So, do you want to pay for the bandwidth to host Slashdot? There is nothing wrong with recooping your losses. It's not like Slashdot is whoreing out products and advertisements through every topic that's posted.
Yes, but any real news source worth their salt will identify advertisements as such. Slashdot should either stop pretending to be one, or start acting like a responsible news site. This fence sitting is painful.
This chapter contains an overview of the criminal copyright laws. The law of copyright is codified at Title 17 of the United States Code. The principal prohibitions relating to criminal copyright infringement are set forth at 17 U.S.C. 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2319. Titles 17 and 18 also contain a number of other provisions that make illegal certain practices which are inconsistent with Congress' copyright protection scheme. The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division has supervisory authority over offenses discussed in this chapter. See the following sections of the Criminal Resource Manual for a discussion of various areas of copyright law... you were saying?
My logs are copyrighted, and if the RIAA wants to see them, they have to agree to an EULA stating that they won't sue me or anyone named in the logs, and on top of that they must also pay $25 for a copy of the log on CD, which they are not allowed to copy, distribute, or share.
Or, alternatively, they just subpoena the information, and when you try that line on them, you end up in contempt of court, and spend a couple of days in the klink to cool off.
I'm all for IP laws as long as they represent the interests of the people. A decade or two of exclusive trade rights ought to be plenty of time reap the harvest of nearly any creation, but 70+ years for a cartoon mouse is ludicrous.
Stop copying other people's stuff. Take the moral highground.
Then, when the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on, push the balance of copyright law back to normal.
Until people stop publishing and redistributing material which they have no claim to (or rights to), the people who produce that material will gang up against them. And that gang typically has bigger pocketbooks.
They didn't care about it before now, because it's only with the rise of fast connections to the Internet that people have had enough bandwidth to make it a real problem. The losses were a blip on the radar.
Self regulate, learn the rules, or the fairness police will come down on you. If you think it's fair to copy someone else's material willy-nilly, then I'm willing to bet that you've never produced anything of any worth.
"Even Microsoft has come to understand this: the upcoming Outlook will be quite different." Ya, but acording to this screenshot... It may be a even WORSE user interface.
Doesn't look any different to me. All they did was put the preview pane to the right of the folder list.
All that really looks that different is the UI theme, and that's because it's from Longhorn.
Personally, I already don't use the NYT because I find the logon page to be intrusive and obnoxious. If I got redirected to a logon page from stories indexed at Google News, I'd be pissed off.
Funny... I registered years ago with them, and I've never seen the logon page since. You might want to let their cookies through.
it says: "If you develop server-side software that runs on Unix (by which I mean any platform that runs bash..." Huh? What about csh, ksh, even others? bash is FSF/GNU stuff. Is that why we have to use it? And gmake, too? All of xfree86 can be build without bash or gmake. Mozilla can be built without bash but requires gmake. bash and gmake are awfully bloated, in my opinion -- don't mind losing karma for stating the truth
More amusingly is the fact that you can run bash on Windows if you really really want to.
In the movie 28 Days, a virus causes those infected with it to turn into killers. It turns out that there is an amoebic parasite called T. gondiithat actually manipulates the behavior of its intermediate host, the rat, to reach its ultimate target, the cat. Rats become infected with T. gondiii by eating infected beetles or worms. Once infected, the rats lose their fear of cats and become aggressive towards them and thereby becoming dinner for the cat. The parasite is then passed on to the cat where it reproduces in the cats brain but does not appear to change any of the cat's behaviours. After a time, the parasite leaves the cat via its feces where it is picked up by bettles and worms and the cycle starts again. The scary thing is that all mammals are susceptible to infection by T. Gondii, however for now it appears that the amoebas can reproduce only within members of the cat family.
So while there are infections like rabies that cause madness, it appears T. Gondii only affects the select behaviours in rats it needs in order continue as a species. There are societies where people eat cats and/or rats. I wonder how long it will be before T. Gondii evolves to affect humans?
Theory is that it already does. T. Gondii causes Toxoplasmosis. There are links to schizophrenia being caused by toxoplasmosis, particularly because the anti-psychotic drugs used to control schizophrenic episodes are also extremely effective at killing the parasite.
Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!
Then just switch the control panel into Classic mode as well. It's simple. Look on the left. You have two options - "Switch to Classic View", and when you click that, it gives you "Switch to Category View".
One button click and variables are renamed and reused, comments are removed, line breaks (if not needed by the language) are abolished, whitespace is decimated, class names can be changed... I've even seen some that ported the code to another language altogether...
So you have your code for the code review, but if things get bad, you also have the button that ensures teeth gnashing is a common sound after you leave.
What is this? Amateur hour?
A Professional software developer wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Because they're a professional.
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
If it's property rights at issue, then let's not use statistics like 5% of people pay 80% of the taxes. It's an emotional appeal to the fact that this is "unfair", as much as my idea of weighting it by how much money a person has above a certain baseline of "enough to live on".
At the same time, let's get rid of all of the tax-breaks and use a flat tax. Let's simplify the system so that it's obvious what money goes where. Then, after that, complaints can be made about whether it's fair or not. Let's also ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get into that top tax bracket. I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult. It's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules.
A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?
I don't take issue at that -- what I take issue with is the idea of using the "5% of people pay 95% of the taxes" statistic to justify lower taxation for people with large amounts of money. Those 5% of people also have 95% of the money.
The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].
No. That's not what the thinking is. The thinking is that "the top 5% of people put in x% of the tax". That's just hooey. In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life, they are much *less* affected than someone earning a much lower amount.
Look at the amount of money it costs to have a reasonable standard of living in (say) the Seattle area. $45,000 a year is a reasonable minimum for comfort - ie. not having to struggle, being able to go out and enjoy yourself a few nights a week... you know... comfy.
Compare someone's earnings after tax to that base figure. As long as it's higher than that base, you're doing well.
Now compare the discrepancy between those figures.
If someone is earning only $1000 after tax above the 'comfort' line, then they're much worse off - for the same tax percentage - than someone who earns $64,000,000 after tax above the comfort line.
Is it unfair to tax those people earning huge amounts more? Yes. Is it an awful burden that makes it impossible for them survive? Well, once you're being limited from buying 300 airplanes that year to only 200, who gives a flying...?
Seriously, I'm a capitalist. But at the same time, I also believe that figures like "X% are paying X% of the tax" are completely ludicrous statements. Compare it to how much one needs to live on, and you see that the people in the lower end of the scale are much *worse off*.
All current DVRs seem very good at multitasking (recording one show while playing back another, recording 2 shows at the same time and playing back another), so I can't imagine this would be a problem.
There's a big difference between streaming video to and from the hard drive at the same time (maybe ~ 90% system utilization), and streaming video to the hard drive at the same time as running a game -- with the game itself typically running at 100% system utilization *all the time*.
I would be all for your right to make as much money as you want if you're doing honest work. Making a film once then profiting off it in perpetuity is not honest work.
2. The reported production cost of the two sequels is $200 million total, plus $100 million for marketing. There are rumors that final costs went above that, probably during post-production, but if so, nobody has ever said exactly how high.
SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.
Isn't that how Stock Options work? You exercize the option, the stock is assigned to you, and the stock is sold, giving you the net value, all on the same day?
Slashdot Mirror
So, do you want to pay for the bandwidth to host Slashdot? There is nothing wrong with recooping your losses. It's not like Slashdot is whoreing out products and advertisements through every topic that's posted.
Yes, but any real news source worth their salt will identify advertisements as such. Slashdot should either stop pretending to be one, or start acting like a responsible news site. This fence sitting is painful.
Or is this just a strict pay-one-time only advertisement?
Wasn't it Gandi who said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
... so does Microsoft win next?
They did ignore Linux, they have made fun of Linux, now they're fighting.
Funny... I thought it went:
The *nix guys ignored Microsoft,
the *nix guys made fun of Microsoft,
the *nix guys started fighting Microsoft...
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/71mcrm.htm
... you were saying?
9-71.001 Introduction
This chapter contains an overview of the criminal copyright laws. The law of copyright is codified at Title 17 of the United States Code. The principal prohibitions relating to criminal copyright infringement are set forth at 17 U.S.C. 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2319. Titles 17 and 18 also contain a number of other provisions that make illegal certain practices which are inconsistent with Congress' copyright protection scheme. The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division has supervisory authority over offenses discussed in this chapter.
See the following sections of the Criminal Resource Manual for a discussion of various areas of copyright law
My logs are copyrighted, and if the RIAA wants to see them, they have to agree to an EULA stating that they won't sue me or anyone named in the logs, and on top of that they must also pay $25 for a copy of the log on CD, which they are not allowed to copy, distribute, or share.
Or, alternatively, they just subpoena the information, and when you try that line on them, you end up in contempt of court, and spend a couple of days in the klink to cool off.
I'm all for IP laws as long as they represent the interests of the people. A decade or two of exclusive trade rights ought to be plenty of time reap the harvest of nearly any creation, but 70+ years for a cartoon mouse is ludicrous.
Agreed.
Stop copying other people's stuff.
Take the moral highground.
Then, when the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on, push the balance of copyright law back to normal.
Until people stop publishing and redistributing material which they have no claim to (or rights to), the people who produce that material will gang up against them. And that gang typically has bigger pocketbooks.
They didn't care about it before now, because it's only with the rise of fast connections to the Internet that people have had enough bandwidth to make it a real problem. The losses were a blip on the radar.
Self regulate, learn the rules, or the fairness police will come down on you. If you think it's fair to copy someone else's material willy-nilly, then I'm willing to bet that you've never produced anything of any worth.
"Even Microsoft has come to understand this: the upcoming Outlook will be quite different."
Ya, but acording to this screenshot... It may be a even WORSE user interface.
Doesn't look any different to me. All they did was put the preview pane to the right of the folder list.
All that really looks that different is the UI theme, and that's because it's from Longhorn.
Compare these screenshots:
Office 2k3 Beta 2 with a more usable layout
Outlook 2002/XP
Not much difference, except for the theme and the handling of the left-bar, with better docking of the folder view.
Simon
Personally, I already don't use the NYT because I find the logon page to be intrusive and obnoxious. If I got redirected to a logon page from stories indexed at Google News, I'd be pissed off.
Funny... I registered years ago with them, and I've never seen the logon page since. You might want to let their cookies through.
it says: "If you develop server-side software that runs on Unix (by which I mean any platform that runs bash ..." Huh? What about csh, ksh, even others? bash is FSF/GNU stuff. Is that why we have to use it? And gmake, too? All of xfree86 can be build without bash or gmake. Mozilla can be built without bash but requires gmake. bash and gmake are awfully bloated, in my opinion -- don't mind losing karma for stating the truth
More amusingly is the fact that you can run bash on Windows if you really really want to.
http://www.cygwin.com/
Sony is not selling the PS2 at a loss either, keep that in mind...
They were, until recently. At least AU$ 150 per unit.
Simon
I have no problems attempting to bankrupt the swine who injected cash into SCO to prolong their litigation.
That's all well and good.... but what do Sun Microsystems have to do with this story?
Simon
In the movie 28 Days, a virus causes those infected with it to turn into killers. It turns out that there is an amoebic parasite called T. gondiithat actually manipulates the behavior of its intermediate host, the rat, to reach its ultimate target, the cat. Rats become infected with T. gondiii by eating infected beetles or worms. Once infected, the rats lose their fear of cats and become aggressive towards them and thereby becoming dinner for the cat. The parasite is then passed on to the cat where it reproduces in the cats brain but does not appear to change any of the cat's behaviours. After a time, the parasite leaves the cat via its feces where it is picked up by bettles and worms and the cycle starts again. The scary thing is that all mammals are susceptible to infection by T. Gondii, however for now it appears that the amoebas can reproduce only within members of the cat family.
So while there are infections like rabies that cause madness, it appears T. Gondii only affects the select behaviours in rats it needs in order continue as a species. There are societies where people eat cats and/or rats. I wonder how long it will be before T. Gondii evolves to affect humans?
Theory is that it already does. T. Gondii causes Toxoplasmosis. There are links to schizophrenia being caused by toxoplasmosis, particularly because the anti-psychotic drugs used to control schizophrenic episodes are also extremely effective at killing the parasite.
Nope, it remembers your last choice every time. It's also not at the bottom; it's at the left.
You have used XP, haven't you?
Simon
Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!
Then just switch the control panel into Classic mode as well. It's simple. Look on the left. You have two options - "Switch to Classic View", and when you click that, it gives you "Switch to Category View".
Simple.
One button click and variables are renamed and reused, comments are removed, line breaks (if not needed by the language) are abolished, whitespace is decimated, class names can be changed... I've even seen some that ported the code to another language altogether...
So you have your code for the code review, but if things get bad, you also have the button that ensures teeth gnashing is a common sound after you leave.
What is this? Amateur hour?
A Professional software developer wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. Because they're a professional.
Learn the difference.
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
If it's property rights at issue, then let's not use statistics like 5% of people pay 80% of the taxes. It's an emotional appeal to the fact that this is "unfair", as much as my idea of weighting it by how much money a person has above a certain baseline of "enough to live on".
At the same time, let's get rid of all of the tax-breaks and use a flat tax. Let's simplify the system so that it's obvious what money goes where. Then, after that, complaints can be made about whether it's fair or not. Let's also ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get into that top tax bracket. I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult. It's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules.
Simon
A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?
I don't take issue at that -- what I take issue with is the idea of using the "5% of people pay 95% of the taxes" statistic to justify lower taxation for people with large amounts of money. Those 5% of people also have 95% of the money.
Simon
The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].
No. That's not what the thinking is. The thinking is that "the top 5% of people put in x% of the tax". That's just hooey. In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life, they are much *less* affected than someone earning a much lower amount.
Look at the amount of money it costs to have a reasonable standard of living in (say) the Seattle area. $45,000 a year is a reasonable minimum for comfort - ie. not having to struggle, being able to go out and enjoy yourself a few nights a week... you know... comfy.
Compare someone's earnings after tax to that base figure. As long as it's higher than that base, you're doing well.
Now compare the discrepancy between those figures.
If someone is earning only $1000 after tax above the 'comfort' line, then they're much worse off - for the same tax percentage - than someone who earns $64,000,000 after tax above the comfort line.
Is it unfair to tax those people earning huge amounts more? Yes. Is it an awful burden that makes it impossible for them survive? Well, once you're being limited from buying 300 airplanes that year to only 200, who gives a flying...?
Seriously, I'm a capitalist. But at the same time, I also believe that figures like "X% are paying X% of the tax" are completely ludicrous statements. Compare it to how much one needs to live on, and you see that the people in the lower end of the scale are much *worse off*.
"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."
Yes. Those people who earn $100,000,000 a year end up spending $36,000,000 one income tax.
Leaving them earning $64,000,000 a year. Oh, poor babies!
Whereas someone earning $60,000 a year give up $20,000 on income tax, leaving them with only $40,000.
Compare $40,000 with $64,000,000 and see who the tax affects *more*.
Simon
All current DVRs seem very good at multitasking (recording one show while playing back another, recording 2 shows at the same time and playing back another), so I can't imagine this would be a problem.
There's a big difference between streaming video to and from the hard drive at the same time (maybe ~ 90% system utilization), and streaming video to the hard drive at the same time as running a game -- with the game itself typically running at 100% system utilization *all the time*.
Simon
I would be all for your right to make as much money as you want if you're doing honest work. Making a film once then profiting off it in perpetuity is not honest work.
So just what is "Honest Work"?
Garbage Removal?
Road laying?
Making License Plates?
Simon
2. The reported production cost of the two sequels is $200 million total, plus $100 million for marketing. There are rumors that final costs went above that, probably during post-production, but if so, nobody has ever said exactly how high.
From pro.imdb.com:
Matrix Reloaded:
Budget: $127,000,000 (USA)
Gross Receipts: $209,505,000 (USA) (23 May 2003)
Matrix Revolutions:
Budget: $110,000,000 (USA)
-------------
Initial marketing reports indicate more than $100MM spent on marketing (reaching nearly $300MM), but I can't confirm that.
SgtChaireBourne pointed to the SEC (U.S. government Securities and Exchange Commission) list of Microsoft executive trades of stock. I looked around and quickly found an example. A Microsoft Group Vice President, Kevin R. Johnson, received 322,560 shares of stock and sold it the same day. He received 244,760 shares of stock on March 6, 2003 and sold that the same day.
Isn't that how Stock Options work? You exercize the option, the stock is assigned to you, and the stock is sold, giving you the net value, all on the same day?
Simon
iPod has benn able to store data since generation 1.
And the Creative Nomads have been able to store it since before the iPod existed. So what?