There is, of course, a difference between just trying to sell a lot of coffee, and developing a 'cafe' atmosphere and loyal clientele. If the only way to make money was to simply sell as much coffee as quickly as possible, there would just be a bunch of small coffee stands around. There are other ways to make a store profitable.
And I'm guessing you mean Cafe Roma and Mishka's?;)
You've got to be kidding me. All content on the disc has to be included in the rating? They don't include all of the information on the rolls of film when they rate movies. What if a reel of film had information included so that if you ran it through the projector in a different way you saw more boobies? Should that be included? Clearly not, since in the normal course of showing the film audiences will not see it.
This is essentially the same thing, except we all own projectors. If you can't find it without modifying the game, it shouldn't be included in the rating.
Sadly, this ignores the fact that some people are on the list because they know they are susceptible to telemarketers. They don't want calls 'cause they know they'll buy something.
But he wasn't arrested and charged with "being a creepy guy in an SUV with a laptop." He was charged with stealing bandwidth (but in official language).
Thanks for the garbage can analogy. It's definitely one of the best I've come across. Unfortunately, it still fails in two regards:
1) Regardless of the law, no one would be prosecuted for walking up and tossing a few pieces of trash in your garbage can. Likewise, a person would not be arrested for filling their water bottle from your hose. Abuse is considered different than use in both of these cases.
2) Wireless signals do not follow property boundaries, and can enter other people's yards and homes. Placing your garbage can on my yard for pickup would certainly make me feel I was entitled to use it for my garbage. If I don't know who's it is, but it's in my house and unguarded/unlabeled, that goes a long way toward my feeling free to use it. Or do I not have the right to use it, but I can sue you to remove it from my home?
Rabbits do not ingest their pellets, although it may still be considered coprophagy. They pass soft clumps of partially digested material called cecotropes, usually at night, which they ingest directly from the anus. These are easily distinguishable from regular pellets. Captive rabbits ingest these on a regular basis, although it may be less frequent than wild rabbits.
You fail to mention that Asimov joined, went to a couple meetings, and quit because he thought the people were pretentious. Quite an important fact, I believe.
While the costs of publishing are negligible for scientists working on large grants (and that may, in fact, be most scientists) there are many many scientists that work with very small amounts of money, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes because large grants aren't required. Mathematicians and behavioral biologists can routinely do their work for small amounts of money, for example. (I know that some people in these fields get large grants, but not most of them.)
The big danger with author-pay systems is that publication will increasingly favor those with large grants, pushing out people that don't need huge sums of money to do research.
I completely don't understand many of the comments I'm reading here. How in the world can so many people claim that communities shouldn't do something that might compete with a company? The barnes and noble comment above is right on the money.
The first priority should always be to people, which are represented by the town's government. Corporations are always second to that. They certainly shouldn't have any right to complain about a municipality cutting into their business.
If the people decide to band together and blanket the town in wi-fi to improve the quality of the town, and to encourage people to visit common places, who are these companies to complain? The municipality is acting in the interests of the local people (or at least it should be). The company is acting in it's own financial interests. Why is there any question of who has priority?
>He will appoint strict constructionists in the Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas mold. They will interpret the Constituition and Laws as they exist >instead of legislating their own beliefs from the bench. Which is what they are supposed to be doing.
Yeah, but then the current administration (along with the religious right) gets upset when judges do that and it doesn't go their way. The judges in Massachusetts were acting as strict constructionists when they declared that the state constitution allowed (or forbade banning) gay marriage. So the current administration would rather judges were strict constructionalists unless the item at hand is 'wrong' in the bible (or whatever)? THAT'S activist judging.
Now look, I agree that there are times in which the current representative system has looked completely foolish, and seemed to care more about their own problems than the problems of others. There was a time in the not-so-distant past when I might even have whole-heartedly agreed with your sentiments. I have since moved to California. Here, every election day brings along with it propositions that are put into the hands of the populace as a whole. Huge ideas and bills are left for the public to decide. Enormous, comlex ideas, that would take days and lawyers to wade through, if one were to truly understand the repercussions. The end result of this (rather than an informed democracy) is that people vote for whichever side has the best ad campaign, because they don't have the time or the gumption to figure out what to vote for on their own.
I have reached the point where I wish these issues were voted on by people with a staff that can give them worthwhile information, not by people that read the title and ignore the content.
As an individual, and refering to my background, I find your ideas to make a lot of sense. Looking at the experience of my fiance, however, gives a completely different result. She grew up in a not well off religious family. Long story short, the isolation from popular culture has helped isolate her from her peers. She's incredibly smart (we both have PhDs) but still sometimes feels like she can't understand people her age that grew up with a greater exposure to pop culture. Since interacting with peers is important to individual happiness and sometimes career advancement, I consider it an integral skill to learn.
I applaud teaching kids the value of learning and reading and making those those focus of family activities, but banning pop (or mainstream, if you prefer) culture from the household really does your children a disservice, I feel.
Sorry, there is no BSL-4 in Davis. UCD was recently competing for federal money to build one, but were not chosen.
Part of the reason might have to do with the fact that the town was vociferously opposed to the idea, even though there isn't a BSL-4 anywhere on the West Coast.
"The very fact that wholesale prices are inextricably tied to retail prices (can't sell for $10 what you're buying for $14) means that wholesale prices were also allowed to be held high"
Um, but this is wrong. One of the reasons for instituting MAP was to try and keep large box stores from using popular cds as LOSS LEADERS, selling them lower than wholesale in an attempt to get people into their stores to buy other, profitable, items.
MSN instituted this requirement in July. I was using Eudora and talked to their tech support several times, and every person told me you have to use Outlook or OE. I've had no luck using Eudora or Netscape.
I wish half the people who commented read previous posts.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, of course, a difference between just trying to sell a lot of coffee, and developing a 'cafe' atmosphere and loyal clientele. If the only way to make money was to simply sell as much coffee as quickly as possible, there would just be a bunch of small coffee stands around. There are other ways to make a store profitable.
;)
And I'm guessing you mean Cafe Roma and Mishka's?
You've got to be kidding me. All content on the disc has to be included in the rating? They don't include all of the information on the rolls of film when they rate movies. What if a reel of film had information included so that if you ran it through the projector in a different way you saw more boobies? Should that be included? Clearly not, since in the normal course of showing the film audiences will not see it.
This is essentially the same thing, except we all own projectors. If you can't find it without modifying the game, it shouldn't be included in the rating.
Sadly, this ignores the fact that some people are on the list because they know they are susceptible to telemarketers. They don't want calls 'cause they know they'll buy something.
But he wasn't arrested and charged with "being a creepy guy in an SUV with a laptop." He was charged with stealing bandwidth (but in official language).
That's the huge difference.
Thanks for the garbage can analogy. It's definitely one of the best I've come across. Unfortunately, it still fails in two regards:
1) Regardless of the law, no one would be prosecuted for walking up and tossing a few pieces of trash in your garbage can. Likewise, a person would not be arrested for filling their water bottle from your hose. Abuse is considered different than use in both of these cases.
2) Wireless signals do not follow property boundaries, and can enter other people's yards and homes. Placing your garbage can on my yard for pickup would certainly make me feel I was entitled to use it for my garbage. If I don't know who's it is, but it's in my house and unguarded/unlabeled, that goes a long way toward my feeling free to use it. Or do I not have the right to use it, but I can sue you to remove it from my home?
Rabbits do not ingest their pellets, although it may still be considered coprophagy. They pass soft clumps of partially digested material called cecotropes, usually at night, which they ingest directly from the anus. These are easily distinguishable from regular pellets. Captive rabbits ingest these on a regular basis, although it may be less frequent than wild rabbits.
You fail to mention that Asimov joined, went to a couple meetings, and quit because he thought the people were pretentious. Quite an important fact, I believe.
While the costs of publishing are negligible for scientists working on large grants (and that may, in fact, be most scientists) there are many many scientists that work with very small amounts of money, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes because large grants aren't required. Mathematicians and behavioral biologists can routinely do their work for small amounts of money, for example. (I know that some people in these fields get large grants, but not most of them.)
The big danger with author-pay systems is that publication will increasingly favor those with large grants, pushing out people that don't need huge sums of money to do research.
I completely don't understand many of the comments I'm reading here. How in the world can so many people claim that communities shouldn't do something that might compete with a company? The barnes and noble comment above is right on the money.
The first priority should always be to people, which are represented by the town's government. Corporations are always second to that. They certainly shouldn't have any right to complain about a municipality cutting into their business.
If the people decide to band together and blanket the town in wi-fi to improve the quality of the town, and to encourage people to visit common places, who are these companies to complain? The municipality is acting in the interests of the local people (or at least it should be). The company is acting in it's own financial interests. Why is there any question of who has priority?
>He will appoint strict constructionists in the Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas mold. They will interpret the Constituition and Laws as they exist >instead of legislating their own beliefs from the bench. Which is what they are supposed to be doing.
Yeah, but then the current administration (along with the religious right) gets upset when judges do that and it doesn't go their way. The judges in Massachusetts were acting as strict constructionists when they declared that the state constitution allowed (or forbade banning) gay marriage. So the current administration would rather judges were strict constructionalists unless the item at hand is 'wrong' in the bible (or whatever)? THAT'S activist judging.
They're a bunch of hypocrites.
Now look, I agree that there are times in which the current representative system has looked completely foolish, and seemed to care more about their own problems than the problems of others. There was a time in the not-so-distant past when I might even have whole-heartedly agreed with your sentiments. I have since moved to California. Here, every election day brings along with it propositions that are put into the hands of the populace as a whole. Huge ideas and bills are left for the public to decide. Enormous, comlex ideas, that would take days and lawyers to wade through, if one were to truly understand the repercussions. The end result of this (rather than an informed democracy) is that people vote for whichever side has the best ad campaign, because they don't have the time or the gumption to figure out what to vote for on their own.
I have reached the point where I wish these issues were voted on by people with a staff that can give them worthwhile information, not by people that read the title and ignore the content.
Um, should we just forget about comparative? I mean, it's only a foundation of the modern field and all....
As an individual, and refering to my background, I find your ideas to make a lot of sense. Looking at the experience of my fiance, however, gives a completely different result. She grew up in a not well off religious family. Long story short, the isolation from popular culture has helped isolate her from her peers. She's incredibly smart (we both have PhDs) but still sometimes feels like she can't understand people her age that grew up with a greater exposure to pop culture. Since interacting with peers is important to individual happiness and sometimes career advancement, I consider it an integral skill to learn.
I applaud teaching kids the value of learning and reading and making those those focus of family activities, but banning pop (or mainstream, if you prefer) culture from the household really does your children a disservice, I feel.
Sorry, there is no BSL-4 in Davis. UCD was recently competing for federal money to build one, but were not chosen.
Part of the reason might have to do with the fact that the town was vociferously opposed to the idea, even though there isn't a BSL-4 anywhere on the West Coast.
And how does my telephone company relate to tech support?
Sure, I want cheap long-distance. That shouldn't have any effect on my computer repair.
If you're say that our desire for cheap computers led to this, then you might be on to something!
"The very fact that wholesale prices are inextricably tied to retail prices (can't sell for $10 what you're buying for $14) means that wholesale prices were also allowed to be held high"
Um, but this is wrong. One of the reasons for instituting MAP was to try and keep large box stores from using popular cds as LOSS LEADERS, selling them lower than wholesale in an attempt to get people into their stores to buy other, profitable, items.
MSN instituted this requirement in July. I was using Eudora and talked to their tech support several times, and every person told me you have to use Outlook or OE. I've had no luck using Eudora or Netscape.
I wish half the people who commented read previous posts.