I'm so SICK TO DEATH of people comparing IP "piracy" with theft of physical goods. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
If I break into your home, and steal your TV, you are out a TV. If I use a special HU Card or what-have-you to "steal" satalite TV, strangely enough, your satelite TV still works.
Funny. If I use your credit card, your credit card strangely still works for you, and if I was nice, you may even have some of your credit line left to purchase some of your own items. So I guess its not theft, since, I didn't actually take your wallet. Your copy of your credit card works, my copy of your credit card works, we're both happy. RIGHT?
That's a little like saying your either for privacy or against privacy. DRM or even just RM is not inherently evil. Just like invoking privacy isn't inherently good. While I would love to believe in the intrinsic good of all mankind, the truth is that their will always be people trying to take advantage of other people, whether they be con artists that prey on the elderly and unaware, or spammers, phishers, or criminal hackers.
There will always be someone who believes that the easiest way to get ahead is to step on the person in front of them. And so long as they exit, there will be the need for laws and rights management software/solution. The careful balance, just as in privacy cases, is weighing whats good, and acceptable for the public at-large, without trampling all over the individual.
There will be those who reckless, uncaring, and attempting to circumvent the limits of law, then hide behind their right to privacy (see comments on Automobile Blackbox), but there is no right to do what you want without regard. You have the right to be who you are, and do what you want within the limits of the law.
I don't agree with most DRM, as its being used to limited rights of ownership, but I can no more say that I'm against DRM then I can say I'm against using a password to protect my computer from curious eyes. So yes, I agree with Apple's DRM, it gives me many rights of ownership, while preventing my casual disregard of copyright holders.
Sure, there are components I'd change about it, like being able to authorize 5 computers instead of 3; or an advanced option that allowed you to convert to MP3 without going to CD (I'd find this acceptable even if it drastically reduce sound quality (say to 96kbps), because sometimes I just want someone to hear a song, without burning them a CD, or streaming, etc.).
But otherwise I find Apple's DRM unintrusive, and very fair. And when I am being casual in my disregard of copyright, it quietly reminds me, but still allows me to options to perform the task I was trying to do, in other more legal ways.
This doesn't mean I'm all for ALL DRM, because just like legal encroachment on privacy is a slippery slope, so is DRM. There are bullies on the playground--whether at work, school, or often even at home. I don't trust most corporations to ever even consider what is right and fair to its customers, since its often counter-intutive to making a quick profit. That said, there are those corporations that do care or at least try to care. I'd place Apple and Google as two of a few.
But the counter argument is do I trust that people will do what is right to support artist. And I'm sorry to say, I can't say I do. There are a great many of us who will, but the ones of us who won't will undoubtable depreciate the revenue generated by those of us who would greatly. So until then, just like I activate my password, when I want to say "don't casually use my computer", and light weight DRM is appropriate for stopping misuse of music and other files.
But Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store has been charging $16.99 for "Fly or Die," while Roxio Inc.'s Napster service sells the 12-song collection for $13.99. Both prices are higher than the $13.49 that Amazon.com charges for the CD itself. The same pricing shifts are showing up on albums by a growing slate of artists, from Shakira to Bob Dylan.
It took me reading that 3 times, from the original article, from the original post, and here, before I realized the article is wrong. iTunes sells Fly or Die for $13.99, still pricey since Apple's recommend price range for an album of its size (no. songs) is between $9.99 and $11.99, but technically its only.60 cents more than Amazon.
I don't care if the price of a download is the same or similar to the actual price of a CD. My goal is immediate access, without getting screwed on pricing. A 50 cent difference is no big deal. But of course if the difference was $3-$4 as the article claimed, then I'd be offended.
>>Then why does The Matrix Revolutions the movie (Widescreen) cost only $4 less than Matrix Revolutions the soundtrack? What do the musicians need that the actors, writers, producers, etc. don't need? And, remember that the sound track is INCLUDED in the DVD.
Not that I agree with the way CDs are priced, but you really can't compare CDs with DVDs. First off DVDs are from movies or television show. The actors and writers involved are paid regardless of if the movie generates a dime. So typically, if a movie goes directly to DVD and cable the goal is to recoup expenses already paid, which includes (typically) a 'fair' artist compensation. Your average movie star isn't going work without getting paid, unless its their own project, a friends project, or something they truly believe in.
For your average album, typical the label has fronted the cost of production, and some living expenses (depending on the artist). The artist really gets paid based on album sales. Well actually the record label gets paid based on album sales, and if the sales are high enough the artist will make some money as well. But even if the sales are just average or slightly above average the artist can make money doing live work. So unless your talking big pop stars like Justin, Britney, etc., where they get paid regardless of album performance, then your talking about artist who need sales and sales money as part of their livelihood.
So what musicians need that actors, and writers don't is typically a paycheck. Since actors and writers have already received their paycheck, typically way before the movie or video hits distribution, while musicians may have been forking up $10s of thousands of their own money just to get the record made, without any avenue for distribution besides live shows.
I think record labels are greedy, but know doubt that their greed is enhanced by the fact that many of the top selling items on Apple are those mini Apple Exclusive releases which contains the primary song you want, and then multiple mixes, or one or two other songs. This combined with the returned success of the EP on sites like iTunes. I can understand why labels would try to bilk it. I just don't understand why they can't restrain themselves.
It is already irritating, and you can tell which labels do it, that a number of labels take advantage of the one loophole in terms of pricing that Apple gives them. Apple's contract terms are pretty much the songs can't be more than $0.99, and that albums can't cost more than the combine costs of the total tracks on the album priced at 99 cents. But the exception is made for albums that hold tracks back from individual downloads.
With Apple's contract, you can have a 10 song CD, and their basic agreement is that that album CAN NOT cost more tha $9.99, based on 10 tracks times.99 cents. But if you make 1 track unavailable for download, then you can set the price of the download. Though Apple still strongly discourages the vendor from pricing it too much higher than the cost of the CD itself.
For example, with the NERD album Fly or Die. The album has 12 songs. Apple recommends that the price be $9.99 ideally, but no more than $11.99 if all songs were available for download. NERD like a number of Virgin and EMI artist take advantage of what I call the iTunes Loophole. Two songs on the album are not available for individual download, which means if you want the whole album, you either buy it elsewhere or you pay the price requested by either the artist or the label, which is $13.99.
Personally, I was planning to buy the NERD album, until I saw the pricing. I've heard the album is really good, and I like that they do a lot of experimenting. Plus I'm all for artist who stand up against their labels. What I'm not for is when I can tell an artist or label is directly trying to bilk you, and this is easy to tell at iTunes, since we know the contracts between ALL the major labels and all the independent labels are virtually the same.
No offense to the original poster, BUT THE MACHINE IS OVER 2 YEARS OLD. I've dealt with Apple, Dell, HP, over similar issues and none of them want the machine back, and they will each make you jump through hoops to get the machine taken back.
It varies from vendor to vendor but typically here's how it works. If within the first 60-90 days after you've purchased your machine, and you've had enough significant repairs, all the vendors above will take the machine back and replace it. The kicker is this rarily happens.
Say on the last Dell laptop (w/ 4yr Gold Care Support) we had this happen to. The laptop's motherboard needed replacing within the first 30days of ownership. They did this no problem. The user starts experiencing problems again, about 2wks down the road they think its the docking station screwing up the laptop. The repair the laptop and replace the docking station. Add another week to the total. The new docking station is in, the user uses it about 2 or 3 times before going on vacation. Add 3 weeks. User comes back, and within a week minor problems start happening again, within two weeks, we're back at stage one. The replace the docking station. 3-4 weeks after they replace the motherboard. Anyway come 6 months in, I request they replace the machine. It's not a year old, and obviously something is wrong. They won't replace the machine because its over 90days.
I'm lucky, I've dealt with Dell too frequently. I hang-up, call back in and request hardware exception assistance--basically this is were you send your issues directly to an engineer, if they think its a design flaw they request the machine back and replace it. Its hit or miss, but our machine got selected, and Dell takes it back.
I've had Apple do the same thing, but only if the machine is under a year old, and typically within the first 4 months (120days). The problem is its very hard to determine if a machines a lemon within the first 90 days. But to this day, I've made a mental note, if the motherboard needs to be replaced within the first 90days, request a machine replacement. Its easier to deal with their irritation at this stage, then it will be when your tired, frustrated, and way over your 90 day return policy.
Apple does take machines back, lord knows I've bought enough refurbished products from them to know this is true. Dell does as well. I found my return to HP the easiest. But I just don't deal with them frequently enough to know if thats always true or some random act of kindness.
Someone could come along an upset the record industry, though definitely the record industry is doing far more damage to itself. Sites like GarageBand.com, or Magnatude, or even this Divendo (when it comes out) may all contribute but I can't imagine they will be the death blow to the music industry.
If you gave me access to good music for free, with the only requirement being to watch ads or share my bandwidth on some type of measureable and controllable (by me) basis, I'd probably do it. But, I'd still wait until I felt like I could trust the vendor--to be responsible, to actual pay the divends, to not use ads (on the shared bandwidth), to not sell my name, etc. This may mean the vendor would need to operate successfully for 6mo to a year, before I'd become their customer.
Besides, I don't think most people are opposed to paying for music. Even Napster drove music sales. Most people want to be able to listen for free (like radio and or library) until they decide the want to buy. People are more than willing to support the artist they care for, unfortunately, the 20-30 age range seems less willing; but as has been proven time and time again, teens and pre-teens will throw their allowances at pop artist sensations, and the adults will be more cautious, but hopefully more exploratory with their musical tastes.
Only a small subset of users are finding that their batteries die in 18mo. I purchased my original iPod in November 2001, a week or so after Apple introduced them, and the battery runs perfectly fine over 2 yrs later. Apple's support documents that the battery should be able to with stand 500 charge cycles. Since the average user doesn't totally drain their battery daily, that can work out to a fairly long time. For example, I only have to fully recharge my battery about once a week. Which means I go through 52 recharge cycles per year. If I get a full 500 charges, that's almost 10yrs of battery life.
Apple recommends recharging the battery every 14-18days, which would extend 500 full recharges even longer. Really for what the Neistat brothers went through, they either had faulty batteries, or were draining their batteries daily, for over a year.
I consider myself a mid-range user of the iPod, but that's only because their are so many who use their iPods only for trips, etc. I use mine daily, for 4-8hrs a day. When i purchased, I thought the battery might last 3-5years, and so far it's on target.
I routinely get about 9hrs battery life off my 3rd generation iPod. While this isn't as great as the 12-13hrs I used to get from the 2nd generation iPod, its suitable for me. I've gotten into the habit of doing a mid-day charge for days that I'm on the go for 18+ hours. Otherwise, assuming I'm not listening to music every moment of the day (which is true), a single battery charge can last a 12hr work day, with no problems.
And if patents actually protected small businesses and individuals from corporations (big or small), I'm not certain too many people would be complaining. The complaints are 1) against the types of ridiculous, common use patents that get accepted by the patent office; 2) the fact that people and businesses no longer even need to make an attempt at actually inventing said patent; and 3) that patents are being used in the same way that lawsuits have been by lawsuit happy fools, who don't won't to work, haven't had a true creative idea and years, and would probably sell their baby, if you offered enough money for it.
I see the biggest difference between the over abundance of lawsuits like "I slipped outside your store and am now suing you for $50,000" and a slew of the current patent infringement lawsuits as the patent gives the holder the implicit right to not just sue the owner of the store, but every store--limited only by well the actual names of store the individual can come up with.
I personally don't believe patents should be offered for much more than actual inventions (sure there are probably a few exceptions, but they shouldn't be the rule), the patenting of business processes, theories, and ideas that aren't even being worked on by the patent filier should just be refused--have an idea, great make it into something then file a patent.
Otherwise is just the people (big and small) preying on others. How fair is it, if YOU actually invented a method for "travel by altering and shifting your molecules (think Star Trek)", but the ideas been patented for over 10yrs, because someone read Star Trek or watch one of the many series, and decided eventual someone will invent it, and I want to own it.
That's the current state of the patent office. No use in pointing saying Patents use to be the shining star for individual protection around inventions, when its currently a big black cancerous blob.
Yeah. I used to love this about Mac/MicroWarehouse & DataComm. They rocked, and they also had a great support policy. They would add a year of support for their products, so if the vendor support sucked you could contact them. But this is one of the reasons they went bankrupt as well, their great return, support, and service policies, didn't make them as much money as companies who refused the returns, limited support, etc.
CDW, while not a bad company, I swear one of their tech people was pretty much like "we don't support that" so na, na, na nahhh. I could practically hear the tech singing through the phone.
But Mac/Micro Warehouse was great. I've even ordered the wrong hardware, attempted to use it, call them back, and they exchange for the correct hardware, before receiving the old hardware back. (sigh) I miss them (tear).
Not that different from other vendors. I'm fairly certain Dell will only accept a return if the box has never been open or if you can find a significant problem and get it esculated rapidly, and have you tried getting HP to accept a return (laughs). All the vendors will support, and provide replacement parts, etc. But typically, a custom configurations falls on under the you "you broke it, you pay for it"--obviously, the systems aren't always shipped broke, but its not like they can put the thing out on the floor, just because you decided you didn't want it any longer.
Please, the use of the song is not a sample. At best it would be considered a cover, which has a totally different legal ramifications. Almost anyone can do a cover of a song. If your doing a cover that will be included on an album, then theirs issues around royalities and permissions, but if your doing a cover at a bar, then pretty much the bar pays one of the various record associations some type of fee to cover any band that plays that might do a cover.
Having kids, students, and others pick a song on their iPod and sing along to it entails a different set of rights than using the song outright or sampling sections of it. If MTV was doing that ultra-silly Karoke show and replayed some idiot doing "Lose Yourself" over and over again, I'm fairly certain they couldn't/shouldn't be sued for copyright violation. That said, I agree with the poster who indicates disbelief that Chiat Day would have failed to clear the use regardless. An agency like that is always better off safe than sorry, and clears licensing all the time.
Of course this just adds to my below zero disrespect for Eminem. The guy does great music but has become one of the biggest a**holes in music.
I love all the web. My top three search engines are AlltheWeb, Google, and Kartoo. Google gets the majority of my searches, just because it's built into Safari. But if I'm going in, fknowing that I'm looking for specific results, then I always start with AlltheWeb. I use Kartoo when I want to break results out quickly and visually--come up with more defined search terms, etc.
I'd have to say, and the article didn't indicate whether or not the originating company had indicated that the data was private and confidential. I've done data cleaning, analysis, report creation, etc. as an outsourced contract for a slew of organizations, nonprofits, government, and corporate--and I can't say the number of times I've been handed confidential data without any type of NDA or even a brief conversation stating this data is confidential. In fact, it happen so much, that we developed our own policy, indicating to all potential clients that all incoming data would be treated as the exclusive, confidential property of the organization, and only those staff members directly working on the project would have access to the provided data, etc.
The truth is, even in places where HIPAA and other types of policies that demand handling of confidential data, thatbesides for the few items that get drilled into the staff-- oh that database requires a password, you can only view those forms in-house, or only that single computer can be used to transmit data to our insurance agency--most of the staff rarely give it a second thought. Its not that they mean to be careless, its just that administrators have typically given them a checklist of guidelines and those are the only issues they worry about.
Outsourcing overseas, is an issue about legal power or the ability to restrain legal. People will take advantage, aand at least if its an American outsourcer you have some recourse.
But the issue of outsourcing has always been convoluted by who considers what valuable and how well you portray that to a third party. And to that regard, I find, you generally have two camps--those that just decide to put a blanket level of valuability on everything they do--you know the firms that have you sign and NDA, confidentiality agreements, and other legal forms, just so you can tweak their tech support database, and their staff sends email like "hey, had a great time last night" followed by a blanket two paragraph long confidentiality statement, that everyone they communicate with on the regular basis has stopped reading because its typically not relevant.
Then their are those who try to make the legalities relevant to the staff and data that is relevant, but find themselves hopeless at conveying the extent and necessity of why confidential needs to mean confidential. These places are typically of the you can only work on that database on that single machine that isn't connected to the internet, and has four levels of passwords. But you can go to the common printer and pick up pages of customer or client profiles that contain data such as social security number, HIV status, etc., etc.
At the one type, the employees and the people the deal with become inured to the message of privacy and confidentiality because its stapled to everything and at least 90% of the items its stapled to is inappropriate. The others fall into the trap of thinking that security, confidentiality, etc is a thing--that's the secure machine, that database contains confidential data, we have our 5 point checklist, and I use it. That they overlook the multitude of everyday things that deserve to be treated with a level or respect and confidentiality.
I still don't see why you can't buy them. The programs (most) are for sell. I looked up all 15 episodes for 2003, and all 21 episodes (including a 6 part series) for 2000, ALL episodes were available for sale at the Shop WGBH Store, which NOVA provides the link to. Close to 100 percent of the episodes done with in the last few years were available for sell. Most of the missing episodes is from their older back catalog, which is true for almost everyone who has a back catalog. And then for those items publishers are often dealing with (1) time, it takes time and energy to convert media, and (2) very different agreements/contracts with those involved in the development of the episodes. Hopefully more of their back catalog will become available for sell, but in all honesty, with the number of places who start at a specific date and go forward, I find it hard to complain about someone who'se making the effort to get even some of the back stuff available. Hell they don't if have transcripts for a number of the back episodes (I'm talking after 1999).
Then there must be some disagreement over what constitutes reasonable. As far as I'm concern, less than $20 to purchase an episode is fairly reasonable, especially if I'm not expecting the vendor to make millions of bucks doing mass marketing of the episode. Also having free access to the transcripts, files and research related to the show, and other tidbits via the web for free also seems reasonable to me. Having the shows aired on free television, I'd also call reasonable access.
What you want is immediate, on-demand access, which is really a privelege, and an expensive one at that. The reason that others can and do or are at least attempting to provide it, is because its a viable business model, and business know that people will pay for it. Artwork from the NEA is viewable, but often only at very specific venues, which you may have to travel to get to, and even once there, you may have to pay a reasonable entry fee to view the items.
From what I can see, of the NOVA programming is that a relatively large amount of it is available for purchase. Sure it be nice, if all of it was, but I'd say more than 75% of it seems to be available, from when they started earmarking money for multiple media efforts (1997-1998 forward).
Sure VHS and DVD is fairly cheap, but that doesn't mean making a copy of a particular show on VHS or DVD is significant less expensive than the $20 they are charging you for it. You have distribution media, distribution materials, employee time and benefits, storage, and other administrative costs coming to play on these. I'd say, unless they were planning on selling more than 100,000 copies of an individual episode, their per episode reproduction costs is probably over $10, possible as high as $15, which means that they maybe making $5 to $10 per VHS or DVD that they sell. Not unreasonable to me.
Scale counts for alot. If they could sell over a million copies of each episode, I'm certain the cost could fall below $10 mark. But I doubt if some episodes sell more than 1000 copies, so that's a lot of effort for your next day viewing pleasure.
I'm also certain, that as the media and means for distribution changes, NPR and PBS are struggling to make adjustments to contracts, production, and distribution so that they can provide more and more availability. But its still not that reasonable to say, contracts you entered into 3, 4, 5 years ago should allow you to do this with no argument.
Look at companies that are being sued by Photographers and Writers alike because back issues of magazines are now being made available via CD. Licensing is a tricky world, and most people are out for themselves in it. Personally, I'm a you paid for it once, do whatever you want with it except use it as propoganda for things I hate or don't support, type a girl. But most people like more control, or at the very least multiple returns on their efforts. Hence the entire copyright, digital rights management, intellectual property debates going on now. If it was reasonable and simply to avoid the minefield, I'm certain more places would be doing it.
First NOVA is a PBS program not an NPR program. NPR is Nation Public Radio, PBS is the Public Broadcasting Station that does video, television shows, and such.
Secondly, yes it takes quite alot of money to run video streams of all your major or even just a few minor broadcasts, to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people around the world. Just because a media has a low entry point, doesn't make it anymore feasible when your talking about scale. Just ask any of those guys who set-up cheap linux boxes doing Bit Torrent or other types of file exchange. At the very least bandwidth cost money. The more you use, the more expensive it is. It's one thing to offer a 1GB file that only 5 or 500 people use, it's quite another to offer a 1GB file that 1 million people might use.
Thirdly, its publicly funded TV, not free. If you've skipped all the ongoing pleas for more money so that stations can continue, or missed the numerous stations that have closed due to lack of funds, or if you seriously thought the $30 Christmas check would do more than by pens, pencils, and a few notebooks for a couple of strategic planning meetings, then you were wrong.
What's that? Didn't give $30 bucks even as a Merry Christmas, hope you stay in business present, probably because, "well its publicly funded, that means my tax dollars support it, so I've already gave." Well, thanks for your extreme generousity, because it takes so little resources to produce quality television shows, and do extensive research, and set-up web sites on each program, and each show of each program, to secure the rights of various shows, etc., etc. I'm certain you'll be doing it in your basement in no time.
NOVA (which ironically, I've never watch, but I have been through their website) is located http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ a quick read of their website lets you know that you can purchase MANY but not ALL of their shows from the WGBH Shop at http://shop.wgbh.org/ . It also indicates that some shows are not available for sale due to licensing issues. The videos are mostly $20 a pop, unless your a member, then you can save about $3 per video. If you don't want to purchase the video, you can always read the shows transcripts online for free, and or visit the shows companion web site, the various links and resources that are fairly meticulously maintain.
I have to say, I love Slashdot, but I soo get tired of the number of whiners who think everything should be free. I'd probably be more sympathetic to the, "well they are using public funds argument" if
(1) I didn't already know how often public funds in terms of federal and state grants don't meet half the financial need;
(2) I really thought these weren't the same people who argue that taxes should be cut, and I don't want my hard earn tax dollars going to "blah, blah, blah" show, organization, or service; and
(3) I thought more than 50% of us would vote for an increase in taxes to keep the services we use, enjoy, take advantage of, and often times destroy with our careless disregard, and egocentric thoughts of I could do better, with less money.
NPR and PBS make much needed money of the sell of video tapes for their programs. If they are lucky, some segment producers give away almost all rights, and the VHS, DVD, or Audible.com versions of the various shows and episodes can be used as a funding tool. But unless your endowing the government to truly give these public treasures the extra millions of dollars they really need to make the shows public available for free online, or providing it yourself, then just fork over your $20 bucks for the episodes you want and shut-up.
(Sorry, I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I'm tired of these uninformed, ignorant of reality posts, that people actually mod up).
You can get the new ad from the Apple site, along with tons of other items. See http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whatson I'm not certain where the ad is exactly locate, but its on the site somewhere.
Otherwise a site that gives you access to some of Apple's more memorable ads is http://www.redlightrunner.com/appleads.html This site has the original 1984 ad, but not the newest version.
Trust when I say, I wouldn't keep your resume on file. I can understand the inclination to bulk mail your resume. It just fits with the logic, that the more people who see it, the better chance you have at getting a hit. But, as someone who has reviewed resumes for both my company and others, I can state it just doesn't work that way.
I can tell almost immediately, when someone is sending their resume en mass. And while, I occasionally get a minor discomfort at dismissing those resumes out right, it doesn't stop me from doing so. The truth is even before the job market went south, we were still getting a fair number of resumes for various positions. Afterward, it was just impossible, 200+ resumes for a part-time position that was advertise for 1 day in two locations.
Literally, our policy now, is if we post a job position, it gets sent before 9am, and we typically close it by 9pm. We tried doing at least three days, but it was impossible to recover from the avalanche of resumes. Most not even for the job we posted.
I can sympathise with job seekers, lord knows I've been there. But if your sending out over 200 resumes, hell if your sending out more than 10 resumes a day, then I just believe your sending out too many. Some skills at job seeking do need to be developed--customizing your cover letter and resume as necessary, networking, reading the job description, understanding the job description, looking up even basic details on the organization your applying to; all these things are just good practice.
But basically your note says it all: "The amount of time I spend on a resume/cover letter package depends on how much I want the job." This fact is ascertainable by even your most novice resume reviewers. If it looks like you spent less than five minutes putting your response together, why should anyone assume that you actual want the job, as opposed to "a job".
Its hard to argue it, but I'm an advocate of don't apply unless you want the specific job posted. Use it as a stepping stone, a foot in the door what ever, just don't overlook the position that you are applying for in your ambition to get elsewhere or anywhere.
I set up an OS X Server in a predominately Windows environment. Basical 150 users, 80% Win2k, 10% Win98SE, 10% MacOS X. We did it almost purely for cost factor. Getting a Win2k server that would allow 150+ clients (guests, laptops, etc.) was very expensive, more than 2.5 times the cost of G4 Server with OS X Server Unlimited installed. The Mac server runs everything besides email for us: filesharing (public, private) antivirus server, backup, filemaker server, mysql, php, perl, and apache. We don't control print services through it.
Typically speaking the server is always on. It did go down once when we upgraded Retrospect (backup software), other than that, most of the issues related to the server are actually external--power outages, the univrsity changes its router configuration and cross-subnet traffic crawled, until we made enough of a stink. But otherwise its been perfect.
I've been eyeing the G5 Server since you can get them with 250GB hard drives. I'd like to install 4 of those. Our current configuration has 1 80GB & 3 120GB drives.
Well, I can say they must be hoping the service grows rapidly, otherwise, they've wasted a lot of money. Come on, the University Park campus of PSU alone hosts more than 40,000 students (undergraduate and graduate). Which kind of makes the 100,000 songs the equivalent of 2.5 songs per person at a single campus (PSU has over 20 campuses-admittedly most of them are pretty small).
I admit to expecting that even if the service didn't fly, and most people hated it, that it would still serve over 400,000 songs per day. I just assume if that less than half of all PSU students participated that would still be around 40-50,000 (possibly more, its been along time since I went to PSU) students, then if each student that participated streamed 10 songs per day (I could be high, but that's about an hour of music).
Yeah, its still early, but I would have waited for more impressive results before posting those numbers.
sounds like you've got a damaged preference file. I often have Safari continously open for weeks on end. I generally only quit it, if I plan on restarting the computer. I haven't had Safari crash on me since the first update of v1, possible since the intro of v1, but thats farther back than I can recall.
The concept of using thumbnails for multipage browsing has been discussed by Safari developer Dave Hyatt in his weblog before. I believe kotte.org or someone similar introduce the concept way before Safari hit v1.0. Dave had some very good arguments for not implementing it, including that it had many of the same limitation issues as tabbed browsing, but at least with tabs you don't have to train people how to use them (well at least basic use).
I believe the final discussion centered around the Safari team (time willing) revisiting both the multipage browsing issue (since tabs is just one way to solve it), as well as the grouping and save state issues (saving a group of pages immediately to one folder, or one group, for recall purpuses--currently Safari allows you to recall all tabs in a folder, but you save each tab to the folder individually.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. If I use your credit card, your credit card strangely still works for you, and if I was nice, you may even have some of your credit line left to purchase some of your own items. So I guess its not theft, since, I didn't actually take your wallet. Your copy of your credit card works, my copy of your credit card works, we're both happy. RIGHT?
Yeah, didn't think so.
That's a little like saying your either for privacy or against privacy. DRM or even just RM is not inherently evil. Just like invoking privacy isn't inherently good. While I would love to believe in the intrinsic good of all mankind, the truth is that their will always be people trying to take advantage of other people, whether they be con artists that prey on the elderly and unaware, or spammers, phishers, or criminal hackers.
There will always be someone who believes that the easiest way to get ahead is to step on the person in front of them. And so long as they exit, there will be the need for laws and rights management software/solution. The careful balance, just as in privacy cases, is weighing whats good, and acceptable for the public at-large, without trampling all over the individual.
There will be those who reckless, uncaring, and attempting to circumvent the limits of law, then hide behind their right to privacy (see comments on Automobile Blackbox), but there is no right to do what you want without regard. You have the right to be who you are, and do what you want within the limits of the law.
I don't agree with most DRM, as its being used to limited rights of ownership, but I can no more say that I'm against DRM then I can say I'm against using a password to protect my computer from curious eyes. So yes, I agree with Apple's DRM, it gives me many rights of ownership, while preventing my casual disregard of copyright holders.
Sure, there are components I'd change about it, like being able to authorize 5 computers instead of 3; or an advanced option that allowed you to convert to MP3 without going to CD (I'd find this acceptable even if it drastically reduce sound quality (say to 96kbps), because sometimes I just want someone to hear a song, without burning them a CD, or streaming, etc.).
But otherwise I find Apple's DRM unintrusive, and very fair. And when I am being casual in my disregard of copyright, it quietly reminds me, but still allows me to options to perform the task I was trying to do, in other more legal ways.
This doesn't mean I'm all for ALL DRM, because just like legal encroachment on privacy is a slippery slope, so is DRM. There are bullies on the playground--whether at work, school, or often even at home. I don't trust most corporations to ever even consider what is right and fair to its customers, since its often counter-intutive to making a quick profit. That said, there are those corporations that do care or at least try to care. I'd place Apple and Google as two of a few.
But the counter argument is do I trust that people will do what is right to support artist. And I'm sorry to say, I can't say I do. There are a great many of us who will, but the ones of us who won't will undoubtable depreciate the revenue generated by those of us who would greatly. So until then, just like I activate my password, when I want to say "don't casually use my computer", and light weight DRM is appropriate for stopping misuse of music and other files.
It took me reading that 3 times, from the original article, from the original post, and here, before I realized the article is wrong. iTunes sells Fly or Die for $13.99, still pricey since Apple's recommend price range for an album of its size (no. songs) is between $9.99 and $11.99, but technically its only
I don't care if the price of a download is the same or similar to the actual price of a CD. My goal is immediate access, without getting screwed on pricing. A 50 cent difference is no big deal. But of course if the difference was $3-$4 as the article claimed, then I'd be offended.
>>Then why does The Matrix Revolutions the movie (Widescreen) cost only $4 less than Matrix Revolutions the soundtrack? What do the musicians need that the actors, writers, producers, etc. don't need? And, remember that the sound track is INCLUDED in the DVD.
.99 cents. But if you make 1 track unavailable for download, then you can set the price of the download. Though Apple still strongly discourages the vendor from pricing it too much higher than the cost of the CD itself.
Not that I agree with the way CDs are priced, but you really can't compare CDs with DVDs. First off DVDs are from movies or television show. The actors and writers involved are paid regardless of if the movie generates a dime. So typically, if a movie goes directly to DVD and cable the goal is to recoup expenses already paid, which includes (typically) a 'fair' artist compensation. Your average movie star isn't going work without getting paid, unless its their own project, a friends project, or something they truly believe in.
For your average album, typical the label has fronted the cost of production, and some living expenses (depending on the artist). The artist really gets paid based on album sales. Well actually the record label gets paid based on album sales, and if the sales are high enough the artist will make some money as well. But even if the sales are just average or slightly above average the artist can make money doing live work. So unless your talking big pop stars like Justin, Britney, etc., where they get paid regardless of album performance, then your talking about artist who need sales and sales money as part of their livelihood.
So what musicians need that actors, and writers don't is typically a paycheck. Since actors and writers have already received their paycheck, typically way before the movie or video hits distribution, while musicians may have been forking up $10s of thousands of their own money just to get the record made, without any avenue for distribution besides live shows.
I think record labels are greedy, but know doubt that their greed is enhanced by the fact that many of the top selling items on Apple are those mini Apple Exclusive releases which contains the primary song you want, and then multiple mixes, or one or two other songs. This combined with the returned success of the EP on sites like iTunes. I can understand why labels would try to bilk it. I just don't understand why they can't restrain themselves.
It is already irritating, and you can tell which labels do it, that a number of labels take advantage of the one loophole in terms of pricing that Apple gives them. Apple's contract terms are pretty much the songs can't be more than $0.99, and that albums can't cost more than the combine costs of the total tracks on the album priced at 99 cents. But the exception is made for albums that hold tracks back from individual downloads.
With Apple's contract, you can have a 10 song CD, and their basic agreement is that that album CAN NOT cost more tha $9.99, based on 10 tracks times
For example, with the NERD album Fly or Die. The album has 12 songs. Apple recommends that the price be $9.99 ideally, but no more than $11.99 if all songs were available for download. NERD like a number of Virgin and EMI artist take advantage of what I call the iTunes Loophole. Two songs on the album are not available for individual download, which means if you want the whole album, you either buy it elsewhere or you pay the price requested by either the artist or the label, which is $13.99.
Personally, I was planning to buy the NERD album, until I saw the pricing. I've heard the album is really good, and I like that they do a lot of experimenting. Plus I'm all for artist who stand up against their labels. What I'm not for is when I can tell an artist or label is directly trying to bilk you, and this is easy to tell at iTunes, since we know the contracts between ALL the major labels and all the independent labels are virtually the same.
No offense to the original poster, BUT THE MACHINE IS OVER 2 YEARS OLD. I've dealt with Apple, Dell, HP, over similar issues and none of them want the machine back, and they will each make you jump through hoops to get the machine taken back.
It varies from vendor to vendor but typically here's how it works. If within the first 60-90 days after you've purchased your machine, and you've had enough significant repairs, all the vendors above will take the machine back and replace it. The kicker is this rarily happens.
Say on the last Dell laptop (w/ 4yr Gold Care Support) we had this happen to. The laptop's motherboard needed replacing within the first 30days of ownership. They did this no problem. The user starts experiencing problems again, about 2wks down the road they think its the docking station screwing up the laptop. The repair the laptop and replace the docking station. Add another week to the total. The new docking station is in, the user uses it about 2 or 3 times before going on vacation. Add 3 weeks. User comes back, and within a week minor problems start happening again, within two weeks, we're back at stage one. The replace the docking station. 3-4 weeks after they replace the motherboard. Anyway come 6 months in, I request they replace the machine. It's not a year old, and obviously something is wrong. They won't replace the machine because its over 90days.
I'm lucky, I've dealt with Dell too frequently. I hang-up, call back in and request hardware exception assistance--basically this is were you send your issues directly to an engineer, if they think its a design flaw they request the machine back and replace it. Its hit or miss, but our machine got selected, and Dell takes it back.
I've had Apple do the same thing, but only if the machine is under a year old, and typically within the first 4 months (120days). The problem is its very hard to determine if a machines a lemon within the first 90 days. But to this day, I've made a mental note, if the motherboard needs to be replaced within the first 90days, request a machine replacement. Its easier to deal with their irritation at this stage, then it will be when your tired, frustrated, and way over your 90 day return policy.
Apple does take machines back, lord knows I've bought enough refurbished products from them to know this is true. Dell does as well. I found my return to HP the easiest. But I just don't deal with them frequently enough to know if thats always true or some random act of kindness.
Bush says Americans 'Ought to Be Working' and the working, homeless 'Ought to buy a House'. Get out your bootstraps and pull man, PULL.
Someone could come along an upset the record industry, though definitely the record industry is doing far more damage to itself. Sites like GarageBand.com, or Magnatude, or even this Divendo (when it comes out) may all contribute but I can't imagine they will be the death blow to the music industry.
If you gave me access to good music for free, with the only requirement being to watch ads or share my bandwidth on some type of measureable and controllable (by me) basis, I'd probably do it. But, I'd still wait until I felt like I could trust the vendor--to be responsible, to actual pay the divends, to not use ads (on the shared bandwidth), to not sell my name, etc. This may mean the vendor would need to operate successfully for 6mo to a year, before I'd become their customer.
Besides, I don't think most people are opposed to paying for music. Even Napster drove music sales. Most people want to be able to listen for free (like radio and or library) until they decide the want to buy. People are more than willing to support the artist they care for, unfortunately, the 20-30 age range seems less willing; but as has been proven time and time again, teens and pre-teens will throw their allowances at pop artist sensations, and the adults will be more cautious, but hopefully more exploratory with their musical tastes.
Only a small subset of users are finding that their batteries die in 18mo. I purchased my original iPod in November 2001, a week or so after Apple introduced them, and the battery runs perfectly fine over 2 yrs later. Apple's support documents that the battery should be able to with stand 500 charge cycles. Since the average user doesn't totally drain their battery daily, that can work out to a fairly long time. For example, I only have to fully recharge my battery about once a week. Which means I go through 52 recharge cycles per year. If I get a full 500 charges, that's almost 10yrs of battery life.
Apple recommends recharging the battery every 14-18days, which would extend 500 full recharges even longer. Really for what the Neistat brothers went through, they either had faulty batteries, or were draining their batteries daily, for over a year.
I consider myself a mid-range user of the iPod, but that's only because their are so many who use their iPods only for trips, etc. I use mine daily, for 4-8hrs a day. When i purchased, I thought the battery might last 3-5years, and so far it's on target.
I routinely get about 9hrs battery life off my 3rd generation iPod. While this isn't as great as the 12-13hrs I used to get from the 2nd generation iPod, its suitable for me. I've gotten into the habit of doing a mid-day charge for days that I'm on the go for 18+ hours. Otherwise, assuming I'm not listening to music every moment of the day (which is true), a single battery charge can last a 12hr work day, with no problems.
And if patents actually protected small businesses and individuals from corporations (big or small), I'm not certain too many people would be complaining. The complaints are 1) against the types of ridiculous, common use patents that get accepted by the patent office; 2) the fact that people and businesses no longer even need to make an attempt at actually inventing said patent; and 3) that patents are being used in the same way that lawsuits have been by lawsuit happy fools, who don't won't to work, haven't had a true creative idea and years, and would probably sell their baby, if you offered enough money for it.
I see the biggest difference between the over abundance of lawsuits like "I slipped outside your store and am now suing you for $50,000" and a slew of the current patent infringement lawsuits as the patent gives the holder the implicit right to not just sue the owner of the store, but every store--limited only by well the actual names of store the individual can come up with.
I personally don't believe patents should be offered for much more than actual inventions (sure there are probably a few exceptions, but they shouldn't be the rule), the patenting of business processes, theories, and ideas that aren't even being worked on by the patent filier should just be refused--have an idea, great make it into something then file a patent.
Otherwise is just the people (big and small) preying on others. How fair is it, if YOU actually invented a method for "travel by altering and shifting your molecules (think Star Trek)", but the ideas been patented for over 10yrs, because someone read Star Trek or watch one of the many series, and decided eventual someone will invent it, and I want to own it.
That's the current state of the patent office. No use in pointing saying Patents use to be the shining star for individual protection around inventions, when its currently a big black cancerous blob.
Yeah. I used to love this about Mac/MicroWarehouse & DataComm. They rocked, and they also had a great support policy. They would add a year of support for their products, so if the vendor support sucked you could contact them. But this is one of the reasons they went bankrupt as well, their great return, support, and service policies, didn't make them as much money as companies who refused the returns, limited support, etc.
CDW, while not a bad company, I swear one of their tech people was pretty much like "we don't support that" so na, na, na nahhh. I could practically hear the tech singing through the phone.
But Mac/Micro Warehouse was great. I've even ordered the wrong hardware, attempted to use it, call them back, and they exchange for the correct hardware, before receiving the old hardware back. (sigh) I miss them (tear).
Not that different from other vendors. I'm fairly certain Dell will only accept a return if the box has never been open or if you can find a significant problem and get it esculated rapidly, and have you tried getting HP to accept a return (laughs). All the vendors will support, and provide replacement parts, etc. But typically, a custom configurations falls on under the you "you broke it, you pay for it"--obviously, the systems aren't always shipped broke, but its not like they can put the thing out on the floor, just because you decided you didn't want it any longer.
Please, the use of the song is not a sample. At best it would be considered a cover, which has a totally different legal ramifications. Almost anyone can do a cover of a song. If your doing a cover that will be included on an album, then theirs issues around royalities and permissions, but if your doing a cover at a bar, then pretty much the bar pays one of the various record associations some type of fee to cover any band that plays that might do a cover.
Having kids, students, and others pick a song on their iPod and sing along to it entails a different set of rights than using the song outright or sampling sections of it. If MTV was doing that ultra-silly Karoke show and replayed some idiot doing "Lose Yourself" over and over again, I'm fairly certain they couldn't/shouldn't be sued for copyright violation. That said, I agree with the poster who indicates disbelief that Chiat Day would have failed to clear the use regardless. An agency like that is always better off safe than sorry, and clears licensing all the time.
Of course this just adds to my below zero disrespect for Eminem. The guy does great music but has become one of the biggest a**holes in music.
I love all the web. My top three search engines are AlltheWeb, Google, and Kartoo. Google gets the majority of my searches, just because it's built into Safari. But if I'm going in, fknowing that I'm looking for specific results, then I always start with AlltheWeb. I use Kartoo when I want to break results out quickly and visually--come up with more defined search terms, etc.
I'd have to say, and the article didn't indicate whether or not the originating company had indicated that the data was private and confidential. I've done data cleaning, analysis, report creation, etc. as an outsourced contract for a slew of organizations, nonprofits, government, and corporate--and I can't say the number of times I've been handed confidential data without any type of NDA or even a brief conversation stating this data is confidential. In fact, it happen so much, that we developed our own policy, indicating to all potential clients that all incoming data would be treated as the exclusive, confidential property of the organization, and only those staff members directly working on the project would have access to the provided data, etc.
The truth is, even in places where HIPAA and other types of policies that demand handling of confidential data, thatbesides for the few items that get drilled into the staff-- oh that database requires a password, you can only view those forms in-house, or only that single computer can be used to transmit data to our insurance agency--most of the staff rarely give it a second thought. Its not that they mean to be careless, its just that administrators have typically given them a checklist of guidelines and those are the only issues they worry about.
Outsourcing overseas, is an issue about legal power or the ability to restrain legal. People will take advantage, aand at least if its an American outsourcer you have some recourse.
But the issue of outsourcing has always been convoluted by who considers what valuable and how well you portray that to a third party. And to that regard, I find, you generally have two camps--those that just decide to put a blanket level of valuability on everything they do--you know the firms that have you sign and NDA, confidentiality agreements, and other legal forms, just so you can tweak their tech support database, and their staff sends email like "hey, had a great time last night" followed by a blanket two paragraph long confidentiality statement, that everyone they communicate with on the regular basis has stopped reading because its typically not relevant.
Then their are those who try to make the legalities relevant to the staff and data that is relevant, but find themselves hopeless at conveying the extent and necessity of why confidential needs to mean confidential. These places are typically of the you can only work on that database on that single machine that isn't connected to the internet, and has four levels of passwords. But you can go to the common printer and pick up pages of customer or client profiles that contain data such as social security number, HIV status, etc., etc.
At the one type, the employees and the people the deal with become inured to the message of privacy and confidentiality because its stapled to everything and at least 90% of the items its stapled to is inappropriate. The others fall into the trap of thinking that security, confidentiality, etc is a thing--that's the secure machine, that database contains confidential data, we have our 5 point checklist, and I use it. That they overlook the multitude of everyday things that deserve to be treated with a level or respect and confidentiality.
I still don't see why you can't buy them. The programs (most) are for sell. I looked up all 15 episodes for 2003, and all 21 episodes (including a 6 part series) for 2000, ALL episodes were available for sale at the Shop WGBH Store, which NOVA provides the link to. Close to 100 percent of the episodes done with in the last few years were available for sell. Most of the missing episodes is from their older back catalog, which is true for almost everyone who has a back catalog. And then for those items publishers are often dealing with (1) time, it takes time and energy to convert media, and (2) very different agreements/contracts with those involved in the development of the episodes. Hopefully more of their back catalog will become available for sell, but in all honesty, with the number of places who start at a specific date and go forward, I find it hard to complain about someone who'se making the effort to get even some of the back stuff available. Hell they don't if have transcripts for a number of the back episodes (I'm talking after 1999).
Then there must be some disagreement over what constitutes reasonable. As far as I'm concern, less than $20 to purchase an episode is fairly reasonable, especially if I'm not expecting the vendor to make millions of bucks doing mass marketing of the episode. Also having free access to the transcripts, files and research related to the show, and other tidbits via the web for free also seems reasonable to me. Having the shows aired on free television, I'd also call reasonable access.
What you want is immediate, on-demand access, which is really a privelege, and an expensive one at that. The reason that others can and do or are at least attempting to provide it, is because its a viable business model, and business know that people will pay for it. Artwork from the NEA is viewable, but often only at very specific venues, which you may have to travel to get to, and even once there, you may have to pay a reasonable entry fee to view the items.
From what I can see, of the NOVA programming is that a relatively large amount of it is available for purchase. Sure it be nice, if all of it was, but I'd say more than 75% of it seems to be available, from when they started earmarking money for multiple media efforts (1997-1998 forward).
Sure VHS and DVD is fairly cheap, but that doesn't mean making a copy of a particular show on VHS or DVD is significant less expensive than the $20 they are charging you for it. You have distribution media, distribution materials, employee time and benefits, storage, and other administrative costs coming to play on these. I'd say, unless they were planning on selling more than 100,000 copies of an individual episode, their per episode reproduction costs is probably over $10, possible as high as $15, which means that they maybe making $5 to $10 per VHS or DVD that they sell. Not unreasonable to me.
Scale counts for alot. If they could sell over a million copies of each episode, I'm certain the cost could fall below $10 mark. But I doubt if some episodes sell more than 1000 copies, so that's a lot of effort for your next day viewing pleasure.
I'm also certain, that as the media and means for distribution changes, NPR and PBS are struggling to make adjustments to contracts, production, and distribution so that they can provide more and more availability. But its still not that reasonable to say, contracts you entered into 3, 4, 5 years ago should allow you to do this with no argument.
Look at companies that are being sued by Photographers and Writers alike because back issues of magazines are now being made available via CD. Licensing is a tricky world, and most people are out for themselves in it. Personally, I'm a you paid for it once, do whatever you want with it except use it as propoganda for things I hate or don't support, type a girl. But most people like more control, or at the very least multiple returns on their efforts. Hence the entire copyright, digital rights management, intellectual property debates going on now. If it was reasonable and simply to avoid the minefield, I'm certain more places would be doing it.
First NOVA is a PBS program not an NPR program. NPR is Nation Public Radio, PBS is the Public Broadcasting Station that does video, television shows, and such.
Secondly, yes it takes quite alot of money to run video streams of all your major or even just a few minor broadcasts, to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people around the world. Just because a media has a low entry point, doesn't make it anymore feasible when your talking about scale. Just ask any of those guys who set-up cheap linux boxes doing Bit Torrent or other types of file exchange. At the very least bandwidth cost money. The more you use, the more expensive it is. It's one thing to offer a 1GB file that only 5 or 500 people use, it's quite another to offer a 1GB file that 1 million people might use.
Thirdly, its publicly funded TV, not free. If you've skipped all the ongoing pleas for more money so that stations can continue, or missed the numerous stations that have closed due to lack of funds, or if you seriously thought the $30 Christmas check would do more than by pens, pencils, and a few notebooks for a couple of strategic planning meetings, then you were wrong.
What's that? Didn't give $30 bucks even as a Merry Christmas, hope you stay in business present, probably because, "well its publicly funded, that means my tax dollars support it, so I've already gave." Well, thanks for your extreme generousity, because it takes so little resources to produce quality television shows, and do extensive research, and set-up web sites on each program, and each show of each program, to secure the rights of various shows, etc., etc. I'm certain you'll be doing it in your basement in no time.
NOVA (which ironically, I've never watch, but I have been through their website) is located http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ a quick read of their website lets you know that you can purchase MANY but not ALL of their shows from the WGBH Shop at http://shop.wgbh.org/ . It also indicates that some shows are not available for sale due to licensing issues. The videos are mostly $20 a pop, unless your a member, then you can save about $3 per video. If you don't want to purchase the video, you can always read the shows transcripts online for free, and or visit the shows companion web site, the various links and resources that are fairly meticulously maintain.
I have to say, I love Slashdot, but I soo get tired of the number of whiners who think everything should be free. I'd probably be more sympathetic to the, "well they are using public funds argument" if
(1) I didn't already know how often public funds in terms of federal and state grants don't meet half the financial need;
(2) I really thought these weren't the same people who argue that taxes should be cut, and I don't want my hard earn tax dollars going to "blah, blah, blah" show, organization, or service; and
(3) I thought more than 50% of us would vote for an increase in taxes to keep the services we use, enjoy, take advantage of, and often times destroy with our careless disregard, and egocentric thoughts of I could do better, with less money.
NPR and PBS make much needed money of the sell of video tapes for their programs. If they are lucky, some segment producers give away almost all rights, and the VHS, DVD, or Audible.com versions of the various shows and episodes can be used as a funding tool. But unless your endowing the government to truly give these public treasures the extra millions of dollars they really need to make the shows public available for free online, or providing it yourself, then just fork over your $20 bucks for the episodes you want and shut-up.
(Sorry, I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I'm tired of these uninformed, ignorant of reality posts, that people actually mod up).
just found the exact url http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/
You can get the new ad from the Apple site, along with tons of other items. See http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whatson I'm not certain where the ad is exactly locate, but its on the site somewhere.
Otherwise a site that gives you access to some of Apple's more memorable ads is http://www.redlightrunner.com/appleads.html This site has the original 1984 ad, but not the newest version.
Trust when I say, I wouldn't keep your resume on file. I can understand the inclination to bulk mail your resume. It just fits with the logic, that the more people who see it, the better chance you have at getting a hit. But, as someone who has reviewed resumes for both my company and others, I can state it just doesn't work that way.
I can tell almost immediately, when someone is sending their resume en mass. And while, I occasionally get a minor discomfort at dismissing those resumes out right, it doesn't stop me from doing so. The truth is even before the job market went south, we were still getting a fair number of resumes for various positions. Afterward, it was just impossible, 200+ resumes for a part-time position that was advertise for 1 day in two locations.
Literally, our policy now, is if we post a job position, it gets sent before 9am, and we typically close it by 9pm. We tried doing at least three days, but it was impossible to recover from the avalanche of resumes. Most not even for the job we posted.
I can sympathise with job seekers, lord knows I've been there. But if your sending out over 200 resumes, hell if your sending out more than 10 resumes a day, then I just believe your sending out too many. Some skills at job seeking do need to be developed--customizing your cover letter and resume as necessary, networking, reading the job description, understanding the job description, looking up even basic details on the organization your applying to; all these things are just good practice.
But basically your note says it all: "The amount of time I spend on a resume/cover letter package depends on how much I want the job." This fact is ascertainable by even your most novice resume reviewers. If it looks like you spent less than five minutes putting your response together, why should anyone assume that you actual want the job, as opposed to "a job".
Its hard to argue it, but I'm an advocate of don't apply unless you want the specific job posted. Use it as a stepping stone, a foot in the door what ever, just don't overlook the position that you are applying for in your ambition to get elsewhere or anywhere.
I set up an OS X Server in a predominately Windows environment. Basical 150 users, 80% Win2k, 10% Win98SE, 10% MacOS X. We did it almost purely for cost factor. Getting a Win2k server that would allow 150+ clients (guests, laptops, etc.) was very expensive, more than 2.5 times the cost of G4 Server with OS X Server Unlimited installed. The Mac server runs everything besides email for us: filesharing (public, private) antivirus server, backup, filemaker server, mysql, php, perl, and apache. We don't control print services through it.
Typically speaking the server is always on. It did go down once when we upgraded Retrospect (backup software), other than that, most of the issues related to the server are actually external--power outages, the univrsity changes its router configuration and cross-subnet traffic crawled, until we made enough of a stink. But otherwise its been perfect.
I've been eyeing the G5 Server since you can get them with 250GB hard drives. I'd like to install 4 of those. Our current configuration has 1 80GB & 3 120GB drives.
Well, I can say they must be hoping the service grows rapidly, otherwise, they've wasted a lot of money. Come on, the University Park campus of PSU alone hosts more than 40,000 students (undergraduate and graduate). Which kind of makes the 100,000 songs the equivalent of 2.5 songs per person at a single campus (PSU has over 20 campuses-admittedly most of them are pretty small).
I admit to expecting that even if the service didn't fly, and most people hated it, that it would still serve over 400,000 songs per day. I just assume if that less than half of all PSU students participated that would still be around 40-50,000 (possibly more, its been along time since I went to PSU) students, then if each student that participated streamed 10 songs per day (I could be high, but that's about an hour of music).
Yeah, its still early, but I would have waited for more impressive results before posting those numbers.
sounds like you've got a damaged preference file. I often have Safari continously open for weeks on end. I generally only quit it, if I plan on restarting the computer. I haven't had Safari crash on me since the first update of v1, possible since the intro of v1, but thats farther back than I can recall.
The concept of using thumbnails for multipage browsing has been discussed by Safari developer Dave Hyatt in his weblog before. I believe kotte.org or someone similar introduce the concept way before Safari hit v1.0. Dave had some very good arguments for not implementing it, including that it had many of the same limitation issues as tabbed browsing, but at least with tabs you don't have to train people how to use them (well at least basic use).
I believe the final discussion centered around the Safari team (time willing) revisiting both the multipage browsing issue (since tabs is just one way to solve it), as well as the grouping and save state issues (saving a group of pages immediately to one folder, or one group, for recall purpuses--currently Safari allows you to recall all tabs in a folder, but you save each tab to the folder individually.