I guess I wasnt going contrary to your point, but pointing out they are seriously experimenting with new models that are a lot less painful for new independent designers, and honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to upgrade from any version but 5.5 right now.
Actually, they now have a $50/month subscription service that allows install on 2 computers (non-simultaeneous use).
The $600/year comes to 2-3 times as much as keeping current ($300 year for every upgrade since CS3, or about $200 year to go from 3-6), but does not have the $1800 upfront cost, meaning for new purchasers are actually ahead for about 4-6 years. An upgrade from 5 -> 6 is $725, so it's 2 years before it's more expensive to use the subscription than purchasing the upgrade (the subscription comes with cloudiness, and the full master-collection, but I'm using Design and Web Premium prices).
I the the relatively low start-up cost ($50) of the subscription, is going to seriously cut-into piracy, and make them A LOT of money.
I personally use them, but there are legitimate concerns someone could have, and not being able to opt-out is a problem IMO.
Data mining of personal communications should not be a requirement of using a University email, and because it is an intangible, it is a different cost for everyone. Google at $0 (or perhaps negative cost even) is not really the lowest bidder for a lot of people that feel the cost should be $100/year for that data. I'm curious what the value to Google is of that data (which I would measure as both the tangible ad sales, and the intangible of data they can use to improve other services.
I think you'd really need to go to 5 years to keep it at the status quo.
Though there would be a time period as people watched for free (or near free) every released movie they were interested in, leading to a temporary drop, and most likely at the expense of other entertainment additionally.
There's a good chance that actors would win if they were willing to endorse more products etc. Movies would likely be a larger part of culture, increasing the value of those that participated in them as cultural artifacts.
Yes, if the industry halting decision is made, they'll likely hear the case, but if it's not, they'll probably let the lower court's decision stick.
There is a chance they'll let the bad (as in for the economy, right or wrong) decision stick in that circuit until another case comes with an opposite ruling though.
I honestly suspect the judge will rule that APIs are not protected, and the supreme court will basically say "we're not taking this case" in which case the judges ruling will stick within his area, and give fodder for other areas. Oracle's lawyers did what good lawyers with unlimited budgets do, they fought every possible angle. I think in reserving that ruling the judge made a mistake, as he could of saved a lot of time and money by taking that issue out earlier.
I suspect the supreme court will wait for conflicting judgements on this one, especially if it's ruled not-copyrightable.
If the judge decides they are not protectable with copyright, then it will essentially be business as usual, and non-disruptive. This would mean the supreme court has little incentive to look into it unless the law begins to vary from district to district.
If on the other-hand, it is ruled that they are indeed protectable, we end up with a massive shift in the way the industry works, and therefore a desire to really flesh out exactly what it means, this makes it likely they will take the case.
Well, from the summary: "campaign based on more transparency in the political process and internet freedom" (note internet freedom is beyond copyright and P2P).
Also, legalizing pot.
I believe outside of that it is for the candidates to decide their position, but in general it leans towards social freedom, don't know so much about economic freedom.
When purchasing in Philadelphia, at a 6.5% interest rate, a house was 1280/month for 30 years, and 1550 for 15.
The ratio between the two is dependent on local taxes and interest rate (both being higher bring the ratio closer).
the 30 year was about equivalent to rent, but not going to change, mortgage interest deduction covered typical costs of ownership (plumbing supplies for work done, simple repairs and maintenance (note, repairs with a lot of sweat equity in them primarily).
If rents were to increase with inflation, in time savings would be large vs renting. though after about 20 years the interest deduction would dramatically drop off. Over-all, I'd call it a bad market to purchase in vs rent (you want a 15 year just over rental cost, or a 30 year for at least $200/month less, to stand a chance saving with a purchase in any meaningful short time-frame).
In Wilmington (DE), the money highly favors purchasing, especially with 10% down. A savings can easily be had of $400/month on a 30 year mortgage even ($90k-$130k rent regularly for 1100-1300, with 10% down and a 30 year mortgage your under $900 (insurance taxes included), and they have some simple work to be done to increase value, but are livable/rent-able legally).
The rental price vs mortgage payment ratio is not consistent area to area though, so the sense of one vs the other varies.
I would, if I planned to be immobile buy a house with a 30 year loan no question in Wilmington. Many would be profitable as rental properties on day one.
Tmobile (US) is like that. I think most US carriers have switched to that system, as they advertise unlimited/no overages.
It's crazy how much cheaper they are in general too.
I priced vs AT&T and it was $40/month less. I know the coverage is weaker, but I get voice and texts over wifi too (great when traveling internationally, for free coverage at hotel).
Not European rates, but I get unlimited voice/messages for 50, and 2 GB high-speed data for 10. For an extra $15, they'll up that to 5gb fast, and allow tethering.
People say that, but judges don't really allow that, and sometimes they allow very few (or none) to be kicked off without cause (though generally it's a couple each side, out of a pool of 100).
They real skew is that for trials over 3 weeks, judges allow pretty much anyone not employed by the government, or a large company to say, can't do it. You end up with mostly unemployed people, and retirees. With the economic condition as it is though, there tends to be some engineers in the pool even after the hardship dismissals. Often times the judge will ask the lawyers to use their freebies to get the hardships dismissed.
Judges do not like to dismiss educated people, and usually trust them when they say they can be unbiased (to the dismay of lawyers).
Yes, it will benefit communities that don't put ass hats like that into power. Natural selection can occur at that level as we are social creatures (thus models show "publishers" being beneficial to a system while detrimental to themselves surviving at a certain rate, benefiting the community. It makes sense for a community to tolerate the punishers, but a community of publishers collapses. The selective process trends toward the correct balance. too many complete morons in charge of raising your young will have a negative influence for that communities success, communities that let it happen will shrink.
And the patent in questions was the IDEA of altering the shape of wings, as well as coordinating a rudder with that alteration (separate ideas).
I do think the US golden age is coming to an end, and the far east is gearing up for the start of a new one (I don't think the first will be that bad, and I think the coming eastern golden age is good).
Don't worry. We're subsidizibf your lifestyle too. With our purely private healthcare (higher rates for drugs paying much of the research) and defense (all our soldiers everywhere).
I thought median was a good defensible choice, no-matter what one makes (doesn't mean it's agreeable, just understandable).
But the ideal point on where will vary from person to person, not just on what people earn (self interest bias), but also on what people believe to be lower middle class lifestyle, and what is being provided for the money.
If healthcare (a regressive cost, $7k per person/ per year) were provided by government, then the income that starts getting taxed higher would be at a lower number, as it is greatly reducing a cost for people in the lower middle class bracket.
In a highly socialist system (with some capitalism), I would think a flat tax is fair, as if all basic needs are met, all income is disposable. At that point a progressive tax would have the sole purpose of wealth redistribution (which I am not trying to take a stance on).
I really like the idea of a simplified tax code, and think a flat tax with cost of living deduction is the way to go (or perhaps a cost of living refundable credit, allowing those at the very bottom to get a little extra). This is not because I believe in wealth redistribution, but because I believe that it's the disposable income that should be taxed, and it should be done so generally at a flat rate.
If I wanted wealth redistribution, I'd advocate a tax on wealth (not income).
The poor are paying into the system by working for so little, that's a big plus to society too.
There is an issue too with what should be universally accessible. If one argues healthcare (as many do), as long as that is not included, it requires a progressive tax, as spending is essentially regressive as a % of income.
Similarly the same argument could be made for roads, and was essentially one, with toll roads being fee are far between compared to times of old (I drive on 2 former turnpikes in my 9 mile commute).
One could go extreme and argue everyone should have a car (chicken in every pot, car in every garage), if you assume that this should be true, you are either going to need to provide it via government, or have a progressive tax, so that more people can afford them.
Is personally see nothing wrong, or unethical about saying the cash strapped (even for very high definitions of cash strapped) pay a lower percentage of income, they can't afford higher, and that lower tax buys them more improvement in quality of life.
Something like a flat 20% (no deductions) on all income over median sounds reasonable to me, would probably grow revenue, or be neutral.
Note: I don't think everyone deserves a car, but that argument has been made, my point is simply that many things people are expected to have access to in a modern society (and those expectations can vary person to person) are things we are expected to earn for ourselves. Hitting the base leaves a lot less disposable income at the low end, the point of a progressive tax is to tax disposable income higher than the rest.
The value of anything is what you can do with it, or what you can get with it.
Gold, generally holding most if it's value in what you can get with it, has a greatly fluctuating value. Perceived value of a good (by others) is real value to me.
I tried to specifically leave price (with currency) out of it.
link 1 harps on and on about ASLR while basically saying they've caught up now, disk encryption (on Windows), and Sanboxing in browser, without saying it's better than MSIE. Essentially, the article lists ways it's better than previous versions of OSX, and concludes it's Windows 7 Plus Plus
link 2 once again mentions browser sandboxing and ASLR, also says Windows 7 relies on 3rd party software (which having good 3rd party software available for is a bonus I guess). At least they make a point though
link 3 slide 4 says "Of course, part of that is due to the fact that more malware is created for Windows 7. But that doesn’t matter. If the security of each platform is taken into account, Lion must get the nod." with no real explanation
Link 4 says the same stuff.
All of these links lead me to believe that as far as engineering goes, they are now equivalent, rather than Windows being ahead. I'll give a nod to really liking the Windows 7 UAC slider bar where I can set how it behaves (I prefer system access, no screen dimming, but pop-up present).
Man, I remember in the late 90's my real computer had a hardware failure, and I went back to my old (486 66 I think) computer, and used DOS, with a slew of TSR programs, I was thrilled by a CD player I could control while using Auto-cad (I think I went with DOS because my DOS version had more 3D stuff than the Windows version I had).
I used a Linux on that computer too, with lynx, and an emacs based AOL IM client (TnT). If I'd of known about CTRL+ALT+F# back then I would of been quite happy, using CTRL+Z and bg/fg commands was a pain, the background stuff spewing output into my current task.
I read 3 million estimated infected. That is about 3% of all macs (1 billion personal computers from Wikipedia, about 10% are mac according to article). The 3% may not be as high as Windows computers, but it is signifcant. On Windows "downloaders" are on around 9% of computers, so the ration is much more like 3:1, not the 17000:1 you propose.
This is just my attempt to identify the worse of malware, the overall malware rate on PCs is around 50%, but I imagine that includes a lot of annoying, but not full-out infections (things like Weather Bug, and random toolbars).
My understanding is that it's really hard to kill yourself with the exhaust of a modern car, because there isn't so much of the very poisonous CO in it.
Also, when you breathe in normal air it isn't much CO2, it's essentially nitrogen (85 percent if I remember right) and oxygen (15 percent). Global warming is caused by an increase of.005 to.006 percent CO2 (may be off by an order of magnitude).
Aside from the fact that gp agrees O2 is a poison (I'm guessing the body can take double the relatively inert CO2 better than it could handle a doubling of the very reactive O2).
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree, the apostrophe loves to take victims (see, it's singular).
I guess I wasnt going contrary to your point, but pointing out they are seriously experimenting with new models that are a lot less painful for new independent designers, and honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to upgrade from any version but 5.5 right now.
Actually, they now have a $50/month subscription service that allows install on 2 computers (non-simultaeneous use).
The $600/year comes to 2-3 times as much as keeping current ($300 year for every upgrade since CS3, or about $200 year to go from 3-6), but does not have the $1800 upfront cost, meaning for new purchasers are actually ahead for about 4-6 years. An upgrade from 5 -> 6 is $725, so it's 2 years before it's more expensive to use the subscription than purchasing the upgrade (the subscription comes with cloudiness, and the full master-collection, but I'm using Design and Web Premium prices).
I the the relatively low start-up cost ($50) of the subscription, is going to seriously cut-into piracy, and make them A LOT of money.
Probably has to do with the massive amount of SPF records they'd need to allow sending of said emails.
Is Google really the cheapest bidder though?
I personally use them, but there are legitimate concerns someone could have, and not being able to opt-out is a problem IMO.
Data mining of personal communications should not be a requirement of using a University email, and because it is an intangible, it is a different cost for everyone. Google at $0 (or perhaps negative cost even) is not really the lowest bidder for a lot of people that feel the cost should be $100/year for that data. I'm curious what the value to Google is of that data (which I would measure as both the tangible ad sales, and the intangible of data they can use to improve other services.
I think you'd really need to go to 5 years to keep it at the status quo.
Though there would be a time period as people watched for free (or near free) every released movie they were interested in, leading to a temporary drop, and most likely at the expense of other entertainment additionally.
There's a good chance that actors would win if they were willing to endorse more products etc. Movies would likely be a larger part of culture, increasing the value of those that participated in them as cultural artifacts.
Yes, if the industry halting decision is made, they'll likely hear the case, but if it's not, they'll probably let the lower court's decision stick.
There is a chance they'll let the bad (as in for the economy, right or wrong) decision stick in that circuit until another case comes with an opposite ruling though.
I honestly suspect the judge will rule that APIs are not protected, and the supreme court will basically say "we're not taking this case" in which case the judges ruling will stick within his area, and give fodder for other areas. Oracle's lawyers did what good lawyers with unlimited budgets do, they fought every possible angle. I think in reserving that ruling the judge made a mistake, as he could of saved a lot of time and money by taking that issue out earlier.
I suspect the supreme court will wait for conflicting judgements on this one, especially if it's ruled not-copyrightable.
If the judge decides they are not protectable with copyright, then it will essentially be business as usual, and non-disruptive. This would mean the supreme court has little incentive to look into it unless the law begins to vary from district to district.
If on the other-hand, it is ruled that they are indeed protectable, we end up with a massive shift in the way the industry works, and therefore a desire to really flesh out exactly what it means, this makes it likely they will take the case.
Well, from the summary:
"campaign based on more transparency in the political process and internet freedom" (note internet freedom is beyond copyright and P2P).
Also, legalizing pot.
I believe outside of that it is for the candidates to decide their position, but in general it leans towards social freedom, don't know so much about economic freedom.
When purchasing in Philadelphia, at a 6.5% interest rate, a house was 1280/month for 30 years, and 1550 for 15.
The ratio between the two is dependent on local taxes and interest rate (both being higher bring the ratio closer).
the 30 year was about equivalent to rent, but not going to change, mortgage interest deduction covered typical costs of ownership (plumbing supplies for work done, simple repairs and maintenance (note, repairs with a lot of sweat equity in them primarily).
If rents were to increase with inflation, in time savings would be large vs renting. though after about 20 years the interest deduction would dramatically drop off. Over-all, I'd call it a bad market to purchase in vs rent (you want a 15 year just over rental cost, or a 30 year for at least $200/month less, to stand a chance saving with a purchase in any meaningful short time-frame).
In Wilmington (DE), the money highly favors purchasing, especially with 10% down. A savings can easily be had of $400/month on a 30 year mortgage even ($90k-$130k rent regularly for 1100-1300, with 10% down and a 30 year mortgage your under $900 (insurance taxes included), and they have some simple work to be done to increase value, but are livable/rent-able legally).
The rental price vs mortgage payment ratio is not consistent area to area though, so the sense of one vs the other varies.
I would, if I planned to be immobile buy a house with a 30 year loan no question in Wilmington. Many would be profitable as rental properties on day one.
Tmobile (US) is like that. I think most US carriers have switched to that system, as they advertise unlimited/no overages.
It's crazy how much cheaper they are in general too.
I priced vs AT&T and it was $40/month less. I know the coverage is weaker, but I get voice and texts over wifi too (great when traveling internationally, for free coverage at hotel).
Not European rates, but I get unlimited voice/messages for 50, and 2 GB high-speed data for 10. For an extra $15, they'll up that to 5gb fast, and allow tethering.
People say that, but judges don't really allow that, and sometimes they allow very few (or none) to be kicked off without cause (though generally it's a couple each side, out of a pool of 100).
They real skew is that for trials over 3 weeks, judges allow pretty much anyone not employed by the government, or a large company to say, can't do it. You end up with mostly unemployed people, and retirees. With the economic condition as it is though, there tends to be some engineers in the pool even after the hardship dismissals. Often times the judge will ask the lawyers to use their freebies to get the hardships dismissed.
Judges do not like to dismiss educated people, and usually trust them when they say they can be unbiased (to the dismay of lawyers).
Yes, it will benefit communities that don't put ass hats like that into power. Natural selection can occur at that level as we are social creatures (thus models show "publishers" being beneficial to a system while detrimental to themselves surviving at a certain rate, benefiting the community. It makes sense for a community to tolerate the punishers, but a community of publishers collapses. The selective process trends toward the correct balance. too many complete morons in charge of raising your young will have a negative influence for that communities success, communities that let it happen will shrink.
The flight industry in the US was hobbled by intellectual property issues, and eventually the government stepped in to fix it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
And the patent in questions was the IDEA of altering the shape of wings, as well as coordinating a rudder with that alteration (separate ideas).
I do think the US golden age is coming to an end, and the far east is gearing up for the start of a new one (I don't think the first will be that bad, and I think the coming eastern golden age is good).
Because china (as a huge exporter) can afford to pull the plug on the largest importer. That'd work really well for them:-)
Don't worry. We're subsidizibf your lifestyle too. With our purely private healthcare (higher rates for drugs paying much of the research) and defense (all our soldiers everywhere).
What if we connected all of these networks to the internet, to form an internet of things?
I think if we do all that, then fears of "cyber terror" become legit rather than farcical.
I thought median was a good defensible choice, no-matter what one makes (doesn't mean it's agreeable, just understandable).
But the ideal point on where will vary from person to person, not just on what people earn (self interest bias), but also on what people believe to be lower middle class lifestyle, and what is being provided for the money.
If healthcare (a regressive cost, $7k per person/ per year) were provided by government, then the income that starts getting taxed higher would be at a lower number, as it is greatly reducing a cost for people in the lower middle class bracket.
In a highly socialist system (with some capitalism), I would think a flat tax is fair, as if all basic needs are met, all income is disposable. At that point a progressive tax would have the sole purpose of wealth redistribution (which I am not trying to take a stance on).
I really like the idea of a simplified tax code, and think a flat tax with cost of living deduction is the way to go (or perhaps a cost of living refundable credit, allowing those at the very bottom to get a little extra). This is not because I believe in wealth redistribution, but because I believe that it's the disposable income that should be taxed, and it should be done so generally at a flat rate.
If I wanted wealth redistribution, I'd advocate a tax on wealth (not income).
The poor are paying into the system by working for so little, that's a big plus to society too.
There is an issue too with what should be universally accessible. If one argues healthcare (as many do), as long as that is not included, it requires a progressive tax, as spending is essentially regressive as a % of income.
Similarly the same argument could be made for roads, and was essentially one, with toll roads being fee are far between compared to times of old (I drive on 2 former turnpikes in my 9 mile commute).
One could go extreme and argue everyone should have a car (chicken in every pot, car in every garage), if you assume that this should be true, you are either going to need to provide it via government, or have a progressive tax, so that more people can afford them.
Is personally see nothing wrong, or unethical about saying the cash strapped (even for very high definitions of cash strapped) pay a lower percentage of income, they can't afford higher, and that lower tax buys them more improvement in quality of life.
Something like a flat 20% (no deductions) on all income over median sounds reasonable to me, would probably grow revenue, or be neutral.
Note: I don't think everyone deserves a car, but that argument has been made, my point is simply that many things people are expected to have access to in a modern society (and those expectations can vary person to person) are things we are expected to earn for ourselves. Hitting the base leaves a lot less disposable income at the low end, the point of a progressive tax is to tax disposable income higher than the rest.
The value of anything is what you can do with it, or what you can get with it.
Gold, generally holding most if it's value in what you can get with it, has a greatly fluctuating value. Perceived value of a good (by others) is real value to me.
I tried to specifically leave price (with currency) out of it.
Do you really believe that?
Compare gold (over time) to other commodeties, it is clearly over-valued.
Now compare it to labor, still overvalued.
Now let's compare it to various durable goods, over-valued again.
Gold buys many more of those things (that have value based on something aside from fiat currency) than it used to.
Adam smith recognized the stupidity of that kind of thinking centuries ago (granted it was about silver, not gold, but the point stands).
The (relatively) inelastic supply of gold makes it prone to over-valuation when the demand increases.
link 1 harps on and on about ASLR while basically saying they've caught up now, disk encryption (on Windows), and Sanboxing in browser, without saying it's better than MSIE. Essentially, the article lists ways it's better than previous versions of OSX, and concludes it's Windows 7 Plus Plus
link 2 once again mentions browser sandboxing and ASLR, also says Windows 7 relies on 3rd party software (which having good 3rd party software available for is a bonus I guess). At least they make a point though
link 3 slide 4 says "Of course, part of that is due to the fact that more malware is created for Windows 7. But that doesn’t matter. If the security of each platform is taken into account, Lion must get the nod." with no real explanation
Link 4 says the same stuff.
All of these links lead me to believe that as far as engineering goes, they are now equivalent, rather than Windows being ahead. I'll give a nod to really liking the Windows 7 UAC slider bar where I can set how it behaves (I prefer system access, no screen dimming, but pop-up present).
Man, I remember in the late 90's my real computer had a hardware failure, and I went back to my old (486 66 I think) computer, and used DOS, with a slew of TSR programs, I was thrilled by a CD player I could control while using Auto-cad (I think I went with DOS because my DOS version had more 3D stuff than the Windows version I had).
I used a Linux on that computer too, with lynx, and an emacs based AOL IM client (TnT). If I'd of known about CTRL+ALT+F# back then I would of been quite happy, using CTRL+Z and bg/fg commands was a pain, the background stuff spewing output into my current task.
6 in wide-spread use is more than enough.
I read 3 million estimated infected. That is about 3% of all macs (1 billion personal computers from Wikipedia, about 10% are mac according to article). The 3% may not be as high as Windows computers, but it is signifcant. On Windows "downloaders" are on around 9% of computers, so the ration is much more like 3:1, not the 17000:1 you propose.
This is just my attempt to identify the worse of malware, the overall malware rate on PCs is around 50%, but I imagine that includes a lot of annoying, but not full-out infections (things like Weather Bug, and random toolbars).
My understanding is that it's really hard to kill yourself with the exhaust of a modern car, because there isn't so much of the very poisonous CO in it.
Also, when you breathe in normal air it isn't much CO2, it's essentially nitrogen (85 percent if I remember right) and oxygen (15 percent). Global warming is caused by an increase of .005 to .006 percent CO2 (may be off by an order of magnitude).
Aside from the fact that gp agrees O2 is a poison (I'm guessing the body can take double the relatively inert CO2 better than it could handle a doubling of the very reactive O2).