Fuck, the internet? It's been the same song and dance since any recording device has been available. When the cassette tape recorders was released there was lawsuits claiming the same thing. They lost that but didn't die. VHS recorders released, same thing. DVD burners, computers, Napster, the internet. It's been the same song and dance because if they ever get their way, they can make more money.
I don't fear guns, I fear every self deluded moron that needs to just have a gun because they think it will protect them or needs to have just just because it is their right. Gun lovers that belong to a club and shoot at ranges or hunt are probably the safest people to be around as they respect the tool in their hands and the consequences of using it. It's people that have guns because they are scared or feel weak or just need to have one that are the problem. The US is littered with gun owners that have guns for no reason other than they have the right to have one. No respect for what they wield and that is why guns are such a problem in the states.
You can sanitize the environment all you like, but if someone wants to kill, they will.
There is a huge difference between someone killing someone they hate and someone mowing down 30 people to kill someone they hate because he has an ak-47.
Protest are meant to cause damage. They can damage a business by blocking and discouraging people from shopping there. "Don't shop at ABC, they hate this thing" They can damage a reputation or public image. "Boycot ABC, they use children to make their product and it causes cancer!"
I think your confusing a hippy love in with actual protesting.
Picture a world where Lego did not sell all of their kits and just sold plain blocks. There is only so much you can do with plain blocks and sales would slowly go down. The recession hits and that is the final straw and Lego declares bankruptcy. Slashdot readers post stories about playing with Lego as a kid but complain how Lego really hasn't innovated with the times and those old corporate fossils we doomed to fail if they couldn't adapt.
Now we swap back to our world where Lego is constantly innovating to make kits that work with 95% of existing Lego pieces, tie ins with current pop culture, even Lego video games that are actually good and we need to complain how Lego isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. Go figure.
Because no one is raising a rally to battle gravity. The government doesn't want to build a dome around the planet to prevent meteorites from hitting Earth and thus increasing gravity or prevent atmosphere from escaping thus lowering gravity. No one wants to create a gravity tax and raise the costs of goods to combat local gravity fluctuation. No one is creating more expensive utilities like water and power and sell it because it's gravity friendly.
Global warming is not simply accepted because it affects everyone now in the wallet. If there was total acceptance, we would all be buying more expensive solar power instead of coal or nuclear, we would be paying carbon taxes on every product we buy every day and companies would be trading even more carbon credits then currently available. Making ends meet is more important to the common man than relativity.
It averages out over the long run but it already doesn't matter. Pennies are already worth so little that people don't care about them now. Customers often tell cashiers to keep the 1c or 2c change or cashiers often round up to 5c instead of counting out 4 cents.
You got it completely wrong. You can't put something online for free and demand that visitors cover your costs. It's not up to the users to make sure you're profitable, you are. Sure, put up ads, have a store, donate button, something else but if you're not making enough money, then too bad. Having a website is no different than the guy standing on a street playing a guitar. People can stop an listen if they want and put a coin in the cup if they want, his only revenue source. But if someone listens to a song and then walks away without giving a thing, don't you dare say that person is stealing. Either your site works as a business or it doesn't. If is doesn't, take it down and move on to something else. People probably won't miss it. Only when really good content starts disappearing will people be willing to pay to keep it there.
There are some rights you can sign away and some you can't. Happens all the time in settlements. You can sing a paper stating that in exchange for receiving payment you waive your right to sue but you can't sign away human rights. You can sign an agreement that failure to pay back a loan in 30 days results in your becoming a slave to the other party but it's completely unenforceable.
Too many people are treating this like a business or office problem. Every suggestion to get rid of Bob, build a new system behind Bobs back or go over his head is just wrong. For a small board of not for profit members, you all need to be working together to get anything done.
Right now everyone but Bob agrees that the system needs to be updated. The system build and run by Bob is Bobs baby. Insulting the system is insulting Bob. At the same time, Bob is probably aware of what is in the system and how much work it would be to reorganize and move all the information, which might be overwhelming for Bob. When you talk to Bob about the system, you don't want to be listing every fault and everything that is doesn't do. Instead, talk to Bob about things that you and the other members would like to add to their computer systems. Features that would help improve daily business. Ask Bob for his opinion on something that he thinks might be a good solution. Ask him if Google Docs would work and if not, why not? Involve Bob in creating something new and not hot to get rid of his hard work.
Working together, design a system layout for how information should be separated and organized. How will information be accessed and by who? What security measures need to be taken and information backup. Only once the layout is designed do you start putting any information in it.
Transition slowly, start with something small and simple like meeting minuets. Start using the system and get everyone involved that needs to be so everyone knows how to access information, how to input new information and document everything so when anyone new joins, they have something to read to get caught up quickly. When people get familiar with the new system, start bringing more data over and use the new system for imputing that data as well.
The key is not to fight Bob or exclude Bob but to involve him. Offer your help with any and all parts of the project but at the same time, make sure there is something for Bob to be in charge of and responsible for. Holding his hand the whole time will be just as insulting as telling him the failures of his system.
I think that you're not considering that they don't give a shit. They have an IT staff that gets paid to take care of that stuff and if it's too much for them to handle, then they will be replaced with someone that can handle it because they won't be hiring any extra staff. Unless your suggesting that an upgrade can be paid for by laying off a few IT staff members, well go ahead and tell the IT staff that with the latest version of windows there won't be such a large support need. Oh, who is going to be setting up the new computers? Yea, lets see how well that goes over.
Actually, since you summed your profits up so nicely, he would be able to sue you for $10,000,000. 10 times the $1,000,000 you made in advertising directly related to the music you stole. The problem is the music industry and law is treating people as competing companies when they are just people with no business interest at all. The people that have downloaded and host music files by default nature of p2p file sharing are not making any money from their actions unlike the big corporation you describe. The most damage you can sum up is the $1 lost to the sale. It's not like he turned around and sold 100 copies of the song for $0.50 or for any value.
Copyright law is to allow people and companies a short term monopoly to reap the benefits of their work and prevent other people from making money with their ideas. No one else is making money from their work.
If I had millions of dollars, I would have plenty of things to spend it on, giving it away would not be on top of my list of things to do with my money.
Because there is no extra money. The 850k is just to buy the land. Well the price tag is 1.6 million with matched funds from the government. Any money raised above that goes towards building the actual museum and restoration of the property.
What exactly are you basing that on? I'm so awesome that even a computer couldn't avoid that? Computers are slow and untrustworthy so humans must be better?
I think your suffering from from the common assumption that most people have that your a better driver then you are. I'm not calling you a bad driver but I don't think your as good as you think you are.
The only fair assessment is more miles and more Google cars on the roads. The better the track record, the more confident we can be in Googles cars.
Sure there needs to be some liability with important things like guns and booze where there are huge restrictions on how they are used, but really. If you were selling computers and the customer said they wanted to get some free movies from the internet with their new computer, would you refuse to sell them a system?
When people buy stuff, what they do with it is no ones else's concern. People them selves are responsible for not breaking the law, not the store I buy stuff from.
Actually Apple has broken the law by not selling by discriminating against the customer. Apple would not have broken any law by selling to the customer regardless what she planed on doing with it. If she did sell it or give it away, she would have been in trouble with the law, not Apple. The problem is some over zealous asshole is taking a standard legal policy, thinking he's smart as a lawyer, and poorly applies it so people will be impressed at how smart he is.
What is going to happen is that the real lawyers will review the policy, change nothing about it, then send a notice to all stores that trade restrictions are NOT a reason to refuse a sale. Apple will probably apologize to the teen and possibly give her a free IPad.
Because they ruled the market first as they were the only one. When you control 100% of the market share, there is no return on improving your product because you can't capture more market share, so you focus on selling. When competition arrived with better products you can do nothing but loose market shares. Increasing sales becomes the goal to return to former glory days so product improvement still falls to the wayside. Now RIM is so far behind they are doing nothing but trying to catch up while still making no improvements or innovations of their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they pay taxes to Ireland. If they payed taxes on income they kept in the states, they would pay a hell of a lot more taxes on it.
You don't have a friggin clue to what you're talking about do you.
Fuck, the internet? It's been the same song and dance since any recording device has been available. When the cassette tape recorders was released there was lawsuits claiming the same thing. They lost that but didn't die. VHS recorders released, same thing. DVD burners, computers, Napster, the internet. It's been the same song and dance because if they ever get their way, they can make more money.
I don't fear guns, I fear every self deluded moron that needs to just have a gun because they think it will protect them or needs to have just just because it is their right. Gun lovers that belong to a club and shoot at ranges or hunt are probably the safest people to be around as they respect the tool in their hands and the consequences of using it. It's people that have guns because they are scared or feel weak or just need to have one that are the problem. The US is littered with gun owners that have guns for no reason other than they have the right to have one. No respect for what they wield and that is why guns are such a problem in the states.
You can sanitize the environment all you like, but if someone wants to kill, they will.
There is a huge difference between someone killing someone they hate and someone mowing down 30 people to kill someone they hate because he has an ak-47.
Well fuck, that cleared that up real well. Oh wait...
That is the fucking point!
Protest are meant to cause damage. They can damage a business by blocking and discouraging people from shopping there. "Don't shop at ABC, they hate this thing" They can damage a reputation or public image. "Boycot ABC, they use children to make their product and it causes cancer!"
I think your confusing a hippy love in with actual protesting.
Free culture is about thoughts and ideas, not goods and services.
Picture a world where Lego did not sell all of their kits and just sold plain blocks. There is only so much you can do with plain blocks and sales would slowly go down. The recession hits and that is the final straw and Lego declares bankruptcy. Slashdot readers post stories about playing with Lego as a kid but complain how Lego really hasn't innovated with the times and those old corporate fossils we doomed to fail if they couldn't adapt.
Now we swap back to our world where Lego is constantly innovating to make kits that work with 95% of existing Lego pieces, tie ins with current pop culture, even Lego video games that are actually good and we need to complain how Lego isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. Go figure.
Because no one is raising a rally to battle gravity. The government doesn't want to build a dome around the planet to prevent meteorites from hitting Earth and thus increasing gravity or prevent atmosphere from escaping thus lowering gravity. No one wants to create a gravity tax and raise the costs of goods to combat local gravity fluctuation. No one is creating more expensive utilities like water and power and sell it because it's gravity friendly.
Global warming is not simply accepted because it affects everyone now in the wallet. If there was total acceptance, we would all be buying more expensive solar power instead of coal or nuclear, we would be paying carbon taxes on every product we buy every day and companies would be trading even more carbon credits then currently available. Making ends meet is more important to the common man than relativity.
What, machines will magically stop accepting quarters?
It averages out over the long run but it already doesn't matter. Pennies are already worth so little that people don't care about them now. Customers often tell cashiers to keep the 1c or 2c change or cashiers often round up to 5c instead of counting out 4 cents.
You got it completely wrong. You can't put something online for free and demand that visitors cover your costs. It's not up to the users to make sure you're profitable, you are. Sure, put up ads, have a store, donate button, something else but if you're not making enough money, then too bad. Having a website is no different than the guy standing on a street playing a guitar. People can stop an listen if they want and put a coin in the cup if they want, his only revenue source. But if someone listens to a song and then walks away without giving a thing, don't you dare say that person is stealing. Either your site works as a business or it doesn't. If is doesn't, take it down and move on to something else. People probably won't miss it. Only when really good content starts disappearing will people be willing to pay to keep it there.
There are some rights you can sign away and some you can't. Happens all the time in settlements. You can sing a paper stating that in exchange for receiving payment you waive your right to sue but you can't sign away human rights. You can sign an agreement that failure to pay back a loan in 30 days results in your becoming a slave to the other party but it's completely unenforceable.
Too many people are treating this like a business or office problem. Every suggestion to get rid of Bob, build a new system behind Bobs back or go over his head is just wrong. For a small board of not for profit members, you all need to be working together to get anything done.
Right now everyone but Bob agrees that the system needs to be updated. The system build and run by Bob is Bobs baby. Insulting the system is insulting Bob. At the same time, Bob is probably aware of what is in the system and how much work it would be to reorganize and move all the information, which might be overwhelming for Bob. When you talk to Bob about the system, you don't want to be listing every fault and everything that is doesn't do. Instead, talk to Bob about things that you and the other members would like to add to their computer systems. Features that would help improve daily business. Ask Bob for his opinion on something that he thinks might be a good solution. Ask him if Google Docs would work and if not, why not? Involve Bob in creating something new and not hot to get rid of his hard work.
Working together, design a system layout for how information should be separated and organized. How will information be accessed and by who? What security measures need to be taken and information backup. Only once the layout is designed do you start putting any information in it.
Transition slowly, start with something small and simple like meeting minuets. Start using the system and get everyone involved that needs to be so everyone knows how to access information, how to input new information and document everything so when anyone new joins, they have something to read to get caught up quickly. When people get familiar with the new system, start bringing more data over and use the new system for imputing that data as well.
The key is not to fight Bob or exclude Bob but to involve him. Offer your help with any and all parts of the project but at the same time, make sure there is something for Bob to be in charge of and responsible for. Holding his hand the whole time will be just as insulting as telling him the failures of his system.
Noooooooooooo!!
I think that you're not considering that they don't give a shit. They have an IT staff that gets paid to take care of that stuff and if it's too much for them to handle, then they will be replaced with someone that can handle it because they won't be hiring any extra staff. Unless your suggesting that an upgrade can be paid for by laying off a few IT staff members, well go ahead and tell the IT staff that with the latest version of windows there won't be such a large support need. Oh, who is going to be setting up the new computers? Yea, lets see how well that goes over.
Actually, since you summed your profits up so nicely, he would be able to sue you for $10,000,000. 10 times the $1,000,000 you made in advertising directly related to the music you stole. The problem is the music industry and law is treating people as competing companies when they are just people with no business interest at all. The people that have downloaded and host music files by default nature of p2p file sharing are not making any money from their actions unlike the big corporation you describe. The most damage you can sum up is the $1 lost to the sale. It's not like he turned around and sold 100 copies of the song for $0.50 or for any value.
Copyright law is to allow people and companies a short term monopoly to reap the benefits of their work and prevent other people from making money with their ideas. No one else is making money from their work.
If I had millions of dollars, I would have plenty of things to spend it on, giving it away would not be on top of my list of things to do with my money.
Because there is no extra money. The 850k is just to buy the land. Well the price tag is 1.6 million with matched funds from the government. Any money raised above that goes towards building the actual museum and restoration of the property.
What exactly are you basing that on? I'm so awesome that even a computer couldn't avoid that? Computers are slow and untrustworthy so humans must be better?
I think your suffering from from the common assumption that most people have that your a better driver then you are. I'm not calling you a bad driver but I don't think your as good as you think you are.
The only fair assessment is more miles and more Google cars on the roads. The better the track record, the more confident we can be in Googles cars.
Sure there needs to be some liability with important things like guns and booze where there are huge restrictions on how they are used, but really. If you were selling computers and the customer said they wanted to get some free movies from the internet with their new computer, would you refuse to sell them a system? When people buy stuff, what they do with it is no ones else's concern. People them selves are responsible for not breaking the law, not the store I buy stuff from.
Actually Apple has broken the law by not selling by discriminating against the customer. Apple would not have broken any law by selling to the customer regardless what she planed on doing with it. If she did sell it or give it away, she would have been in trouble with the law, not Apple. The problem is some over zealous asshole is taking a standard legal policy, thinking he's smart as a lawyer, and poorly applies it so people will be impressed at how smart he is.
What is going to happen is that the real lawyers will review the policy, change nothing about it, then send a notice to all stores that trade restrictions are NOT a reason to refuse a sale. Apple will probably apologize to the teen and possibly give her a free IPad.
Holy fuck. Can you get any more complicated and expensive to accomplish what a folded piece of paper does?
Because they ruled the market first as they were the only one. When you control 100% of the market share, there is no return on improving your product because you can't capture more market share, so you focus on selling. When competition arrived with better products you can do nothing but loose market shares. Increasing sales becomes the goal to return to former glory days so product improvement still falls to the wayside. Now RIM is so far behind they are doing nothing but trying to catch up while still making no improvements or innovations of their own.