The USPS receives approximately 96 Billion dollars annually from Congress via the "Postal Service Fund."
From Title 39, Part III, Chapter 20, Sec 2003 of the US Code, The Fund shall be available for the payment of all expenses incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out its functions as provided by law and, subject to the provisions of section 3604 of this title, all of the expenses of the Postal Rate Commission.
>>The magazine company, the snail mail spammer, and the personal contacts ALL PAY FOR END TO END DELIVERY OF THE MAIL THEY SEND
Actually, this is not entirely true. The US Postal Service is subsidized by the federal goverment. Taxes are not paid to support its "routine" operations, but instead go to continue to support its monopoly on non-priority mailings. Bulk mail is delivered at a reduced rate. Ergo, it is actually your tax dollars that are paying for some of the delivery costs.
As a frequent vendor at trade shows, I can tell you that what johnnyb's company is doing is 100% legitimate. As a vendor, you are often entitled to the mailing list of the participants. Registration by an attendee is with the understanding that your information will be made available to the vendors for just this purpose. This information is (should be) usually displayed on the registration form. As a safe-guard against making sure that you don't get the bejesus spammed out of you, a lot of conference promoters limit a vendor's use of the mailing list to a single mailing.
His use is legitimate and, as described, he is not a spammer.
As stated below, modifying the WEP key is beyond a large percentage of users. A better approach would be to use your gateway box as a proxy server (which you would be doing anyway) and use a common logon id. Change the password for the account daily and print the day's user id and password on the receipt.
Users are much more familiar with this approach and it is no more complex (less actually) than the revolving WEP.
>>so STFU about not liking HDTV. You can always count on the 12-year olds for the insightful comments. *sigh*
No where in my post did I say that I don't like TV. And, contrary to your suggestion, I have seen HDTV, it is impressive, and I am looking forward(in a strange sort of way) to the day that my 61" screen kicks it so that I can upgrade.
What I do not like is the fact that upgrading to HDTV is being made mandatory. Why incur the added expense for something as non-essential as a television? Why not allow market forces to dictate the adoption of HDTV? Why must it be legistlated? Again, where is the benefit to the consumer by discontinuing the use of the analog frequencies and requiring people to upgrade their televisions?
The manufacturers gain by the added revenue relized from forcing people to replace all of their TVs. The broadcasters gain by raising their advertising rates disproportionately to cover the added cost, as well as adding DVD-style restrictions on use. The government gains by reselling the analog frequencies at a much higher cost. The consumer gains, how? By being able to watch "The Bachelor" in a higher quality?
It might be beyond your comprehension to understand the term "corporate welfare" but you would probably cut down on your trolling dramatically if you did a little reading. At risk of being accused of invoking the Ayn Rand version of Godwin's Law ( as well as giving you something to *shudder* think about), you might want to check out Atlas Shrugged.
Do yourself a favor: stop watching TV and read a book.
It's inevitable that this will lead to a standardized format, but there will be losers on all sides, most notably the consumers. I'm not thinking of CSS-cracking, dvd-ripping type stuff but the draconian measures that are already in place with the current technology. (Actually, I'm not at allconcerned with "backing up" my DVDs and I'm not interested in starting that argument here, fair use or not. I'm sure someone else will be more than willing to pick up that gauntlet).
There are a couple of things here that concern me. First, no doubt the manufacturers have learned quite a few lessons since the introduction of the DVD format years ago. Region coding makes money but only if you can prevent regionless players, copy protection makes money but only if you can prevent its circumvention, and adverts make money but only if you can prevent the consumer from circumventing them. I have every bit of confidence that, whatever the prevailing format, there will be some convoluted region and encryption scheme and the remote controls for the players won't have a fast-forward button. However, not all will be lost. I'm sure that they will leave the Rewind button intact so that you can watch the adverts over and over again.
On second thought, I have to disagree with the parent poster. I hope that this doesn't lead to a standardized format. Instead, here's hoping that it drags these morons and their cyclical attempts to introduce a new technology platform every 10 years so as to force us to continue replacing our copies of movies with the latest and greatest versions right into the firey abyss from whence they originated. Is anyone actually buying DVD-A or SCD?
The thing that concerns me the most, tho, is the possibilitiy that the movie companies will force the adoption of the newer formats by refusing to release newer or higher-profile titles. And to stave off the inevitable VHS-to-DVD analogies, DVD was a quantum leap over VHS in terms of quality and content. What is being proposed here is merely an evolution, and a small one at that.
What benefit will the next generation of DVD offer to consumers? HDTV? Please, this is another farce being shoved down the collective throats of Americans (and other countries?). The very idea that a society is going to be mandated to replace their televisions is absolutely insane. Again, what benefit does this offer to the consumer by making it mandatory? Now, compare that benefit to how it benefits the entertainment industry. What does the consumer gain by the introduction of the "copy bit"?
I've probably gone horribly off-track with this post so I'll sum it up with this: the parent post is not a troll.
>>the USPTO can't even guarantee your "ownership" of an idea for more than 20 years. I'd say that fails any reasonable test of ownership.
Patents do not serve the purpose of guaranteeing ownership. They exist to offer a limited degree of protection to enjoy the fruits of your work and discovery by limiting the amount of competition and preventing others from stealing your ideas and inventions without due compensation for your work.
Of course, if you actually believed in what you had posted, you wouldn't have done so anonymously.
Re:The battles would have been a lot better
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
whereas it isn't for an elf in a pseudo-medieval culture?
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why it would be inappropriate to use a shield as a sled. Had Helm's Deep been encased in snow and Madmartigen^H^H^H^H^HLegolas had used the shield to luge down the side of a mountain, would it have been alright? I, for one, found it rather ingenious of Legolas to use the shield so as to help his brethern quicker. Bonus points for the dismount lodging into the neck of an Uruk-Hai.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
>Movies that tend to be entirely CG tend to look better as everything fits.
>>As an example, it may have taken an additional hour for the first movie to include the whole Tom Bombadil section.
While this may be true, I have never quite understood why so many people were up in arms over its exclusion. Tom Bombadil was a character of no consequence - a page-filling distraction. When you consider him within the entire scope of the epic, he really does not serve any true purpose.
Of course, if I am mistaken about this and overlooked the significance of his character, I hope that someone will enlighten me.
I wish that I was awake enough to cite actual examples of why your statement is incorrect. Alas, I just have not had enough coffee yet to do so. Suffice it to say, the US Patent Office has been working dilligently to prove your statement false. There have been numerous patents granted based on ideas, without regard to the existance of practical application.
As the USPTO has shown time and again, you can, in fact, own an idea.
Linux is an easy target since it cannot defend itself from what essentially amounts to slander. Any other group has a representative body (read: lawyers) that rises up to protect the general interests of that group.
What we need is the "Linux Anti-Defamation League".
It amazes me just how many people don't understand the basic mechanics of the stock market.
A bunch of/. users planning to buy stock is not collusion. As this is a public forum, it is no more different than a group of users from The Fool discussing investment strategies and all agreeing on a common course of action. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing illegal with the suggestions made here.
The cost of PC games has spiraled out of control this year. Battlefield 1942 was a great game and I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. But $70? No thanks. I played the demo and that was it. More and more titles are premiering at the $60 price point which is just way too much for something as relatively unimportant as a computer game. Consoles have been in the $60 range for a couple of years, so maybe they're used to it. I'd also argue that console owners tend to be younger and have more disposable time, so maybe they get a greater return on their investment. That's probably just an over-generalization, however.
The titles, in general, have reached a point of sameless that makes very few titles compelling. Consider some of the more anticipated titles this holiday season. Half-Life *2*. Doom *3*. UT2004. Halo (a console port. It wasn't in the beginning, but that's the direction that they took). Yet another Sims add-on. The point is, there really isn't anything this year to really get people excited. At least last year we had Neverwinter Nights.
As for hardware, do I really need yet another Sound Blaster card? My GeForce 4 card barely gets a workout as it is. My laptop has a GeForce 2 and doesn't really sweat anything. Do I really need another graphic card update?
I would suggest that the hardware market has reached a saturation point. Most new machines come with higher-end graphics and sound these days, anyway. Even integrated solutions are sufficient for all but the most hardcore gamers. Same thing with harddrives and RAM. Dell ships with 80GB drives and 512RAM standard these days.
Given the fact that we have all been enjoying WinAmp for years, for FREE, is it really too much for them to ask for us to kick in a measely 15 bucks for an enhanced version? And they're still giving the basic player away for free. Seriously, if you're going to bitch and moan about the fact that their fuller-featured version has a price, and a small one at that, please, do us all a favor and use something else. $15 seems very reasonable to me, especially when you consider that Roxio sells pretty much the same thing for $100.
Oh, yeah. I can just see what this is going to be like during rush hour on the New Jersey Turnpike with a thousand cars streaming pass, all tuned to different stations, as the billboard flashes maniacally to keep up and cars careen off the road while thier drivers fall into epilleptic fits.
It all depends on who the merchant account is through and your business classification. We just happened to find a good provider for retail. Amex tends to be higher for entertainment and restaurants than it is for retail, although I can't say I know why.
We also have a very small transaction rate - 12 cents for Visa/MC and Amex is a flat rate of $5/month.
To correct my earlier post, my partner just informed me that we pay 1% commission on Visa/MC. Amex has no commission and no transaction rate - just the flat $5 per month. That's good up to $5000 per month. After that, the rate is still very reasonable, although I don't know what it is off-hand. Amex is very supportive of small businesses. YMMV.
One thing that not many retailers are aware of is that you can shop around. Rates can be very competitive.
I don't think that the issue is so much one of someone using your keychain to make purchases. Rather, it's some criminal scanning your tag as you walk past and using the information for fraudulent purchases of their own. I'm more worried about getting scammed this way than finding out that I supposedly bought a shirt the last time that I was walking through Macy's.
The technology is nothing new, of course. Mobil/Exxon has had this for several years in the form of SpeedPass. I've never used it, however, and never will. I'm more than willing to sacrifice the convenience of saving 10 seconds waving the little wand in front of the reader instead of scanning my card at the pump. I am a technologist. I know the limitations. I know the track-records of similar systems as well as those of the parties involved. Until this becomes mandatory (cards replaced by RFID devices), I won't have to worry about any problems, because I won't have one.
And, until the credit card companies pay every merchant on the face of the earth for the new devices, it will not become mandatory.
You'll notice that there aren't any "Speedpass-Only" Exxon stations around.
Slashdot Mirror
The USPS receives approximately 96 Billion dollars annually from Congress via the "Postal Service Fund."
From Title 39, Part III, Chapter 20, Sec 2003 of the US Code, The Fund shall be available for the payment of all expenses incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out its functions as provided by law and, subject to the provisions of section 3604 of this title, all of the expenses of the Postal Rate Commission.
>>The magazine company, the snail mail spammer, and the personal contacts ALL PAY FOR END TO END DELIVERY OF THE MAIL THEY SEND
Actually, this is not entirely true. The US Postal Service is subsidized by the federal goverment. Taxes are not paid to support its "routine" operations, but instead go to continue to support its monopoly on non-priority mailings. Bulk mail is delivered at a reduced rate. Ergo, it is actually your tax dollars that are paying for some of the delivery costs.
I'm giving up my mod points to respond to this...
As a frequent vendor at trade shows, I can tell you that what johnnyb's company is doing is 100% legitimate. As a vendor, you are often entitled to the mailing list of the participants. Registration by an attendee is with the understanding that your information will be made available to the vendors for just this purpose. This information is (should be) usually displayed on the registration form. As a safe-guard against making sure that you don't get the bejesus spammed out of you, a lot of conference promoters limit a vendor's use of the mailing list to a single mailing.
His use is legitimate and, as described, he is not a spammer.
As stated below, modifying the WEP key is beyond a large percentage of users. A better approach would be to use your gateway box as a proxy server (which you would be doing anyway) and use a common logon id. Change the password for the account daily and print the day's user id and password on the receipt.
Users are much more familiar with this approach and it is no more complex (less actually) than the revolving WEP.
>>so STFU about not liking HDTV.
You can always count on the 12-year olds for the insightful comments. *sigh*
No where in my post did I say that I don't like TV. And, contrary to your suggestion, I have seen HDTV, it is impressive, and I am looking forward(in a strange sort of way) to the day that my 61" screen kicks it so that I can upgrade.
What I do not like is the fact that upgrading to HDTV is being made mandatory. Why incur the added expense for something as non-essential as a television? Why not allow market forces to dictate the adoption of HDTV? Why must it be legistlated? Again, where is the benefit to the consumer by discontinuing the use of the analog frequencies and requiring people to upgrade their televisions?
The manufacturers gain by the added revenue relized from forcing people to replace all of their TVs. The broadcasters gain by raising their advertising rates disproportionately to cover the added cost, as well as adding DVD-style restrictions on use. The government gains by reselling the analog frequencies at a much higher cost. The consumer gains, how? By being able to watch "The Bachelor" in a higher quality?
It might be beyond your comprehension to understand the term "corporate welfare" but you would probably cut down on your trolling dramatically if you did a little reading. At risk of being accused of invoking the Ayn Rand version of Godwin's Law ( as well as giving you something to *shudder* think about), you might want to check out Atlas Shrugged.
Do yourself a favor: stop watching TV and read a book.
It's not so far fetched. The number of new releases on VHS continues to dwindle in preference of DVD.
It's inevitable that this will lead to a standardized format, but there will be losers on all sides, most notably the consumers. I'm not thinking of CSS-cracking, dvd-ripping type stuff but the draconian measures that are already in place with the current technology. (Actually, I'm not at allconcerned with "backing up" my DVDs and I'm not interested in starting that argument here, fair use or not. I'm sure someone else will be more than willing to pick up that gauntlet).
There are a couple of things here that concern me. First, no doubt the manufacturers have learned quite a few lessons since the introduction of the DVD format years ago. Region coding makes money but only if you can prevent regionless players, copy protection makes money but only if you can prevent its circumvention, and adverts make money but only if you can prevent the consumer from circumventing them. I have every bit of confidence that, whatever the prevailing format, there will be some convoluted region and encryption scheme and the remote controls for the players won't have a fast-forward button. However, not all will be lost. I'm sure that they will leave the Rewind button intact so that you can watch the adverts over and over again.
On second thought, I have to disagree with the parent poster. I hope that this doesn't lead to a standardized format. Instead, here's hoping that it drags these morons and their cyclical attempts to introduce a new technology platform every 10 years so as to force us to continue replacing our copies of movies with the latest and greatest versions right into the firey abyss from whence they originated. Is anyone actually buying DVD-A or SCD?
The thing that concerns me the most, tho, is the possibilitiy that the movie companies will force the adoption of the newer formats by refusing to release newer or higher-profile titles. And to stave off the inevitable VHS-to-DVD analogies, DVD was a quantum leap over VHS in terms of quality and content. What is being proposed here is merely an evolution, and a small one at that.
What benefit will the next generation of DVD offer to consumers? HDTV? Please, this is another farce being shoved down the collective throats of Americans (and other countries?). The very idea that a society is going to be mandated to replace their televisions is absolutely insane. Again, what benefit does this offer to the consumer by making it mandatory? Now, compare that benefit to how it benefits the entertainment industry. What does the consumer gain by the introduction of the "copy bit"?
I've probably gone horribly off-track with this post so I'll sum it up with this: the parent post is not a troll.
Sorta like an online version of this? ;)
>>Tolkien created the fantasy genre.
I think that the author of Beowulf might not agree with you.
>>but with power there is always complexity
I thought it was "with power comes great responsibility"? Applicable nonetheless.
>>the USPTO can't even guarantee your "ownership" of an idea for more than 20 years. I'd say that fails any reasonable test of ownership.
Patents do not serve the purpose of guaranteeing ownership. They exist to offer a limited degree of protection to enjoy the fruits of your work and discovery by limiting the amount of competition and preventing others from stealing your ideas and inventions without due compensation for your work.
Of course, if you actually believed in what you had posted, you wouldn't have done so anonymously.
Didn't Treebeard serve that same purpose?
whereas it isn't for an elf in a pseudo-medieval culture?
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why it would be inappropriate to use a shield as a sled. Had Helm's Deep been encased in snow and Madmartigen^H^H^H^H^HLegolas had used the shield to luge down the side of a mountain, would it have been alright? I, for one, found it rather ingenious of Legolas to use the shield so as to help his brethern quicker. Bonus points for the dismount lodging into the neck of an Uruk-Hai.
>Movies that tend to be entirely CG tend to look better as everything fits.
Aren't those called "cartoons"? =)
>>As an example, it may have taken an additional hour for the first movie to include the whole Tom Bombadil section.
While this may be true, I have never quite understood why so many people were up in arms over its exclusion. Tom Bombadil was a character of no consequence - a page-filling distraction. When you consider him within the entire scope of the epic, he really does not serve any true purpose.
Of course, if I am mistaken about this and overlooked the significance of his character, I hope that someone will enlighten me.
Maybe they're really, really big files? ;)
>>You cannot own an idea.
I wish that I was awake enough to cite actual examples of why your statement is incorrect. Alas, I just have not had enough coffee yet to do so. Suffice it to say, the US Patent Office has been working dilligently to prove your statement false. There have been numerous patents granted based on ideas, without regard to the existance of practical application.
As the USPTO has shown time and again, you can, in fact, own an idea.
Linux is an easy target since it cannot defend itself from what essentially amounts to slander. Any other group has a representative body (read: lawyers) that rises up to protect the general interests of that group.
What we need is the "Linux Anti-Defamation League".
It amazes me just how many people don't understand the basic mechanics of the stock market.
/. users planning to buy stock is not collusion. As this is a public forum, it is no more different than a group of users from The Fool discussing investment strategies and all agreeing on a common course of action. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing illegal with the suggestions made here.
A bunch of
The cost of PC games has spiraled out of control this year. Battlefield 1942 was a great game and I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. But $70? No thanks. I played the demo and that was it. More and more titles are premiering at the $60 price point which is just way too much for something as relatively unimportant as a computer game. Consoles have been in the $60 range for a couple of years, so maybe they're used to it. I'd also argue that console owners tend to be younger and have more disposable time, so maybe they get a greater return on their investment. That's probably just an over-generalization, however.
The titles, in general, have reached a point of sameless that makes very few titles compelling. Consider some of the more anticipated titles this holiday season. Half-Life *2*. Doom *3*. UT2004. Halo (a console port. It wasn't in the beginning, but that's the direction that they took). Yet another Sims add-on. The point is, there really isn't anything this year to really get people excited. At least last year we had Neverwinter Nights.
As for hardware, do I really need yet another Sound Blaster card? My GeForce 4 card barely gets a workout as it is. My laptop has a GeForce 2 and doesn't really sweat anything. Do I really need another graphic card update?
I would suggest that the hardware market has reached a saturation point. Most new machines come with higher-end graphics and sound these days, anyway. Even integrated solutions are sufficient for all but the most hardcore gamers. Same thing with harddrives and RAM. Dell ships with 80GB drives and 512RAM standard these days.
Given the fact that we have all been enjoying WinAmp for years, for FREE, is it really too much for them to ask for us to kick in a measely 15 bucks for an enhanced version? And they're still giving the basic player away for free. Seriously, if you're going to bitch and moan about the fact that their fuller-featured version has a price, and a small one at that, please, do us all a favor and use something else. $15 seems very reasonable to me, especially when you consider that Roxio sells pretty much the same thing for $100.
Oh, yeah. I can just see what this is going to be like during rush hour on the New Jersey Turnpike with a thousand cars streaming pass, all tuned to different stations, as the billboard flashes maniacally to keep up and cars careen off the road while thier drivers fall into epilleptic fits.
As if my commute wasn't difficult enough already.
which is why Amex is less popular with merchants than visa/MC.
We actually prefer to take Amex over other cards, due to the rate structure. See my other post for more details.
It all depends on who the merchant account is through and your business classification. We just happened to find a good provider for retail. Amex tends to be higher for entertainment and restaurants than it is for retail, although I can't say I know why.
We also have a very small transaction rate - 12 cents for Visa/MC and Amex is a flat rate of $5/month.
To correct my earlier post, my partner just informed me that we pay 1% commission on Visa/MC. Amex has no commission and no transaction rate - just the flat $5 per month. That's good up to $5000 per month. After that, the rate is still very reasonable, although I don't know what it is off-hand. Amex is very supportive of small businesses. YMMV.
One thing that not many retailers are aware of is that you can shop around. Rates can be very competitive.
I don't think that the issue is so much one of someone using your keychain to make purchases. Rather, it's some criminal scanning your tag as you walk past and using the information for fraudulent purchases of their own. I'm more worried about getting scammed this way than finding out that I supposedly bought a shirt the last time that I was walking through Macy's.
The technology is nothing new, of course. Mobil/Exxon has had this for several years in the form of SpeedPass. I've never used it, however, and never will. I'm more than willing to sacrifice the convenience of saving 10 seconds waving the little wand in front of the reader instead of scanning my card at the pump. I am a technologist. I know the limitations. I know the track-records of similar systems as well as those of the parties involved. Until this becomes mandatory (cards replaced by RFID devices), I won't have to worry about any problems, because I won't have one.
And, until the credit card companies pay every merchant on the face of the earth for the new devices, it will not become mandatory.
You'll notice that there aren't any "Speedpass-Only" Exxon stations around.