
One of the most foolish things I've ever heard is that someone who uses an exploit to get around a login banner that says "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS PROHIBITED", is found not guilty of unauthorized access because he didn't see the banner.
I was involved in a federal case where the defendant was accused of unauthorized access because he used EXPN and VRFY to determine a range of email addresses to mailbomb. I thought it was bullshit,...
Wait, you think that it is acceptable to mailbomb?
There's an application called "Terminal" that, when launched, gives you a standard tcsh command line.
I think my Terminal application is lost. I "moved" it from the Applications folder to the taskbar so that it would be easier to access, then it got in the way, so I moved it to the trash. However, I didn't realise that it was the real application, and not a link, so now that I've emptied the trash, I don't have a terminal anymore:( I've searched apple.com and the CD's for it, but can't find it anywhere. Is there a way to get my Terminal back apart from reinstalling OS X completely?
-Brent
Re:MythTV...
on
TiVo Basic
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
A stripped down Tivo without season passes removes almost all of the usefulness of the device. MythTV has the same functionality, but it doesn't cost you anything but the hardware.
Wait a minute! Doesn't a stripped-down Tivo only cost the cost of the hardware too? Because if I read the article correctly, the basic service is free. And MythTV has the same function then, as you mentioned.
So, MythTV = cost of hardware. Tivo = Cost of hardware. But Tivo means I go to Best Buy, use my Best Buy card and plug it in. MythTV means that I piece together a PC, install MythTV, get it working and then plug it in. So I'm still way ahead with Tivo.
-Brent
I'm always skeptical when someone tries to sell...
on
What's Microsoft Up To?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft pays for a test that shows that Windows 2003 is twice as fast. That's nice. But not very productive.
I see nothing in the report that they had a Red Hat guru optimize the Red Hat server. It is easy to get the results you want. If I don't see proof that Red Hat was configured by a Red Hat guru, as I am sure that Windows 2003 was optimized by a Microsoft guru, then the tests are bunk.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I believe that monopolies exist. I believe that they are not integrily harmful. However, their monpoly power can be abused. I believe that the abuse of a monopoly should be severely penalized.
I have no evidence of Clear Channel abusing any monopoly power they may have. Until they do, I prefer to believe in innocent until proven guilty. I just believe that an ounce of prevention is morally wrong unless there is certain cause that a crime is going to be committed.
You would be wrong on any of those counts. Just go back and look at the events which led to the passing of the Sherman Anti-Trust billYes, the Sherman Anti-Trust bill might be nice, but the Microsoft trial is more recent precedent. If Microsoft can't actually be convicted for abusing a monopoly, I doubt Clear Channel can be convicted for having the ability to abuse a monopoly power.
-BrentHow can we, as capitalists ever support action by the government to prevent companies who have not broken the law from running their business the way they want.
I believe the last number I heard was that Clear Channel own 1400 stations. If they want to own 3000 stations, and can do it and be profitable, then why should they be stopped?
I guess I don't understand how we can logically prevent companies in a capitalistic economic system from doing anything they want to be successful, provided it doesn't break the law. And I'm not talking about a law limiting the number of media outlets either, I think that is dumb.
-Brent
Are the police trying to find you right now? Probably not. I know that they are not trying to find me. If you don't break the law, you don't have to live in fear of the law.
Even though I am not sure that RFID tags will allow the police the locate suspects, I would do anything to have the ability to do that. What if your little girl was abducted, and they knew what the suspect was wearing at the time. You have a choice, never see your girl again, or use the RFID tags to locate the guy. For me, it is not a choice, I'm finding the guy.
It even has non-criminal benefits. Say your little girl gets lost. You can organise a manhunt which may last days, and try to find her. Or, you can try to locate her using the RFID tags. Again, for me it is not a choice, I'm using the RFID tags.
However, saying that, I don't really believe that RFID tags will have those capabilities, it just won't be technically possible. No one yet has shown me technically that these tags are capable for anything more then inventory control, even though I've asked many times. But if they have a potential in law enforcement, I am all over it.
-BrentAnd that is a problem how? If I was looking for a fridge, I would consider it a benefit to receive promotional materials possibly discounts from interested retailers.
-BrentI love lobbies like these. I'm going to lobby to get products clearly labeled that have a barcode stuck to them. I think that's important, you know. You just can't forgot about the thousands of people a day who purchase things not understand the purpose of a barcode.
Ok, so I'm confused. Why is this important? Why does it matter if a retailer has a little RFID tag instead of a big, ugly looking barcode? Transactions still take place as usual, don't they? I give the merchant money, they give me product. Does it really matter what the means is by which they determine how much money I give them in exchange for their product?
It seems like such a non-issue to me. Someone please tell me what the big deal is.
-BrentMaybe a usage fee? It is not a late fee, because you have no deadlone to return them.
-BrentHow far back should we go comparitively with Windows? You don't get new versions of Windows for free? Why should Apple give you new versions of OS X for free? Don't you think it is right that Apple expects a fair price for their product?
-BrentBut that doesn't make sense. If it is just important to you personally, then why bother being interested in it. Just never use it. You seem to think it problematic, but that "problem" would affect everyone.
-BrentYou seem to think that everyone wants, or should want, what, and only what you want. It's not true, people have diverse needs.
If you want your devices to just sit there dumbly, that's fine, turn uPnP off. But for the rest of us, it makes administration easy when things "just work."
If accounting needs a new printer, it is nice for me if I don't need to touch all 60 computers in accounting when I plug the printer in. It should just show up on all the computers. What's more, it should be the default printer if that's what I want.
-BrentEveryone talks about consumer privacy concerns, but I don't see any.
All I see is a better way to manage inventory and sales. I consider them barcode+. If a barcode has no privacy concerns, neither does an rfid tag.
-Brent
It's not a tax, it is a *fee.* You do know what the difference is, right?
-BrentSwitch.
If the have better coverage, then they have better coverage. You pay them, they give you a service. As long as you are happy with that relationship, everything should be fine.
Ok, you might not agree with *all* of their business decisions. That's fine. I don't agree with all the business decisions that companies make that I do business with. And perhaps sometimes you should base your decisions on their business decisions. But for me, this is not one of those times.
Capitalism for me is me exchanging money for an equivalent or acceptable product of service. As long as that happens, I am happy, regardless of what other decisions that company makes.
BTW, I have used Verizon for a year and a half now.
-BrentAha! I see. It is Window Maker's versioning scheme that Apple *must* follow. This is, of course, according to your reasoning because Apple based OS X on FreeBSD. FreeBSD definitely carries with it a moral obligation to use Window Maker's versioning scheme. Therefore, for Apple to make up their own versioning scheme is near sacrilege.
How did I do? Did I sum that up pretty well?
-BrentI think I just split a gut laughing. Did Apple run their versioning scheme past you first for your approval? Just in case you don't understand Apple's OS X versioning scheme, it is really quite simple. The 'X' in OS X is the roman numeral '10', as in 10.a.b. The 'a' is the major revision number, as in 10.1.b -> 10.2.b. That is like going from Windows 2000 to Windows 2003 in MS-speak. The 'b' is, not surprising, the patch level version number. This corresponds to a service pack in MS-speak.
But like you said, you are an authority on versioning schemes. I'm sure that next time Steve needs a new versioning scheme he'll run it by you first to make sure that it is approved.
HTH
-BrentFrom what I can tell there are more changes in 10.1.5 to 10.2 then there are between Windows 2000, and Windows 2003, yet that hasn't stopped Microsoft from charging for their service pack. Really, I mentioned before, I have an iMac. It is running 10.2. I know what the differences are, and the are more then a service pack.
-BrentYou are sure about that? I've got an iMac, and an Intel box running Windows. I think I should probably know something about that.
-BrentYep, I guess that shows how well I know OS X. I guess I moved it to the desktop *and* the Dock, and then deleted it from both places eventually.
-BrentHow much does Microsoft charge for an Incremental Release? Windows 2003 just came out, time to hit the pocketbook again.
-BrentCommon sense should rule.
-BrentI think that criminal intent chould be criminalized.
This story is about unauthorized access. I think that defining unauthorized access is easy. It is an access that the owner would not give explicit permission for. If I have a house and leave all the doors open, it should be obvious that that is private property, and I don't expect anyone to welcome themselves inside. However, if I have a retail store I expect people to come in. The same should apply to cyberspace. It is unauthorized if it is not obvious that the unwashed masses are expected in.
One of the most foolish things I've ever heard is that someone who uses an exploit to get around a login banner that says "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS PROHIBITED", is found not guilty of unauthorized access because he didn't see the banner.
-BrentWait, you think that it is acceptable to mailbomb?
-BrentI think my Terminal application is lost. I "moved" it from the Applications folder to the taskbar so that it would be easier to access, then it got in the way, so I moved it to the trash. However, I didn't realise that it was the real application, and not a link, so now that I've emptied the trash, I don't have a terminal anymore :( I've searched apple.com and the CD's for it, but can't find it anywhere. Is there a way to get my Terminal back apart from reinstalling OS X completely?
-BrentWait a minute! Doesn't a stripped-down Tivo only cost the cost of the hardware too? Because if I read the article correctly, the basic service is free. And MythTV has the same function then, as you mentioned.
So, MythTV = cost of hardware. Tivo = Cost of hardware. But Tivo means I go to Best Buy, use my Best Buy card and plug it in. MythTV means that I piece together a PC, install MythTV, get it working and then plug it in. So I'm still way ahead with Tivo.
-BrentMicrosoft pays for a test that shows that Windows 2003 is twice as fast. That's nice. But not very productive.
I see nothing in the report that they had a Red Hat guru optimize the Red Hat server. It is easy to get the results you want. If I don't see proof that Red Hat was configured by a Red Hat guru, as I am sure that Windows 2003 was optimized by a Microsoft guru, then the tests are bunk.
-Brent
Since when has a monopoly been bad?
-Brent