What if it cost you $0.0001 cents every time you flushed your toilet and it was entirely the other guys responsibility to keep the toilet functioning? Made up numbers aren't really useful for much.
Software generally delivers so much value (that is, text editing vs type writing) that licensing costs aren't a big deal. People use open source and free software either because it is better than the alternative (some people base better on ideology, others on functionality, maybe a few on price), or because it is equivalent to the alternative and less expensive. So the adoption of something like OpenOffice.org won't happen only because it is cheaper, but because it becomes the clear superior (and this is as much a battle of perception as it is reality).
Bookmarks are getting smarter. Firefox 3 adds support for tagging bookmarks, but not much in the way of uses for those tags. I think the tags get transferred to delicious if you use the delicious plug-in (I don't, so I'm not sure). If that is the case, there are many third party sites that will suck in data from delicious and spit out mind maps.
And really, I would be surprised if further tag features are not added to Firefox.
I generally look elsewhere first, but the fact that somebody paid to ask the question cuts down a lot on the noise there overall, so at least there will be a question, rather than the "Help me make my computer go" stuff that appears on a lot of forums.
As it stands, I'm happy to use their transfer and information and pay them nothing, and the way the present the information practically guarantees that I will never pay them anything.
The Redhat IPO had nothing to do with Wall Street finding out that development staff worked for free and everything to do with an irrational market bubble.
I would argue that most people who get divorces agree.
I suppose that I do think people should care for each other and that lifelong bonds do form, but there are plenty of people who hit age 30 without really giving a shit about anyone else, even the person they married.
Goatse certainly never improved anybody's life, but anybody that is 'scarred' by it probably benefited from the experience (in that they found out that the world was not the bubblegum and butterflies that they thought it was).
It depends a great deal on what we decide "legal advice" means. If it means some notion about what anybody thinks the law means, then sure, it is tough to figure out where it would be legal. If it has a more formal meaning, then in my scenario, the breaking of the law is not in giving the advice, but in misrepresenting it as legal advice.
If you tell someone you are a lawyer and you are not, and you then proceed to give them advice, you are breaking a law that has passed First Amendment muster.
Not exclusively, but that is generally the chief benefit that the government is looking at. Look at the events in this timeline (the Hoover and Southwest seem to exemplify your point):
They include both the control and use of the river, but there weren't enough people living in that area at that time for water storage to be an issue, the big motivator was disaster control (and if you are going to make a huge reservoir, it simply makes sense to install hydro).
"A damming effect" would never be a problem, the slower the water is moving the less energy available for extraction, so you would stop installing them long before the water stopped moving. I would guess that capital return rates would convince investors to stop installing them long before environmental impact became a significant problem.
The good news is that there is a lot of desert. The bad news is that replacing transport fuels (for the U.S.) at that rate would require something like 4,000 square miles of it (maybe half of that if every vehicle gets more efficient and people conserve some). That's a hell of a lot of infrastructure to build and maintain. His 10% of New Mexico is closer to 12,000 square miles, so something is going on (I made a mistake or the numbers in the video are sloppy).
Still, as far as I can tell, no other alternative fuel even comes close to working.
Or are you talking about a hypothetical million dollars? At least your company pays you for the work you do incrementally, rather than for the best answer.
The flaw being really obvious weakens the case for the class. If the purchaser can see that it is a piece of junk, they can't really claim that they expected it to perform well.
There is absolutely no way in which this isn't copyright infringement. Any web page is copyrighted. This comment is copyrighted and owned by me. The Slashdot terms of use say that they get a nonexclusive distribution right to them. No one else has the right to reproduce them or modify them. The complete page is also copyrighted and owned jointly by all of the posters and by Slashdot.
A carrier has an implicit license to distribute exact copies to their customers and, if the correct headers are set, to cache a copy. Inserting adverts, however, is creating and distributing a derived work from the copyrighted material. Since they profit from the adverts, it counts as commercial infringement, which typically has much larger financial penalties.
The maximum fine for online copyright infringement in the UK is now £5,000 per offence. Every single page that is modified counts as an instance of infringement. The total fines would come to more than the market capitalisation of BT at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
http://newdeal.feri.org/acts/us07.htm
Compared to the cost of developing an operating system that supports all those binary only programs you own, $100 is zero.
What if it cost you $0.0001 cents every time you flushed your toilet and it was entirely the other guys responsibility to keep the toilet functioning? Made up numbers aren't really useful for much.
Software generally delivers so much value (that is, text editing vs type writing) that licensing costs aren't a big deal. People use open source and free software either because it is better than the alternative (some people base better on ideology, others on functionality, maybe a few on price), or because it is equivalent to the alternative and less expensive. So the adoption of something like OpenOffice.org won't happen only because it is cheaper, but because it becomes the clear superior (and this is as much a battle of perception as it is reality).
Unfortunately, no, I can't use that excuse.
Bookmarks are getting smarter. Firefox 3 adds support for tagging bookmarks, but not much in the way of uses for those tags. I think the tags get transferred to delicious if you use the delicious plug-in (I don't, so I'm not sure). If that is the case, there are many third party sites that will suck in data from delicious and spit out mind maps.
And really, I would be surprised if further tag features are not added to Firefox.
Or extensions. TagSifter looks neat:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/adw/tagsifter/
I generally look elsewhere first, but the fact that somebody paid to ask the question cuts down a lot on the noise there overall, so at least there will be a question, rather than the "Help me make my computer go" stuff that appears on a lot of forums.
As it stands, I'm happy to use their transfer and information and pay them nothing, and the way the present the information practically guarantees that I will never pay them anything.
It's entirely fair. They new the score when the started doing it however many years ago and figured they could make it work.
The Redhat IPO had nothing to do with Wall Street finding out that development staff worked for free and everything to do with an irrational market bubble.
You mean "scroll down to where the comments are shown".
Google doesn't take kindly to people that show them different results than the rest of the world.
You're spalling is a cleer endorshment of your opinonion.
Anybody who is concerned about whether Google is evil or not better not have a credit card or watch television anyway.
I don't think marriage means anything.
I would argue that most people who get divorces agree.
I suppose that I do think people should care for each other and that lifelong bonds do form, but there are plenty of people who hit age 30 without really giving a shit about anyone else, even the person they married.
A little junk food never hurt anybody.
Goatse certainly never improved anybody's life, but anybody that is 'scarred' by it probably benefited from the experience (in that they found out that the world was not the bubblegum and butterflies that they thought it was).
I'm pretty sure that I'd be happy to punch anybody who smiled at me and tried to sell me a ring-tone directly in the face.
The thing to remember about Scott Adams is that he loves to troll his own blog.
It depends a great deal on what we decide "legal advice" means. If it means some notion about what anybody thinks the law means, then sure, it is tough to figure out where it would be legal. If it has a more formal meaning, then in my scenario, the breaking of the law is not in giving the advice, but in misrepresenting it as legal advice.
If you tell someone you are a lawyer and you are not, and you then proceed to give them advice, you are breaking a law that has passed First Amendment muster.
Even worse, a good portion of the students likely saw things that they have attached to their own bodies.
Not exclusively, but that is generally the chief benefit that the government is looking at. Look at the events in this timeline (the Hoover and Southwest seem to exemplify your point):
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/History/articles/chrono.html
They include both the control and use of the river, but there weren't enough people living in that area at that time for water storage to be an issue, the big motivator was disaster control (and if you are going to make a huge reservoir, it simply makes sense to install hydro).
Suspending her from working in that school system for a couple of months would be a slap on the wrist.
Bringing in the DA was reactionary.
Most big dams are installed for flood control. That they simplify irrigation is a nice side benefit.
Also, note that the article specifically mentions installing them in rivers, especially if they are more fish-friendly than turbines.
"A damming effect" would never be a problem, the slower the water is moving the less energy available for extraction, so you would stop installing them long before the water stopped moving. I would guess that capital return rates would convince investors to stop installing them long before environmental impact became a significant problem.
I sure hope so.
The good news is that there is a lot of desert. The bad news is that replacing transport fuels (for the U.S.) at that rate would require something like 4,000 square miles of it (maybe half of that if every vehicle gets more efficient and people conserve some). That's a hell of a lot of infrastructure to build and maintain. His 10% of New Mexico is closer to 12,000 square miles, so something is going on (I made a mistake or the numbers in the video are sloppy).
Still, as far as I can tell, no other alternative fuel even comes close to working.
Congratulations on winning the Netflix prize.
Or are you talking about a hypothetical million dollars? At least your company pays you for the work you do incrementally, rather than for the best answer.
The flaw being really obvious weakens the case for the class. If the purchaser can see that it is a piece of junk, they can't really claim that they expected it to perform well.
There is absolutely no way in which this isn't copyright infringement. Any web page is copyrighted. This comment is copyrighted and owned by me. The Slashdot terms of use say that they get a nonexclusive distribution right to them. No one else has the right to reproduce them or modify them. The complete page is also copyrighted and owned jointly by all of the posters and by Slashdot.
A carrier has an implicit license to distribute exact copies to their customers and, if the correct headers are set, to cache a copy. Inserting adverts, however, is creating and distributing a derived work from the copyrighted material. Since they profit from the adverts, it counts as commercial infringement, which typically has much larger financial penalties.
The maximum fine for online copyright infringement in the UK is now £5,000 per offence. Every single page that is modified counts as an instance of infringement. The total fines would come to more than the market capitalisation of BT at the moment.