IBM is a public company and if it
benefits the stockholders to leave a town, they are legally obligated to do it. [emphasis mine]
I hear this argument a lot. That publicly held companies have a legal obligation to "benefit sotckholders" or "maximize profits." Is there really a legal basis for this? Are there civil statutes that say companies must do whatever it takes to make money for stockholders? Or is this legal obligation based in contract law where the stockholder will/can sue if the company makes decisions that appear to adversley affect them?
I have a hard time believing that the DA, SEC, or FTC would go after a company that made unprofitable business decisions. Anybody know?
Re:Why not a partnership?
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 2
Oh, god. I can still here that bad, southern accented synthesized voice saying, "Bombs away." Thanks for the time trip.
It is not the place of private corporations to be actively enforcing laws. So, yes, it is unfair. Would you want insurance companies sending employess out on highways with radar guns to write speeding tickets? I'm sure speeders hurt the insurance companies' bottom lines. But enforcing laws is not the province of private individuals or companies. Corporations should not be given executive powers. This bill is the very definition of vigilantism.
Although I can't speak from personal experience, you'll probably wan to check out Hancom Office (http://www.hancaom.com/ or Chinese http://www.hancom.com.tw/) for an office suite. It's a commercial suite by a Korean company and will likely have better Chinese support than open suites.
My point was that it would be a better use of time and other resources to pick a subset of the "hundred or even thousands of pictures" and do real archival preservation.
Digitizing or preserving thousands or even hundreds of family snapshots is a waste of time and money.
Where people got the idea that I'm condoning wholesale abandonment of family photos is beyond me. Yes, I think that living here and now is more important than waxing nostalgic about the past. No, it doesn't follow that I believe photos aren't worth preserving.
Not to sound too negative, but how important are your photos, really? Why are saving them? Who are you saving them for?
Unless you're really into it, don't worry about saving all your photos. In 100 years most of them won't be worth anything to anyone. Pick out the few that are most important or representative of your family and its history. Then, have archival prints made by a reputable service bureau and store them to archival or close to archival standards.
A family record can be an interesting thing. And, it can even be historically significant in some circumstances. But snapshots are mostly for people in them. Don't waste your time worrying about something so transient. Making moments in the here and now is more important than waxing nostalgic about the past.
Sorry, Ireland and Russia weren't mentioned in the article. However, there may be a place on the inebriation scale between comical (Irish) and dead (Russian) where UFO sightings would fit.
Simple, really. How many cable companies offer service in your area? If the answer is "1" as it is for most people in the U.S., then you have a monopoly.
You make the assumption that people own their thoughts or, really, expressions of thoughts (I don't think we're talking about mind reading here). Their is no philosophical argument to convince me that ideas can be owned. It is this question of ownership that is being debated. You can't assume they own them.
You most likely own the computer you're sitting at (let's assume you're at home). We have plenty of commonly agreed on principles to demonstrate that you own that computer. Possesion, a receipt, its location in your house. Property rights is an age old issue that we've mostly hashed out (that's debatable of course). Intellectual property is a much more recent concept. And, whether you agree or not, a lot of people believe that you cannot own ideas.
I'm all for copyright as it was originally intended. No where in the original copyright laws was it presumed that people naturally own ideas. Copyright grants rights i.e. those rights are not natural. It allows for a system in which people can be considered to "own" the idea for a limited time. Copyright, as it was originally intended, assumes that ideas cannot be owned but grants limited ownership rights in order to encourage sharing.
The great thing about the audio book version is that Vonnegut reads it himself. So, when I read excerpts like your quote I hear V's voice in my head.:)
If you really want to do it right, do it on film. Either pay someone or beg/borrow/steal a medium format camera and try to do it yourself. Film and archive quality prints will probably last longer than CDs and you can get good scans from the negatives if you want digital, too.
I beleive libraries use uncompressed TIFF files for digital archives.
You might find some discussions of this on photo.net
If they adjust downward for theft the Bible won't make it.
When I was a lowly bookseller at a big national chain, *cough* Borders *cough*, one of the most heavily shop-lifted sections of the store was the christian Bible section.
Will everyone please stop referring to themselves and others as consumers. We are implicitly helping the case of the corporations when we do. We are citizens of [[INSERT STATE HERE]] and the U.S.A. through social contracts embodied by state & federal constitutions. We are not subjects of the corporations.
When those two simple words are changed it affects the whole frame of reference of the arguments. When we use "consumer" it is tilted in favor of corporate policy. When we use "citizen" the corporate stance is weakened.
Let's not play the role (consumer) that the corporations are trying to force on us! Stand up, be a citizen! [Cue patriotic music]
If i had one OSS wish it would be to ban the letters 'K' and 'G' from all OSS applications names.
Does anyone like these kinds of names? It's not cute, it's not clever. Is it a lack of imagination? Are the developers too lazy or uninterested to come up with a meaningful and simple name?
How about prosecuting the people who actually made illegal copies of the software. The "it's too hard hard for them to do the right thing so let's let them do the abusive thing" just doesn't float. Napster did nothing illegal. Neither has bnetd. If your business model isn't working out, it's your problem. The courts shouldn't be bailing you out.
Re:Slashdot != Professional Journalism
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
I agree mostly but it's a matter of semantics. I could have used a few more adjectives, I suppose. The heart of the matter is more of professionalism in the sense of someone who knows what the hell they are doing and shows some responsibility to their work. I think we all agree that Slashdot has none of that. It's about respectability and confidence. People want to be able to come here and trust the editors for fair, unbiased reporting -- the ideals of journalism. They're disappointed. It's Slashdot's distance from the ideals that make them seem less professional than their paychecks and less journalistic despite the daily updates.
Can you expand on the bit about "journalism lies in how it is read, now how it is written." Standard definitions go contrary. Is this literary theory?
Re:Slashdot != Professional Journalism
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Oh, I agree with you 100%. They should put more effort into growing as journalists/editors. I just don't expect them to make that effort. I do agree that they have a certain social responsibility to maintain a level of professionalism, I just don't think they can or are willing to make that commitment. Which is why I will never subscribe and I block ads on this site. I don't have the energy to try to push for change and I don't think they're interested.
I could go on at length about this but I don't want to get into it that much. To summarize -- I don't think the editorial policy will ever change; not through public pressure either by complaints or exodus. So, I don't worry about it. I take what I can get from the site and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear this argument a lot. That publicly held companies have a legal obligation to "benefit sotckholders" or "maximize profits." Is there really a legal basis for this? Are there civil statutes that say companies must do whatever it takes to make money for stockholders? Or is this legal obligation based in contract law where the stockholder will/can sue if the company makes decisions that appear to adversley affect them?
I have a hard time believing that the DA, SEC, or FTC would go after a company that made unprofitable business decisions. Anybody know?
Oh, god. I can still here that bad, southern accented synthesized voice saying, "Bombs away." Thanks for the time trip.
It is not the place of private corporations to be actively enforcing laws. So, yes, it is unfair. Would you want insurance companies sending employess out on highways with radar guns to write speeding tickets? I'm sure speeders hurt the insurance companies' bottom lines. But enforcing laws is not the province of private individuals or companies. Corporations should not be given executive powers. This bill is the very definition of vigilantism.
Comparison and environmental ratings of vehicles: http://www.greenercars.com/online.html
Although I can't speak from personal experience, you'll probably wan to check out Hancom Office (http://www.hancaom.com/ or Chinese http://www.hancom.com.tw/) for an office suite. It's a commercial suite by a Korean company and will likely have better Chinese support than open suites.
There's an RPM version of apt-get at freshrpms.net. It's for Redhat but I don't see why it wouldn't work for Mandrake.
I don't think apt-get will solve the problem of different RPMs for different distros.
My point was that it would be a better use of time and other resources to pick a subset of the "hundred or even thousands of pictures" and do real archival preservation.
Digitizing or preserving thousands or even hundreds of family snapshots is a waste of time and money.
Where people got the idea that I'm condoning wholesale abandonment of family photos is beyond me. Yes, I think that living here and now is more important than waxing nostalgic about the past. No, it doesn't follow that I believe photos aren't worth preserving.
Not to sound too negative, but how important are your photos, really? Why are saving them? Who are you saving them for?
Unless you're really into it, don't worry about saving all your photos. In 100 years most of them won't be worth anything to anyone. Pick out the few that are most important or representative of your family and its history. Then, have archival prints made by a reputable service bureau and store them to archival or close to archival standards.
A family record can be an interesting thing. And, it can even be historically significant in some circumstances. But snapshots are mostly for people in them. Don't waste your time worrying about something so transient. Making moments in the here and now is more important than waxing nostalgic about the past.
Sorry, Ireland and Russia weren't mentioned in the article. However, there may be a place on the inebriation scale between comical (Irish) and dead (Russian) where UFO sightings would fit.
Wait, I was going to use that domain for my bulk heroin buying group...
Simple, really. How many cable companies offer service in your area? If the answer is "1" as it is for most people in the U.S., then you have a monopoly.
You make the assumption that people own their thoughts or, really, expressions of thoughts (I don't think we're talking about mind reading here). Their is no philosophical argument to convince me that ideas can be owned. It is this question of ownership that is being debated. You can't assume they own them.
You most likely own the computer you're sitting at (let's assume you're at home). We have plenty of commonly agreed on principles to demonstrate that you own that computer. Possesion, a receipt, its location in your house. Property rights is an age old issue that we've mostly hashed out (that's debatable of course). Intellectual property is a much more recent concept. And, whether you agree or not, a lot of people believe that you cannot own ideas.
I'm all for copyright as it was originally intended. No where in the original copyright laws was it presumed that people naturally own ideas. Copyright grants rights i.e. those rights are not natural. It allows for a system in which people can be considered to "own" the idea for a limited time. Copyright, as it was originally intended, assumes that ideas cannot be owned but grants limited ownership rights in order to encourage sharing.
Demonstrate to me how "intellectual property" is anything like real property.
Why not go to Smells Like Records (Sonic Youth Label) or Matador and download free MP3 samples. Then buy the reasonably priced CDs (~$10).
The record companies are about revenue not music. We can make them irrelevant.
I think this qualifies as a form of birth control.
My god, Vonnegut was right.
The great thing about the audio book version is that Vonnegut reads it himself. So, when I read excerpts like your quote I hear V's voice in my head. :)
If you really want to do it right, do it on film. Either pay someone or beg/borrow/steal a medium format camera and try to do it yourself. Film and archive quality prints will probably last longer than CDs and you can get good scans from the negatives if you want digital, too.
I beleive libraries use uncompressed TIFF files for digital archives.
You might find some discussions of this on photo.net
If they adjust downward for theft the Bible won't make it.
When I was a lowly bookseller at a big national chain, *cough* Borders *cough*, one of the most heavily shop-lifted sections of the store was the christian Bible section.
Sweet, sweet irony...
Will everyone please stop referring to themselves and others as consumers. We are implicitly helping the case of the corporations when we do. We are citizens of [[INSERT STATE HERE]] and the U.S.A. through social contracts embodied by state & federal constitutions. We are not subjects of the corporations.
When those two simple words are changed it affects the whole frame of reference of the arguments. When we use "consumer" it is tilted in favor of corporate policy. When we use "citizen" the corporate stance is weakened.
Let's not play the role (consumer) that the corporations are trying to force on us! Stand up, be a citizen! [Cue patriotic music]
Sorry for the rant...
Amen, brother.
If i had one OSS wish it would be to ban the letters 'K' and 'G' from all OSS applications names.
Does anyone like these kinds of names? It's not cute, it's not clever. Is it a lack of imagination? Are the developers too lazy or uninterested to come up with a meaningful and simple name?
When will the hurting end?
You mean like post pro-MS trolls on an obviously pro-Linux web-site?
but what are their other options?
How about prosecuting the people who actually made illegal copies of the software. The "it's too hard hard for them to do the right thing so let's let them do the abusive thing" just doesn't float. Napster did nothing illegal. Neither has bnetd. If your business model isn't working out, it's your problem. The courts shouldn't be bailing you out.
I agree mostly but it's a matter of semantics. I could have used a few more adjectives, I suppose. The heart of the matter is more of professionalism in the sense of someone who knows what the hell they are doing and shows some responsibility to their work. I think we all agree that Slashdot has none of that. It's about respectability and confidence. People want to be able to come here and trust the editors for fair, unbiased reporting -- the ideals of journalism. They're disappointed. It's Slashdot's distance from the ideals that make them seem less professional than their paychecks and less journalistic despite the daily updates.
Can you expand on the bit about "journalism lies in how it is read, now how it is written." Standard definitions go contrary. Is this literary theory?
Oh, I agree with you 100%. They should put more effort into growing as journalists/editors. I just don't expect them to make that effort. I do agree that they have a certain social responsibility to maintain a level of professionalism, I just don't think they can or are willing to make that commitment. Which is why I will never subscribe and I block ads on this site. I don't have the energy to try to push for change and I don't think they're interested.
I could go on at length about this but I don't want to get into it that much. To summarize -- I don't think the editorial policy will ever change; not through public pressure either by complaints or exodus. So, I don't worry about it. I take what I can get from the site and move on.