With $100M, it seems like they could find someone who speaks Russian and forge that business relationship. And don't piss and moan about the corrupt Russian government and the shady legal company holding the royalties, what do you think the the US Congress and the RIAA look like to those in other countries?
"As much as we all hate ads, someone has to pay for the TV broadcast."
You've got a high UID and are admitting to being an intern, so I'm guessing you don't remember the beginning of cable. You see, back in the "dark ages" as you millenials might call it, the advantage to cable was that there were no commercials. That's why it cost money, and that's why it was okay for us to pay money to get cable - no ads, except on the rebroadcast of the OTA networks. OTA had to have advertisements becuase there was no revenue stream. So, the question is: for $100/mo, you can't produce enough to pay for programming? Yes, it's a rhetorical question. broadcast rights and players salaries, and all that shit. Guess what - if advertisers weren't willing to pay, there would not be such huge value to the coverage rights. Lower value = lower marketing = fewer multimillionaires who can't spell their names.
In a way, cable has brought this on themselves. Quit spending so much effort trying to prevent us from watching what we want, when we want, and maybe you'll find yourselves in a better financial position.
(this isn't directed at you, as the person above suggests, of course..I lapsed into soapbox mode too easily there)
FWIW, cash is a better budgeting tool. I take out a fixed amount every week. If I run out of cash, I don't buy any other disposable-income stuff that week. Groceries, eating out, casual entertainment, parking, haircuts, gas, and whatever else, comes out of that money. I pay the "bills" (phone/sat/house/insurance) separately, and big purchases are planned. My credit card usually includes a couple internet-only purchases, and I usually doc the next week's cash by that amount, and unforseen large payments (emergencies, auto maintenance). I've trimmed about 35% of my monthly expenditures this way, and don't really even notice the difference. CC are easy to abuse, even if it's minor abuse. The extra money either gets me something bigger I really want but would have otherwise borrowed money for (ex: boat, TV, major home improvement), or goes into the retirement fund. Right now my mortgage and daycare for my daugther is close to 70% of my actual expenditures, and my mortgage is small compared to most. Pay off the house and get my daughter into grade school, and we could live on burger-flipping salaries with no changes. It's a good place to be - my wife has quit her job to help me at my office part time, and it means that retirement will still come early.
You've just touched on the second* best reason for the Iraq war. Nothing spurs an economy like wartime. FDR knew that, too - it's not a D/R thing. Sadly, it's growth based on debt, and the US is racking it up quite quickly.
*The first is, of course, to avenge the stalemate Sr played into with the senior psycopath. If you want to talk terrorism, let's dicuss Afghanistan; if you're into WMD, we should have paid just a wee but more attention to N. Korea.
They certainly are. Which is why they charge $2 per foreign transaction. When they've got you by the short hairs, they can charge you whatever they want. Since there's no advantage to them of lowering rates, they all settle around the same fee. $1 vs $2 won't bring enough extra traffic to justify the diference, and could result in higher usage that would drain the ATM more quickly. Nobody likes an empty ATM.
Just grab something a bit heavier - some loose change, for example, and put it on the plate with the washers. Then put the extra item on the bag carousel, but not in your bag. I actually had a problem buying two serrano peppers at a normal terminal one day at Kroger. The answer was to add a penny to the scale so that it could register the minimum weight (a couple hundreths of a pound).
On the general topic, I find the self checkouts amazingly quick, and was thrilled to find that HD had added them. They're rarely busy, and with the exception that I can scan and bag faster than the machine can register, they're pretty efficient. Still, I'll go to a regular line if I've got a bunch of non-barcoded stuff (produce, etc). It's not worth navigating the several selection layers per item.
No one in their right mind, who doesn't have a FICO in the 400s, uses a debit card. No anonymity and it's YOUR money that's gone temporarily if there's an error. Credit cards don't have anonymity, but if there's a screw-up, you've got anywhere from 10 to 40 days to fix it before you every have to consider shelling out a cent. Plus, if there's a royal fuck up, you don't end up bouncing your mortage payment and every other bill that month. Let the CC company float that cash and take the brunt of the errors.
If you need anonymity, do what Sen. Bob Dole does - have your assitant take $10k out of the bank every couple weeks and pay for everything with cash. When asked why he does this, his answer was simple: there no way to trace it.
Why bother with all that memorization. Heck, I can never remember stuff I don't use on a regular basis and it takes me a good 10-12 logins to really burn in a password. That's why I ditched truly random in favor of a long password string, from which I chose my passwords. See, I just wrote a short routine to generate 250 characters, alphanumeric only, including upper and lowercase. I pick a starting point and use (say) a 9 character password. When it's time for a new password, I choose a new spot in the string to start from. If I'm feeling odd, I'll go backwards in the string. But how do I remember all 250 characters? I don't. I print it out on a card and put it in my wallet, unlabelled, along with all the phone numbers I might need in an emergency. Heck, I might even leave a copy on my desk if I'm burning a new password into my skull. Easy for me to remember where I started, a good bit harder for anyone else. And, since most systems that matter have a lockout function, it would take someone quite a good bit of time to try all combinations at random (there are still about 2000 resonable combinations of length, starting character, and direction). We're not talking about nuclear start codes, here.
If it was dismantled, then security wasn't really necessary at that level, was it? Often, security measures can be overdone by people who are too conservative. If a VP decides that his vanity is more important than what could be lost by the company if security is removed, that is his or her call. They are well compensated because they are given the authority and responsibilty to make those decisions. He may have just identified an area where the company could save resources (through less security). Or, maybe not. Only time will tell if the security was needed, but either way the decision will have his fingerprints on it. (That's not to imply that those fingerprints will be recognized and correlated in the event of a failure; not all top management is competent)
maybe it was an upper manager who was in a hurry and didn't want to get out his ID card
Yes, it's not the situation in the article, but you bring up a very valid point:
Security Is For Everyone
You absolutely should call security on upper management, though you might want to do it from someone else's phone. Management, not matter what level, must respect the security measures, no matter how high they are. The CEO should have his ID card at the ready if he's in a secure facility. *hrupph*
Okay, so I did RTFA. This is a press release that they have a new web designer that's good at ecommerce. Oh, and they happen to need this new website because they've got this keyboard they want to sell. Yeah.
I'm stuck between a healty WTF and a "who gives a shit?"
No, actually we shouldn't. There have been numerous times this year (I can think of no less than 8 separate instances off the top of my head) that the 24 hour forcast was abyssmally wrong. Rain when it was supposed to be sunny and visa versa, snowfall estimates off by 300% or more, temperatures off by 10 degrees or more, and the like. When I listen to the 7am news and it's going to be mostly sunny with a 20% chance of showers in my area during the morning, and it's overcast with a steady drizzle from my home and most of the 50 mile commute to the office - which was just down the street from the news station - I call bullshit on the $X million they spent last year. Cut the "meteorologist" a fucking window in his office, and he could probably tack an extra 10% onto his accuracy rating.
No, we've still got a long way to go. They might be able to predict 10 days to 2 weeks out, but unless you live in SoCal, the accuracy of the latter half are rarely worth the money spent on the RF transmission. (SoCal weather - now there's a racket. 10 months of the year, you could just say "sunny and breezy on the coast, hot in the valley" and be done with it. January and february are a little more tricky, but if you jsut say sunny everyday, you've got a 75% chance of being right anyway, and throw in a "possible showers" and you've got it covered)
Half the posters seem to have read into the title and tag line that doctors would be replaced by computers. Is that part of the book that isn't presented here?
First of all, more tools are generally better. It appears that, as with practically all disciplines, doctors will need to become more savvy regarding computers. But really it seems pretty minor - you will still need a doctor, someone who understands the basic operation of the human systems and diseases to use these new tools. I see doctors being around for quite some time. My hope is that the increased volume of products will tend to bring down the unit costs, and that (questionable) legal settlements don't more than offset the savings.
The thing is that, no matter what tools are available, it will still require a human - a smart human - to link the symptoms with the problem, and the problem with the cure. It is still the doctor's responsibility to look at the entire patient, not just the gee whiz stuff, to make a diagnosis and specify treatment. Engineers deal with this all the time - Finite Element Modelling has revolutionized mechanical and structural design. Still, the best designers out there know how to do it without the programs. They understand how and why things work; the FEM gives them a more detailed view and can make things more accurate, more efficient. Doctors are the same way - these tools let them refine their practice, do more with less invasive procedures.
Hey - choose your three least favorite medical exams. They're probably annual to tri-annual, right? And you put them off when you can anyway. Now, what if they sent you through a CT scan once a year and sat down with you in the office, and there were no invasive procedures necessary unless you actually had a problem? Making that appointment is a lot easier. I say overall health is the winner in this case (providing we can afford it).
No, but there are rumors about 5000 or 10000 layoffs in all. Based on freshout salaries that intel is giving out, I'd say the 5000 number (1k managers, 4k dead weight) should hit that $1B mark, once you count labor burden (benefits, non-fixed overhead, non-fixed G&A).
Should there ever exist a situation where is becomes "time for the CEO to step up," you have exactly pinpointed the moment when the situation has gotten so bad that even the bad employee knows that he/she is doing a crappy job, and should have been fired long ago. CEO's get paid to lead, and if you're not actively leading either (a) the company is satisfied with the status quo or (b) you're not doing your job. Just as a point of clarification, in anything other than a small, family business, the condition (a) does not exist. In the rare circumstance that (a) does exist, there is no need for a dedicated CEO; an experienced memeber of staff can lead the senior staff in reviewing the status quo each quarter or year - and that's the entire time that need be spent on the task.
I was wondering how the advancement of high energy laser beams powerful enough and accurate enough to destroy "rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles" has managed to progress this far without anyone hearing about it. Also, if this technology actually works, why are any of the tests by North Korea bothering anybody near them. I mean, if you can shoot anything down with a laser, who gives a flip if they lob a small rocket or two towards you.
You have, of course, hit the mark with the Palestinian rocket issue. The entire west bank border is only 300km long. For less than $2B they could protect the entire border from rocket attacks. Which means that either (a) Israel doesn't care about bombings or (b) it doesn't work with shit. I'm betting on (b).
That's a little extreme. The "no matter who is on it" give me shivers. There are lots of kooks in the democratic party, and it was made very clear two years ago that folks in Iowa haven't the faintest idea what they're doing. Worse yet, everybody seems to turn into lemmings afterwards.
I firmly believe that the Democrats have good intentions, but too many of them are lacking in pragmatism. Republicans, on the other hand, are quite pragmatic, but seem to have lost all sense of balance and equity. Most of the Republicans I know who make solid 6 figures consider themselves "middle class". I've got news...200k a year is nowhere near middle class - it's more like top couple percent. It may feel like middle class, especially in high-rent areas, but that kind of income requires standing on the backs of a lot of people who make a lot less.
Bush has given the Democrats quite an opportunity, but I suspect they will somehow manage to squander it. That is the danger of the Democratic party - there are a lot of "warring" factions that come under that banner, and many don't get along. It's an uneasy coalition because, imho, they have stongly held beliefs that they are not willing to compromise. Good moral fiber = bad politics, it's just the way of the world. The same can be partially true for the republicans, but they do have God and Rednecks on their side, and they'll hold their noses for quite a lot if they think it will get them to their goal. The RNC knows this, and has done a masterful job of uniting the disparate forces.
Personally, I'd vote for Mark Warner over John McCain, but I would have trouble with voting for many of the other dem hopefulls over him. Sen. Clinton is a back stabbing ladder climber, as are most women who make it that far (I don't think we'll ever have a "female" president. We might get someone with a pair of X chromosomes, but her mannerisms and tactics will be strictly XY). And, in case you should bring up McCain's change of attitude towards the Christian right, let me just say that I don't believe his heart was really in the rimjob he gave Jerry Falwell.
Making a move like this _without_ reduciing price could very well hurt Sony's sales dramatically. Especially if their competitors don't follow suit.
And that's the real trick, isn't it - to get everyone on board with the fleecing. Oh, of course it wouldn't be coordinated, just "markets progessing in the natural fashion". Yeah *cough*bullshit*cough*. All Sony has to do is make it close to working, and as soon as everyone sees the profit the whole industry will move that way, and Congress will make sure to rubber stamp legislation which makes the sale legal.
Back to my conjecture about gas - you haven't stopped using it, you haven't converted to other forms of transportation. You certainly have reduced your consumption though (and your realtor(s), if you owned property, are no doubt pleased with your decision). There will be those gamers on the "fringes" who will do the same - buying fewer games. But most will succumb to the lure of the game, and will plunk down the cash. Modern movies are probably a better example than gas. Sure, there are people who don't go anymore, but the numbers say that the general population just forks over more cash to sit through 15 minutes of commercials.
The worst this could do is make it harder to convert wii/360 folks to the PS, but the fanbois will buy it all anyway. And, as I said, once their model gets established the other players will follow suit. People say that nobody in industry learned from Divx. I think they learned way too much, to be honest. They'll take a little at a time, here and there, until its all gone instead of tyring to take it all at once.
Mark my words, in the next decade first sale will be eliminated for digital goods.
I almost said "six years if the Republicans keep control of the house, senate, and white house" and then I realized that that would be a blatently political statement which has no real merit. I don't think it matters which major party is in power, first sale is going down either way. 6 years at the inside, 12 years at the outside.
Oh, and since I've pulled the politics card out: Just in case you didn't know who you were thinking of voting for in 2008, I would highly recommned looking up the record of Mark Warner, a Democrat who recently served at the Governer of Virginia. It has been, perhaps, the best 4 years of governance I've seen. The man is environmentally concious, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative. Not everything he did was saintly - I chafe at the purchasing system he implemented for government contracts - but he plays well with others and had a level head. I can't say that about many other people in the spotlight on either side. I honestly believe that we could end up with "Warner Republicans" like we had "Reagan Democrats" in the 80s, if the middle right would take a good hard look at him.
Slashdot Mirror
Iirc, pineapples do not ripen once picked. They are under ripe or ripe based on how they came off the tree, or they are rotten.
Tomatoes also do not ripen appreciably. They can, however, be "reddened" by using ethylene. Pretty fruits (veggies for SCOTUS), no taste.
If you need some ethylene, grab a few ripe bananas - they are a great source and will help move other fruits, like peaches, along.
With $100M, it seems like they could find someone who speaks Russian and forge that business relationship. And don't piss and moan about the corrupt Russian government and the shady legal company holding the royalties, what do you think the the US Congress and the RIAA look like to those in other countries?
"As much as we all hate ads, someone has to pay for the TV broadcast."
You've got a high UID and are admitting to being an intern, so I'm guessing you don't remember the beginning of cable. You see, back in the "dark ages" as you millenials might call it, the advantage to cable was that there were no commercials. That's why it cost money, and that's why it was okay for us to pay money to get cable - no ads, except on the rebroadcast of the OTA networks. OTA had to have advertisements becuase there was no revenue stream. So, the question is: for $100/mo, you can't produce enough to pay for programming? Yes, it's a rhetorical question. broadcast rights and players salaries, and all that shit. Guess what - if advertisers weren't willing to pay, there would not be such huge value to the coverage rights. Lower value = lower marketing = fewer multimillionaires who can't spell their names.
In a way, cable has brought this on themselves. Quit spending so much effort trying to prevent us from watching what we want, when we want, and maybe you'll find yourselves in a better financial position.
(this isn't directed at you, as the person above suggests, of course..I lapsed into soapbox mode too easily there)
FWIW, cash is a better budgeting tool. I take out a fixed amount every week. If I run out of cash, I don't buy any other disposable-income stuff that week. Groceries, eating out, casual entertainment, parking, haircuts, gas, and whatever else, comes out of that money. I pay the "bills" (phone/sat/house/insurance) separately, and big purchases are planned. My credit card usually includes a couple internet-only purchases, and I usually doc the next week's cash by that amount, and unforseen large payments (emergencies, auto maintenance). I've trimmed about 35% of my monthly expenditures this way, and don't really even notice the difference. CC are easy to abuse, even if it's minor abuse. The extra money either gets me something bigger I really want but would have otherwise borrowed money for (ex: boat, TV, major home improvement), or goes into the retirement fund. Right now my mortgage and daycare for my daugther is close to 70% of my actual expenditures, and my mortgage is small compared to most. Pay off the house and get my daughter into grade school, and we could live on burger-flipping salaries with no changes. It's a good place to be - my wife has quit her job to help me at my office part time, and it means that retirement will still come early.
...like articles matter in porno mags.
You've just touched on the second* best reason for the Iraq war. Nothing spurs an economy like wartime. FDR knew that, too - it's not a D/R thing. Sadly, it's growth based on debt, and the US is racking it up quite quickly.
*The first is, of course, to avenge the stalemate Sr played into with the senior psycopath. If you want to talk terrorism, let's dicuss Afghanistan; if you're into WMD, we should have paid just a wee but more attention to N. Korea.
They certainly are. Which is why they charge $2 per foreign transaction. When they've got you by the short hairs, they can charge you whatever they want. Since there's no advantage to them of lowering rates, they all settle around the same fee. $1 vs $2 won't bring enough extra traffic to justify the diference, and could result in higher usage that would drain the ATM more quickly. Nobody likes an empty ATM.
Just grab something a bit heavier - some loose change, for example, and put it on the plate with the washers. Then put the extra item on the bag carousel, but not in your bag. I actually had a problem buying two serrano peppers at a normal terminal one day at Kroger. The answer was to add a penny to the scale so that it could register the minimum weight (a couple hundreths of a pound).
On the general topic, I find the self checkouts amazingly quick, and was thrilled to find that HD had added them. They're rarely busy, and with the exception that I can scan and bag faster than the machine can register, they're pretty efficient. Still, I'll go to a regular line if I've got a bunch of non-barcoded stuff (produce, etc). It's not worth navigating the several selection layers per item.
No one in their right mind, who doesn't have a FICO in the 400s, uses a debit card. No anonymity and it's YOUR money that's gone temporarily if there's an error. Credit cards don't have anonymity, but if there's a screw-up, you've got anywhere from 10 to 40 days to fix it before you every have to consider shelling out a cent. Plus, if there's a royal fuck up, you don't end up bouncing your mortage payment and every other bill that month. Let the CC company float that cash and take the brunt of the errors.
If you need anonymity, do what Sen. Bob Dole does - have your assitant take $10k out of the bank every couple weeks and pay for everything with cash. When asked why he does this, his answer was simple: there no way to trace it.
...consider an electric starter.
(sorry, just couldn't resist).
Yes, I have a small child. No, she hasn't watched it into oblivion yet (she's working on destroying "The Incredibles" at the moment).
You mean Boot DVD, right? It sounds like even compressing the image isn't going to get it under 1.3GB in size.
Why bother with all that memorization. Heck, I can never remember stuff I don't use on a regular basis and it takes me a good 10-12 logins to really burn in a password. That's why I ditched truly random in favor of a long password string, from which I chose my passwords. See, I just wrote a short routine to generate 250 characters, alphanumeric only, including upper and lowercase. I pick a starting point and use (say) a 9 character password. When it's time for a new password, I choose a new spot in the string to start from. If I'm feeling odd, I'll go backwards in the string. But how do I remember all 250 characters? I don't. I print it out on a card and put it in my wallet, unlabelled, along with all the phone numbers I might need in an emergency. Heck, I might even leave a copy on my desk if I'm burning a new password into my skull. Easy for me to remember where I started, a good bit harder for anyone else. And, since most systems that matter have a lockout function, it would take someone quite a good bit of time to try all combinations at random (there are still about 2000 resonable combinations of length, starting character, and direction). We're not talking about nuclear start codes, here.
If it was dismantled, then security wasn't really necessary at that level, was it? Often, security measures can be overdone by people who are too conservative. If a VP decides that his vanity is more important than what could be lost by the company if security is removed, that is his or her call. They are well compensated because they are given the authority and responsibilty to make those decisions. He may have just identified an area where the company could save resources (through less security). Or, maybe not. Only time will tell if the security was needed, but either way the decision will have his fingerprints on it. (That's not to imply that those fingerprints will be recognized and correlated in the event of a failure; not all top management is competent)
maybe it was an upper manager who was in a hurry and didn't want to get out his ID card
Yes, it's not the situation in the article, but you bring up a very valid point:
Security Is For Everyone
You absolutely should call security on upper management, though you might want to do it from someone else's phone. Management, not matter what level, must respect the security measures, no matter how high they are. The CEO should have his ID card at the ready if he's in a secure facility. *hrupph*
Could be worse. Some numb nut could reprogram it to say T. Kennedy. Try and get on a flight now!
Okay, so I did RTFA. This is a press release that they have a new web designer that's good at ecommerce. Oh, and they happen to need this new website because they've got this keyboard they want to sell. Yeah.
I'm stuck between a healty WTF and a "who gives a shit?"
No, actually we shouldn't. There have been numerous times this year (I can think of no less than 8 separate instances off the top of my head) that the 24 hour forcast was abyssmally wrong. Rain when it was supposed to be sunny and visa versa, snowfall estimates off by 300% or more, temperatures off by 10 degrees or more, and the like. When I listen to the 7am news and it's going to be mostly sunny with a 20% chance of showers in my area during the morning, and it's overcast with a steady drizzle from my home and most of the 50 mile commute to the office - which was just down the street from the news station - I call bullshit on the $X million they spent last year. Cut the "meteorologist" a fucking window in his office, and he could probably tack an extra 10% onto his accuracy rating.
No, we've still got a long way to go. They might be able to predict 10 days to 2 weeks out, but unless you live in SoCal, the accuracy of the latter half are rarely worth the money spent on the RF transmission. (SoCal weather - now there's a racket. 10 months of the year, you could just say "sunny and breezy on the coast, hot in the valley" and be done with it. January and february are a little more tricky, but if you jsut say sunny everyday, you've got a 75% chance of being right anyway, and throw in a "possible showers" and you've got it covered)
Half the posters seem to have read into the title and tag line that doctors would be replaced by computers. Is that part of the book that isn't presented here?
First of all, more tools are generally better. It appears that, as with practically all disciplines, doctors will need to become more savvy regarding computers. But really it seems pretty minor - you will still need a doctor, someone who understands the basic operation of the human systems and diseases to use these new tools. I see doctors being around for quite some time. My hope is that the increased volume of products will tend to bring down the unit costs, and that (questionable) legal settlements don't more than offset the savings.
The thing is that, no matter what tools are available, it will still require a human - a smart human - to link the symptoms with the problem, and the problem with the cure. It is still the doctor's responsibility to look at the entire patient, not just the gee whiz stuff, to make a diagnosis and specify treatment. Engineers deal with this all the time - Finite Element Modelling has revolutionized mechanical and structural design. Still, the best designers out there know how to do it without the programs. They understand how and why things work; the FEM gives them a more detailed view and can make things more accurate, more efficient. Doctors are the same way - these tools let them refine their practice, do more with less invasive procedures.
Hey - choose your three least favorite medical exams. They're probably annual to tri-annual, right? And you put them off when you can anyway. Now, what if they sent you through a CT scan once a year and sat down with you in the office, and there were no invasive procedures necessary unless you actually had a problem? Making that appointment is a lot easier. I say overall health is the winner in this case (providing we can afford it).
No, but there are rumors about 5000 or 10000 layoffs in all. Based on freshout salaries that intel is giving out, I'd say the 5000 number (1k managers, 4k dead weight) should hit that $1B mark, once you count labor burden (benefits, non-fixed overhead, non-fixed G&A).
Should there ever exist a situation where is becomes "time for the CEO to step up," you have exactly pinpointed the moment when the situation has gotten so bad that even the bad employee knows that he/she is doing a crappy job, and should have been fired long ago. CEO's get paid to lead, and if you're not actively leading either (a) the company is satisfied with the status quo or (b) you're not doing your job. Just as a point of clarification, in anything other than a small, family business, the condition (a) does not exist. In the rare circumstance that (a) does exist, there is no need for a dedicated CEO; an experienced memeber of staff can lead the senior staff in reviewing the status quo each quarter or year - and that's the entire time that need be spent on the task.
Flamebait, my ass.
I was wondering how the advancement of high energy laser beams powerful enough and accurate enough to destroy "rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles" has managed to progress this far without anyone hearing about it. Also, if this technology actually works, why are any of the tests by North Korea bothering anybody near them. I mean, if you can shoot anything down with a laser, who gives a flip if they lob a small rocket or two towards you.
You have, of course, hit the mark with the Palestinian rocket issue. The entire west bank border is only 300km long. For less than $2B they could protect the entire border from rocket attacks. Which means that either (a) Israel doesn't care about bombings or (b) it doesn't work with shit. I'm betting on (b).
That's a little extreme. The "no matter who is on it" give me shivers. There are lots of kooks in the democratic party, and it was made very clear two years ago that folks in Iowa haven't the faintest idea what they're doing. Worse yet, everybody seems to turn into lemmings afterwards.
I firmly believe that the Democrats have good intentions, but too many of them are lacking in pragmatism. Republicans, on the other hand, are quite pragmatic, but seem to have lost all sense of balance and equity. Most of the Republicans I know who make solid 6 figures consider themselves "middle class". I've got news...200k a year is nowhere near middle class - it's more like top couple percent. It may feel like middle class, especially in high-rent areas, but that kind of income requires standing on the backs of a lot of people who make a lot less.
Bush has given the Democrats quite an opportunity, but I suspect they will somehow manage to squander it. That is the danger of the Democratic party - there are a lot of "warring" factions that come under that banner, and many don't get along. It's an uneasy coalition because, imho, they have stongly held beliefs that they are not willing to compromise. Good moral fiber = bad politics, it's just the way of the world. The same can be partially true for the republicans, but they do have God and Rednecks on their side, and they'll hold their noses for quite a lot if they think it will get them to their goal. The RNC knows this, and has done a masterful job of uniting the disparate forces.
Personally, I'd vote for Mark Warner over John McCain, but I would have trouble with voting for many of the other dem hopefulls over him. Sen. Clinton is a back stabbing ladder climber, as are most women who make it that far (I don't think we'll ever have a "female" president. We might get someone with a pair of X chromosomes, but her mannerisms and tactics will be strictly XY). And, in case you should bring up McCain's change of attitude towards the Christian right, let me just say that I don't believe his heart was really in the rimjob he gave Jerry Falwell.
Making a move like this _without_ reduciing price could very well hurt Sony's sales dramatically. Especially if their competitors don't follow suit.
And that's the real trick, isn't it - to get everyone on board with the fleecing. Oh, of course it wouldn't be coordinated, just "markets progessing in the natural fashion". Yeah *cough*bullshit*cough*.
All Sony has to do is make it close to working, and as soon as everyone sees the profit the whole industry will move that way, and Congress will make sure to rubber stamp legislation which makes the sale legal.
Back to my conjecture about gas - you haven't stopped using it, you haven't converted to other forms of transportation. You certainly have reduced your consumption though (and your realtor(s), if you owned property, are no doubt pleased with your decision). There will be those gamers on the "fringes" who will do the same - buying fewer games. But most will succumb to the lure of the game, and will plunk down the cash. Modern movies are probably a better example than gas. Sure, there are people who don't go anymore, but the numbers say that the general population just forks over more cash to sit through 15 minutes of commercials.
The worst this could do is make it harder to convert wii/360 folks to the PS, but the fanbois will buy it all anyway. And, as I said, once their model gets established the other players will follow suit. People say that nobody in industry learned from Divx. I think they learned way too much, to be honest. They'll take a little at a time, here and there, until its all gone instead of tyring to take it all at once.
Mark my words, in the next decade first sale will be eliminated for digital goods.
I almost said "six years if the Republicans keep control of the house, senate, and white house" and then I realized that that would be a blatently political statement which has no real merit. I don't think it matters which major party is in power, first sale is going down either way. 6 years at the inside, 12 years at the outside.
Oh, and since I've pulled the politics card out: Just in case you didn't know who you were thinking of voting for in 2008, I would highly recommned looking up the record of Mark Warner, a Democrat who recently served at the Governer of Virginia. It has been, perhaps, the best 4 years of governance I've seen. The man is environmentally concious, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative. Not everything he did was saintly - I chafe at the purchasing system he implemented for government contracts - but he plays well with others and had a level head. I can't say that about many other people in the spotlight on either side. I honestly believe that we could end up with "Warner Republicans" like we had "Reagan Democrats" in the 80s, if the middle right would take a good hard look at him.