Ok, so we are talking about $75,000 for a 2 day week.
Given the money involved overall, I don't really blame the actors for agitating, but they aren't really the little guy fighting the good fight in a situation like this, they are well positioned people trying to maximize their income.
I don't know the specifics of it, but I suspect that the U.S. market for CDMA phones is large enough to get pretty good economies of scale, I doubt that there is a huge difference in price between producing 500,000 units and 5 million units.
Isn't more accurate to say that their flagship product is support for a distribution of Linux? I can't imagine they charge a great deal more than IBM or HP.
Sotomayor is a terrible example, there are/were legions of people yelling racism about her comments.
Colbert did a great bit last week showing Roberts and Alito making vaguely similar comments about their life experience. The Daily Show showed Lindsay Graham making an ass of himself during the Alito hearings, and then doing it later during the Sotomayor hearings.
I don't think she did herself any favors with the remark that she made, but I also tend to think that she was making the remark based on the context of the different life experience that is implied, not based on race itself (the difference in life experience for a minority was probably a bit more significant for someone of her age than it is for someone who is 20).
The liquidity of a stock is a reflection of the viability of a business, not something that contributes to the viability of a business. A very weak or very strong stock can have some impact on the day to day operations of a company (for example, it can factor into acquisitions, and the attractiveness of options as compensation), but for the most part, it doesn't.
In order for new money to be 'put into' Redhat, the value of other shares has to be diluted (each share represents a claim on earnings; to put new money into the company, the company has to issue new shares). If someone buys some stock on the open market, they are buying existing shares.
It certainly does add up (though, again, if you buy them as part of Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop/Illustrator/Acrobat only cost about $500 a year (and that is keeping things updated)).
This line of reasoning is quite a bit less true for stuff like Matlab, but the fact that it gets used in industry (I guess Simulink is probably less replaceable than the plotting stuff) probably justifies an increase in academic spending (whether they should or not, students currently expect to learn things that are applicable to the work they will be doing; sure, experience in any system will translate, but why not use a system that is prevalent in industry?).
And I don't mean to suggest that people should not use open source software, I use it all the time, I'm just trying to get people to consider that $500 can appear very similar to $0 if the perceived value of the software is high enough.
Says me. I sure hope I can believe that the prices people are willing to pay for various forms of entertainment are completely irrational and then state my opinion that this not sane without also adding two pages of qualifications about how it is just my opinion and etcetera.
Seeing as each configuration would still need to undergo FCC testing, it is likely that the pluggable modules you speak of would actually introduce complexity into the situation (namely the plug). Sure, it would make it so that a technically adept user could swap the modules in order to switch carriers, but the overwhelming evidence is that most people like to switch to shiny new phones as rapidly as possible.
Really, the solution is not to ban exclusivity arrangements, it is to make it relatively straightforward for third parties to be able to offer a phone that works on a network. Figuring out a reasonable way to make phone-subsidy free agreements available to customers might be a slight challenge, but it seems simple enough to require the carriers to disclose how much of each contract they use to subsidize phones (having this information would let consumers decide if they were getting a deal or a 'deal' with their subsidized phones).
Of course much of it is inertia, but the license fees for Windows and Office in even a semi-professional setting are not 'high'. Say that the average license refresh cycle is 3 years (this is not absurd, in either direction). In that time period, the other salary and overhead for a cheap individual is going to exceed $150,000, so the (perhaps as much as but probably less than) $1,500 for software licensing is not a huge increase.
$500 a year of savings is still $500 of savings, but it sets a pretty low bar for how disruptive something can be and still be worth it.
What I am talking about is right there in the second paragraph of my post.
If you dislike the RIAA to the point that you don't want to see them funded, the only solution is to not purchase or listen to any music that is produced by a member company.
You can insist that your idea does not put money in the RIAA's pocket all you want, I'm simply pointing out that it is quite likely that it does put money in the RIAA's pocket.
I'm not going to shed any tears for Fox for having to pay them whatever, but on the other hand, I'm not going to shed any tears for someone who gets a paltry $7,500 for what can't be more than 2 weeks work.
In a sane society, the market value for decent voice acting would be a fair bit lower than that (but in a sane society, the Simpson's wouldn't run forever and ever and ever; I sure don't find it nearly as interesting as I used to, tough to say if it is me or the quality of the show).
You can just ignore the fact that the Kindle supports azw format books and use it for reading pretty much the same stuff as the iLiad (well, Kindle doesn't support.mobi drm, but you can use the Kindle to access Wikipedia from anywhere it has service, and you have to use USB for file transfers to the Kindle).
Also, the Kindle is available in the United States without jumping through hoops.
The key to dealing with DRM is to make sure you are aware that the media is encumbered before you decide to buy and to factor the DRM into the purchase (for instance, most people that know about and understand the DRM used on DVDs purchase them anyway), not to avoid any and all hardware that supports playing that media.
The Whispernet support is similar, I doubt Amazon will keep it turned on until 2020, so think about the fact that it may get turned off before purchasing a Kindle for that feature.
I was only referring to 'maybe' (which should be 'may be'), but given how often native speakers make the mistake, I can see where it would be easy to make.
Buying used takes a used copy off the market (making other people more likely to seek a new copy) and probably funds whoever bought the copy in the first place (making it easier for them to buy more new music).
You can't buy something and simultaneously not participate in the market for it.
You are assuming that the costs of driving long distances will be unaffordable. I doubt this (for instance, owner-operator semi drivers don't seem to have any trouble getting insurance, and they certainly are not in the same risk pool as Grandma May).
Also, as a customer, the point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of an adverse event. The insurance company is able to sell this mitigation at a low cost because they sell similar coverage to large groups of people with similar risks. There is no way to distribute risk.
If an insurance company is unwilling to underwrite a policy, at any cost, for the 'high risk' individual you just made up, but perfectly willing to underwrite a policy for 99% of the population, I'm happy not letting that guy drive (If he does, take away his car. If he borrows a car with someone's knowledge, levy them a hefty fine).
For medical, it would make far more sense to simply use taxes to pay for people that have high, fixed care costs than it does to pretend that those costs are insurable (for one thing, using taxes helps people that have fallen out of the insurance system).
(I currently use Virgin Mobile, which is $20 for 200 minutes, and as long as you add 200 minutes every 30 days, unused minutes carry forward; not fantastically better than a contract, but I get all the minutes I need for less than any contract I am aware of)
Sure. I'm a huge fan of peer effects as an explanation of behavior. "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris makes a very strong case that peers are a primary influence on development (she also makes the case that much of the mollycoddling done by modern parents is largely pointless).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so we are talking about $75,000 for a 2 day week.
Given the money involved overall, I don't really blame the actors for agitating, but they aren't really the little guy fighting the good fight in a situation like this, they are well positioned people trying to maximize their income.
I don't know the specifics of it, but I suspect that the U.S. market for CDMA phones is large enough to get pretty good economies of scale, I doubt that there is a huge difference in price between producing 500,000 units and 5 million units.
Isn't more accurate to say that their flagship product is support for a distribution of Linux? I can't imagine they charge a great deal more than IBM or HP.
Sotomayor is a terrible example, there are/were legions of people yelling racism about her comments.
Colbert did a great bit last week showing Roberts and Alito making vaguely similar comments about their life experience. The Daily Show showed Lindsay Graham making an ass of himself during the Alito hearings, and then doing it later during the Sotomayor hearings.
I don't think she did herself any favors with the remark that she made, but I also tend to think that she was making the remark based on the context of the different life experience that is implied, not based on race itself (the difference in life experience for a minority was probably a bit more significant for someone of her age than it is for someone who is 20).
It's RHT now, they moved over to the NYSE.
The liquidity of a stock is a reflection of the viability of a business, not something that contributes to the viability of a business. A very weak or very strong stock can have some impact on the day to day operations of a company (for example, it can factor into acquisitions, and the attractiveness of options as compensation), but for the most part, it doesn't.
In order for new money to be 'put into' Redhat, the value of other shares has to be diluted (each share represents a claim on earnings; to put new money into the company, the company has to issue new shares). If someone buys some stock on the open market, they are buying existing shares.
It certainly does add up (though, again, if you buy them as part of Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop/Illustrator/Acrobat only cost about $500 a year (and that is keeping things updated)).
This line of reasoning is quite a bit less true for stuff like Matlab, but the fact that it gets used in industry (I guess Simulink is probably less replaceable than the plotting stuff) probably justifies an increase in academic spending (whether they should or not, students currently expect to learn things that are applicable to the work they will be doing; sure, experience in any system will translate, but why not use a system that is prevalent in industry?).
And I don't mean to suggest that people should not use open source software, I use it all the time, I'm just trying to get people to consider that $500 can appear very similar to $0 if the perceived value of the software is high enough.
UMTS is usually implemented as a GSM type service over a CDMA carrier. So apparently it wasn't that moronic.
The relative lack of difference in prices between the U.S. GSM and CDMA carriers suggests that it doesn't matter very much.
Says me. I sure hope I can believe that the prices people are willing to pay for various forms of entertainment are completely irrational and then state my opinion that this not sane without also adding two pages of qualifications about how it is just my opinion and etcetera.
Seeing as each configuration would still need to undergo FCC testing, it is likely that the pluggable modules you speak of would actually introduce complexity into the situation (namely the plug). Sure, it would make it so that a technically adept user could swap the modules in order to switch carriers, but the overwhelming evidence is that most people like to switch to shiny new phones as rapidly as possible.
Really, the solution is not to ban exclusivity arrangements, it is to make it relatively straightforward for third parties to be able to offer a phone that works on a network. Figuring out a reasonable way to make phone-subsidy free agreements available to customers might be a slight challenge, but it seems simple enough to require the carriers to disclose how much of each contract they use to subsidize phones (having this information would let consumers decide if they were getting a deal or a 'deal' with their subsidized phones).
Of course much of it is inertia, but the license fees for Windows and Office in even a semi-professional setting are not 'high'. Say that the average license refresh cycle is 3 years (this is not absurd, in either direction). In that time period, the other salary and overhead for a cheap individual is going to exceed $150,000, so the (perhaps as much as but probably less than) $1,500 for software licensing is not a huge increase.
$500 a year of savings is still $500 of savings, but it sets a pretty low bar for how disruptive something can be and still be worth it.
What I am talking about is right there in the second paragraph of my post.
If you dislike the RIAA to the point that you don't want to see them funded, the only solution is to not purchase or listen to any music that is produced by a member company.
You can insist that your idea does not put money in the RIAA's pocket all you want, I'm simply pointing out that it is quite likely that it does put money in the RIAA's pocket.
I'm not going to shed any tears for Fox for having to pay them whatever, but on the other hand, I'm not going to shed any tears for someone who gets a paltry $7,500 for what can't be more than 2 weeks work.
In a sane society, the market value for decent voice acting would be a fair bit lower than that (but in a sane society, the Simpson's wouldn't run forever and ever and ever; I sure don't find it nearly as interesting as I used to, tough to say if it is me or the quality of the show).
He's complaining about the guy who did the other 62 episodes.
You can just ignore the fact that the Kindle supports azw format books and use it for reading pretty much the same stuff as the iLiad (well, Kindle doesn't support .mobi drm, but you can use the Kindle to access Wikipedia from anywhere it has service, and you have to use USB for file transfers to the Kindle).
Also, the Kindle is available in the United States without jumping through hoops.
The key to dealing with DRM is to make sure you are aware that the media is encumbered before you decide to buy and to factor the DRM into the purchase (for instance, most people that know about and understand the DRM used on DVDs purchase them anyway), not to avoid any and all hardware that supports playing that media.
The Whispernet support is similar, I doubt Amazon will keep it turned on until 2020, so think about the fact that it may get turned off before purchasing a Kindle for that feature.
I was only referring to 'maybe' (which should be 'may be'), but given how often native speakers make the mistake, I can see where it would be easy to make.
Buying used takes a used copy off the market (making other people more likely to seek a new copy) and probably funds whoever bought the copy in the first place (making it easier for them to buy more new music).
You can't buy something and simultaneously not participate in the market for it.
Too bad about his grammar.
You are assuming that the costs of driving long distances will be unaffordable. I doubt this (for instance, owner-operator semi drivers don't seem to have any trouble getting insurance, and they certainly are not in the same risk pool as Grandma May).
Also, as a customer, the point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of an adverse event. The insurance company is able to sell this mitigation at a low cost because they sell similar coverage to large groups of people with similar risks. There is no way to distribute risk.
If an insurance company is unwilling to underwrite a policy, at any cost, for the 'high risk' individual you just made up, but perfectly willing to underwrite a policy for 99% of the population, I'm happy not letting that guy drive (If he does, take away his car. If he borrows a car with someone's knowledge, levy them a hefty fine).
For medical, it would make far more sense to simply use taxes to pay for people that have high, fixed care costs than it does to pretend that those costs are insurable (for one thing, using taxes helps people that have fallen out of the insurance system).
If you haven't already, you may want to investigate T-mobile's coverage in your area, $100 buys 1,000 minutes that last for a year:
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/prepaid-plans.aspx
(I currently use Virgin Mobile, which is $20 for 200 minutes, and as long as you add 200 minutes every 30 days, unused minutes carry forward; not fantastically better than a contract, but I get all the minutes I need for less than any contract I am aware of)
Country folk who mostly only drove to town for church on Sundays.
Damn the is are!
There is are prefs to turn the js off. Some are at my/comments:
http://slashdot.org/my/comments
Another is at help and preferences:
http://slashdot.org/help
'Use Classic Index' shows up under both Classic Index->General and Dynamic Index->Layout for me.
CSS images seem to be broken in classic mode though (but maybe something is going wrong for me). Some may consider this a benefit.
Sure. I'm a huge fan of peer effects as an explanation of behavior. "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris makes a very strong case that peers are a primary influence on development (she also makes the case that much of the mollycoddling done by modern parents is largely pointless).