If I make an exact copy of my new pair of Levi's jeans and give it, for free, to a friend, neighbor, or random guy in China, am I still stealing? Trademark infringement, maybe, but theft? Doubtful.
While I do believe that it is immoral and illegal to download movies/music, etc. without having paid for it, either through a commercial service, or having bought the product previously, let's not apply terminology that doesn't fit. And theft and piracy just don't fit.
They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.
Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks.
The reason so many employers require a bachelors degree now has little to do with what they feel is the required education so much as it is a way to limit the applicant pool. When you have thousands of applications piling in for your position, it can become extremely difficult to find the best candidates. When you only have a hundred or so applications coming in, you may miss out on the best candidate, but you can more easily pick out good ones.
Also, when it comes to two people who have very little separating them in terms of skill and ability, at least a bachelors degree shows that the applicant has put forth an effort to improve his lot in life. Yes, there are many factors that go into improving yourself and having a degree isn't the only one, but it is easily identifiable in the 8 seconds that HR people take to look at a resume.
PS. Don't be afraid to put in your resume for a position you feel that you can perform even if you don't meet the listed requirements. Better yet, go in and see if you can talk directly to a hiring manager for such positions. Because they know that the qualifications requirements are overstated, they are often willing to, at the very least, look at candidates who don't meet those requirements, so long as they show the initiative to apply.
Software piracy rate is calculated by taking the total "value" of pirated software(a) and dividing it by the total "value" of all software that makes its way onto the market(a+b). Hence, for every $175 in software value that makes its way onto the market(a+b), $100 is paid for(b), and $75 is pirated(a). Whether or not you agree with this metric is another story entirely, but the math works.
There are certainly some instances of that, but there are also instances of people running pirated versions of Windows instead of paid versions. I had a tech friend put together a PC for me and he had said the version of Windows I had was legit even though I didn't have to pay for it -- obviously this wasn't the case. If it hadn't been for his pirated copy, I would have certainly purchased a copy of Windows.
Interesting.. According to Bing it's 2.9433732 x 10^9 Parsecs. I wonder what the cause for the variance is.
Here's a quick rundown of various sites that I would use for reference. Google: 1 light years = 0.30659458 Parsecs Bing: 1 Light year = 0.30660137 Parsecs Wikipedia: 1 parsec = 3.26156 light years
1 light year =.306601 parsecs Wolfram Alpha: 1 light year =.306601393805 parsecs
Since Bing uses Wolfram Alpha, I figured they'd match up, but I checked anyway. Interestingly not even those two match after 8 digits.
At least you get to listen to good music (or good talk radio) while you work. Unlike my terribly boring job stocking shelves in a store that did $12K a day in sales while being forced to listen to the same 50 songs from the 1980's over and over again.
Often times, at least in my home state, speed traps are set up in tourist-type areas. One of the major thoroughfares from Northeastern Wisconsin to Southwestern Wisconsin goes through the city of Rosendale. The town has artificially low speed limits that drop very quickly from highway speeds. Unsuspecting out-of-towners mapquesting their way through the city get royally screwed quite regularly - the town issued more speeding tickets in 2007 than its own population. Of course, the city has garnered a reputation for being a speed trap, to the point that you can buy t-shirts that read "Rosendale - Just the Ticket," but it still manages to wrangle unsuspecting motorists at a ridiculous rate.
The correct answer: the guy going 45 when a deer jumps out of the woods and bounds across the road. Or, the guy going 45 because both the 60 mph guy and the 75 mph guy are travelling faster than the "safe" speed for the highway, which we can estimate because speed limits are generally set at 85-90% of the safe speed for that road. But whatever.
There have been studies showing that increasing the speed limit on many highways has reduced traffic accidents. Generally, what they find is that raising the speed limits brought slower drivers up to the speeds that the speeders were already driving. The reduction of variance in speed is what reduced accidents.
What's the solution? Get everyone to drive the same speed. What is the simplest way to do this? Enact and enforce sane traffic laws. If the laws are stupid, people will respond to them in kind, if enforcement wanes, nobody will pay attention to the law.
To me, the best deterrent to speeding would be a huge unmistakable sign that reads "There will be x speed cameras randomly placed over the next y miles. The speed limit is Z. All speeders will be ticketed." That way everyone knows what to expect and everyone follows the law.
The biggest problem with many traffic laws right now is exactly what everyone has been stating: they are in place to make money. There is no deterrent from speeding if you don't know what the proper speed is or you don't know that you've been caught, but there's plenty of profit.
the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens.
[Citation Needed]
From what I found, the majority of inmates in Arizona (90%), are not illegal immigrants. Nationwide, the number is closer to 95% non-illegals. Obviously the number of crimes committed does not necessarily equate to prison terms: aliens may be deported instead of put in prison, just by being here they are technically committing a crime, and its been shown that there is a strong correlation between wealth and being found "not guilty," but it definitely disputes your claim.
Now, there were plenty of "statistics" out there that were quite.. interesting. Most of them probably not worth the paper they were printed on. The information I'm listing is the least obviously biased study I could find from a quick search on Bing, although it still comes from an anti-immigration group.
It's almost like I am buying a turd under the pretense that someone else will be stupid enough to come along and buy that turd for more money.
This would make you a day trader.
Institutional investors, on the other hand, value stocks based on past performance and future expectations. For stocks with no dividends, they tend to evaluate the company as a whole and its projected growth and determine that value, then drill it down to what they think they should pay for ownership on a per share basis. As the company grows and increases profits, it becomes more valuable even if it isn't yet paying a dividend.
Generally stocks that don't pay dividends are expected to re-invest that money back into the company in order to grow. The thought is that the investment back into the company is worth more in future dividends and stock value than the current dividends would be worth. Investors want to buy in now so that they can be there when the company reaches a point where its rate of growth slows and it does decide to pay the dividend.
Now, this is the way that a sane market should work, there are a whole lot of other things that affect share prices that are less rational.
Re:It's called "PERSONAL PROPERTY," Apple!
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Completely false analogy. The correct analogy would be if Linus Torvalds (or someone from Red Hat or Ubuntu) went out of his way to stop Microsoft from developing Word for your Linux distro. Or suing Microsoft for not letting you create and distribute a program for Windows.
I seriously doubt you have to worry about either happening.
This is far from something that only Apple participates in. I work for an internet/catalog retail company and we often have to deal with vendors (especially our high-end apparel vendors) placing these sorts of restrictions. Several vendors have very strict requirements on how their products must be displayed in order to be allowed to sell their merchandise online.
One company would only allow us to sell their products in our catalog for several years before finally "loosening" their standards. Now we, along with the vendor and only one other company, can sell that vendor's product online.
Sure, we could violate their rules and they would have little legal recourse, but then we would no longer be doing business with them.
The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it.
To be fair, there have been a certain number of people who have tried Bing just to say they've tried it and and wouldn't have been happy regardless of the results because (a)it's not Google and (b)it is Microsoft.
I like Bing. I like opening up Firefox to find a new beautiful piece of photography. I like how it strikes a great balance between the clean, almost sterile, look of Google and the cluttered mess of Yahoo in its presentation. I like their image and video browsing better than Google. I like how it will solve many math problems that you put into it. Overall, I feel that it has much better functionality and is presented far better than Google.
The problem that Bing is having right now is that, from time to time, it can't understand my search queries. On occasion, I have to turn to Google because the results that I'm getting from Bing just aren't satisfactory. Now, this is not to say that Google always gives me what I want, however 9 times out of 10, it does. This may have several reasons - I basically grew up with Google; I was a relatively early adopter, and so my search terms have a long history of being tweaked to work with Google. Also, I'm getting a larger sample size - the odds of an obscure search term or phrase working on at least one of the two are a fair bit better than working on only one. Finally, Bing is still quite young. Although I'm sure it has pulled some data from the Windows Live Search, it probably has next to nothing compared to what Google has accumulated. This would allow Google to have tightened up their algorithm quite a bit.
I still use Bing, though, because I feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
The difference is the matter of resources. The CoS had far more resources than the individuals it harassed with lawsuits. The fact that this is an individual filing a lawsuit against an organization makes it harder to make that comparison.
If it were real, Apple could not only force Gizmodo to take down any mention of it, they could even get them arrested for possession of stolen property.
Nah. The cat's out of the bag, they know they can't shove it back in now, so they have to roll with it. It would only be bad press if they tried to get the info taken down or have anyone arrested, plus, everyone who wants the information already has it, so taking it down would accomplish nothing.
NPR had reported that according to "industry insiders" this was completely accidental. Apple doesn't need to pull a stunt like this to energize their fan base, and I doubt this will pull anyone new over to Apple's camp. What this does, however, is give Apple's competition a leg up on where they are heading with their next-gen device. Basically they had little gain and much to lose.
The other rounding issue that I've noticed is that.66 isn't even the right 2 decimal approximation of 2/3. It should be.67. That would make the required number of votes 138.02.
Overall, this is just a bunch of idiots who are definitely NOT smarter than a fifth grader. Quick. Call Jeff Foxworthy.
Although they aren't benefiting from porn on the iPhone directly, I'd be curious to see whether or not there is an indirect bump. That is, if they cut out the ability to view most porn sites through Safari Mobile, would the iPhone still be as popular?
Being from Wisconsin, I can tell you that they definitely find the time to screw things up. This is just a diversion. But really it is a diversion that gets attention for one of our state's largest industries. You're reading about Wisconsin cheese right now, and that's kind of the point. Free publicity.
We actually take a lot of pride in the state in our dairy industry, and many of artisan cheesemakers in the state win awards and prizes at a national and even international level every year. We still proclaim ourselves "The Dairy State" on our license plates, even though California* has surpassed us in total production. Milk is very much a part of our culture.
Slashdot Mirror
If I make an exact copy of my new pair of Levi's jeans and give it, for free, to a friend, neighbor, or random guy in China, am I still stealing? Trademark infringement, maybe, but theft? Doubtful.
While I do believe that it is immoral and illegal to download movies/music, etc. without having paid for it, either through a commercial service, or having bought the product previously, let's not apply terminology that doesn't fit. And theft and piracy just don't fit.
They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.
Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks.
Hunting and skinning for extra cash is kinda fun
Did you waste all your ammo and then find out that you couldn't carry everything back? I know that was one of my favorite things to do..
all NFL games for your local team are on free tv
FTFY
Yeah, me too. Although it took me several days to figure out that I could do that. I was already level 6 and starting to push towards Crossroads.
The reason so many employers require a bachelors degree now has little to do with what they feel is the required education so much as it is a way to limit the applicant pool. When you have thousands of applications piling in for your position, it can become extremely difficult to find the best candidates. When you only have a hundred or so applications coming in, you may miss out on the best candidate, but you can more easily pick out good ones.
Also, when it comes to two people who have very little separating them in terms of skill and ability, at least a bachelors degree shows that the applicant has put forth an effort to improve his lot in life. Yes, there are many factors that go into improving yourself and having a degree isn't the only one, but it is easily identifiable in the 8 seconds that HR people take to look at a resume.
PS. Don't be afraid to put in your resume for a position you feel that you can perform even if you don't meet the listed requirements. Better yet, go in and see if you can talk directly to a hiring manager for such positions. Because they know that the qualifications requirements are overstated, they are often willing to, at the very least, look at candidates who don't meet those requirements, so long as they show the initiative to apply.
Software piracy rate is calculated by taking the total "value" of pirated software(a) and dividing it by the total "value" of all software that makes its way onto the market(a+b). Hence, for every $175 in software value that makes its way onto the market(a+b), $100 is paid for(b), and $75 is pirated(a). Whether or not you agree with this metric is another story entirely, but the math works.
Rate = a/(a+b) = $75/$175 = 43%(or close enough)
There are certainly some instances of that, but there are also instances of people running pirated versions of Windows instead of paid versions. I had a tech friend put together a PC for me and he had said the version of Windows I had was legit even though I didn't have to pay for it -- obviously this wasn't the case. If it hadn't been for his pirated copy, I would have certainly purchased a copy of Windows.
Interesting.. According to Bing it's 2.9433732 x 10^9 Parsecs. I wonder what the cause for the variance is.
Here's a quick rundown of various sites that I would use for reference. .306601 parsecs .306601393805 parsecs
Google: 1 light years = 0.30659458 Parsecs
Bing: 1 Light year = 0.30660137 Parsecs
Wikipedia: 1 parsec = 3.26156 light years
1 light year =
Wolfram Alpha: 1 light year =
Since Bing uses Wolfram Alpha, I figured they'd match up, but I checked anyway. Interestingly not even those two match after 8 digits.
At least you get to listen to good music (or good talk radio) while you work. Unlike my terribly boring job stocking shelves in a store that did $12K a day in sales while being forced to listen to the same 50 songs from the 1980's over and over again.
Often times, at least in my home state, speed traps are set up in tourist-type areas. One of the major thoroughfares from Northeastern Wisconsin to Southwestern Wisconsin goes through the city of Rosendale. The town has artificially low speed limits that drop very quickly from highway speeds. Unsuspecting out-of-towners mapquesting their way through the city get royally screwed quite regularly - the town issued more speeding tickets in 2007 than its own population. Of course, the city has garnered a reputation for being a speed trap, to the point that you can buy t-shirts that read "Rosendale - Just the Ticket," but it still manages to wrangle unsuspecting motorists at a ridiculous rate.
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/jeffwagner/45156357.html
The correct answer: the guy going 45 when a deer jumps out of the woods and bounds across the road. Or, the guy going 45 because both the 60 mph guy and the 75 mph guy are travelling faster than the "safe" speed for the highway, which we can estimate because speed limits are generally set at 85-90% of the safe speed for that road. But whatever.
There have been studies showing that increasing the speed limit on many highways has reduced traffic accidents. Generally, what they find is that raising the speed limits brought slower drivers up to the speeds that the speeders were already driving. The reduction of variance in speed is what reduced accidents.
What's the solution? Get everyone to drive the same speed. What is the simplest way to do this? Enact and enforce sane traffic laws. If the laws are stupid, people will respond to them in kind, if enforcement wanes, nobody will pay attention to the law.
To me, the best deterrent to speeding would be a huge unmistakable sign that reads "There will be x speed cameras randomly placed over the next y miles. The speed limit is Z. All speeders will be ticketed." That way everyone knows what to expect and everyone follows the law.
The biggest problem with many traffic laws right now is exactly what everyone has been stating: they are in place to make money. There is no deterrent from speeding if you don't know what the proper speed is or you don't know that you've been caught, but there's plenty of profit.
the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens.
[Citation Needed]
From what I found, the majority of inmates in Arizona (90%), are not illegal immigrants. Nationwide, the number is closer to 95% non-illegals. Obviously the number of crimes committed does not necessarily equate to prison terms: aliens may be deported instead of put in prison, just by being here they are technically committing a crime, and its been shown that there is a strong correlation between wealth and being found "not guilty," but it definitely disputes your claim.
Now, there were plenty of "statistics" out there that were quite.. interesting. Most of them probably not worth the paper they were printed on. The information I'm listing is the least obviously biased study I could find from a quick search on Bing, although it still comes from an anti-immigration group.
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/crimestudy.pdf?docID=2321
Because, of course, you can't stop sooner at a lower speed or have more time to make an adjustment when going slower.
It's almost like I am buying a turd under the pretense that someone else will be stupid enough to come along and buy that turd for more money.
This would make you a day trader.
Institutional investors, on the other hand, value stocks based on past performance and future expectations. For stocks with no dividends, they tend to evaluate the company as a whole and its projected growth and determine that value, then drill it down to what they think they should pay for ownership on a per share basis. As the company grows and increases profits, it becomes more valuable even if it isn't yet paying a dividend.
Generally stocks that don't pay dividends are expected to re-invest that money back into the company in order to grow. The thought is that the investment back into the company is worth more in future dividends and stock value than the current dividends would be worth. Investors want to buy in now so that they can be there when the company reaches a point where its rate of growth slows and it does decide to pay the dividend.
Now, this is the way that a sane market should work, there are a whole lot of other things that affect share prices that are less rational.
Completely false analogy. The correct analogy would be if Linus Torvalds (or someone from Red Hat or Ubuntu) went out of his way to stop Microsoft from developing Word for your Linux distro. Or suing Microsoft for not letting you create and distribute a program for Windows.
I seriously doubt you have to worry about either happening.
Correction. This is hardware and software that Apple created. It may be a small distinction, but it is an important one, nonetheless.
Ahh, I see we have a science fiction writer in our midst.
This is far from something that only Apple participates in. I work for an internet/catalog retail company and we often have to deal with vendors (especially our high-end apparel vendors) placing these sorts of restrictions. Several vendors have very strict requirements on how their products must be displayed in order to be allowed to sell their merchandise online.
One company would only allow us to sell their products in our catalog for several years before finally "loosening" their standards. Now we, along with the vendor and only one other company, can sell that vendor's product online.
Sure, we could violate their rules and they would have little legal recourse, but then we would no longer be doing business with them.
The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it.
To be fair, there have been a certain number of people who have tried Bing just to say they've tried it and and wouldn't have been happy regardless of the results because (a)it's not Google and (b)it is Microsoft.
I like Bing. I like opening up Firefox to find a new beautiful piece of photography. I like how it strikes a great balance between the clean, almost sterile, look of Google and the cluttered mess of Yahoo in its presentation. I like their image and video browsing better than Google. I like how it will solve many math problems that you put into it. Overall, I feel that it has much better functionality and is presented far better than Google.
The problem that Bing is having right now is that, from time to time, it can't understand my search queries. On occasion, I have to turn to Google because the results that I'm getting from Bing just aren't satisfactory. Now, this is not to say that Google always gives me what I want, however 9 times out of 10, it does. This may have several reasons - I basically grew up with Google; I was a relatively early adopter, and so my search terms have a long history of being tweaked to work with Google. Also, I'm getting a larger sample size - the odds of an obscure search term or phrase working on at least one of the two are a fair bit better than working on only one. Finally, Bing is still quite young. Although I'm sure it has pulled some data from the Windows Live Search, it probably has next to nothing compared to what Google has accumulated. This would allow Google to have tightened up their algorithm quite a bit.
I still use Bing, though, because I feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
http://xkcd.com/720/
The difference is the matter of resources. The CoS had far more resources than the individuals it harassed with lawsuits. The fact that this is an individual filing a lawsuit against an organization makes it harder to make that comparison.
If it were real, Apple could not only force Gizmodo to take down any mention of it, they could even get them arrested for possession of stolen property.
Nah. The cat's out of the bag, they know they can't shove it back in now, so they have to roll with it. It would only be bad press if they tried to get the info taken down or have anyone arrested, plus, everyone who wants the information already has it, so taking it down would accomplish nothing.
NPR had reported that according to "industry insiders" this was completely accidental. Apple doesn't need to pull a stunt like this to energize their fan base, and I doubt this will pull anyone new over to Apple's camp. What this does, however, is give Apple's competition a leg up on where they are heading with their next-gen device. Basically they had little gain and much to lose.
The other rounding issue that I've noticed is that .66 isn't even the right 2 decimal approximation of 2/3. It should be .67. That would make the required number of votes 138.02.
Overall, this is just a bunch of idiots who are definitely NOT smarter than a fifth grader. Quick. Call Jeff Foxworthy.
Although they aren't benefiting from porn on the iPhone directly, I'd be curious to see whether or not there is an indirect bump. That is, if they cut out the ability to view most porn sites through Safari Mobile, would the iPhone still be as popular?
Being from Wisconsin, I can tell you that they definitely find the time to screw things up. This is just a diversion. But really it is a diversion that gets attention for one of our state's largest industries. You're reading about Wisconsin cheese right now, and that's kind of the point. Free publicity.
We actually take a lot of pride in the state in our dairy industry, and many of artisan cheesemakers in the state win awards and prizes at a national and even international level every year. We still proclaim ourselves "The Dairy State" on our license plates, even though California* has surpassed us in total production. Milk is very much a part of our culture.