Well, if the spec call for "superglass" FO cables, but I heated a strip of plexiglass and ran it between the devices and it worked...how could we call that illegal?
And you sound like a clueless dipshit that spouts off on message boards.
Married 21 years. Fortunately, I didn't marry a spiteful child that can't handle the truth. She was spending 8hrs a day at the gym. We were sending two kids to private school because the public schools were deadly (not an exaggeration.) She enjoyed it, but finally realized that it isn't a real job if you can't get paid enough to cover the gas for getting there. If she only had to spend 10hr a week at it, it wouldn't have been a big deal.
And my wife LOVED teaching aerobics classes. It paid decent to...about $30/hr, give-or-take. She would get upset with me for telling her that by the time she factored in gas, driving time, and preparation time that she was getting less than minimum wage. Her "high paying" job...wasn't. It was a nice hobby. It wasn't a job.
Your virtuoso has a nice hobby he can make a few bucks off of. If there weren't a dozen bands in every high-school willing to play for tips, he might have a job. Getting upset that the market is flooded with talent is the same as getting upset that your leg is wet after pissing into the wind.
A lot of artists already have, and the vast majority discover that they still don't make any money.
The problem isn't the distribution, which can be handled by anybody with five bucks for a web site. The problem is promotion: getting people to come to your web site and pay anything at all for your item, out of the ten gazillion other artists doing exactly the same thing.
By your own words, the real problem is supply-and-demand. How do you sell a million albums in a market that can bear a volume of a billion units, when there are literally a million other artists that sound just as good as you?
The real problem is that RIAA was able to capitalize on a short term technological benefit that allowed for artificial scarcecity in the music industry. They're trying to use gimmicks to keep the ruse going, but with open lines of communication that the Internet now provides, they will not be able to keep it up for the long term.
Let's face it. There are a LOT of people that can sing. Music is NOT scarce. You can't expect to make a lot of money doing the same thing that everybody else is doing, no matter how much you appreciate your own talent.
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane. I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
How many "American Idol" look-alikes are there on the various TV networks now? A dozen? How many have at least half the contestants that are as good or better than the current cadre of auto-tuned "pop-stars"?
My point is that most of the "artists" are simply faces meant to move their mouths for words written for them by a 2-bit writer. The faces will have sounds filled in by a computer operator whose main job is to over-drive the bass lines to make sure the music is loud on the radio, so that it can be made popular by a promotor having it played endlessly on the radio. The "artist" signs the contract, because it is the only chance for the "artist" to "make it big"...ie, get a chance to live in rented luxury until the public gets over that particular fad. The point of all the conspicuous consumption on the part of "big time artist" is to keep a queue of schmucks waiting in line for their chance to make the big time. If any artist starts feeling to entitled, their next songs will not be as popular for some reason, and they will eventually be released back to the wild, quickly replace by the next face in the line.
The "artist" can quit the game at point they so choose. They make a deal with the devil, get what they bargained for, and then whine that they didn't do better. Cry me a river.
The problem here, though, is that you can't control what OTHER people write down.
Unless your high is of high enough profile to have Nancy Grace talking about it, being accused of a crime is enough to have you convicted or bankrupted in most cases.
Tell the girlfriend to "man up"? Either you're trying to prove the/. stereotype, by having no idea what a girlfriend is for, or you have a very strange porn list.
and with fire-and-forget, over the horizon missiles, wtf is the point of a $80million airplane? Load the missile on a dang biplane and you're good to go.
half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.
Yeah, but then when NATO decides to invade a country like Libya, who would WE call to do the actual work.
Until the policeman stops you for suspicion of running a redlight and then "suspects" that you have marijuana in the vehicle. At that point, you will be groped, everything in your vehicle removed, and thrown in disarray.
But you have to look at the downside for Samsung if they win. They open the door to the idea that these patents are just hogwash, and then patents start getting invalidated all over the place. The next thing you know, new companies, little bitty upstarts that aren't even public companies listed on a valid exchange, are able to compete in the market. Big companies don't have a "patent club" to beat them down with anymore.
but they showed a lot of people, including Steve Jobs, what might work and what to avoid
Did they really? Or did they just develop and patent the obvious? If I say, "How do we unscrew that hex-headed bolt, Nick?", would it be patentable if you responded, "Well, we could put a clamp on two of those flats and twist it." Nothing else would even make sense, so how is that patentable?
With every new platform, there is a race to the patent office to get a stamp of approval on a "new idea" that is as obvious as daylight to anyone with a pulse.
Typical light aircraft wheels are more like go-cart wheels. The recommended taxi speed is generally 10 to 20 mph. The instructors I've had say, "somewhere between a fast walk and a slow jog". They're always telling me to slow down, 'cause I'm wanting to minimize the $100/hr rental that I'm paying for taxiing.
doing it in 1960 was hard. John Dyke meant for the Dyke Delta to be roadable. The final straw that made him give up was the requirement for windshield wipers. He settled for a towable design. The specs call for a max speed of 60mph in towable configuration.
I don't think seatbelts were even required in cars in 1960. With today's standards, it seems impossible to me.
And how much larger is the average corporation today than it was 40 years ago? Instant communications have made multi-national corporations much easier. A 10,000 employee company of 1970 would be the 100,000 company of today.
Just sayin' that not everything with that pay disparity is unreasonable.
Exactly. Unix blazed the trail. By the time ActiveX came along, it was well mapped and documented territory. The security hole that was ActiveX was clearly a disaster in the making, and anyone well versed in the art of their profession should have known it.
If NOBODY was buying cars, why are we taxing the people, thereby putting a strain on the economy, in order to pay people to build cars? Why don't we bring back all the buggy whip manufacturers while we're at it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the spec call for "superglass" FO cables, but I heated a strip of plexiglass and ran it between the devices and it worked...how could we call that illegal?
Not that I can fathom. I have yet to find a reason to move from VGA.
Well, that isn't true. I use DVI at work. My work laptop has one VGA and one DVI, and to get dual displays I have to use one DVI.
Because the US market is where they sell a LOT of their product.
And you sound like a clueless dipshit that spouts off on message boards.
Married 21 years. Fortunately, I didn't marry a spiteful child that can't handle the truth. She was spending 8hrs a day at the gym. We were sending two kids to private school because the public schools were deadly (not an exaggeration.) She enjoyed it, but finally realized that it isn't a real job if you can't get paid enough to cover the gas for getting there. If she only had to spend 10hr a week at it, it wouldn't have been a big deal.
And my wife LOVED teaching aerobics classes. It paid decent to...about $30/hr, give-or-take. She would get upset with me for telling her that by the time she factored in gas, driving time, and preparation time that she was getting less than minimum wage. Her "high paying" job...wasn't. It was a nice hobby. It wasn't a job.
Your virtuoso has a nice hobby he can make a few bucks off of. If there weren't a dozen bands in every high-school willing to play for tips, he might have a job. Getting upset that the market is flooded with talent is the same as getting upset that your leg is wet after pissing into the wind.
A lot of artists already have, and the vast majority discover that they still don't make any money.
The problem isn't the distribution, which can be handled by anybody with five bucks for a web site. The problem is promotion: getting people to come to your web site and pay anything at all for your item, out of the ten gazillion other artists doing exactly the same thing.
By your own words, the real problem is supply-and-demand. How do you sell a million albums in a market that can bear a volume of a billion units, when there are literally a million other artists that sound just as good as you?
The real problem is that RIAA was able to capitalize on a short term technological benefit that allowed for artificial scarcecity in the music industry. They're trying to use gimmicks to keep the ruse going, but with open lines of communication that the Internet now provides, they will not be able to keep it up for the long term.
Let's face it. There are a LOT of people that can sing. Music is NOT scarce. You can't expect to make a lot of money doing the same thing that everybody else is doing, no matter how much you appreciate your own talent.
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane. I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
How many "American Idol" look-alikes are there on the various TV networks now? A dozen? How many have at least half the contestants that are as good or better than the current cadre of auto-tuned "pop-stars"?
My point is that most of the "artists" are simply faces meant to move their mouths for words written for them by a 2-bit writer. The faces will have sounds filled in by a computer operator whose main job is to over-drive the bass lines to make sure the music is loud on the radio, so that it can be made popular by a promotor having it played endlessly on the radio. The "artist" signs the contract, because it is the only chance for the "artist" to "make it big"...ie, get a chance to live in rented luxury until the public gets over that particular fad. The point of all the conspicuous consumption on the part of "big time artist" is to keep a queue of schmucks waiting in line for their chance to make the big time. If any artist starts feeling to entitled, their next songs will not be as popular for some reason, and they will eventually be released back to the wild, quickly replace by the next face in the line.
The "artist" can quit the game at point they so choose. They make a deal with the devil, get what they bargained for, and then whine that they didn't do better. Cry me a river.
The problem here, though, is that you can't control what OTHER people write down.
Unless your high is of high enough profile to have Nancy Grace talking about it, being accused of a crime is enough to have you convicted or bankrupted in most cases.
Tell the girlfriend to "man up"? Either you're trying to prove the /. stereotype, by having no idea what a girlfriend is for, or you have a very strange porn list.
and with fire-and-forget, over the horizon missiles, wtf is the point of a $80million airplane? Load the missile on a dang biplane and you're good to go.
half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.
Yeah, but then when NATO decides to invade a country like Libya, who would WE call to do the actual work.
Until the policeman stops you for suspicion of running a redlight and then "suspects" that you have marijuana in the vehicle. At that point, you will be groped, everything in your vehicle removed, and thrown in disarray.
But you have to look at the downside for Samsung if they win. They open the door to the idea that these patents are just hogwash, and then patents start getting invalidated all over the place. The next thing you know, new companies, little bitty upstarts that aren't even public companies listed on a valid exchange, are able to compete in the market. Big companies don't have a "patent club" to beat them down with anymore.
Samsung won't have any of that.
but they showed a lot of people, including Steve Jobs, what might work and what to avoid
Did they really? Or did they just develop and patent the obvious? If I say, "How do we unscrew that hex-headed bolt, Nick?", would it be patentable if you responded, "Well, we could put a clamp on two of those flats and twist it." Nothing else would even make sense, so how is that patentable?
With every new platform, there is a race to the patent office to get a stamp of approval on a "new idea" that is as obvious as daylight to anyone with a pulse.
Typical light aircraft wheels are more like go-cart wheels. The recommended taxi speed is generally 10 to 20 mph. The instructors I've had say, "somewhere between a fast walk and a slow jog". They're always telling me to slow down, 'cause I'm wanting to minimize the $100/hr rental that I'm paying for taxiing.
I think there is more to it than that; otherwise, I could fold up the wings on my Dyke Delta and taxi to the airport.
doing it in 1960 was hard. John Dyke meant for the Dyke Delta to be roadable. The final straw that made him give up was the requirement for windshield wipers. He settled for a towable design. The specs call for a max speed of 60mph in towable configuration.
I don't think seatbelts were even required in cars in 1960. With today's standards, it seems impossible to me.
And how much larger is the average corporation today than it was 40 years ago? Instant communications have made multi-national corporations much easier. A 10,000 employee company of 1970 would be the 100,000 company of today.
Just sayin' that not everything with that pay disparity is unreasonable.
Building a body cavity search machine for shits!? Will that show be coming on right after Ice Road Truckers?
Right. It will save fuel for the second starship. We still have to build it...for the telephone cleaners, you know.
You think that, 'CAUSE YOUR NO GOOD AT IT!!
8*)
(I'm adding text, cause the stupid filter is telling me that I'm yelling)
Exactly. Unix blazed the trail. By the time ActiveX came along, it was well mapped and documented territory. The security hole that was ActiveX was clearly a disaster in the making, and anyone well versed in the art of their profession should have known it.
If NOBODY was buying cars, why are we taxing the people, thereby putting a strain on the economy, in order to pay people to build cars? Why don't we bring back all the buggy whip manufacturers while we're at it?
No, "web application" coders are paid sh*t and used like toilet paper.
Because they're the ones handing out the checks.
It isn't all bad, though. You are free to start your own business anytime you feel like it. Then you can set your own demands.