You can say it's an iPod vs iTunes on money. But one is worthless without the other really. The same is true of the new competing DVD formats, either of which would be useless without the content. Amazing, you not only managed to completely miss the point you followed it up with a irrelevant claim that is completely wrong. The parent was discussing the fact that Apple doesn't make very much money (and it doesn't) selling content and that Microsoft likely won't be able to make much doing that either. Apple makes it's money selling the hardware (iPod) not selling songs (iTunes). Microsoft wants to make it's money licensing its DRM, not selling movies. It might sell movies but it will be doing it to support its licensing income.
The iTunes Music Store and iPods are hardly useless without each other. I've have an iPod for a couple of years now and I have yet to buy a song from Apple (and won't as long as they have playback restrictions, a.k.a DRM)). I've filled it with music I've ripped from my CD collection, radio talk shows I've recorded off-air and converted to MP3s, and MP3s I've downloaded from various web sites (there is a lot of free and legal music out there if you look) and I've got some misc. data backed up on there. For people that listen to music at their desk iTunes will play there iTMS purchases just fine and once they've burned them to CDs so will their car/home/portable CD player. Granted the iTMS and iPods go well together (if you don't hate DRM) but just like chocolate and peanut butter they are good on their own too.
Asked about his wealth he said once you reach a certin level, more money doesn't matter. Things only get so good and once you can afford the best that's it. In other words food only gets so good, cars only get so good, clothes can only be made so good and once you afford the best more money after that doesn't buy you anything better then what you can already afford. I've known for decades that Gates doesn't "get it". But I've never understood why until I read this -- Bill has no imagination. A while back I was thinking about what I'd do with a billion dollars and came up with a nice list, but there were a number of things that didn't make the list because I wouldn't be able to afford them, so I had to increase the number to ten billion, that opened other possibilities some of which were too expensive, etc. That in a period of say 45 minutes sitting in traffic. Gates has had Billions of dollars for years and it took getting married to come up with the idea to build a house...
And for those wanting an example; buying a Caribbean (or similar) island outright including national rights and forming my own country. That would cost a few billion dollars (for a decent sized island) right there.
That particular lawsuit was not an example of a frivolous lawsuit; there are plenty of others, but that isn't one.
Of course it was. The woman knowingly put a styrofoam cup she knew was filled with a hot liquid in her lap and proceeded to spill it on herself. She is 100% responsible for her actions. Sueing McDonalds for her actions was frivolous. The fact that she won the case shows that the courts are incompetent, not that the suit was frivolous.
The company even suggests that customers might upload a shopping list to the store's website before leaving home, and then download the list to the shopping cart upon arriving at the store.
Why would I take the time to copy my shopping list from the piece of paper I've scribbled it onto, into my computer and not just take the piece of paper to the store?
Actually, the Insurance industry has known for years exactly who the worst drivers are: males. Especially the young ones, filled with 10x more testosterone than brains...
Now do I have to explain the difference between driving skill and risk acceptance?
I also don't understand how you take a complex system as an argument against intelligent design; I would tend to see it the other way. Or, as someone else said it: "It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself." In other words, it would take something incredible to set such systems in motion.
This is faulty reasoning. If the universe is too complex to be the result of a random event and it needed a being to create it, what create that being? In other words, if God created the universe, who created God?
Only if you can fly - or your neighbors don't mind you tromping over their flower beds and roof, or you can walk through the skyscrapers. (And if you can "leap tall buildings in a single bound" you don't need the train. B-) )
Your math is wrong because you're not stagering your stations.
Instead of: +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+
You set that stations up like this: +-+-+ -+-+- +-+-+
Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.
But there isn't any federal law that says you can't ban alcohol. There is a federal law that says you can't ban equipment using the unregulated spectrum.
So, if I take my wi-fi enabled laptop to the control room of a nuclear plant, and the signal causes a plant trip to due super-sensitive electronics used to measure signals in pico-amps, the plant has no right to prevent the same thing from happening again?
Correct, then they (the nuke plant operators) go to the FCC and get them (the FCC) to make an exception for nuke plants.
Very insightful. In fact, you've drilled to the core of the problem with A La Carte pricing. It'll save negligible cash, because the channels you don't want to pay for aren't really costing you anything.
You're missing the point. I don't care if the price is the same, all the money (less the Cable's cut) would be going to the channels I watch. Now majority of my money is going to channels I don't watch.
The other point people seem to be missing is offering channels a la carte doesn't exclude offering them in a bundle too.
Option A: Bundle A $20 (basic cable)
Bundle B +$10
Bundle C +$10
Bundle D +$10
Additional individual channel $5
Is there some flaw in my reasoning that the "punishment" should have been to force MS to open (i.e. publish the specs royalty free, for anyone to use) their data file formats (e.g. Office documents) and networking protocols (e.g. controlling Domains) to allow competition to compete?
Lock in is the issue. When I can't install Jim's OS and then attach my computer to the company's Domain Controller, when I can't run Fred's Email program and access the Exchange servers, when I can't run Bob's Word processor and access Office documents, when I can't setup a server running BlueHat OS and have Windows boxes attach to its domain then we have no competition.
They do mind when you start selling a device that makes other people think that's all there is to the movie.
This device doesn't do that.
Yes it does.
They go out of their way to buy a device which blocks the parts of the movies they don't want to see. If they didn't know those parts were there, they would have just bought a normal, unfiltered DVD player.
You're confusing the Player with the Movie. The consumer buys this player, they then go rent a movie and play it. They don't have to know the movie has "naughty bits" in it, they are blocked automatically. Done well they won't even know there ARE "naughty" bits that were blocked. You're voluntarily handing control of what you see to a religious fundamentalist group. Why would you do that?
I go see a movie with my wife. She covers her eyes during the disgusting/scary parts and tells me to tell her when it's safe to look. How is that any different?
It's very different. Your wife is experiencing the movie the way she enjoys it, she can still hear it and she can still peek through her fingers. The main point is that SHE is controlling it. This RCA/Clearplay product is akin to someone else covering her eyes (and ears) when something "they" determine to be scary comes on. Worse, it's done in such a way that she doesn't even know it's happening. So she now has no way to determine what she's missing.
The bigger question is why people would want to buy this player in order to financially support movies they object to? Why don't they spend their money supporting movies that they don't object to? If movies with gratuitous nudity didn't make money, no one would make them.
Therefore, don't be so bold to blame something that is really a choice at this point on a religion. Until the government legislates this change, don't get your panties in such a bunch. Government isn't even involved in this decision yet.
Why should we wait until government is involved? It's much easier to stop it before the government gets involved.
But you might be surprised how many PG and PG-13 movies have language that many parents don't want their children to hear (again, very young children, I'm not a total prude!)
Ummm, PG stands for Parental Guidance suggested. And PG13 stands for Parental Guidance suggested and anyone under 13 must be accompanied by an adult. What you are looking for is G rated movies. G stands for "Everything Remotely Interesting Has Been Stripped Out".
So, if I cue up just the car chase in "Streets of San Fancisco," or maybe just the rescue of Morpheus in "The Matrix" without actually watching the movies in their entirety, am I violating the rights of the artistic creators?
The movie producers don't mind this a bit, most movies include a chapter skip fuction for this purpose. They do mind when you start selling a device that makes other people think that's all there is to the movie.
Granted, "Clockwork Orange" would be a very short movie if you took the sex and violence out, but if somebody really just wants to watch Malcome MacDowell extoll the joys of drinking "milk plus" for 10 minutes, that should be up to them.
And what about the niche channel you like (TechTV maybe?) that the general populace couldn't care less about? Will you be happy when they go under because only a select few people want to pay for it?
So what you're saying is, I should pay additional cash for channels I don't want because you want them but aren't willing to pay full price for them.
Tech TV doesn't cost that much to produce (relatively), 200,000* people at $3 a head is $7.2 million a year. If that (plus advertising revenue) doesn't cover their cost perhaps they will have to charge $5 a month. HBO is able to fund their channles through subscriptions and they are producing some of the best stuff on TV.
* Numbers completely made up off the top of my head, I have no idea what Tech TV's viewership really is.
"So too, opinion seems to be that security holes are entirely the fault of the attacker, never of the software designers.... The point is, if software companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity."
I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart is in the right place, but this is not the answer.
First, the hacker *is* guilty. Software is designed for a specific purpose (even general purpose software) and because of that, the creator of that software cannot and should not be held liable for that.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart isn't in the right place, this is the answer.
Let's reword it slightly...
"So too, opinion seems to be that safety issues are entirely the fault of the driver, never of the automobile designers... The point is, if automobile companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity."
Slashdot Mirror
You can say it's an iPod vs iTunes on money. But one is worthless without the other really. The same is true of the new competing DVD formats, either of which would be useless without the content.
Amazing, you not only managed to completely miss the point you followed it up with a irrelevant claim that is completely wrong. The parent was discussing the fact that Apple doesn't make very much money (and it doesn't) selling content and that Microsoft likely won't be able to make much doing that either. Apple makes it's money selling the hardware (iPod) not selling songs (iTunes). Microsoft wants to make it's money licensing its DRM, not selling movies. It might sell movies but it will be doing it to support its licensing income.
The iTunes Music Store and iPods are hardly useless without each other. I've have an iPod for a couple of years now and I have yet to buy a song from Apple (and won't as long as they have playback restrictions, a.k.a DRM)). I've filled it with music I've ripped from my CD collection, radio talk shows I've recorded off-air and converted to MP3s, and MP3s I've downloaded from various web sites (there is a lot of free and legal music out there if you look) and I've got some misc. data backed up on there.
For people that listen to music at their desk iTunes will play there iTMS purchases just fine and once they've burned them to CDs so will their car/home/portable CD player. Granted the iTMS and iPods go well together (if you don't hate DRM) but just like chocolate and peanut butter they are good on their own too.
Asked about his wealth he said once you reach a certin level, more money doesn't matter. Things only get so good and once you can afford the best that's it. In other words food only gets so good, cars only get so good, clothes can only be made so good and once you afford the best more money after that doesn't buy you anything better then what you can already afford.
I've known for decades that Gates doesn't "get it". But I've never understood why until I read this -- Bill has no imagination. A while back I was thinking about what I'd do with a billion dollars and came up with a nice list, but there were a number of things that didn't make the list because I wouldn't be able to afford them, so I had to increase the number to ten billion, that opened other possibilities some of which were too expensive, etc. That in a period of say 45 minutes sitting in traffic. Gates has had Billions of dollars for years and it took getting married to come up with the idea to build a house...
And for those wanting an example; buying a Caribbean (or similar) island outright including national rights and forming my own country. That would cost a few billion dollars (for a decent sized island) right there.
That particular lawsuit was not an example of a frivolous lawsuit; there are plenty of others, but that isn't one.
Of course it was. The woman knowingly put a styrofoam cup she knew was filled with a hot liquid in her lap and proceeded to spill it on herself. She is 100% responsible for her actions. Sueing McDonalds for her actions was frivolous. The fact that she won the case shows that the courts are incompetent, not that the suit was frivolous.
The company even suggests that customers might upload a shopping list to the store's website before leaving home, and then download the list to the shopping cart upon arriving at the store.
Why would I take the time to copy my shopping list from the piece of paper I've scribbled it onto, into my computer and not just take the piece of paper to the store?
Actually, the Insurance industry has known for years exactly who the worst drivers are: males. Especially the young ones, filled with 10x more testosterone than brains...
Now do I have to explain the difference between driving skill and risk acceptance?
I also don't understand how you take a complex system as an argument against intelligent design; I would tend to see it the other way. Or, as someone else said it: "It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself." In other words, it would take something incredible to set such systems in motion.
This is faulty reasoning. If the universe is too complex to be the result of a random event and it needed a being to create it, what create that being? In other words, if God created the universe, who created God?
Worst case is a city, of course, but that's not likely.
Worse case for a land strike would probably be the Yosemite Caldera Volcano.
Only if you can fly - or your neighbors don't mind you tromping over their flower beds and roof, or you can walk through the skyscrapers. (And if you can "leap tall buildings in a single bound" you don't need the train. B-) )
Your math is wrong because you're not stagering your stations.
Instead of:
+-+-+
+-+-+
+-+-+
You set that stations up like this:
+-+-+
-+-+-
+-+-+
I'm a Canadian and if you called me a Canuck I'd think nothing of it. Our hockey team (Vancouver)are called the Canucks for crying out loud.
I don't have a problem with it as long as they are using capture and release.
Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.
But there isn't any federal law that says you can't ban alcohol. There is a federal law that says you can't ban equipment using the unregulated spectrum.
So, if I take my wi-fi enabled laptop to the control room of a nuclear plant, and the signal causes a plant trip to due super-sensitive electronics used to measure signals in pico-amps, the plant has no right to prevent the same thing from happening again?
Correct, then they (the nuke plant operators) go to the FCC and get them (the FCC) to make an exception for nuke plants.
Nothing is worse than a warm beer when hunting or driving.
It's called a cooler and ice... and it will lower the can's temp. a lot more than 30 degrees.
Very insightful. In fact, you've drilled to the core of the problem with A La Carte pricing. It'll save negligible cash, because the channels you don't want to pay for aren't really costing you anything.
You're missing the point. I don't care if the price is the same, all the money (less the Cable's cut) would be going to the channels I watch. Now majority of my money is going to channels I don't watch.
The other point people seem to be missing is offering channels a la carte doesn't exclude offering them in a bundle too.
Option A: Bundle A $20 (basic cable)
Bundle B +$10
Bundle C +$10
Bundle D +$10
Additional individual channel $5
Option B: 5 channels (your choice) $20
10 channels (your choice) $30
25 Channels (your choice) $45
Additional individual channel $5
Option C: Individual channels, $5 each.
Then in addition are the premium channels, HBO, Showtime, Playboy, etc. each individually priced.
Is there some flaw in my reasoning that the "punishment" should have been to force MS to open (i.e. publish the specs royalty free, for anyone to use) their data file formats (e.g. Office documents) and networking protocols (e.g. controlling Domains) to allow competition to compete?
Lock in is the issue. When I can't install Jim's OS and then attach my computer to the company's Domain Controller, when I can't run Fred's Email program and access the Exchange servers, when I can't run Bob's Word processor and access Office documents, when I can't setup a server running BlueHat OS and have Windows boxes attach to its domain then we have no competition.
Yes it does.
They go out of their way to buy a device which blocks the parts of the movies they don't want to see. If they didn't know those parts were there, they would have just bought a normal, unfiltered DVD player.
You're confusing the Player with the Movie. The consumer buys this player, they then go rent a movie and play it. They don't have to know the movie has "naughty bits" in it, they are blocked automatically. Done well they won't even know there ARE "naughty" bits that were blocked. You're voluntarily handing control of what you see to a religious fundamentalist group. Why would you do that?
I go see a movie with my wife. She covers her eyes during the disgusting/scary parts and tells me to tell her when it's safe to look. How is that any different?
It's very different. Your wife is experiencing the movie the way she enjoys it, she can still hear it and she can still peek through her fingers. The main point is that SHE is controlling it. This RCA/Clearplay product is akin to someone else covering her eyes (and ears) when something "they" determine to be scary comes on. Worse, it's done in such a way that she doesn't even know it's happening. So she now has no way to determine what she's missing.
The bigger question is why people would want to buy this player in order to financially support movies they object to? Why don't they spend their money supporting movies that they don't object to? If movies with gratuitous nudity didn't make money, no one would make them.
Therefore, don't be so bold to blame something that is really a choice at this point on a religion. Until the government legislates this change, don't get your panties in such a bunch. Government isn't even involved in this decision yet.
Why should we wait until government is involved? It's much easier to stop it before the government gets involved.
But you might be surprised how many PG and PG-13 movies have language that many parents don't want their children to hear (again, very young children, I'm not a total prude!)
Ummm, PG stands for Parental Guidance suggested. And PG13 stands for Parental Guidance suggested and anyone under 13 must be accompanied by an adult. What you are looking for is G rated movies. G stands for "Everything Remotely Interesting Has Been Stripped Out".
So, if I cue up just the car chase in "Streets of San Fancisco," or maybe just the rescue of Morpheus in "The Matrix" without actually watching the movies in their entirety, am I violating the rights of the artistic creators?
The movie producers don't mind this a bit, most movies include a chapter skip fuction for this purpose. They do mind when you start selling a device that makes other people think that's all there is to the movie.
Parents and owners of these things are simply decided what they do and do not want their familty to see.
Correction, ClearPlay decides what you and your family get to see.
Granted, "Clockwork Orange" would be a very short movie if you took the sex and violence out, but if somebody really just wants to watch Malcome MacDowell extoll the joys of drinking "milk plus" for 10 minutes, that should be up to them.
"Milk Plus" is a drug reference, it's gone too...
And what about the niche channel you like (TechTV maybe?) that the general populace couldn't care less about? Will you be happy when they go under because only a select few people want to pay for it?
So what you're saying is, I should pay additional cash for channels I don't want because you want them but aren't willing to pay full price for them.
Tech TV doesn't cost that much to produce (relatively), 200,000* people at $3 a head is $7.2 million a year. If that (plus advertising revenue) doesn't cover their cost perhaps they will have to charge $5 a month. HBO is able to fund their channles through subscriptions and they are producing some of the best stuff on TV.
* Numbers completely made up off the top of my head, I have no idea what Tech TV's viewership really is.
There was a huge story arc that was slowly being revealed (two by two, the men in blue).
"Two by two. Hands of blue"
I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart isn't in the right place, this is the answer.
Let's reword it slightly...
"So too, opinion seems to be that safety issues are entirely the fault of the driver, never of the automobile designers... The point is, if automobile companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity."
Does that make things clearer?