What good are 300 baud and 1200 baud transmissions with latency measured in the tens of seconds? The email he seeks is to remain in touch with his business (not exactly kosher on amateur radio). He wants low latency for VOIP. Packet isn't going to do that. And considering the decline of packet radio within the hobby, there isn't much chance of being able to digipeat somewhere to actually *find* an internet gateway. There's Winlink, but then he's likely to have to pack HF communications gear.
More of a problem though is the increasing cry of FOUL over recreational vehicle and sailboat owners using WinLink as cheap alternatives to pay services (like Sailmail). While I don't think these people will cause the chaos and mayhem often cited by posts on ham websites, the people complaining do have a some salient points. The biggest being that there's a segment of users of amateur services and spectrum who are there for the FREE stuff and contribute nothing. Once amateur radio no longer serves their purposes, they are outta there. Not exactly the group you want carrying the hobby forward -- as if it doesn't have enough problems of its own.
Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use. They also can't encrypt their communications as many agencies have the need to do.
This is a software defined radio that can be programmed to work with any of them, and ostensibly, all of them. Including analog FM systems that hams use.
There are many amateurs who are using their own software defined radios, so in a way, I guess you're correct. But I doubt Motorola, GE or Ericsson are going to turn over information on their communications systems to the hams. But they will give it to Thales...for a price.
I never had to install Winsock to get to CompuServe. All I had to do was fire up Crosstalk, dial and log in.
71277,1221
Still remember my user ID...
Anyway, yes, some of this is sadly the fault of Windows. Tying ActiveX into a web browser was the stupidest thing ever invented. As much as it made the desktop environment "seamless" between documents, spreadsheets and email, it sure made life a lot easier for malware writers.
Who needs to convince someone to read an email when you can just install crap via drive-by downloads? How is that a PEBKAC issue when it's all done behind the back of the user?
While I agree, much of the problem is an uneducated user, that's not the sole reason as you claim.
You're going to be away at sea for four months with a bunch of college-aged people of the opposite sex, visiting exotic locations and all you can think about is internet access?
I know it's cliche, I know it's oh-so-70's, but does the term "Love Boat" mean anything to you?
It is unfortunate that we've come to this point in American history, but the truth is probably that we can't afford a grandiose space program right now.
NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go. NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper. The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
This is exactly the case. A television market is defined by Nielsen and it changes. You can not necessarily term it as "the Miami DMA" or the "New York DMA" because that is indeed their property.
Likewise, you can't list the stations in an order of rankings that is derived from viewers since the only measurement of any scale is by Nielsen.
I dislike Nielsen, and while I respect their right to protect their property, I agree with others sentiments that sometimes they have to allow certain aspects of their "property" to be public knowledge. There is nothing wrong with allowing anyone to publish information about a particular broadcast market's stations. Population, counties, viewing habits and other statistics gleaned from their "People Meters", fine.
Like many companies related to "old media", Nielsen's comeuppance is overdue.
I'm not surprised that the proponents of the music industry would come up with concepts such as these. I'm sure they rationalize that people already subsidize shoplifters through higher prices at the store, so since broadband is used to pilfer their product, every one who uses broadband should pay. While it's true, we all pay higher costs due to shoplifters, the store has an incentive to reduce losses or the prices will become prohibitive and customers won't shop there any longer. This surcharge does nothing to cause music producers to change their ways to prevent losses, it forces the liability of bad business decisions upon non-customers.
Those who think this is a good idea should take note that nowhere in this Jim person's argument does it stipulate that the $5 per month surcharge is blanket authorization to download everything and anything. Your $5 gets you the privilege of still paying $.99 at iTunes, or a $12 per month Rhapsody account or running out to Wal-Mart and plunking down $20 for a CD. The music industry will continue to label the internet the tool of choice for music "thieves", because doing so is necessary to justify the $5 per month stipend.
I'm hopeful that the ISPs will tell these people to go get bent. There is a very real possibility of a consumer boycott over this issue, especially from the honest customers who do not download music. If my ISP proudly proclaimed they were collecting this fee, I'd go without broadband.
As far as seeking legislative relief, I don't think too many legislators are going to want to be seen with the hot potato of asking consumers to fork over $5 to help the music industry. It's an election year and a down economy, what fool would suggest...aside from Ted Stevens, Pelosi...well, maybe seeking legislative relief isn't such an idle threat. Get ready to write a lot of letters.
It should be *really* easy. HDTV broadcasts in the US have a pilot on the signal, which is there to make it easy for ATSC receivers to find it. As far as the old NTSC signal goes, that shouldn't be all that difficult either since sync is not only repeating, but the largest portion of modulation.
Do you know how you can tell if the Zune is for real? It's when you see Wal-Mart running ads with a MILF saying that she didn't know that Wal-Mart sold Zunes and it's all her daughter wanted for Christmas. So much so that she carries it everywhere she goes, even when she brushes her teeth. Until that time, it's still an also-ran.
I don't want to turn this into an Apple/Microsoft flame war (I'll leave that to someone else), but let's call this what it is. *Anything* heavily discounted online is going to sell well. And for those who don't need an Apple product, don't like Apple or simply see the value in a 30 gig MP3 player for $150, this will create buzz and demand.
"Something tells me" that Microsoft is engineering the buzz from behind the curtain while again subsidizing the hardware cost in a desperate attempt at market share. But I'm glad, because maybe, finally, enough Zunes will be in the marketplace for a genuine acid test of the music subscription model.
"But, Walsh said, 'any state that's refusing to implement this key recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, and whose state driver's licenses are as a result used in another terrorist attack, should be held responsible.'"
So, the terrorist was permitted entry into the US, but because he obtained a state driver's license in a non-participating state, the state is somehow responsible? Oh, that's rich!
These people are out of control. I fear for our republic.
I never thought I'd play the Microsoft apologist, but getting a patent that covers a broad swath of how to display ads on a computer may be their plan to keep advertising off the desktop. Being the devil's advocate (pun intended), Microsoft may want to sue companies as a way to make them go away. As more malware hides deeper into the OS, this might an arrow in the quiver to combat the use for profit.
It's also possible that this is intended for another go at a DVR. Not that I would store documents on my DVR, it seems logical to want to be able to throw ads in there in the most efficient way possible.
However, if taken at first glance, it appears Microsoft has truly come up with yet another innovative way to make Windows an even more awful user experience. Way to go, Microsoft!
The thing that is the future for Intel is not only the bizillion cores and cheaper/faster, but to do so with outstanding energy efficiency. This is obviously important for portable computing, but it's also important to reduce heat load and power consumption in large data centers. Cost of ownership comparisons have yet to include power consumption, but as green house gas taxes start making their way onto electric bills, it's likely to be a selling point.
More and more there's a need for extremely energy efficient, low footprint devices for special purpose applications. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to have PC sucking 60 watts when all you need is something to run Minicom to a simple 15" LCD screen.
What the networks have been failing to grasp (and many here have mentioned) is that there is not going to be just one method of distribution. The spate of technology has empowered the viewer to watch on their own terms, and the content creators would be making a drastic mistake to bet on one technology edging out the other. Some people will want to watch it on the AppleTV, and some people will be happy to download it with their media PCs while others will hang in there with their Tivo. Many more will elect to watch it on their iPods or tiny cell phone screens while sitting on a train to work (or hopefully, not while driving to work).
Appointment TV is dead; the networks and broadcasters need to wake up to the fact that everyone showing up in front of their televisions at a set time to watch Idol is becoming as arcane and antiquated as the family life portrayed in 1950's family sitcoms. They need to realize that in order to capture every eyeball, they'll have to distribute it on cable, on the download sites and services for products like AppleTV, on their own web sites, on cellular networks and every other place where they can find eyeballs. To ignore this will simply result in less dollars for them because they are not making their shows available to the largest number of people.
If the author were really concerned about mercury, he'd spend his time worry about the mercury in dental amalgam. That mercury is in your mouth, it turns into vapor which is easily absorbed through breathing or through contact with food and saliva and probably has far more health consequences than breaking 100 CFL bulbs and walking through the mess with your bare feet.
The problem lies in the fact that you do not own your personal information, it's considered an asset of the corporation holding it. The Fair Credit Reporting Act still puts the burden of monitoring and repairing credit profile on the individual. The free credit report legislated in the past couple years does nothing to stop identity theft, and the FCRA continues to be decidedly anti-consumer.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act should allow me full and unfettered access to the information about me whenever I deem it necessary. NO ONE should be able to gain access to my report without my consent, and no one should be able to open credit under my profile without some form of verification that I permitted it. While they're at it, I should have free access to my FICO score without having to sign-up for trials or scam services. If you're going to use my personal information to create a benchmark of my credit worthiness, then I should have free access to both. They both affect my interest and insurance rates.
As others have said, laws making something illegal or "extra illegal" are not going to stop criminals. What will slow this problem is forcing information brokers and providers to clean up their act under the threat of dire financial losses. And while the lawmakers are at it, they need to make sure that consumers have easy and ample access to their credit profiles in order to stop the damage from the inevitable theft of someone's identity. In this day and age where you can get a $30,000 car loan in 2 minutes, it is infurirating that you can't check your credit profile for free on the credit reporting agencies but once per year.
I'm not in favor of more taxes, and I understand your umbrage over this proposal.
It simply is not fair for me, who was self-employed, to shoulder a burden of $38,000 a year in taxes on income and taxes for social security and medicare, when someone who is a professional eBay seller to make that kind of money tax free. It isn't fair; we live in the same country, we enjoy the same infrastructure and yet they are able to game the system into a free ride.
Our government, through continued ineptitude and bad money management, has to figure out a way to collect more money to dig itself out of the huge hole we find ourselves. So the options are that I (and you) get to pay even MORE money in taxes while the professional auction site people skate free, or they force these people to start paying the taxes they should be paying anyway?
Unfortunately, the honest people are going to get taxed anyway. There is no choice but for us to pay more taxes in general, and the costs of eBay managing the 1099 reporting will be passed along to everyone using eBay.
As far as the particulars of the taxation, I'm certain that the first few thousand dollars will be exempted. Then of course, that cap won't be raised to index with inflation and eventually everyone will be subject to the tax (see above, we all get taxed anyway). Liquidating an estate will fall under other IRS rules, and since you're just getting a 1099 and not having eBay collect the tax, this should be a fairly easy situation to remedy. Well, unless you're Paris Hilton. Then again, Paris Hilton is the poster child of why this country needs an estate tax.
From IDG, the people who conveniently provide you a trial to all their other publications and then call you relentlessly via their call center in Banglore to "renew your subscription". Apparently, you have to tell them no 10 times before it's counted as a real confirmation you don't want their free magazine.
The userContent.css from floppymoose.com and NoScript make the web enjoyable. I'm sorry it cuts down on their ad revenue, but the fact of the matter is that animated graphics, jumping Flash ads and things that scroll across my screen ("Take Our Survey" -- NO!) are annoying and increasingly intolerable. And when I visit a site, adbrite, doubleclick, casalemedia and the rest have absolutely no business executing javascript on my computer. If that affects your web business, maybe you better find something that people don't find intrusive and offensive to their privacy.
I'm sure if you listen to Computerworld long enough, you might come to the conclusion that the world would be a much better place if everyone just used Internet Explorer. We tried that, it wasn't working out so well.
Microsoft not having proprietary hardware lock-in is exactly my point; the need to cater to every conceivable chuck of hardware along with permitting copious permission between drivers and the kernel is not an advantage. It's a major contributor to instability and only when it was no longer advantageous to gaining marketshare did Microsoft make any overtures to changing that.
The attraction of OS X is that you have it before you, on a piece of hardware on which you know it will run. You don't have a situation where Microsoft points to the OEM, the OEM points to some Taiwanese chip maker's web site for an "updated" driver, unsigned by Microsoft to fix what should have been working the second you pulled the computer from the box.
God bless Linux, but I have to tell you, it has its moments. Is it superior to Microsoft? You bet your sweet bippy. Am I going to run it on my primary notebook machine? I have. Why don't I now? Because I deal with computers and electronics all day and the last thing I want to do when I'm on my own time is maintain a computer in typical PC fashion.
Or, to put it another way; having the hardware and OS lock-in was an attraction to me because I was pretty certain that I wouldn't have to endure the torture of Microsoft in the workplace. And I was right.
Apple loves their early adopters. It's a tough love though.
How is licensing the OS to work with other people's hardware going to make things any better? We've already seen how well that concept works with Microsoft, and I'm not confident that the guys at Apple will have any more success at it.
But the customer isn't always right, as you would know if you've ever worked in support or retail. I've dealt with customers who would never shoplift, but think nothing of buying a product to pilfer replacement parts for one they already own, and then returning the purchase to the store and sticking someone else with missing parts. Good companies know how to make it right without making good customers ex-customers. And good companies know how to fire bad customers who take advantage of the company.
Amazon should have little problem figuring out who needs to be fired and which customers need to be told to enjoy the extra DVDs. And if you are firing the customer, then I see no problem going after the money since you have no intentions of keeping them around.
If you do that, make sure you do it with gift cards and not a credit card. Your $.99 Canadian iTunes purchase will result in a $3.00 foreign currency exchange fee on your credit card. Plus, the $.99 for the song.
Instead of laws on cookies, how about laws requiring basic education on how to run the computer and web browser? Or maybe simply strong-arming Microsoft into deleting cookies upon exit of the browser.
In the meantime, what could be simpler than using Firefox, telling it to accept all cookies and then setting the drop-down to "delete when I close Firefox"? Really. Works like a champ and I wish them luck in tracking me with my ever changing IP.
The music industry needs to get around the mindset that they are due a monthly stipend. That pricing system rewards mediocrity and lack of creativity, which is all to prevalent in what the music industry calls its product today. There is absolutely no way I will pay any money for a license to listen to music that I may already own or music I wish to own. The fact someone is willing to pay money for a product, whether it's $15 per CD or 99 cents per download is the incentive this industry needs to give the customer what they want, not what the music industry wants. It's been written here so many times before that the reason the industry has lackluster sales is because the product isn't what the customer wants and its delivery method doesn't suit the method the customer wants.
I can't think of too many "kids" who don't like iTunes. My kids and their friends eat up iTunes gift cards downloading the exact music they want without having to pay $15 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs they enjoy. Which heralds back to what I remember as a kid where I could run up to the local drug store, fork over a dollar and get a 45 with the exact music I wanted (yeah, I'm that old). That's what the music industry was built upon before it was turned into a cash machine that ate customer good-will. And that was before the advent of downloadable music; now the music industry is vilified to the point of no return in the eyes of its customers.
Slashdot Mirror
What good are 300 baud and 1200 baud transmissions with latency measured in the tens of seconds? The email he seeks is to remain in touch with his business (not exactly kosher on amateur radio). He wants low latency for VOIP. Packet isn't going to do that. And considering the decline of packet radio within the hobby, there isn't much chance of being able to digipeat somewhere to actually *find* an internet gateway. There's Winlink, but then he's likely to have to pack HF communications gear.
More of a problem though is the increasing cry of FOUL over recreational vehicle and sailboat owners using WinLink as cheap alternatives to pay services (like Sailmail). While I don't think these people will cause the chaos and mayhem often cited by posts on ham websites, the people complaining do have a some salient points. The biggest being that there's a segment of users of amateur services and spectrum who are there for the FREE stuff and contribute nothing. Once amateur radio no longer serves their purposes, they are outta there. Not exactly the group you want carrying the hobby forward -- as if it doesn't have enough problems of its own.
Because hams don't use APCO25 or many of the other digital public service protocols currently in use. They also can't encrypt their communications as many agencies have the need to do.
This is a software defined radio that can be programmed to work with any of them, and ostensibly, all of them. Including analog FM systems that hams use.
There are many amateurs who are using their own software defined radios, so in a way, I guess you're correct. But I doubt Motorola, GE or Ericsson are going to turn over information on their communications systems to the hams. But they will give it to Thales...for a price.
I never had to install Winsock to get to CompuServe. All I had to do was fire up Crosstalk, dial and log in.
71277,1221
Still remember my user ID...
Anyway, yes, some of this is sadly the fault of Windows. Tying ActiveX into a web browser was the stupidest thing ever invented. As much as it made the desktop environment "seamless" between documents, spreadsheets and email, it sure made life a lot easier for malware writers.
Who needs to convince someone to read an email when you can just install crap via drive-by downloads? How is that a PEBKAC issue when it's all done behind the back of the user?
While I agree, much of the problem is an uneducated user, that's not the sole reason as you claim.
You're going to be away at sea for four months with a bunch of college-aged people of the opposite sex, visiting exotic locations and all you can think about is internet access?
I know it's cliche, I know it's oh-so-70's, but does the term "Love Boat" mean anything to you?
It is unfortunate that we've come to this point in American history, but the truth is probably that we can't afford a grandiose space program right now.
NASA will still exist, but the bureaucrats running it need to go. NASA will have a chance at manned space flight, but they need to figure out a way to do it cheaper. The rest of the nation has tightened its belt, the rest of the nation is concerned about the ballooning debt, NASA isn't exempt from the changes.
If I had my choice, I'd much rather see the billions spent on a shuttle launch go toward turning children into future aerospace engineers.
This is exactly the case. A television market is defined by Nielsen and it changes. You can not necessarily term it as "the Miami DMA" or the "New York DMA" because that is indeed their property.
Likewise, you can't list the stations in an order of rankings that is derived from viewers since the only measurement of any scale is by Nielsen.
I dislike Nielsen, and while I respect their right to protect their property, I agree with others sentiments that sometimes they have to allow certain aspects of their "property" to be public knowledge. There is nothing wrong with allowing anyone to publish information about a particular broadcast market's stations. Population, counties, viewing habits and other statistics gleaned from their "People Meters", fine.
Like many companies related to "old media", Nielsen's comeuppance is overdue.
I'm not surprised that the proponents of the music industry would come up with concepts such as these. I'm sure they rationalize that people already subsidize shoplifters through higher prices at the store, so since broadband is used to pilfer their product, every one who uses broadband should pay. While it's true, we all pay higher costs due to shoplifters, the store has an incentive to reduce losses or the prices will become prohibitive and customers won't shop there any longer. This surcharge does nothing to cause music producers to change their ways to prevent losses, it forces the liability of bad business decisions upon non-customers.
Those who think this is a good idea should take note that nowhere in this Jim person's argument does it stipulate that the $5 per month surcharge is blanket authorization to download everything and anything. Your $5 gets you the privilege of still paying $.99 at iTunes, or a $12 per month Rhapsody account or running out to Wal-Mart and plunking down $20 for a CD. The music industry will continue to label the internet the tool of choice for music "thieves", because doing so is necessary to justify the $5 per month stipend.
I'm hopeful that the ISPs will tell these people to go get bent. There is a very real possibility of a consumer boycott over this issue, especially from the honest customers who do not download music. If my ISP proudly proclaimed they were collecting this fee, I'd go without broadband.
As far as seeking legislative relief, I don't think too many legislators are going to want to be seen with the hot potato of asking consumers to fork over $5 to help the music industry. It's an election year and a down economy, what fool would suggest...aside from Ted Stevens, Pelosi...well, maybe seeking legislative relief isn't such an idle threat. Get ready to write a lot of letters.
It should be *really* easy. HDTV broadcasts in the US have a pilot on the signal, which is there to make it easy for ATSC receivers to find it. As far as the old NTSC signal goes, that shouldn't be all that difficult either since sync is not only repeating, but the largest portion of modulation.
Do you know how you can tell if the Zune is for real? It's when you see Wal-Mart running ads with a MILF saying that she didn't know that Wal-Mart sold Zunes and it's all her daughter wanted for Christmas. So much so that she carries it everywhere she goes, even when she brushes her teeth. Until that time, it's still an also-ran.
I don't want to turn this into an Apple/Microsoft flame war (I'll leave that to someone else), but let's call this what it is. *Anything* heavily discounted online is going to sell well. And for those who don't need an Apple product, don't like Apple or simply see the value in a 30 gig MP3 player for $150, this will create buzz and demand.
"Something tells me" that Microsoft is engineering the buzz from behind the curtain while again subsidizing the hardware cost in a desperate attempt at market share. But I'm glad, because maybe, finally, enough Zunes will be in the marketplace for a genuine acid test of the music subscription model.
..dismissed with prejudice!
You sub 200,000 IDs make me feel so young!
I love this comment from the article:
"But, Walsh said, 'any state that's refusing to implement this key recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, and whose state driver's licenses are as a result used in another terrorist attack, should be held responsible.'"
So, the terrorist was permitted entry into the US, but because he obtained a state driver's license in a non-participating state, the state is somehow responsible? Oh, that's rich!
These people are out of control. I fear for our republic.
I never thought I'd play the Microsoft apologist, but getting a patent that covers a broad swath of how to display ads on a computer may be their plan to keep advertising off the desktop. Being the devil's advocate (pun intended), Microsoft may want to sue companies as a way to make them go away. As more malware hides deeper into the OS, this might an arrow in the quiver to combat the use for profit.
It's also possible that this is intended for another go at a DVR. Not that I would store documents on my DVR, it seems logical to want to be able to throw ads in there in the most efficient way possible.
However, if taken at first glance, it appears Microsoft has truly come up with yet another innovative way to make Windows an even more awful user experience. Way to go, Microsoft!
The thing that is the future for Intel is not only the bizillion cores and cheaper/faster, but to do so with outstanding energy efficiency. This is obviously important for portable computing, but it's also important to reduce heat load and power consumption in large data centers. Cost of ownership comparisons have yet to include power consumption, but as green house gas taxes start making their way onto electric bills, it's likely to be a selling point.
More and more there's a need for extremely energy efficient, low footprint devices for special purpose applications. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to have PC sucking 60 watts when all you need is something to run Minicom to a simple 15" LCD screen.
What the networks have been failing to grasp (and many here have mentioned) is that there is not going to be just one method of distribution. The spate of technology has empowered the viewer to watch on their own terms, and the content creators would be making a drastic mistake to bet on one technology edging out the other. Some people will want to watch it on the AppleTV, and some people will be happy to download it with their media PCs while others will hang in there with their Tivo. Many more will elect to watch it on their iPods or tiny cell phone screens while sitting on a train to work (or hopefully, not while driving to work).
Appointment TV is dead; the networks and broadcasters need to wake up to the fact that everyone showing up in front of their televisions at a set time to watch Idol is becoming as arcane and antiquated as the family life portrayed in 1950's family sitcoms. They need to realize that in order to capture every eyeball, they'll have to distribute it on cable, on the download sites and services for products like AppleTV, on their own web sites, on cellular networks and every other place where they can find eyeballs. To ignore this will simply result in less dollars for them because they are not making their shows available to the largest number of people.
If the author were really concerned about mercury, he'd spend his time worry about the mercury in dental amalgam. That mercury is in your mouth, it turns into vapor which is easily absorbed through breathing or through contact with food and saliva and probably has far more health consequences than breaking 100 CFL bulbs and walking through the mess with your bare feet.
The problem lies in the fact that you do not own your personal information, it's considered an asset of the corporation holding it. The Fair Credit Reporting Act still puts the burden of monitoring and repairing credit profile on the individual. The free credit report legislated in the past couple years does nothing to stop identity theft, and the FCRA continues to be decidedly anti-consumer.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act should allow me full and unfettered access to the information about me whenever I deem it necessary. NO ONE should be able to gain access to my report without my consent, and no one should be able to open credit under my profile without some form of verification that I permitted it. While they're at it, I should have free access to my FICO score without having to sign-up for trials or scam services. If you're going to use my personal information to create a benchmark of my credit worthiness, then I should have free access to both. They both affect my interest and insurance rates.
As others have said, laws making something illegal or "extra illegal" are not going to stop criminals. What will slow this problem is forcing information brokers and providers to clean up their act under the threat of dire financial losses. And while the lawmakers are at it, they need to make sure that consumers have easy and ample access to their credit profiles in order to stop the damage from the inevitable theft of someone's identity. In this day and age where you can get a $30,000 car loan in 2 minutes, it is infurirating that you can't check your credit profile for free on the credit reporting agencies but once per year.
I'm not in favor of more taxes, and I understand your umbrage over this proposal.
It simply is not fair for me, who was self-employed, to shoulder a burden of $38,000 a year in taxes on income and taxes for social security and medicare, when someone who is a professional eBay seller to make that kind of money tax free. It isn't fair; we live in the same country, we enjoy the same infrastructure and yet they are able to game the system into a free ride.
Our government, through continued ineptitude and bad money management, has to figure out a way to collect more money to dig itself out of the huge hole we find ourselves. So the options are that I (and you) get to pay even MORE money in taxes while the professional auction site people skate free, or they force these people to start paying the taxes they should be paying anyway?
Unfortunately, the honest people are going to get taxed anyway. There is no choice but for us to pay more taxes in general, and the costs of eBay managing the 1099 reporting will be passed along to everyone using eBay.
As far as the particulars of the taxation, I'm certain that the first few thousand dollars will be exempted. Then of course, that cap won't be raised to index with inflation and eventually everyone will be subject to the tax (see above, we all get taxed anyway). Liquidating an estate will fall under other IRS rules, and since you're just getting a 1099 and not having eBay collect the tax, this should be a fairly easy situation to remedy. Well, unless you're Paris Hilton. Then again, Paris Hilton is the poster child of why this country needs an estate tax.
From IDG, the people who conveniently provide you a trial to all their other publications and then call you relentlessly via their call center in Banglore to "renew your subscription". Apparently, you have to tell them no 10 times before it's counted as a real confirmation you don't want their free magazine.
The userContent.css from floppymoose.com and NoScript make the web enjoyable. I'm sorry it cuts down on their ad revenue, but the fact of the matter is that animated graphics, jumping Flash ads and things that scroll across my screen ("Take Our Survey" -- NO!) are annoying and increasingly intolerable. And when I visit a site, adbrite, doubleclick, casalemedia and the rest have absolutely no business executing javascript on my computer. If that affects your web business, maybe you better find something that people don't find intrusive and offensive to their privacy.
I'm sure if you listen to Computerworld long enough, you might come to the conclusion that the world would be a much better place if everyone just used Internet Explorer. We tried that, it wasn't working out so well.
Microsoft not having proprietary hardware lock-in is exactly my point; the need to cater to every conceivable chuck of hardware along with permitting copious permission between drivers and the kernel is not an advantage. It's a major contributor to instability and only when it was no longer advantageous to gaining marketshare did Microsoft make any overtures to changing that.
The attraction of OS X is that you have it before you, on a piece of hardware on which you know it will run. You don't have a situation where Microsoft points to the OEM, the OEM points to some Taiwanese chip maker's web site for an "updated" driver, unsigned by Microsoft to fix what should have been working the second you pulled the computer from the box.
God bless Linux, but I have to tell you, it has its moments. Is it superior to Microsoft? You bet your sweet bippy. Am I going to run it on my primary notebook machine? I have. Why don't I now? Because I deal with computers and electronics all day and the last thing I want to do when I'm on my own time is maintain a computer in typical PC fashion.
Or, to put it another way; having the hardware and OS lock-in was an attraction to me because I was pretty certain that I wouldn't have to endure the torture of Microsoft in the workplace. And I was right.
Apple loves their early adopters. It's a tough love though.
How is licensing the OS to work with other people's hardware going to make things any better? We've already seen how well that concept works with Microsoft, and I'm not confident that the guys at Apple will have any more success at it.
But the customer isn't always right, as you would know if you've ever worked in support or retail. I've dealt with customers who would never shoplift, but think nothing of buying a product to pilfer replacement parts for one they already own, and then returning the purchase to the store and sticking someone else with missing parts. Good companies know how to make it right without making good customers ex-customers. And good companies know how to fire bad customers who take advantage of the company.
Amazon should have little problem figuring out who needs to be fired and which customers need to be told to enjoy the extra DVDs. And if you are firing the customer, then I see no problem going after the money since you have no intentions of keeping them around.
If you do that, make sure you do it with gift cards and not a credit card. Your $.99 Canadian iTunes purchase will result in a $3.00 foreign currency exchange fee on your credit card. Plus, the $.99 for the song.
Instead of laws on cookies, how about laws requiring basic education on how to run the computer and web browser? Or maybe simply strong-arming Microsoft into deleting cookies upon exit of the browser.
In the meantime, what could be simpler than using Firefox, telling it to accept all cookies and then setting the drop-down to "delete when I close Firefox"? Really. Works like a champ and I wish them luck in tracking me with my ever changing IP.
The music industry needs to get around the mindset that they are due a monthly stipend. That pricing system rewards mediocrity and lack of creativity, which is all to prevalent in what the music industry calls its product today. There is absolutely no way I will pay any money for a license to listen to music that I may already own or music I wish to own. The fact someone is willing to pay money for a product, whether it's $15 per CD or 99 cents per download is the incentive this industry needs to give the customer what they want, not what the music industry wants. It's been written here so many times before that the reason the industry has lackluster sales is because the product isn't what the customer wants and its delivery method doesn't suit the method the customer wants.
I can't think of too many "kids" who don't like iTunes. My kids and their friends eat up iTunes gift cards downloading the exact music they want without having to pay $15 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs they enjoy. Which heralds back to what I remember as a kid where I could run up to the local drug store, fork over a dollar and get a 45 with the exact music I wanted (yeah, I'm that old). That's what the music industry was built upon before it was turned into a cash machine that ate customer good-will. And that was before the advent of downloadable music; now the music industry is vilified to the point of no return in the eyes of its customers.