Of course, Sony is notable for selling the VAIO, a massively overpriced system who's cheapest offering comes in more expensive than the generally acknowledged pricy Apple laptops. So yes, cheap offerings dramatically cut into their sales, nothing surprising there. Lets be clear though -- the hardware itself that Sony's charging customers for likely costs them less than a thousand (well maybe not the blu-ray one). Their mission is to preserve/establish Sony's brand as prestigious entertainment. Hence the Blu-ray capable VAIO that costs three thousand. I hear the same logic drives the PS3's expensive design. You might also argue that the eee and UMPC platform diminishes the value of their Blu-ray movies, given the screen size and resolution makes them poor movie players, and they certainly can't have that.
If all companies were as you claim, then IBM would never have lost leadership to Microsoft. Instead, IBM had lawyers making sure they were not engaging in anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours. It's part of why they lost out to Microsoft in the end. Microsoft, you see, has no such balances in place.
But Microsoft is a bad company for many reasons, not just competitiveness and monopolistic market shares. They've negotiated in bad faith with patent holders, they hire programmers by the bucketload just to keep them from working for competitors. They've even screwed the people who made Internet Explorer by negotiating a percentage of each sale billed and then giving it away for free. If I was a shareholder (I'm not), I'd be pissed that they've let this shit go on to the point where the Microsoft brand is a liability. You scream "Developers!" over and over again, and it's pretty clear you mean "Marks!"
The point of the back tax penalty is to stop people from naming outrageous prices.
Instead, gaming the system would likely involve selling to a third party and contracting a repurchase at a later date (say, 1 day), and then revaluing the house without paying back taxes (goods transfer when people value them higher than the owner, right?). The more likely scenario is simply someone who knocks on your door, and demands a $bar dollars or he'll make good on the offer you've been forced to make. Revaluing the house might seem expensive compared to simply appeasing the fellow, until you realize you'll be paying $bar times number of people plying this trick.
Unless the government has some magical way of valuing the cost of not selling your property is, I don't see how this is anything more than a trick for massive real estate price inflation,
The idea here isn't the same as price floors or ceilings. Instead, it's to establish a fair market value for a property, and tax it. If you've ever had the county appraise your house for more than you can sell it, the idea might sound a bit appealing. The owner names a price he'd accept, and is required to pay property tax on it, and faces the possible forced sale of the property at the price asked for. It's a bit mercantile to suggest that everything everywhere is for sale, and denies the existence of a large chunk of human emotional attachment, but that's Heinlien for you-- Government exists to create a logical structure where humans are weak.
But I think it's fair to at least ask why it is we've chosen not to tax copyrighted works. Maybe the answer is that ideas are so numerous, and the value nearly unpredictable that the concept of dollar valuing an idea is simply hilarious? The form presented, where the work is not sold but instead released, is fairly similar to patents, where the the invention's workings are released to the public in trade for a time-limited monopoly, and the exchange is overwhelmingly popular I hear.
So give the justices the support they need in court. In the first paragraphs of the Bill, explain the general findings that extending retroactively doesn't encourage the production of new works, while the bill is interested in a better balance between the public interest and the creation of new copyrighted works. Then, when the spiritual successor to Lessig comes along, he can point to this as an intent, and anyone attempting to pass a bill extending it will have to answer to the necessity of retroactive application.
As a former high school science student, let me tell you, it's pretty scary to be graded on doing the lab procedure correctly. You know the theory, and you're pretty sure you butterfingered the titration. Do you repeat the experiment again? Of course not, because the lesson plan has no room for error. And Lord be damned if you're coming in with your lab partner after class to try again (even if you did, the chemical budget ain't that healthy). If your teaching style is anything like what I've encountered, I believe more of your students think "I did the experiment once, and my data is terrible, so now it's time to clean up the data." Last I checked, the theory of relativity wasn't built on the observations of the average high school student.
By doing something productive, not spamming me with shit I already knew about. Blog about new information you've generated. Maybe make some charts about disk head position during boot and demonstrate whether I/O is throughput or seek bound. Above all else, don't just copy someone else's shit and translate it into HTML.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the VC was using an open source emulator or two. They used PocketNES for the NES classics released on the GBA. And completely in line with the BSD style license.
Right. The current price at the time of the offer. My statement was clearly confusing. Apologies. I'd imagine if Yahoo! definitively says no the price would fall.
What you're actually crying about is "I didn't make as much money as I could at this instant" which should be met with scorn and ridicule because the stock market is simply legalized gambling. There is no guarenteed return on your investment. In fact, brokers make sure you're aware of the point that You Can Lose Money and you're not getting it back. Honestly, the suit isn't about losing money on a gamble, it's the classic management vs shareholders fight. Management has a vested interest in their jobs, even though their task is to work in the best interests of shareholders. The then board is supposed to consider all possible options, including selling the company if it's a reasonable offer. Sitting on the table is a "get your money back and more!" offer. Something like 60 percent above the current stock price if I recall. Yahoo! management is effectively betting that it can do better than that in some magical long term, versus the market at large. Maybe the stock is currently a bit undervalued, so some of that 60 percent is simply going towards a some fairer valuation.
Business isn't legalized gambling. Yes, you're taking risks to make money, but nobody has to lose. Maybe Microsoft and Yahoo! could serve more ads for higher prices than they could seperately?
It just works so much better with great workflow support. If you haven't dealt with workflow image editing with lots of photos you don't know what you're missing. I'm pretty sure I'm missing the digital camera I'd need to begin caring about "workflow":P
I don't know much about GIMP, but when 2.6 comes out you should give it a try. I can't seem to find a roadmap for GIMP, but it's expected that GEGL will be integrated into GIMP 2.6, which appears to address the colorspace problems photographers cite against GIMP itself.
As for batch processing thousands of photos, at least to me it seems like imagemagick is more appropriate...
Would someone please explain what the x and y axis are for "learning curves"? Everyone complains they they're too steep, as though to make an analogy between climbing a hill, learning and a mere graph.
Unproven theorems in mathematics are often called "hypothesis", ie the Riemann Hypothesis. And I don't think your attempts at explaining the word theory necessarily failed because of recency bias. You've carefully dodged explaining what you think "scientific theory" means, which was quite ingenious given the amount of argument already on posted to this thread over whether it's a fact or theory. If your definition can't help but draw fire from/., then what hope does it have to be accepted by fundamentalists. I personally prefer the plain meaning of words, and as far as I'm aware, there's no standards body in charge of defining the scientific method and the words used to describe how science is done.
However you define it, it's apparent to me that evolution and selection are as intertwined with biology as gravity is with physics. Everyone's quite clear it's happening, but quibble over the details.
Mozilla takes security seriously, so, like many other systems, allows people to mark things as security vuln's, so that intelligent disclosure techniques can be applied. They will publish things in due time, and maybe not on a schedule that Opera deems acceptable. But never hiding bugs is silly. For example, if you provide an strace of ssh crashing, you'd want to mark that private at least.
Right. So you set ballwall to authenticate against whatever openID server. And then tell all your friends about your WSJ subscription. OpenID is not intended to be two factor identification. It's intended to address the explosion in websites (blogs, mostly) that request / require accounts for some reason.
But there was a challenge that was offering a couple thousand to whoever could get openID support into popular tools. Donno if slashcode's included.
This is what always bothers me about these "shortages" complaints: why do you feel the sample population you've encountered is a valid cross section? If you are a hiring manager, it could be that your HR dept. is failing you. Or it could be that your company's pay scales immediately dissuades talented programmers from applying. Can anyone honestly say they've accurately surveyed the graduating class of '0x?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Sony is notable for selling the VAIO, a massively overpriced system who's cheapest offering comes in more expensive than the generally acknowledged pricy Apple laptops. So yes, cheap offerings dramatically cut into their sales, nothing surprising there. Lets be clear though -- the hardware itself that Sony's charging customers for likely costs them less than a thousand (well maybe not the blu-ray one). Their mission is to preserve/establish Sony's brand as prestigious entertainment. Hence the Blu-ray capable VAIO that costs three thousand. I hear the same logic drives the PS3's expensive design. You might also argue that the eee and UMPC platform diminishes the value of their Blu-ray movies, given the screen size and resolution makes them poor movie players, and they certainly can't have that.
If all companies were as you claim, then IBM would never have lost leadership to Microsoft. Instead, IBM had lawyers making sure they were not engaging in anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours. It's part of why they lost out to Microsoft in the end. Microsoft, you see, has no such balances in place.
But Microsoft is a bad company for many reasons, not just competitiveness and monopolistic market shares. They've negotiated in bad faith with patent holders, they hire programmers by the bucketload just to keep them from working for competitors. They've even screwed the people who made Internet Explorer by negotiating a percentage of each sale billed and then giving it away for free. If I was a shareholder (I'm not), I'd be pissed that they've let this shit go on to the point where the Microsoft brand is a liability. You scream "Developers!" over and over again, and it's pretty clear you mean "Marks!"
To be fair, it'd be about as easy to start a new internet is it would be to fix email's fraud problems.
The point of the back tax penalty is to stop people from naming outrageous prices.
Instead, gaming the system would likely involve selling to a third party and contracting a repurchase at a later date (say, 1 day), and then revaluing the house without paying back taxes (goods transfer when people value them higher than the owner, right?). The more likely scenario is simply someone who knocks on your door, and demands a $bar dollars or he'll make good on the offer you've been forced to make. Revaluing the house might seem expensive compared to simply appeasing the fellow, until you realize you'll be paying $bar times number of people plying this trick.
Unless the government has some magical way of valuing the cost of not selling your property is, I don't see how this is anything more than a trick for massive real estate price inflation,
The idea here isn't the same as price floors or ceilings. Instead, it's to establish a fair market value for a property, and tax it. If you've ever had the county appraise your house for more than you can sell it, the idea might sound a bit appealing. The owner names a price he'd accept, and is required to pay property tax on it, and faces the possible forced sale of the property at the price asked for. It's a bit mercantile to suggest that everything everywhere is for sale, and denies the existence of a large chunk of human emotional attachment, but that's Heinlien for you-- Government exists to create a logical structure where humans are weak.
But I think it's fair to at least ask why it is we've chosen not to tax copyrighted works. Maybe the answer is that ideas are so numerous, and the value nearly unpredictable that the concept of dollar valuing an idea is simply hilarious? The form presented, where the work is not sold but instead released, is fairly similar to patents, where the the invention's workings are released to the public in trade for a time-limited monopoly, and the exchange is overwhelmingly popular I hear.
Tell this to the Scientologist lawyers and see how far you get...
So give the justices the support they need in court. In the first paragraphs of the Bill, explain the general findings that extending retroactively doesn't encourage the production of new works, while the bill is interested in a better balance between the public interest and the creation of new copyrighted works. Then, when the spiritual successor to Lessig comes along, he can point to this as an intent, and anyone attempting to pass a bill extending it will have to answer to the necessity of retroactive application.
As a former high school science student, let me tell you, it's pretty scary to be graded on doing the lab procedure correctly. You know the theory, and you're pretty sure you butterfingered the titration. Do you repeat the experiment again? Of course not, because the lesson plan has no room for error. And Lord be damned if you're coming in with your lab partner after class to try again (even if you did, the chemical budget ain't that healthy). If your teaching style is anything like what I've encountered, I believe more of your students think "I did the experiment once, and my data is terrible, so now it's time to clean up the data." Last I checked, the theory of relativity wasn't built on the observations of the average high school student.
By doing something productive, not spamming me with shit I already knew about. Blog about new information you've generated. Maybe make some charts about disk head position during boot and demonstrate whether I/O is throughput or seek bound. Above all else, don't just copy someone else's shit and translate it into HTML.
Ah, thank you for reminding me. That's right it Jaleco that used pocketSNES.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the VC was using an open source emulator or two. They used PocketNES for the NES classics released on the GBA. And completely in line with the BSD style license.
Well, 7 pounds, times 4 quarter pounder's per pound = 28 hamburgers?
All this talk about AMD laptop platforms -- did they ever solve their battery life problem?
Right. The current price at the time of the offer. My statement was clearly confusing. Apologies. I'd imagine if Yahoo! definitively says no the price would fall.
Business isn't legalized gambling. Yes, you're taking risks to make money, but nobody has to lose. Maybe Microsoft and Yahoo! could serve more ads for higher prices than they could seperately?
I'd say if you're running a big enough pension plan, individual stocks are definitely on the table.
I don't know much about GIMP, but when 2.6 comes out you should give it a try. I can't seem to find a roadmap for GIMP, but it's expected that GEGL will be integrated into GIMP 2.6, which appears to address the colorspace problems photographers cite against GIMP itself.
As for batch processing thousands of photos, at least to me it seems like imagemagick is more appropriate...
Would someone please explain what the x and y axis are for "learning curves"? Everyone complains they they're too steep, as though to make an analogy between climbing a hill, learning and a mere graph.
Unproven theorems in mathematics are often called "hypothesis", ie the Riemann Hypothesis. And I don't think your attempts at explaining the word theory necessarily failed because of recency bias. You've carefully dodged explaining what you think "scientific theory" means, which was quite ingenious given the amount of argument already on posted to this thread over whether it's a fact or theory. If your definition can't help but draw fire from /., then what hope does it have to be accepted by fundamentalists. I personally prefer the plain meaning of words, and as far as I'm aware, there's no standards body in charge of defining the scientific method and the words used to describe how science is done.
However you define it, it's apparent to me that evolution and selection are as intertwined with biology as gravity is with physics. Everyone's quite clear it's happening, but quibble over the details.
Mozilla takes security seriously, so, like many other systems, allows people to mark things as security vuln's, so that intelligent disclosure techniques can be applied. They will publish things in due time, and maybe not on a schedule that Opera deems acceptable. But never hiding bugs is silly. For example, if you provide an strace of ssh crashing, you'd want to mark that private at least.
Right. So you set ballwall to authenticate against whatever openID server. And then tell all your friends about your WSJ subscription. OpenID is not intended to be two factor identification. It's intended to address the explosion in websites (blogs, mostly) that request / require accounts for some reason.
But there was a challenge that was offering a couple thousand to whoever could get openID support into popular tools. Donno if slashcode's included.
Which sounds great, until you realize that for-pay web apps would shudder to adopt a scheme that allows transparent anonymous logins.
This is what always bothers me about these "shortages" complaints: why do you feel the sample population you've encountered is a valid cross section? If you are a hiring manager, it could be that your HR dept. is failing you. Or it could be that your company's pay scales immediately dissuades talented programmers from applying. Can anyone honestly say they've accurately surveyed the graduating class of '0x?