CDs cost a fraction of what cassette tapes cost to manufacture, yet it took 15 years for CDs to come down in retail price to the inflation adjusted point of cassettes.
The point is, companies will simply take that extra money and shove it in their pocket. Consumers won't see any benefit from it.
Exactly. In a lot of places, jerrymandering has made individual votes less important because the winners often win by a large margin. This is true for both major parties.
However, for statewide elections as evidenced in Minnesota recently, individual votes can have a HUGE impact. A +/- 200 error isn't good enough when the winner's margin is only 100 votes.
The GP was probably thinking of Canon, where drivers are buggy to non-existent. I've got a Canon laser/fax/scan that is holding the corner of my desk down so it doesn't rock.
No that would be ineffective. Clearly the proper course of action is to contact the media so millions of uninvolved strangers can mock the university for such stupefying misapplication of policy.
Interestingly, it seems as a student government representative she was fulfilling her duties by attempting to negotiate change between students and faculty. Her email was well written, clear and concise.
I fail to see how the university can justify any reprisal.
And there is the fallacy of all child pornography laws. Women hit sexual maturity around 13-15 and according to the law hit mental capacity to give consent at 18. There is an entire genre of porn where women of legal age who look much younger than they are pose nude for men.
Men find the unadulterated idea of women attractive since they can believe they are virgins(google "teen virgins" if you need proof). Another issue with censorship laws like this is that its impossible for a man to look at a picture of a woman and know with any certainty how old she is. You can dress up an 18 year old to realistically make her appear 12, and you could probably realistically dress up a 14 year old to look 18. Theres no way to know. To illustrate this conundrum, consider these scenarios:
A 15 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of of an 18 year old. Is it immoral to look?
A 18 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of a 15 year old. Is it immoral to look now?
What if all these numbers were reduced by 5? Immoral now? Quite obviously, but in the two scenarios above the answer isn't at all clear cut. In the second scenario, this must be illegal since there is copious amounts of this type of pornography scattered across the web. Simply google "Miley Cyrus nude" for proof.
Any argument that a cartoon which includes no photorealistic elements is child pornography is faulty. Since the laws were designed to protect children, and there was no children harmed, this merely exemplifies a flaw in the law.
I'm all in favor of legalized prostitution where there truly is consent for both parties. However, there is an underbelly of the prostitution industry where street hookers turn tricks to pay for drugs because they're addicted.
You're right that decriminalizing drugs won't make prostitution go away, but it would help the most life-damaging parts of it go away.
Looking at it from a more cynical point of view, the federal government has built a cathedral of sorts on the war on drugs with a tremendous budget. There are thousands of federal, state and local government jobs with millions upon billions of dollars invested in this misguided war. Those persons will clutch at that budget as firmly as they can since their own livelihood depends on drug prohibition.
Alcohol is definitely the most dangerous drug in use in the US right now, having more deaths directly attributed to its use than all illegal drugs combined. We as a country have previously established that it is impossible to eliminate alcohol entirely and instead moved to strict controls and high taxation. I can only hope that in the future we make that same move with drugs since decriminalizing it is the first step to bringing help to the addicts who need it most.
Decriminalization would mitigate a lot of drug-related social issues(prostitution, gang violence, illegal weapons trade) and heavy taxation would allow drug users to support the social and medical costs of the abusers.
There really aren't any clear winners. Opera has acid compliance in its favor. Firefox is extremely popular, easy to use and has plenty of features.
IE, while it may still lack acid compliance is making progress on the features front and security is supposedly improving. In the long run, the increase in popularity for alternative browsers will hopefully steer them all towards greater standards compliance leading to a big win for end users and content developers.
Absolutely. A supercomputers good looks are for the buyers to make a purchasing decision. The people actually using the supercomputers don't necessarily even see them on a regular basis.
The phone you speak of is sold in the US under contract or at ridiculous retail prices without contract. This phone is unique as it's one of the few phones with excellent functionality that can be purchased at a reasonable cost without a contract.
Most consumers actually like getting their phones at very low subsidized cost through their wireless carrier but I'm a firm believer this has an astoundingly negative impact on competition. The wireless carriers dictate to the device manufacturers which features are allowed.
Separating phone functionality from the control of the carriers will TREMENDOUSLY improve competition and have a very beneficial impact on end users. I'm a little surprised the FTC hasn't stepped in already on behalf of consumers. Wireless plans in the US have gone up dramatically in cost over the last 15 years. The phone companies like to quote cost:minute rates because it makes them look cheaper. The fact is, the cost of text messaging has gone UP and data transfer rates are still prohibitive for most end users to really use the full capacity of their phones.
They can't be. They're crappy drivers, often times because of lack of attentiveness or poor eyesight. Is that the kind of person you want shooting a gun?
The courts could quite literally make a judgement ruling that violation of the 4th amendment itself is not a tort and there is no harm unless specific action is taken on information obtained without cause. The effect of such a ruling would be tremendous.
Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.
You are one cynical bastard. I can't say things work differently _everywhere_, but there certainly are many companies that work nothing like this.
Specifically, they skip 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. My experience leads me to believe that management typically chooses the wrong technology and tools simply out of their own ignorance and step 6 never happens simply because of a prevalent not-invented-here attitude.
Often times the road to being a victim like this is that the website owners don't have the technical competence to evaluate statements from SEO companies for truth. SEO companies also typically expend a lot of effort to maintain a positive image in search engine results.
I've had dealings with these types of companies before and the average SEO is very shady. They charge thousands of dollars promising every small business owner that they could be the next amazon.com if only they were higher in the search engine results. The reality is there is a lot more to online success than just ranking highly in search engines.
These small business owners though are most vulnerable because most don't have the ability to determine if the SEO company is credible and/or don't have enough knowledge about search engines to know what the true value is of the work the SEO will perform.
This may be true of very large long running projects like the Linux kernel, but typically OSS is developed by a very small number of developers and used by a much larger number of users.
Slashdot Mirror
CDs cost a fraction of what cassette tapes cost to manufacture, yet it took 15 years for CDs to come down in retail price to the inflation adjusted point of cassettes.
The point is, companies will simply take that extra money and shove it in their pocket. Consumers won't see any benefit from it.
Riiight. Because Blizzard making $10-15 per month per subscriber doesn't add up.
I recently quit WoW, but during the over 3 years I played I paid about $650 in monthly fees and a grand total of $90 for the game itself.
Players are willing to pay monthly to play online.
Exactly. In a lot of places, jerrymandering has made individual votes less important because the winners often win by a large margin. This is true for both major parties.
However, for statewide elections as evidenced in Minnesota recently, individual votes can have a HUGE impact. A +/- 200 error isn't good enough when the winner's margin is only 100 votes.
Mine too. After the OCR machine acknowledged my ballot was readable, they gave me a sticker that said "I voted".
I asked him for a second one and walked around all next day with two "I voted" stickers on.
Surprisingly, nobody asked me if I voted twice.
I had this problem recently as well. I use OpenOffice with MS Word docs constantly and rarely have issues, except those with builtin forms.
Specifically, it had dropdown list boxes and checkboxes. Holy crap was it annoying.
The GP was probably thinking of Canon, where drivers are buggy to non-existent. I've got a Canon laser/fax/scan that is holding the corner of my desk down so it doesn't rock.
That's all it is good for.
What if everywhere you look you see google, and their ads. What if being the advertising monopoly is all they need to be.
Saturating every software niche they can find, from drawing to blogging to news to search, all with their ads on top. Sounds profitable to me.
No that would be ineffective. Clearly the proper course of action is to contact the media so millions of uninvolved strangers can mock the university for such stupefying misapplication of policy.
Interestingly, it seems as a student government representative she was fulfilling her duties by attempting to negotiate change between students and faculty. Her email was well written, clear and concise.
I fail to see how the university can justify any reprisal.
Good catch.
Change "illegal" to "legal" and that should make a lot more sense.
And there is the fallacy of all child pornography laws. Women hit sexual maturity around 13-15 and according to the law hit mental capacity to give consent at 18. There is an entire genre of porn where women of legal age who look much younger than they are pose nude for men.
Men find the unadulterated idea of women attractive since they can believe they are virgins(google "teen virgins" if you need proof). Another issue with censorship laws like this is that its impossible for a man to look at a picture of a woman and know with any certainty how old she is. You can dress up an 18 year old to realistically make her appear 12, and you could probably realistically dress up a 14 year old to look 18. Theres no way to know. To illustrate this conundrum, consider these scenarios:
A 15 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of of an 18 year old. Is it immoral to look?
A 18 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of a 15 year old. Is it immoral to look now?
What if all these numbers were reduced by 5? Immoral now? Quite obviously, but in the two scenarios above the answer isn't at all clear cut. In the second scenario, this must be illegal since there is copious amounts of this type of pornography scattered across the web. Simply google "Miley Cyrus nude" for proof.
Any argument that a cartoon which includes no photorealistic elements is child pornography is faulty. Since the laws were designed to protect children, and there was no children harmed, this merely exemplifies a flaw in the law.
I'm all in favor of legalized prostitution where there truly is consent for both parties. However, there is an underbelly of the prostitution industry where street hookers turn tricks to pay for drugs because they're addicted.
You're right that decriminalizing drugs won't make prostitution go away, but it would help the most life-damaging parts of it go away.
It should be cynical to believe we impede our own social development to keep a bunch of warmongers pockets full.
The fact that it's true just makes it sad.
Looking at it from a more cynical point of view, the federal government has built a cathedral of sorts on the war on drugs with a tremendous budget. There are thousands of federal, state and local government jobs with millions upon billions of dollars invested in this misguided war. Those persons will clutch at that budget as firmly as they can since their own livelihood depends on drug prohibition.
Alcohol is definitely the most dangerous drug in use in the US right now, having more deaths directly attributed to its use than all illegal drugs combined. We as a country have previously established that it is impossible to eliminate alcohol entirely and instead moved to strict controls and high taxation. I can only hope that in the future we make that same move with drugs since decriminalizing it is the first step to bringing help to the addicts who need it most.
Decriminalization would mitigate a lot of drug-related social issues(prostitution, gang violence, illegal weapons trade) and heavy taxation would allow drug users to support the social and medical costs of the abusers.
There really aren't any clear winners. Opera has acid compliance in its favor. Firefox is extremely popular, easy to use and has plenty of features.
IE, while it may still lack acid compliance is making progress on the features front and security is supposedly improving. In the long run, the increase in popularity for alternative browsers will hopefully steer them all towards greater standards compliance leading to a big win for end users and content developers.
Absolutely. A supercomputers good looks are for the buyers to make a purchasing decision. The people actually using the supercomputers don't necessarily even see them on a regular basis.
The phone you speak of is sold in the US under contract or at ridiculous retail prices without contract. This phone is unique as it's one of the few phones with excellent functionality that can be purchased at a reasonable cost without a contract.
Most consumers actually like getting their phones at very low subsidized cost through their wireless carrier but I'm a firm believer this has an astoundingly negative impact on competition. The wireless carriers dictate to the device manufacturers which features are allowed.
Separating phone functionality from the control of the carriers will TREMENDOUSLY improve competition and have a very beneficial impact on end users. I'm a little surprised the FTC hasn't stepped in already on behalf of consumers. Wireless plans in the US have gone up dramatically in cost over the last 15 years. The phone companies like to quote cost:minute rates because it makes them look cheaper. The fact is, the cost of text messaging has gone UP and data transfer rates are still prohibitive for most end users to really use the full capacity of their phones.
They can't be. They're crappy drivers, often times because of lack of attentiveness or poor eyesight. Is that the kind of person you want shooting a gun?
I believe Gopher was like that. That's digging deep though and might be wrong, since I haven't used gopher in probably 15 years.
The courts could quite literally make a judgement ruling that violation of the 4th amendment itself is not a tort and there is no harm unless specific action is taken on information obtained without cause. The effect of such a ruling would be tremendous.
Similar pre-tax retirement savings plan. Has slightly different rules and is specifically for employees of government or non-profit orgs.
Greenpeace's strategy isn't really bad. Sure, they're picking on a big company for publicity, but whatever effects are the result of greenpeace's research will trickle down into the factory floors of their component suppliers having a much larger effect.
You are one cynical bastard. I can't say things work differently _everywhere_, but there certainly are many companies that work nothing like this.
Specifically, they skip 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. My experience leads me to believe that management typically chooses the wrong technology and tools simply out of their own ignorance and step 6 never happens simply because of a prevalent not-invented-here attitude.
Often times the road to being a victim like this is that the website owners don't have the technical competence to evaluate statements from SEO companies for truth. SEO companies also typically expend a lot of effort to maintain a positive image in search engine results.
I've had dealings with these types of companies before and the average SEO is very shady. They charge thousands of dollars promising every small business owner that they could be the next amazon.com if only they were higher in the search engine results. The reality is there is a lot more to online success than just ranking highly in search engines.
These small business owners though are most vulnerable because most don't have the ability to determine if the SEO company is credible and/or don't have enough knowledge about search engines to know what the true value is of the work the SEO will perform.
This may be true of very large long running projects like the Linux kernel, but typically OSS is developed by a very small number of developers and used by a much larger number of users.
You put all the informative and insightful comments possible into one post you insensitive clod.