I wouldn't mind purchasing digitally unrestricted files, but not for "at or below the price of the book". I've seen way too many Kindle books that are nearly priced the same as the printed counterparts and gives me no advantages of my printed counterparts (can't give it away, sell it, write in it, requires no additional expense EG batteries, etc.). I'm talking tech books. Some are priced okay, others that I've had an interest in are nearly $50-70. I've seen one Kindle book that was $135 while the printed counterpart (no longer in print) was selling for roughly $15 used.
I don't know what would be a good price point for a ebook, but considering bandwidth is relatively cheap compared to printing and binding and shipping a book, I don't think an ebook should be priced similar to the printed counter part. With DRM-less ebooks, perhaps it is less of an issue than with DRM encumbered ebooks, where a dead machine or defunct ebook publisher can render your collection useless (has happend to me, which is why I don't buy encumbered ebooks anymore).
To me, an ebook should be pricsed roughly 20-40% of the price of the book if it was printed. Keep in mind, retail books are already highly marked up from what the retailer pays the publisher/distributor. It should be 20-40% of the whole sale cost of the book (because other publisher/distributors/retailers don't usually offer the ebooks for sale anyway, so it need not be priced according retail value, but wholesale value).
The other thing is, while certain very-hard to find books, or other in-demand little-supply books could command a premium in print, ebooks are not scarce. They are, for all intents-and-purposes, unlimited supply. So they should not reflect prices of scarcity or high-print costs.
Until the pricing of any ebook reflects something more realistic considering the what we have to sacrifice to use and that the publisher has so little overhead costs associated with the distribution of the digital media, then I still am not convinced to purchase.
I do applaud O'Reilly for doing this. They produce great books and if more publishers follow suit, then maybe, just maybe, the landscape will improve and the Ebook market will become more viable.
Around here, we call that the "California Piss-Off". Even more annoying is when you blink and the person next to you speeds up and does whatever they can to prevent you from merging or getting in front of them. They might have been going 15 MPH slower, but you blink, now they'll pace you at any speed (faster or slower) until you give up or take it by force.
.NET also works. I work for a fortune 500 and we do massive development on the.NET platform for processing to the tune of 400 million transactions per day (for various processing needs). We do this in C# and have no problem with the architecture (I'm an architect there, a new one, though), not much on the maintenance, and peformance is really good..NET is really good at some things, and crappy at others. It is good at server processing, networking, threading, batch type stuff, but crappy at WinUI and hard scientific numericals and 3D.
Patent fees have simply not kept pace with the value of IP and innovation. If they put them on a pricing schedule that goes up over time, and start them at $300k today, we'll see a dramatic reduction in frivilous patents.
You'll also see a dramatic decrease of perfectly valid patents, also, especially by the little guy that the Slashdotters are so poised to point out the system was originally supposed to protect. If the little guy needed $500k to get 6 patents and hasn't the money, investors, or means to pay up (before getting investors), then it won't be a friendly place for little guys. It is arguably friendlier to little guys today than if a patent cost $300k.
I have an aversion to spending money needlessly, and even moreso when it is luxury or perceived to be status. I don't want or need a leather couch when a comfortable fabric will be cheaper and probly last longer and not stick to my skin on a humid day, so long as the furniture looks nice where it goes. I'm happy to bargain shop for most things because 1) I pay cash usually, so I can much easier spot a drain in my wallet and curtail it and 2) You don't get rich by spending everything you have, and 3) you won't retire by not responsibly and cleverly saving. The key point here, is saving. I have not faith in my 401k and none whatsover in Social Security so I have to save my own funds for retirement if I want to have one.
Food, gas, and other consumables never go on a credit card. That's a sure sign to eventual disaster if you're income deponds on your own labor and not that of others to pay bills.
Not necessarily. A family member had their two cars paid off and all debts except mortgage and made a nice living ~$100k. Then, a major medical expense came up. The credit card debts began to climb, loans against the house equity, cashing on retirement accounts to pay for these things... left them 15 years or so paying it off an even today, they are still trying to pay it off. It had nothing to do with finance control but everything to do with poor circumstance.
Even myself, when I was debt free 100%, dropped $10k on breand new SCUBA gear for my wife and $14k loan on a new car (put $16k cash down). I would have paid off the SCUBA the next month as I always cleared my debts at least within 90 days, except an unprecedented oppurtunity to purchase a house in a very nice area in the forest just outseide the concrete slab of Orange County, CA... I took it and purchase the house. That left me now, 2 years later, just paying off the SCUBA debt last month, the car in about 18 months from now, and still 8 months to go on other debts that racked up while too busy paying the mortgage to pay cash. Since I don't watch TV, none of that had to do with 500 watt plasmas and BluRay players (or PS3's) but much more to do with putting a fridge in the house and a washer and a dryer, and a modest BBQ in the backyard as well as a vacuum and some curtains/drapes for my windows around the house since the downpayment on the house depleted my reserves. Even so, I still have enough money to pay for my BS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA for my wife in cash every month for the last 2 years or so.
That said, the tax refund I received along with the tax money back that GW will be sending me later along with a pay increase and a bonus for our company performang 15% growth this fiscal year (we're a ~billion $$$ annualy company) just went to pay off my debts all that much quicker and it will not be replaced with increased spending to compensate. I much prefer to be back in a situation where I can drop cash on whatever I want and set a sizeable amount aside for various profitable but riskier investments. I generally try to be the kind of person that, if I can't pay cash, I shouldn't have it (within reason -- not everything can be purchased in cash), but within 90 days is fine by me. It's a great rule to live by when possible, and more people should observe it, it produces a much less stressful life.
My only real point here is that having debut isn't a reflection of poor financial handling but can become a victim of circumstance. But I do believe the majority of high debt is indeed bad financial management. Just not all.
While you make an interesting point, I'd say that a prospective buyer is a dumbass if they don't go view the property they are about to purchase themselves (myself having purchased a few properties). If the property is too far to go see your self, then the newer photoes might be representive of the property itself, especially if you see drastic difference, then you'll know something was done to improve it. If you live in California, you'll know from all the paperwork becuase everything has to be disclosed, anyway.
What google streets will do, however, is allow you to preview the neigborhood in its entirety at that point in time, so you can see if your surrounding neibhbors had bars when the photos were taken of if there are rusted cars in everyones yards. Again, something you'll notice if you actually go visit the property to begin with.
I was thinking about this the other day. I think one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are so politically indifferent and don't do anything to make change. I think one of the roots is that in the workplace we are pretty much told to be politically indifferent (tolerant) or lose your job. In the church, too, or the establishment can lose its non-profit charter. Since we spend more time at work than home usually, it spills into our main life because also, we some companies find out we have too strong of a polical opinion, might lose our job. Also, that and, since we seem to like luxury so much, the best way to not lose what little cash we hard-work for, is to not lose our job.
Then you have a second problem, the politicians aren't accountable to the people. They can lie, cheat, steal, and piss-off as many people as they want, but somehow continue to be re-elected with impunity. The minute the politician pisses off their corporate campaign donor's, they will not have any funding to run for office again.
Those two things, I think, case the problem, that an executive office can sh*t on the American people and use the US Constitition as wiping paper when they're done and... no one does anything about it. It's really too bad, because there won't be any relief when the current administration leaves office. The reason Congress won't do anything to curtail it in practice is because any one of them aspires to be in office in the future and they would love to have the power that this administration has demonstrated the people so lovingly embrace.
But it all starts with us having to be politically indifferent everywhere but in our own living room, that causes most people to be indifferent in-general. I think that's the root of our apathy.
Hate to play devil's advocate here, becuase you make a valid point, but even Google entered the market with just one patent and look at them now... *THE* dominent player in just 8 shorts years (at least since I heard of them).
Copyright is not the problem. DRM is. It subverts the whole agreement that eventually the work will expire into the public domain.
What should happen, rather, is something close to: if you restrict the usage of your electronic works with technical measures, then you should also lose copyright protection because in essence, you are tyring to prevent copying, printing, format shifting, whatever else. If you want someone to lock up a copyist of your electronic work for 20 years and fine them $250,000 per percieved distribution or duplicate and make them a felon and confiscate all their electronic possessions, then don't lock your work with DRM and be fair to socieity.
Frankly, that'll never happen. As a society, we've allowed some very large and powerful corporations to controls the whole production and distribution channels to the point that they are so profitable, they must not lose any of it to make their next quarterly profits earnings for their share holders. That means they can't let copyrights expire, then can't have it easy for people to copy from friends, they must keep inventing new formats that people will have to purchase while old formats expire and phase out, the media must not be very resistant to damage else they won't be replacing it soon enough, ideally we should pay for everytime we watch, listen, or think of one of their works.
That is because a corporation must always make more money or face shareholder revolt. Except, the RIAA and MPAA are non-profit organizations. Yet, they are well funded by extremely profit oriented corporations.
Ok, don't forget, they must make it as difficult as possible for people to circumvent the need for services of the producers and distributers so that there isn't another possible loose end for losing revenue.
The problem is further propelled by the fact that the politicians need money to campaign for next term and the majority of money comes from lobbyists, not the people. They only need to people to vote them in but beyond the vote, the money comes from special interest groups. That is why they can lie, cheat, steal, and defaud the people all they want and practically get away with it with impunity. But should they offend a significant monied interest, and its certain political suicide. That is becase the people aren't in control of their representatives, and because the people are generally apathetic and care only about cheap prices and great luxury, and because the people aren't directly responsible for voting significant representatives, anyway.
I agree. Back in 2002/2003 I purchased a great deal many ebooks. When my system crashed and I had to get a whole new PC there was no way to recover my ebook at read them on my PC.
I purchased a very expensive ebook for a technical database theory book that wasn't easy to find printed ($300 if wanted it in hardcover) but when I went to unlock it (I pad half as much for the e-copy) the publisher had recently gone belly up (versatext I believe it was) so I wasn't every able to unlock to ebook and the middle-man who sold me the ebook actually knew they went belly up but wouldn't refund me or credit me. Not that maybe I couldn't have sued, it wouldn't have been worth the expense of the trouble.
Since then, I've actively refused to purchase anything that will lock me to a device without recourse and this includes certain types of software activation schemes that lock to the hardware configuration, also.
BluRay and HD-DVD and DVD are okay with me because they can be backed up with the right software. But I'm not in the mood to even attempt to rip an EBook, I simply won't stop purchasing the printed copies. I have a personally programming book library of over 900 books collected over the past 10 years or so, too. Nothing beats being able to take a 5 lbs. book with me to read wherever I choose. But I'll admit, it would be much better to put them on a memory chip and take them all with me or have them in case of a fire or something, so it won't be so difficult ot replace.
In the end, though, ebooks are not always cheaper than printed. Many of the printed books I've purhcased in the last year on Ebay or used on Amazon I've picked up for as much as 80-90% discount from the new price and some even for $2.00 where they were listed as $74.88 new. I e-copy will never be discounted with age. If anything, the older that locked format the less likely I'll be able to use it with new devices as there will always be a new DRM scheme or ebook format for the devices of tomorrow. Old copies will become useless and financial losses.
I had a similar problem with AT&T (previously SBC, previously Pacific Bell, Previously... etc). My 3MB Dropped to intermittent connection reliability and then stopped cold. They eventually confirmed (or admitted) that my modem doesn't establish communication. So they came out and spent many weeks trying to find the problem. Finally, a third tech said that it works fine at some utility box 1,000 feet from my house but not at the wall of my house. So they spent a few more weeks digging up the ling through the street, my yard, other yards, until they found a tiny 1mm crimp in a wire that was eroded from the elements and replaced the entire line from that point to my house, and from that point to the utility box (which at this point was about 75 feet from the utility box. Now, my connection is at 1.6 MB because when they activated at 3MB there was a lot of noise that the installing tech should have toned down the speed for reliability, but 1.6 is the most reliable they can get because I'm so far away from the CO (I'm at the last few hundred feet).
Anyway, the point is, anything could have happened and the only thing intentional is the degree of assistance the telco will ultimately provide. Even if it is your responsibility (inside your house) they should at least charge you and happily come fix it.
RE: 4) The learning curve might not be so intense as if moving from Python to C# because even on the.NET CLR/DLR that is employed in the Silverlight CoreCLR, you can use mostly pure Python (.NET) and when you're ready to take specific advantage of.NET features, you can do so (at which points one can argue it ceases to be cross-platform Python) but I that's not the point I wish to focus on. Same with PHP. You might be a PHP developer but moving to C# will have some learning curve mostly because C# depends solely on the BCL libraries. But with the PHP.NET project (forgot what it's called) you can use raw PHP (and some of the extensions) in.NET without actually doing anything specific to target.NET.
So I think in a sense you might be right, but you also are wrong. MS is changing the landscape and trying to make it easier to have.NET implementations of any language on top of the CLR/DLR to entice people to move to the platform. If that happens, you can use your language of choice and take advantage of.NET. I actually learned Ruby from IronRuby and would never have touched it any other way simply because I like what I can do with.NET and I like my tools and all the libraries I've built-up over the years that are.NET derived. In any case, with silverlight in particular, you can use a.NET flavor of PHP, Ruby, and Python that closely resumble their native counterparts.
RE: 4).NET was not written for C# primarily. Granted, C# is the predominent language, there are many.NET CLR features C# does not support and that only C++/CLI supports. Yes, the libraries are written in C#, C++, and I've seen a few in VB.NET, of all things..NET is supposed to be a language neutral platform that any language and plug into and be compatible with. However, with.NET 3.5 and the future, more and more features are being implemented as language compiler features and not CLR features which means at somepoint absolute compatibility between languages is going to diminish, but that's not the point you were making.
RE: 8) Silverlight was not designed from the ground up with native applications in mind, at least, not in the context that you put it, as in: flash designed to be sandboxed, silverlight designed to be native. Silverlight is designed to be sandboxed *AND* be a superior platform for building applications that don't have the intrinsic quirks that HTML has and AJAX. With Silverlight, you can do all Flash can do and much better. I'm not saying Flash can't do it, too. It's just far easier to accomplish applications in Silverlight 2 than Flash, at least for me, anyway.
RE: 9) It's hard to know. Xaml is so new. Once more people start doing things with it others will follow. The trends I see now is that it is being used more in social type applications than desktop type applications. Although with the announcement of www.textglow.net it appears there might be a office productivity app in the works and very capable on Silverlight. The only question remains is whether MS will IP-restrict our use of Silverlight to not create an office competitor. I'm almost 100% certain that a verion of Office will be released on top of Silverlight in the future. When I look at its capabilities, I can nearly see how it is designed with Office in mind.
RE: 10) The fact that MS is working with MONO folks and and least of which, encouraging their efforts, leaves no bad taste in my mind but no certainty of their Linux commitment, either. But then, I'm not a Linux fanatic so it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever for the time being.
As I read this I just had a thought. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant but I can see how it would be hard to enforce 'patent or copyright: pick one and only one to protect you'. Software is complex, composed of many instructions and expressions. Much of which may not be patented or patentable. But some very key portions might be patented or patentable. While the entire work may be copyrighted only small portions may be patented. Maybe the design is patented. How can the work be quantified into what part of that is excluded from copyrights because of the existance of an enforceable patent?
What if, of a three million line-of-code software embodiment contained only roughly 25,000 lines that applied to a specific patent? Would it then be fair that the entire work be no longer eligible for copyright because 1% of of it is covered by a patent?
Anyway, it's a complex issue and one that I have to think about more. It is difficult to quantify anything into very specific rules that could dissambiquate the ambiguous and make complex things simple for a patent examiner, intellection property court, or society.
Library of Congress already uses a fair amount of Flash so choosing Silverlight really isn't a stretch. But I don't see people complaining about the amount of Flash being used by Library of Congress. There are things that both Flash and Silverlight can do that standard (X)HTML/AJAX will be hard pressed to accomplish as naturally. The beauty about Silverlight is that it doesn't have to be Vista or XP as a platform, Silverlight can be hosted on Linux and OS X also.
But I think the greater point in everyones ranting is that Microsoft paid and Congress accepted and will be leveraging the new platform for a specific purpose. A purpose for which the Silverlight platform is intended to address.
1 year from time of filing to protest? That's not good. Then most companies will wait 1 year before suing anyone since they'll be generally safer from challenges. There should be no limit on challenges. If a patent is bogus, it should be challengable by anyone at anytime.
It doesn't mean that stone can't be overturned. Fair use isn't mentioned in the constitution, either, but the courts have set precedent after precedent establishing the doctrine but yet, as of lately, despite precident, that doctrine has not only been eroding away, but getting new counter precedents in court, too.
But, it is the sad state of current affairs that the only way anything will become establishment or effectively challenged involves the deep pockets of monied interests, and not those interests of the ones who elected the officials anyway, unless you count the lobbyists as the ones who elected the officials and not the voters who actually got off their ass and cast a vote.
But it isn't abusing a monopoly even if you couldn't view the MS website without Silverlight. Why? Because web developers could still use HTML if they want (and could use all of MS tools to produce HTML), they could use Flash if they want, or they can use Silverlight if they want. You may not want to install the silverlight viewer if you don't want, but what about those sites that force me to use Firefox if I want to view the website (punishing me for using IE)? What about those sites that require me to install Flash if I want to make a purchase from their website? I'm free to not view such sites (a practice I enjoy). The fact is, Silverlight based content will present far better than HTML (if done right) and is easily indexed by searched engines according to what I read. But the technology is so new that I have no real clue how it'll do in the market place. I do know this, I have been working on some technology that is very well suited for Silverlight that is very easy to make in Silverlight that is quite difficult in Flash (and after a year of trying, likely not *easily* possible, and not even practical in HTML. To use it, you'll need Silverlight. If I did it in Flash, you'd require Flash.
On the other hand, I didn't complete reading your comments before I replied and realized we're on the same page but there are a lot of Microsoft bashers out hard and heavy these days and will spread FUD just because they can.
I have a brand new, clean install of both Vista and XP SP2 and no version of.NET installed yet on the XP2 and Silverlight works fine. It gets its intended experience without every.NET runtime installed (or any). On Vista, however,.NET 3.0 (2.0 + Some) is installed by default so its hard to say whether that really matters. However on the Mac OSX version of Silverlight? There is no.NET runtime available but it functions as intended and works just fine.
So whatever you had to do that required you to have to install all versions of.NET to make Silverlight work are something else. For starters, even if Silverlight required a runtime, it wouldn't be 1.x. It is close cousine to WPF so it would be.NET 3.0 only.
If something required an installed of.NET 3.0 at least, it would be an.xbap application that runs in the browser as well but is not related to Silverlight in any way shape or form, and would not require.NET 1.x to be installed since it has no dependancies and nothing targeting it can require a.NET 1.x dependency since it is based on.NET 2.0/3.0.
Or maybe you're spreading FUD or leaving out a lot of variables or completely misunderstand the technology and its requirements, as opposed to other.NET related technologies and their requirements, and blaming the wrong culprit.
How is that a desperate move? It would be extremely stupid of Microsoft if they didn't change it to Silverlight, considering the fact that many of their pages currently use Flash. And if they have 60 million unique hits - why not? Are we calling Adobe desperate for using Flash on their site?
Good point. When Microsoft doesn't remake everything in.NET or to use their new WPF technologies they are accused of not believing in their own products. When they actually make a move to use their own software they are accused of being desperate and monopolistic. The fact is, Silverlight is much better at presenting document-centric and application-like experiences than Flash (rather, Silverlight is designed from the ground up to be document-centric, video-centric, and very application-developer friendly as opposed to Flash not making it *AS* easy to achieve those same things -- IMHO). So if Microsoft wants to redo their site (which is exteremely document-oriented) with Silverlight, its a clear choice. Also, silverlight content is taouted to be much more friendly to search engine archivers than Flash is. For a document-centic environment, that makes Silverlight a clear winner.
Silverlight is so new that there can hardly by 3rd party support. When did Macromedia Flash get good 3rd party support? Not until it was immensily popular and that wasn't v1.0. When Flash released it had only one development tool.
Silverlight is really new and does have tool support but it is spread about many products (Visual Studio, Delphi Rad Studio, Expression Blend, Expression Designer, Notepad even). But since all the ancillary tools are actively developed, and Silverlight is due for a 2.0 release with so much new functionality and easier ways to produce, I wouldn't write it off just yet.
Silverlight cannot be a standard on day one, only with time. Since it will be supported on Mac OSX and Linux (officially) it's use will eventually be adopted. For making applications and document-like content and media (as in movies), Silverlight is a clear contender.
The problem with eternal punishment of anyone who commits a felony is that, our prison system is supposed to rehabilitate them and give second chances when they complete their time. But when you create a society bases future decisions on your criminal history (many jobs now do background checks, renting apartments do background checks, buying cars can even trigger a background check, etc.) and refuse you because you did something wrong 20 years ago... just creates a society of more violence. When someone who truly did repent themselves cannot get a job or move into an apartment or buy a house because of something they did in the past, their only outlet is thugging, robbery, and other violent crimes.
Our system then catches them and touts statistics on how likely a criminal is to repeat the crime.
In the future, it will not be possible to live life without an internet connection. If someone is not allowed to connect to the internet, then how can they live life? They won't be able to email a resume, text messages to family or friends, play games, or whatever else, such as pay bills electronically.
I'm not saying that the people aren't deserving of it in some cases, but I'm saying as a society, making punishment lifelong and eternal for felons (in general) is only creating a world where they are going to be increasingly repetitive and violent because they won't have a second chance to rebuild their life with if they truly had repented. If they can't get a job and function in society, the only thing left is to put yourself back in prison where you can have free lodging and food, something you can't easily earn on the outside when the system doesn't want you to have a chance to do so and tries what it can to prevent it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind purchasing digitally unrestricted files, but not for "at or below the price of the book". I've seen way too many Kindle books that are nearly priced the same as the printed counterparts and gives me no advantages of my printed counterparts (can't give it away, sell it, write in it, requires no additional expense EG batteries, etc.). I'm talking tech books. Some are priced okay, others that I've had an interest in are nearly $50-70. I've seen one Kindle book that was $135 while the printed counterpart (no longer in print) was selling for roughly $15 used.
I don't know what would be a good price point for a ebook, but considering bandwidth is relatively cheap compared to printing and binding and shipping a book, I don't think an ebook should be priced similar to the printed counter part. With DRM-less ebooks, perhaps it is less of an issue than with DRM encumbered ebooks, where a dead machine or defunct ebook publisher can render your collection useless (has happend to me, which is why I don't buy encumbered ebooks anymore).
To me, an ebook should be pricsed roughly 20-40% of the price of the book if it was printed. Keep in mind, retail books are already highly marked up from what the retailer pays the publisher/distributor. It should be 20-40% of the whole sale cost of the book (because other publisher/distributors/retailers don't usually offer the ebooks for sale anyway, so it need not be priced according retail value, but wholesale value).
The other thing is, while certain very-hard to find books, or other in-demand little-supply books could command a premium in print, ebooks are not scarce. They are, for all intents-and-purposes, unlimited supply. So they should not reflect prices of scarcity or high-print costs.
Until the pricing of any ebook reflects something more realistic considering the what we have to sacrifice to use and that the publisher has so little overhead costs associated with the distribution of the digital media, then I still am not convinced to purchase.
I do applaud O'Reilly for doing this. They produce great books and if more publishers follow suit, then maybe, just maybe, the landscape will improve and the Ebook market will become more viable.
Thanks,
Leabre
Around here, we call that the "California Piss-Off". Even more annoying is when you blink and the person next to you speeds up and does whatever they can to prevent you from merging or getting in front of them. They might have been going 15 MPH slower, but you blink, now they'll pace you at any speed (faster or slower) until you give up or take it by force.
Thanks,
Leabre
.NET also works. I work for a fortune 500 and we do massive development on the .NET platform for processing to the tune of 400 million transactions per day (for various processing needs). We do this in C# and have no problem with the architecture (I'm an architect there, a new one, though), not much on the maintenance, and peformance is really good. .NET is really good at some things, and crappy at others. It is good at server processing, networking, threading, batch type stuff, but crappy at WinUI and hard scientific numericals and 3D.
Thanks,
Leabre
Just wait until umbrella corporation hears about this...
Patent fees have simply not kept pace with the value of IP and innovation. If they put them on a pricing schedule that goes up over time, and start them at $300k today, we'll see a dramatic reduction in frivilous patents.
You'll also see a dramatic decrease of perfectly valid patents, also, especially by the little guy that the Slashdotters are so poised to point out the system was originally supposed to protect. If the little guy needed $500k to get 6 patents and hasn't the money, investors, or means to pay up (before getting investors), then it won't be a friendly place for little guys. It is arguably friendlier to little guys today than if a patent cost $300k.
Thanks,
Leabre
I have an aversion to spending money needlessly, and even moreso when it is luxury or perceived to be status. I don't want or need a leather couch when a comfortable fabric will be cheaper and probly last longer and not stick to my skin on a humid day, so long as the furniture looks nice where it goes. I'm happy to bargain shop for most things because 1) I pay cash usually, so I can much easier spot a drain in my wallet and curtail it and 2) You don't get rich by spending everything you have, and 3) you won't retire by not responsibly and cleverly saving. The key point here, is saving. I have not faith in my 401k and none whatsover in Social Security so I have to save my own funds for retirement if I want to have one.
Food, gas, and other consumables never go on a credit card. That's a sure sign to eventual disaster if you're income deponds on your own labor and not that of others to pay bills.
Thnks,
Leabre
Not necessarily. A family member had their two cars paid off and all debts except mortgage and made a nice living ~$100k. Then, a major medical expense came up. The credit card debts began to climb, loans against the house equity, cashing on retirement accounts to pay for these things... left them 15 years or so paying it off an even today, they are still trying to pay it off. It had nothing to do with finance control but everything to do with poor circumstance.
Even myself, when I was debt free 100%, dropped $10k on breand new SCUBA gear for my wife and $14k loan on a new car (put $16k cash down). I would have paid off the SCUBA the next month as I always cleared my debts at least within 90 days, except an unprecedented oppurtunity to purchase a house in a very nice area in the forest just outseide the concrete slab of Orange County, CA... I took it and purchase the house. That left me now, 2 years later, just paying off the SCUBA debt last month, the car in about 18 months from now, and still 8 months to go on other debts that racked up while too busy paying the mortgage to pay cash. Since I don't watch TV, none of that had to do with 500 watt plasmas and BluRay players (or PS3's) but much more to do with putting a fridge in the house and a washer and a dryer, and a modest BBQ in the backyard as well as a vacuum and some curtains/drapes for my windows around the house since the downpayment on the house depleted my reserves. Even so, I still have enough money to pay for my BS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA for my wife in cash every month for the last 2 years or so.
That said, the tax refund I received along with the tax money back that GW will be sending me later along with a pay increase and a bonus for our company performang 15% growth this fiscal year (we're a ~billion $$$ annualy company) just went to pay off my debts all that much quicker and it will not be replaced with increased spending to compensate. I much prefer to be back in a situation where I can drop cash on whatever I want and set a sizeable amount aside for various profitable but riskier investments. I generally try to be the kind of person that, if I can't pay cash, I shouldn't have it (within reason -- not everything can be purchased in cash), but within 90 days is fine by me. It's a great rule to live by when possible, and more people should observe it, it produces a much less stressful life.
My only real point here is that having debut isn't a reflection of poor financial handling but can become a victim of circumstance. But I do believe the majority of high debt is indeed bad financial management. Just not all.
Thanks,
Leabre
While you make an interesting point, I'd say that a prospective buyer is a dumbass if they don't go view the property they are about to purchase themselves (myself having purchased a few properties). If the property is too far to go see your self, then the newer photoes might be representive of the property itself, especially if you see drastic difference, then you'll know something was done to improve it. If you live in California, you'll know from all the paperwork becuase everything has to be disclosed, anyway.
What google streets will do, however, is allow you to preview the neigborhood in its entirety at that point in time, so you can see if your surrounding neibhbors had bars when the photos were taken of if there are rusted cars in everyones yards. Again, something you'll notice if you actually go visit the property to begin with.
Thanks,
Leabre
I was thinking about this the other day. I think one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are so politically indifferent and don't do anything to make change. I think one of the roots is that in the workplace we are pretty much told to be politically indifferent (tolerant) or lose your job. In the church, too, or the establishment can lose its non-profit charter. Since we spend more time at work than home usually, it spills into our main life because also, we some companies find out we have too strong of a polical opinion, might lose our job. Also, that and, since we seem to like luxury so much, the best way to not lose what little cash we hard-work for, is to not lose our job.
... no one does anything about it. It's really too bad, because there won't be any relief when the current administration leaves office. The reason Congress won't do anything to curtail it in practice is because any one of them aspires to be in office in the future and they would love to have the power that this administration has demonstrated the people so lovingly embrace.
Then you have a second problem, the politicians aren't accountable to the people. They can lie, cheat, steal, and piss-off as many people as they want, but somehow continue to be re-elected with impunity. The minute the politician pisses off their corporate campaign donor's, they will not have any funding to run for office again.
Those two things, I think, case the problem, that an executive office can sh*t on the American people and use the US Constitition as wiping paper when they're done and
But it all starts with us having to be politically indifferent everywhere but in our own living room, that causes most people to be indifferent in-general. I think that's the root of our apathy.
Thanks,
Leabre
Hate to play devil's advocate here, becuase you make a valid point, but even Google entered the market with just one patent and look at them now... *THE* dominent player in just 8 shorts years (at least since I heard of them).
Thanks,
Leabre
Copyright is not the problem. DRM is. It subverts the whole agreement that eventually the work will expire into the public domain.
What should happen, rather, is something close to: if you restrict the usage of your electronic works with technical measures, then you should also lose copyright protection because in essence, you are tyring to prevent copying, printing, format shifting, whatever else. If you want someone to lock up a copyist of your electronic work for 20 years and fine them $250,000 per percieved distribution or duplicate and make them a felon and confiscate all their electronic possessions, then don't lock your work with DRM and be fair to socieity.
Frankly, that'll never happen. As a society, we've allowed some very large and powerful corporations to controls the whole production and distribution channels to the point that they are so profitable, they must not lose any of it to make their next quarterly profits earnings for their share holders. That means they can't let copyrights expire, then can't have it easy for people to copy from friends, they must keep inventing new formats that people will have to purchase while old formats expire and phase out, the media must not be very resistant to damage else they won't be replacing it soon enough, ideally we should pay for everytime we watch, listen, or think of one of their works.
That is because a corporation must always make more money or face shareholder revolt. Except, the RIAA and MPAA are non-profit organizations. Yet, they are well funded by extremely profit oriented corporations.
Ok, don't forget, they must make it as difficult as possible for people to circumvent the need for services of the producers and distributers so that there isn't another possible loose end for losing revenue.
The problem is further propelled by the fact that the politicians need money to campaign for next term and the majority of money comes from lobbyists, not the people. They only need to people to vote them in but beyond the vote, the money comes from special interest groups. That is why they can lie, cheat, steal, and defaud the people all they want and practically get away with it with impunity. But should they offend a significant monied interest, and its certain political suicide. That is becase the people aren't in control of their representatives, and because the people are generally apathetic and care only about cheap prices and great luxury, and because the people aren't directly responsible for voting significant representatives, anyway.
That is why things are the way they are.
Thanks,
Leabre
I agree. Back in 2002/2003 I purchased a great deal many ebooks. When my system crashed and I had to get a whole new PC there was no way to recover my ebook at read them on my PC.
I purchased a very expensive ebook for a technical database theory book that wasn't easy to find printed ($300 if wanted it in hardcover) but when I went to unlock it (I pad half as much for the e-copy) the publisher had recently gone belly up (versatext I believe it was) so I wasn't every able to unlock to ebook and the middle-man who sold me the ebook actually knew they went belly up but wouldn't refund me or credit me. Not that maybe I couldn't have sued, it wouldn't have been worth the expense of the trouble.
Since then, I've actively refused to purchase anything that will lock me to a device without recourse and this includes certain types of software activation schemes that lock to the hardware configuration, also.
BluRay and HD-DVD and DVD are okay with me because they can be backed up with the right software. But I'm not in the mood to even attempt to rip an EBook, I simply won't stop purchasing the printed copies. I have a personally programming book library of over 900 books collected over the past 10 years or so, too. Nothing beats being able to take a 5 lbs. book with me to read wherever I choose. But I'll admit, it would be much better to put them on a memory chip and take them all with me or have them in case of a fire or something, so it won't be so difficult ot replace.
In the end, though, ebooks are not always cheaper than printed. Many of the printed books I've purhcased in the last year on Ebay or used on Amazon I've picked up for as much as 80-90% discount from the new price and some even for $2.00 where they were listed as $74.88 new. I e-copy will never be discounted with age. If anything, the older that locked format the less likely I'll be able to use it with new devices as there will always be a new DRM scheme or ebook format for the devices of tomorrow. Old copies will become useless and financial losses.
Thanks,
Leabre
I had a similar problem with AT&T (previously SBC, previously Pacific Bell, Previously ... etc). My 3MB Dropped to intermittent connection reliability and then stopped cold. They eventually confirmed (or admitted) that my modem doesn't establish communication. So they came out and spent many weeks trying to find the problem. Finally, a third tech said that it works fine at some utility box 1,000 feet from my house but not at the wall of my house. So they spent a few more weeks digging up the ling through the street, my yard, other yards, until they found a tiny 1mm crimp in a wire that was eroded from the elements and replaced the entire line from that point to my house, and from that point to the utility box (which at this point was about 75 feet from the utility box. Now, my connection is at 1.6 MB because when they activated at 3MB there was a lot of noise that the installing tech should have toned down the speed for reliability, but 1.6 is the most reliable they can get because I'm so far away from the CO (I'm at the last few hundred feet).
Anyway, the point is, anything could have happened and the only thing intentional is the degree of assistance the telco will ultimately provide. Even if it is your responsibility (inside your house) they should at least charge you and happily come fix it.
Thanks,
Leabre
RE: 4) The learning curve might not be so intense as if moving from Python to C# because even on the .NET CLR/DLR that is employed in the Silverlight CoreCLR, you can use mostly pure Python (.NET) and when you're ready to take specific advantage of .NET features, you can do so (at which points one can argue it ceases to be cross-platform Python) but I that's not the point I wish to focus on. Same with PHP. You might be a PHP developer but moving to C# will have some learning curve mostly because C# depends solely on the BCL libraries. But with the PHP.NET project (forgot what it's called) you can use raw PHP (and some of the extensions) in .NET without actually doing anything specific to target .NET.
.NET implementations of any language on top of the CLR/DLR to entice people to move to the platform. If that happens, you can use your language of choice and take advantage of .NET. I actually learned Ruby from IronRuby and would never have touched it any other way simply because I like what I can do with .NET and I like my tools and all the libraries I've built-up over the years that are .NET derived. In any case, with silverlight in particular, you can use a .NET flavor of PHP, Ruby, and Python that closely resumble their native counterparts.
So I think in a sense you might be right, but you also are wrong. MS is changing the landscape and trying to make it easier to have
Thanks,
Leabre
RE: 4) .NET was not written for C# primarily. Granted, C# is the predominent language, there are many .NET CLR features C# does not support and that only C++/CLI supports. Yes, the libraries are written in C#, C++, and I've seen a few in VB.NET, of all things. .NET is supposed to be a language neutral platform that any language and plug into and be compatible with. However, with .NET 3.5 and the future, more and more features are being implemented as language compiler features and not CLR features which means at somepoint absolute compatibility between languages is going to diminish, but that's not the point you were making.
RE: 8) Silverlight was not designed from the ground up with native applications in mind, at least, not in the context that you put it, as in: flash designed to be sandboxed, silverlight designed to be native. Silverlight is designed to be sandboxed *AND* be a superior platform for building applications that don't have the intrinsic quirks that HTML has and AJAX. With Silverlight, you can do all Flash can do and much better. I'm not saying Flash can't do it, too. It's just far easier to accomplish applications in Silverlight 2 than Flash, at least for me, anyway.
RE: 9) It's hard to know. Xaml is so new. Once more people start doing things with it others will follow. The trends I see now is that it is being used more in social type applications than desktop type applications. Although with the announcement of www.textglow.net it appears there might be a office productivity app in the works and very capable on Silverlight. The only question remains is whether MS will IP-restrict our use of Silverlight to not create an office competitor. I'm almost 100% certain that a verion of Office will be released on top of Silverlight in the future. When I look at its capabilities, I can nearly see how it is designed with Office in mind.
RE: 10) The fact that MS is working with MONO folks and and least of which, encouraging their efforts, leaves no bad taste in my mind but no certainty of their Linux commitment, either. But then, I'm not a Linux fanatic so it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever for the time being.
Thanks,
Leabre
As I read this I just had a thought. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant but I can see how it would be hard to enforce 'patent or copyright: pick one and only one to protect you'. Software is complex, composed of many instructions and expressions. Much of which may not be patented or patentable. But some very key portions might be patented or patentable. While the entire work may be copyrighted only small portions may be patented. Maybe the design is patented. How can the work be quantified into what part of that is excluded from copyrights because of the existance of an enforceable patent?
What if, of a three million line-of-code software embodiment contained only roughly 25,000 lines that applied to a specific patent? Would it then be fair that the entire work be no longer eligible for copyright because 1% of of it is covered by a patent?
Anyway, it's a complex issue and one that I have to think about more. It is difficult to quantify anything into very specific rules that could dissambiquate the ambiguous and make complex things simple for a patent examiner, intellection property court, or society.
Thanks,
Leabre
Library of Congress already uses a fair amount of Flash so choosing Silverlight really isn't a stretch. But I don't see people complaining about the amount of Flash being used by Library of Congress. There are things that both Flash and Silverlight can do that standard (X)HTML/AJAX will be hard pressed to accomplish as naturally. The beauty about Silverlight is that it doesn't have to be Vista or XP as a platform, Silverlight can be hosted on Linux and OS X also.
But I think the greater point in everyones ranting is that Microsoft paid and Congress accepted and will be leveraging the new platform for a specific purpose. A purpose for which the Silverlight platform is intended to address.
Thanks,
Leabre
1 year from time of filing to protest? That's not good. Then most companies will wait 1 year before suing anyone since they'll be generally safer from challenges. There should be no limit on challenges. If a patent is bogus, it should be challengable by anyone at anytime.
Thanks,
Leabre
It doesn't mean that stone can't be overturned. Fair use isn't mentioned in the constitution, either, but the courts have set precedent after precedent establishing the doctrine but yet, as of lately, despite precident, that doctrine has not only been eroding away, but getting new counter precedents in court, too.
But, it is the sad state of current affairs that the only way anything will become establishment or effectively challenged involves the deep pockets of monied interests, and not those interests of the ones who elected the officials anyway, unless you count the lobbyists as the ones who elected the officials and not the voters who actually got off their ass and cast a vote.
Thanks,
Leabre
Does not work in Dos 3.0 or Lynx...
Not interested.
But it isn't abusing a monopoly even if you couldn't view the MS website without Silverlight. Why? Because web developers could still use HTML if they want (and could use all of MS tools to produce HTML), they could use Flash if they want, or they can use Silverlight if they want. You may not want to install the silverlight viewer if you don't want, but what about those sites that force me to use Firefox if I want to view the website (punishing me for using IE)? What about those sites that require me to install Flash if I want to make a purchase from their website? I'm free to not view such sites (a practice I enjoy). The fact is, Silverlight based content will present far better than HTML (if done right) and is easily indexed by searched engines according to what I read. But the technology is so new that I have no real clue how it'll do in the market place. I do know this, I have been working on some technology that is very well suited for Silverlight that is very easy to make in Silverlight that is quite difficult in Flash (and after a year of trying, likely not *easily* possible, and not even practical in HTML. To use it, you'll need Silverlight. If I did it in Flash, you'd require Flash.
On the other hand, I didn't complete reading your comments before I replied and realized we're on the same page but there are a lot of Microsoft bashers out hard and heavy these days and will spread FUD just because they can.
Thanks,
Leabre
I have a brand new, clean install of both Vista and XP SP2 and no version of .NET installed yet on the XP2 and Silverlight works fine. It gets its intended experience without every .NET runtime installed (or any). On Vista, however, .NET 3.0 (2.0 + Some) is installed by default so its hard to say whether that really matters. However on the Mac OSX version of Silverlight? There is no .NET runtime available but it functions as intended and works just fine.
.NET to make Silverlight work are something else. For starters, even if Silverlight required a runtime, it wouldn't be 1.x. It is close cousine to WPF so it would be .NET 3.0 only.
.NET 3.0 at least, it would be an .xbap application that runs in the browser as well but is not related to Silverlight in any way shape or form, and would not require .NET 1.x to be installed since it has no dependancies and nothing targeting it can require a .NET 1.x dependency since it is based on .NET 2.0/3.0.
.NET related technologies and their requirements, and blaming the wrong culprit.
So whatever you had to do that required you to have to install all versions of
If something required an installed of
Or maybe you're spreading FUD or leaving out a lot of variables or completely misunderstand the technology and its requirements, as opposed to other
Thanks,
Leabre
How is that a desperate move? It would be extremely stupid of Microsoft if they didn't change it to Silverlight, considering the fact that many of their pages currently use Flash. And if they have 60 million unique hits - why not? Are we calling Adobe desperate for using Flash on their site?
.NET or to use their new WPF technologies they are accused of not believing in their own products. When they actually make a move to use their own software they are accused of being desperate and monopolistic. The fact is, Silverlight is much better at presenting document-centric and application-like experiences than Flash (rather, Silverlight is designed from the ground up to be document-centric, video-centric, and very application-developer friendly as opposed to Flash not making it *AS* easy to achieve those same things -- IMHO). So if Microsoft wants to redo their site (which is exteremely document-oriented) with Silverlight, its a clear choice. Also, silverlight content is taouted to be much more friendly to search engine archivers than Flash is. For a document-centic environment, that makes Silverlight a clear winner.
Good point. When Microsoft doesn't remake everything in
Thanks,
Leabre
Silverlight is so new that there can hardly by 3rd party support. When did Macromedia Flash get good 3rd party support? Not until it was immensily popular and that wasn't v1.0. When Flash released it had only one development tool.
Silverlight is really new and does have tool support but it is spread about many products (Visual Studio, Delphi Rad Studio, Expression Blend, Expression Designer, Notepad even). But since all the ancillary tools are actively developed, and Silverlight is due for a 2.0 release with so much new functionality and easier ways to produce, I wouldn't write it off just yet.
Silverlight cannot be a standard on day one, only with time. Since it will be supported on Mac OSX and Linux (officially) it's use will eventually be adopted. For making applications and document-like content and media (as in movies), Silverlight is a clear contender.
Thanks,
Leabre
The problem with eternal punishment of anyone who commits a felony is that, our prison system is supposed to rehabilitate them and give second chances when they complete their time. But when you create a society bases future decisions on your criminal history (many jobs now do background checks, renting apartments do background checks, buying cars can even trigger a background check, etc.) and refuse you because you did something wrong 20 years ago... just creates a society of more violence. When someone who truly did repent themselves cannot get a job or move into an apartment or buy a house because of something they did in the past, their only outlet is thugging, robbery, and other violent crimes.
Our system then catches them and touts statistics on how likely a criminal is to repeat the crime.
In the future, it will not be possible to live life without an internet connection. If someone is not allowed to connect to the internet, then how can they live life? They won't be able to email a resume, text messages to family or friends, play games, or whatever else, such as pay bills electronically.
I'm not saying that the people aren't deserving of it in some cases, but I'm saying as a society, making punishment lifelong and eternal for felons (in general) is only creating a world where they are going to be increasingly repetitive and violent because they won't have a second chance to rebuild their life with if they truly had repented. If they can't get a job and function in society, the only thing left is to put yourself back in prison where you can have free lodging and food, something you can't easily earn on the outside when the system doesn't want you to have a chance to do so and tries what it can to prevent it.
Thanks,
Leabre