No, no. The ink cartridges were expensive in HP printers because the print heads were a consumable part of the cartridge. The printer itself was cheap because the most expensive part of the hardware was a consumable part. It had to be cheap, because you're always buying print heads (if you don't refill).
Back in the day, you could buy an Epson and refill the cartridges, or get them replaced more cheaply and one color at a time, but if your print heads clogged, you were in for an expensive repair. So in the end you wound up paying the labor bill for print head failure. I'm not sure if that's still the case, or if they went to consumable print heads as well.
I never did a TCO to find out which strategy was better, but it definitely isn't a scam to get people to buy overpriced items, it is a maintenance strategy.
Oblig. bad car analogy: It's like replacing an oil filter with every oil change. You could have a less expensive change with just a refill, but it isn't a good maintenance strategy for the vehicle.
Nevermind the pirates. They get what they paid for. Giving them nothing makes good sense.
What the hell happened to Windows Live OneCare? You know, paying customers?
What does the MSE release say to the people who paid for that Microsoft AV program, among other OneCare services?
The message is pretty clear: "Pay Microsoft and get screwed." Get your OS software for free, because it is nearly free when you buy a new PC. The entire expectation they are building into the market is "Our product and our word is worthless." Releasing this almost seems like an admission that they can't fairly compete in AV products.
Which also says to me "Illegal product dumping." Symantec and CA should sue them silly. This is definitely not a fair way to enter the AV market, not even for the "free" AV's because it absolutely kills their upsell business. I expect DOJ action, or a joint lawsuit on this. A class-action from the OneCare people wouldn't be out of the question either, if they aren't offering refunds to recent purchasers. This release is criminal, in my mind, and utterly undermines the concept of proprietary software that you pay for because it is worth it.
The message to the end-user is: "Our software is not worth buying." The message to the entire security sector is: "Thank you for covering our backsides for all those years, now piss off."
Ugly. This kind of bad faith could (and IMO should) hurt Microsoft. I don't know what they're thinking out in Redmond. They need to rally around the Windows 7 release, not insult vendors and their paying customers.
And now let us have a bunch of jokes about how we shouldn't leap to conclusions, and the downstream speed of their internet is much better than the upstream.
This is great stuff. Hook that dead fish to a polygraph and have Penn and Teller go over the results.
This is very much like being worried because your kid is taking trig, and the teachers were using dependable, hand-crafted slide rules, but decided to end that and switch to programmable calculators with memory, and ZOMG it could remember all your kids math mistakes and thus rule them out of future employment!
You can see where that sentence went silly right? Right about the point where you became afraid of any change, anything at all, that you were completely ignorant about. Ask Slashdot? Really? Ask the fscking gym teacher first.
Your choice. Be reasonable and talk to the teacher, or assume the gummint is out to get you, but you won't home school, so you'll just have to send your kid into school with a gun. Either should solve your problem. One would be very amusing, and you should post the story to Slashdot telling us what happens next.
At this point, we need to start tagging stories with such doom and gloom scenarios as "ONOZWEREALLGONNADIE," (Ticker symbol: ONOZ) or perhaps in this case, "OZONEWEREALLGONNADIE."
I'm beginning to wonder if armageddon science isn't becoming more appealing because it gets the big grants, and we are looking more frequently at doomsday scenarios as a function of marketing.
This is not to belittle the work. This may well be the big one. CFCs were certainly a problem, but I'm just about worn out by all the dire warnings lately. I'm wondering if there's a good paying job in figuring out how to survive all the plagues we keep discovering.
-- Toro
(Who would like his tags to start working again so he can just tag stories instead of typing up a manifesto!;^) )
Accepting the premise that it is deterministic, in any given universe for any scale and/or location, actions (causes) cause our determined universe to change (effect).
I'm sorry that you labor under the confusion that math is easy. Try going to an average cocktail party and see how many can do something very basic real math, like derive the quadratic formula from the general quadratic equation.
You seem to be laboring under the confusion that some sort of flaw in physics will necessitate throwing out the whole thing.
Oh, okay. You misunderstand me. That would be nuts.
I am expressing the idea that the usefulness of math might have a logical end point. That there might even be a mathematical proof for that. Thus my later non sequitir about TS.
I'm not always clear. Sorry about that.
The premise: Eventually, the entire history of physics as we know it will be taught in High School like advanced ABCs. It will be used, as settled fact, to form the unimaginable words that one can put together with such an alphabet.
And my question is: Will that new language be considered math or will math be the foundation of something new?
Perhaps that is naive. Perhaps math is the beginning and the end of it, and it will eventually become the only meaningful way to describe anything. That is also possible.
Sorry you got me wrong. The math has value. It matters, and it is demonstrated to be the most successful way we have to describe and model the physical world, and generate new technology from it.
And I'm none too keen on the evidence of a "meta-physical" world.
Try re-reading my post understanding that I have the utmost respect for the quality and difficulty of the math involved. It isn't incongruous.
Meh. Were I a Microsoft stockholder, I would sue them for malfeasance if they didn't exhaust every cost-effective, competitive resource available.
Every large corp. lobbies the government for market favoritism. Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
The problem is that you can do this at all, when the government is supposed to regulate (i.e.: even out) commerce and promote the general welfare (i.e.: not pick winners and losers).
No but petitioning my government in Sacramento is a hell of a lot easier than traveling 2500 miles to D.C.
While I sympathize with the difficulty, this will not keep the federal government from screwing you, nor does it address my point that if there were Uniform State Code adopted on the matter, it would be more problematic. A 2500 mile trip is preferable to petitioning every state in the Union.
The Internet is not jurisdictionally limited to California, after all.
Not really. Congress has proposed fining Americans who do not have health insurance (me) similar to how Massachusetts State fines $1500 to its citizens. Problem: I can not locate anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was given authority to "fine" the people for Not buying a product. QED per the 10th amendment, Congress doesn't have that power - it's reserved to the States.
"The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This is the clause on which they will hang their argument that it is, in fact, delegated to the Federal government.
Why do you think they keep mentioning that our health care costs more than other nations? They are going to claim that mandated insurance brings down costs, and is efficacious to the regulation of administration of health care to all Americans as commerce, in a manner consistent with the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment. QED.
These are lawyers, friend. They have an argument that supersedes yours entirely.
Plus, this is a tangent irrelevant to the regulation of computer equipment.;^)
(P.S.: I don't disagree with your stance on this issue, just your Con Law argument.)
There see? That was easy.
Now we just need to persuade the Supremes to reach the same conclusion.
Ay, there's the rub. "[It] was easy" until you got to this point. Most anything seems easy if one claims victory before one gets to the difficult part.
We can't dismiss this crucial step as if it is no matter because everyone will see the logic of your interpretation. In fact, this takes years, and then more time to set, implement, and mature policy after Diana Ross has been convinced.;^)
We'll remind them what the Author of the Constitution James Madison said...
Point of fact: He is the author of the Bill of Rights. (Sorry, that was too big a "miss" to let go.)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And then agreed to the First National Bank at Hamilton's insistence, proceeded to set up the Second National Bank as President, went along with Marshall on issues of federal taxation (and his repeated striking down of 10th Amendment arguments), and presided over the razing to the ground of his own White House after attacking Canada. I don't think he was the advocate for limited federal government you think he was.
Don't hang your arguments on Authority. Usually, nobody deserves it.
You quote the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''exp
Best not let them steal your soul with those terrible black boxes then.;^)
Legally and ethically, the picture is theirs to do with as they please for personal, non-commercial use. If a stranger takes your picture, and you really care that much, go Shaun Penn on their a$$.
We need new law. This photo warehousing is something new, not adequately covered by usual "control of likeness" or privacy laws.
Poor Occam. Mistranslated, misinterpreted, and probably misattributed.
I agree with you, and perhaps you misunderstood me.
I parse the original with a context of: "Do not multiply entities needlessly, because you will rapidly exceed your own faculties. It's a limited resource. Make it count."
This translates to "simple solutions are more productive because they are more readily understood and implemented." It's an engineering application, rather than theoretical.
Corollary to Occam's Razor: Increased complexity has a logarithmically diminishing return.:^)
Wartime powers are wartime powers, and since we are in Afghanistan forever at war, the executive can probably claim this sort of power in perpetuity, with or without a law.
I'm surprised they're even trying to legislate. It's the kind of thing that can be challenged in a court. It involves far too many branches of government for the sort of power they're granting. Is Congress jealous and unable to set policy about the truly pressing issues of our day?
This is just nonsense. If a company's assets become a clear and present national security threat, I think we can rest assured that various agencies and the company itself will be tripping over themselves to take it off-line. This power can only be abused.
If this is the alternative, I'll take the unitary executive philosophy in a heartbeat. For God's sake, don't prescribe crazy emergency powers by law, protect the private property in law. That protection is what our nation is founded upon.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no. The ink cartridges were expensive in HP printers because the print heads were a consumable part of the cartridge. The printer itself was cheap because the most expensive part of the hardware was a consumable part. It had to be cheap, because you're always buying print heads (if you don't refill).
Back in the day, you could buy an Epson and refill the cartridges, or get them replaced more cheaply and one color at a time, but if your print heads clogged, you were in for an expensive repair. So in the end you wound up paying the labor bill for print head failure. I'm not sure if that's still the case, or if they went to consumable print heads as well.
I never did a TCO to find out which strategy was better, but it definitely isn't a scam to get people to buy overpriced items, it is a maintenance strategy.
Oblig. bad car analogy: It's like replacing an oil filter with every oil change. You could have a less expensive change with just a refill, but it isn't a good maintenance strategy for the vehicle.
--
Toro
Give that man a dollar. No, forget it, give it to the corn lobby instead. Corn is King, brutha.
Nevermind the pirates. They get what they paid for. Giving them nothing makes good sense.
What the hell happened to Windows Live OneCare? You know, paying customers?
What does the MSE release say to the people who paid for that Microsoft AV program, among other OneCare services?
The message is pretty clear: "Pay Microsoft and get screwed." Get your OS software for free, because it is nearly free when you buy a new PC. The entire expectation they are building into the market is "Our product and our word is worthless." Releasing this almost seems like an admission that they can't fairly compete in AV products.
Which also says to me "Illegal product dumping." Symantec and CA should sue them silly. This is definitely not a fair way to enter the AV market, not even for the "free" AV's because it absolutely kills their upsell business. I expect DOJ action, or a joint lawsuit on this. A class-action from the OneCare people wouldn't be out of the question either, if they aren't offering refunds to recent purchasers. This release is criminal, in my mind, and utterly undermines the concept of proprietary software that you pay for because it is worth it.
The message to the end-user is: "Our software is not worth buying." The message to the entire security sector is: "Thank you for covering our backsides for all those years, now piss off."
Ugly. This kind of bad faith could (and IMO should) hurt Microsoft. I don't know what they're thinking out in Redmond. They need to rally around the Windows 7 release, not insult vendors and their paying customers.
--
Toro
Ah, cursive. About as well loved as lawyers. The only thing worse is lawyers writing in cursive. That stuff is illegible.
--
Toro
Laconic karma whore.
And now let us have a bunch of jokes about how we shouldn't leap to conclusions, and the downstream speed of their internet is much better than the upstream.
This is great stuff. Hook that dead fish to a polygraph and have Penn and Teller go over the results.
--
Toro
Not the least of which is "The Darwin Awards."
--
Toro
They play Rock Band Beatles, is my guess.
--
Toro
And now I'm picturing that scene in Austin Powers with the steamroller crushing the henchman.
Stoooooooooooooooooooop! Stooooooooooooooooooop!
Hmm. Maybe the problem is that hardcore gamers break consoles? It just took them seven generations to get strong enough? ;^)
--
Toro
This is very much like being worried because your kid is taking trig, and the teachers were using dependable, hand-crafted slide rules, but decided to end that and switch to programmable calculators with memory, and ZOMG it could remember all your kids math mistakes and thus rule them out of future employment!
You can see where that sentence went silly right? Right about the point where you became afraid of any change, anything at all, that you were completely ignorant about. Ask Slashdot? Really? Ask the fscking gym teacher first.
Your choice. Be reasonable and talk to the teacher, or assume the gummint is out to get you, but you won't home school, so you'll just have to send your kid into school with a gun. Either should solve your problem. One would be very amusing, and you should post the story to Slashdot telling us what happens next.
--
Toro
As of 18:18 on 5 Sat, that page looks like a spammer's mailing list collector. Seriously.
If you've got a campaign you want to run, I at least want *one* shiny professional looking graphic to hang off my table. I'll even pay the printer.
Otherwise, I'm going in a sandwich board that reads "The end of the world is nigh. Why not try Linux?"
--
Toro
At this point, we need to start tagging stories with such doom and gloom scenarios as "ONOZWEREALLGONNADIE," (Ticker symbol: ONOZ) or perhaps in this case, "OZONEWEREALLGONNADIE."
I'm beginning to wonder if armageddon science isn't becoming more appealing because it gets the big grants, and we are looking more frequently at doomsday scenarios as a function of marketing.
This is not to belittle the work. This may well be the big one. CFCs were certainly a problem, but I'm just about worn out by all the dire warnings lately. I'm wondering if there's a good paying job in figuring out how to survive all the plagues we keep discovering.
--
Toro
(Who would like his tags to start working again so he can just tag stories instead of typing up a manifesto! ;^) )
Sad, but this is the truth. The system doesn't work. This is not advantageous to society.
However, your statement seems to imply that the solution is more bases for lawsuits, and thus more lawyers.
Are you a lawyer? ;^)
--
Toro
Solve it with alternate universes like Hawking.
Accepting the premise that it is deterministic, in any given universe for any scale and/or location, actions (causes) cause our determined universe to change (effect).
--
Toro
I see both as possibilities. They work together, and it isn't an "either/or" proposition.
They are sides of a coin to me. Our assumptions cut both ways, based on "what we observe."
--
Toro
I'm sorry that you think math is hard.
I'm sorry that you labor under the confusion that math is easy. Try going to an average cocktail party and see how many can do something very basic real math, like derive the quadratic formula from the general quadratic equation.
You seem to be laboring under the confusion that some sort of flaw in physics will necessitate throwing out the whole thing.
Oh, okay. You misunderstand me. That would be nuts.
I am expressing the idea that the usefulness of math might have a logical end point. That there might even be a mathematical proof for that. Thus my later non sequitir about TS.
I'm not always clear. Sorry about that.
The premise: Eventually, the entire history of physics as we know it will be taught in High School like advanced ABCs. It will be used, as settled fact, to form the unimaginable words that one can put together with such an alphabet.
And my question is: Will that new language be considered math or will math be the foundation of something new?
Perhaps that is naive. Perhaps math is the beginning and the end of it, and it will eventually become the only meaningful way to describe anything. That is also possible.
Sorry you got me wrong. The math has value. It matters, and it is demonstrated to be the most successful way we have to describe and model the physical world, and generate new technology from it.
And I'm none too keen on the evidence of a "meta-physical" world.
Try re-reading my post understanding that I have the utmost respect for the quality and difficulty of the math involved. It isn't incongruous.
--
Toro
Meh. Were I a Microsoft stockholder, I would sue them for malfeasance if they didn't exhaust every cost-effective, competitive resource available.
Every large corp. lobbies the government for market favoritism. Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
The problem is that you can do this at all, when the government is supposed to regulate (i.e.: even out) commerce and promote the general welfare (i.e.: not pick winners and losers).
--
Toro
No but petitioning my government in Sacramento is a hell of a lot easier than traveling 2500 miles to D.C.
While I sympathize with the difficulty, this will not keep the federal government from screwing you, nor does it address my point that if there were Uniform State Code adopted on the matter, it would be more problematic. A 2500 mile trip is preferable to petitioning every state in the Union.
The Internet is not jurisdictionally limited to California, after all.
Not really. Congress has proposed fining Americans who do not have health insurance (me) similar to how Massachusetts State fines $1500 to its citizens. Problem: I can not locate anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was given authority to "fine" the people for Not buying a product. QED per the 10th amendment, Congress doesn't have that power - it's reserved to the States.
"The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This is the clause on which they will hang their argument that it is, in fact, delegated to the Federal government.
Why do you think they keep mentioning that our health care costs more than other nations? They are going to claim that mandated insurance brings down costs, and is efficacious to the regulation of administration of health care to all Americans as commerce, in a manner consistent with the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment. QED.
These are lawyers, friend. They have an argument that supersedes yours entirely.
Plus, this is a tangent irrelevant to the regulation of computer equipment. ;^)
(P.S.: I don't disagree with your stance on this issue, just your Con Law argument.)
There see? That was easy.
Now we just need to persuade the Supremes to reach the same conclusion.
Ay, there's the rub. "[It] was easy" until you got to this point. Most anything seems easy if one claims victory before one gets to the difficult part.
We can't dismiss this crucial step as if it is no matter because everyone will see the logic of your interpretation. In fact, this takes years, and then more time to set, implement, and mature policy after Diana Ross has been convinced. ;^)
We'll remind them what the Author of the Constitution James Madison said...
Point of fact: He is the author of the Bill of Rights. (Sorry, that was too big a "miss" to let go.)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And then agreed to the First National Bank at Hamilton's insistence, proceeded to set up the Second National Bank as President, went along with Marshall on issues of federal taxation (and his repeated striking down of 10th Amendment arguments), and presided over the razing to the ground of his own White House after attacking Canada. I don't think he was the advocate for limited federal government you think he was.
Don't hang your arguments on Authority. Usually, nobody deserves it.
You quote the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Counterquote, from Find Law:
That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''exp
to permanently delete my account from the databases
There is NO WAY to be ever sure, even if you .... Facebook from orbit.
Like, "game over" man. ;^)
Facebook: Just like an "Alien" but without the second set of teeth.
--
Toro
Best not let them steal your soul with those terrible black boxes then. ;^)
Legally and ethically, the picture is theirs to do with as they please for personal, non-commercial use. If a stranger takes your picture, and you really care that much, go Shaun Penn on their a$$.
We need new law. This photo warehousing is something new, not adequately covered by usual "control of likeness" or privacy laws.
Hah! The purpose of "emergency powers" is indemnity.
I love that idea. It is so American.
(No, there is no evil plot. No tin-foil beanie here. I just want private property rights on American soil respected.)
--
Toro
Yup. What's up with string theory? ;^)
Toro's Razor: Fundamentally useless but appealing information is art.
--
Toro
(See my other post upthread, this is a very cool discussion. Thanks.)
Poor Occam. Mistranslated, misinterpreted, and probably misattributed.
I agree with you, and perhaps you misunderstood me.
I parse the original with a context of: "Do not multiply entities needlessly, because you will rapidly exceed your own faculties. It's a limited resource. Make it count."
This translates to "simple solutions are more productive because they are more readily understood and implemented." It's an engineering application, rather than theoretical.
Corollary to Occam's Razor: Increased complexity has a logarithmically diminishing return. :^)
--
Toro
Wartime powers are wartime powers, and since we are in Afghanistan forever at war, the executive can probably claim this sort of power in perpetuity, with or without a law.
I'm surprised they're even trying to legislate. It's the kind of thing that can be challenged in a court. It involves far too many branches of government for the sort of power they're granting. Is Congress jealous and unable to set policy about the truly pressing issues of our day?
This is just nonsense. If a company's assets become a clear and present national security threat, I think we can rest assured that various agencies and the company itself will be tripping over themselves to take it off-line. This power can only be abused.
If this is the alternative, I'll take the unitary executive philosophy in a heartbeat. For God's sake, don't prescribe crazy emergency powers by law, protect the private property in law. That protection is what our nation is founded upon.
--
Toro