Actually, the Titanium PowerBook G4 is its own heatsink. There's a heat pipe connecting the CPU to the titanium shell. For those not in the know, a heat pipe works through the evaporation and condensation of an internal fluid. The fluid evaporates at the hot end, condenses at the cold end, and is drawn back by capilliary action to the hot end. The result is a pipe with an effective thermal conductivity much, much higher than copper (which is pretty damn good to begin with).
The PowerBook G4 does have a fan, but it almost never comes on in normal use (or so I'm told--I'm still drooling over one, and I'm waiting for the revised model due out in July).
Of course, that's all off-topic. To bring it back on topic, you might want to take a look at the PB G4 keyboard, which is semi-flexible, and held rigid to the frame via a few magnets. Very nice engineering.
So, let's say your grandmother's pension plan is invested in a mutual fund that owns stock in a "death row" company. You think she should be liable? Come on.
Just don't extend the "corporate" protection to violations of criminal law, and make the executives responsible. That's way easier, and more reasonable.
You're forgetting that your average American stock-owner is some middle-class person with a family, not some rich fat white guy in a smoky room.
Also, what happens to multi-national corporations, which are probably the ones you hate most? If a company is incorporated in a different country, does business in forty nations, and is traded on four exchanges, who has jurisdiction? How do you execute it? What do you do about the resulting war (trade war or real war)?
Jesus, I can't believe the crazy "logic" that has led people to consider something like a corporate death penalty. Corporations are imaginary--they are a legal fiction. I have never seen a corporation, nor have you. The only reality is people. Trying to impose a "death penalty" on something that is no more than words on a piece of paper is just plain silly.
As for the argument that corporations are created by the State, and are thus subject to destruction by the state (kind of like Bill Cosby's stand-up routine where he says to his kid, "I brought you into this world, boy, and I can take you out of it."), that's also just plain wrong. Just because the State has to approve the creation of a corporation does not mean the State created it--that's the same as claiming the State creates all houses because it has to grant building permits.
If you were to "kill" corporation X, what happens to its assets? What happens to your grandmother who lives off a pension that is heavily in X's stocks and bonds? Just liquidating a company gives you its book value, which is generally nowhere near its market capitalization... What happens to the employees?
Corporations, in many ways, are similar to democracies, except the shareholders are the citizens. Even though we have a democracy, we don't punish citizens for the acts of the government they may or may not have voted for (the punishment of poor governance is generally enough). Likewise, we shouldn't punish shareholders for the actions of the corporate executive.
A much simpler and more reasonable solution is to make executives liable for any violations of criminal law committed by their company. The legal entity of the corporation should still offer protection against civil liability (e.g., getting sued for not honoring warranties, etc.), but not against criminal prosecution (suit for manslaughter for knowingly selling excessively dangerous products without proper warning to consumers).
Next time folks should read the article before flaming CNN.
The CNN article originally said "multiplies... by four", not "four billion". They fixed it some time after the story was posted (kinda like how Taco fixed "Transmeda". If you want confirmation of this, an earlier poster has put up the text of the article, and it still contains the error. Generally, with typos in online articles, journalists just quietly fix the error. Retratctions and apologies are saved for serious mistakes. While "four" versus "four billion" may seem serious, nobody who would actually be basing important decisions on the article would be confused by that, and it's apparent to any knowledgable person that it's a typo.
Wrong. It's called gouging. Soda supply is elastic and is not affected by the weather. So price is based on demand alone - that's gouging.
My god, you would fail Economics 100 so badly... When demand increases, the price increases. This is a basic fucking principle of microeconomics. It's entirely natural. If you don't like it, buy Pepsi (or drink water).
The only time this kind of price increase becomes immoral is when the seller has a monopoly. Coke is big, but they have plenty of competition.
Right now, you're just ignorant. Go read a microeconomics text, then make up your mind as to whether you're capitalist or communist. No informed person who is even slightly capitalist would believe that Coke's temperature-linked price increases are immoral or should be made illegal.
First of all, this was posted a few days ago as part of a Slashback. Why the hell don't the editors remember anything? I read Slashdot every day, and I can tell when I've seen a story before. One would assume that the editors read it, too (although there seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary), and since they also wrote the goddamn stories, they have that much more reason to remember them. You don't see the New York Times doing this kind of crap. Of course, somebody's already mentioned all this...
The point I really wanted to make is that yes, 2600 is probably legally in the right here, but that doesn't make their actions any less stupid. Last time around, somebody mentioned that Ford could just block all requests originating from www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. True, but that wouldn't stop 2600 from buying new stupid domains and pointing them at www.ford.com. Ford doesn't want to have to worry about this constantly, so they're just suing 2600 to stop them from doing it any more.
Could Ford have asked first? Yes, but Corley is just being a jackass. I'm sure he knew Ford didn't want that domain pointed at their site, and he did it just to piss them off. It's like if I came up to you, smacked you in the back of the head, then complained to the judge that you never told me not to.
Considering that, as a member of the EFF, I am paying for 2600's legal defence, I really wish they would act more responsibly. Fight for what's important, Corley, and stop making such an ass of yourself. DMCA, DeCSS, and UCITA are all worthy causes; fuckgeneralmotors.com is not. I sincerely hope the EFF does not pay Corley's bill this time. If they do, I'll find a more intelligent charity...
Imagine if the AYBABTU trolls get ahold of this. All Your Base will no longer be limited to the online world--we'll see it on the side of buildings, hanging from bridges, everywhere.
Then there's the peeping tom factor. One could scale Natalie Portman's apartment buildings, peeking through cracks in curtains...
It's a great day for the trolls, and a sad day for the Rest of Us.
Second, the purpose of.biz was to alleaviate the conjestion in the.com domain, yet the trademark owners will go first.
This is why.biz is stupid--there's nothing to differentiate it from.com. Now,.pro is slightly more promising...
Also, first-come-first-served is hardly fair when timing will come down to milliseconds and be determined by your ping time to the registrar. Even without guarantees, corporations aren't going to be stupid enough to not buy their domain names a second time. They also have the money to have 50 trained monkeys click "reload" until they get through and buy the domain. Can you say DDoS? Giving priority at least avoids that initial rush...
I know I'm gonna get called a troll for this, but giving Trademark holders priority could be a Good Thing, under the right circumstances. What the hell am I talking about?
.info and.biz are business-related domains (especially.biz), so it makes sense that businesses should get first crack at them. I am assuming (probably erroneously) that the method used will fairly resolve trademark conflicts (e.g. Apple Computer vs. Apple Records for www.apple.biz), and will be fair to holders of trademarks in all countries, not just the US.
Furthermore, there needs to be the creation of a TLD only for personal use (no trademark lawsuits or WIPO-whining allowed). If all these things happen, this could actually be a good thing. "If"...
I know, I know, given ICANN's track record, it's not looking good for reason and rationality, but we can hope (and write letters to congress, if you happen to be American).
Re:It's an old book by an old Reagan hack
on
Telecosm
·
· Score: 2
How did this get to be [4: insightful]?
It was written at the leading edge of the dotcom boom, and probably helped fuel some of the irrational exuberance that led to disasters like PSInet stock.
That's right, because saying the computer age is over is sure to drive up tech stocks. WTF?!?!
Gilder takes a few facts and selectively uses them to decorate a pre-existing world view.
Right, as opposed to what you do in the next paragraph, where you decry the Laffer Curve because the deficit increased, even though the Laffer Curve did accurately predict the increase in government revenues that did in fact occur. Talk about selective use (or misuse, rather) of facts.
Basically, your argument is this: Hey, this guy is a Republican, and the book as new as the latest Linux kernel, so why do we care?
Here's why you should care: the guy predicted that the computer age was over, and down it came. All sorts of computer manufacturers are losing money because PCs have become commodities, and even some of the telecom companies are starting to lose cash as their monopolies break up. His views on evolution aren't terribly relevant to the computer industry, and bringing them up is a cheap way to avoid having to address his arguments.
Finally, just about everything in economics (and every other "social science") is far from proven. Say's Law, the basis of supply-side economics and classical economics, has its successes and its failures, as does Keynesian economics, its main competitor. What's your point?
Could be so, it could be that Mars is 20 years away just like AI and (useful) fusion have been 20 years away for the past 30 years. On the other hand, it does sound like he's saying, "we'll be there in 10 years if you fund us more, 20 years if we keep up the current pace".
If he's not lying through his teeth, that's good enough for me.
How true. The conditions on Mars are so harsh that it will make an outstanding location for a penal colony. Mars will be our prison!
Ha! You never know... Maybe it will start out that way, then go the route of Australia. Actually, that would be kind of cool if the penalty for violating the DMCA was deportation to Mars... Copyright violation, here I come.
Check out this quotes from NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin:
"Let's burn into our brains that this civilization is not condemned to live on only one planet... Let's burn it into our brains that in our lifetimes, we will extend the reach of this human species onto other planets and to other bodies in our solar system and build the robots that will leave our solar system to go to other stars, then ultimately to be followed by people."
It sounds like NASA understands what so many don't: Earth is our birthplace, not our prison. The purpose of humanity, if we can be said to have a purpose, is to disperse life throughout the galaxy.
I also find 6EQUJ5's whining about the 20-year plan to be misleading. Again quoting Goldin:
"In no less than 10 -- and if we decide to do it, it could be done in 10 -- and certainly no more than 20 years we'll start writing history again and not looking back but looking forward,"
In other words, if we put the same kind of effort and sacrifice into this that we did with the Apollo program, we'll be there in 10 years. Otherwise, 20 years. That's comparable to the timeline for the Apollo program, and it seems reasonable to me.
I wonder what the first human on Mars will say, and whether it will be as memorable as Neil Armstrong's famous words...
Hmm... I've just had one person tell me I'm wrong because Apple doesn't bundle anything that's a vital OS component (ala Internet Explorer for Windows), and another person tell me I'm wrong to compare QuickTime to Media Player because QuickTime does provide important OS functionality. Make up your (collective) minds, people.
Yes, you can disable QuickTime, weird things will break, but most stuff will still work. The same is true of Internet Explorer. In fact, it was a major embarrasment for Microsoft when the DOJ expert witness showed IE could be removed, despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary.
You seem to think that the relative excellence or suckiness of an app or utility is somehow relevant to the legality of bundling it with the OS. It doesn't matter whether iTunes rocks or Disc Burner sucks, bundling them is just as wrong (or right) as bundling media players and CD burners with Windows. If Apple can bundle apps that do X with their OS, then so can Microsoft.
I don't see how anyone could compare Microsoft, who has a monopoly, with Apple who has 10% of the desktop market, or less. If Apple ever gets 90% of the desktop market (or even 50%), then people will question their bundling issues as hard as Microsoft's.
That was my point--we bash Microsoft because of their market position, not because of their actions. Reread my post before you accuse me of trolling again. You have flamed me for having a different perspective on the same conclusions, which seems rather oppresive. I know it goes against the Slashdot Overmind to suggest that Microsoft might be being treated unfairly, but I'm hardly being unreasonable. While I understand that it has far more effect on the market when you have ten times as much market share, you can't fairly double standards like that. It's just plain unfair to penalize someone simply because they're the best at what they do (if everyone else is trying to do the same thing).
As for iTunes, Apple pulled a classic Microsoft move there--they bought out another company's product (Cassidy & Green's SoundJam), gave it a facelift, and are giving it away free. iTunes is quite possibly the best-of-class Mac MP3 player, and, even if it weren't, is MACAST enough better to warrant the $15-25 shareware fee? I don't think so...
Conflict Catcher and Disk Doctor used to be important products, but they've been gradually overshadowed by Apple replacements. I find Extensions Manager perfectly adequate, and, ever since Apple built Disk Doctor functionality into the OS (it runs at startup after a crash), I haven't had much need for Norton. For 90% of users, those Apple substitutes are good enough; those competitors have been relegated to a niche within a niche.
Apple has also destroyed competing commercial products through bundling. Remember Symmantec GreatWorks? Apple crushed it by bundling ClarisWorks/AppleWorks with Performas...
Just in case you were going to suggest I'm a Mac beginner and have no clue what I'm talking about, I've done six years of Mac consulting, as well as commercial software development for the Mac.
As a loyal Mac user, it breaks my heart to say this, but Apple is worse when it comes to bundling. Let's take a look at the list of things Apple has bundled or currently bundled with their OS and computers:
QuickTime: A media player, bundled with all Macs and current MacOS versions.
iTunes: A MP3 player, ripper, and audio-CD burner program, bundled with new Macs and Mac OS X, I believe.
Disc Burner: A CD burner program, bundled with new Macs and Mac OS versions.
Cyberdog: Though now defunct, Apple used to bundle the Cyberdog browser with the OS as part of OpenDoc (a really cool idea that didn't quite make it, possibly killed by MS).
Mail: A decent email client bundled with OS X.
Apache, FTP daemon, etc, all the usual Unix stuff: bundled with Mac OS X.
AppleWorks: a multi-purpose application package, sort of a poor-man's Offfice with a database thrown in. Bundled with new iMacs.
Then there's third-party software like Quicken, which is often bundled with iMacs, and, of course, both Netscape and IE are bundled with the Mac OS (I think IE is the default install).
All in all, Apple seems to bundle more stuff than Microsoft does. My conclusion is that we complain about MS because they're the market leader, not because of their actions, and I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do...
The ruling says that it's illegal to forward email because you're reproducing it without the author's express written permission.
What about SMTP relay? Each SMTP server along the way reproduces a copy of your email. Since you don't always know which SMTP servers it's going through, how can you give them express permission? You can't. Thus, email is illegal in Australia.
The obvious answer to this is that, when you send email, permission to copy it is implicitly given.
This would be useful for Windows, considering how often you need to reboot.
Why would you need it for Linux, though? I mean, who reboots more than once every major kernel upgrade? What would be really cool is a way to upgrade your kernel without rebooting, like QNX...
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Not sure whether this is offtopic or a troll, but it's definitely not relevant to NASA. As someone pointed out, NASA got a 3% funding increase this year--the first in 7 years. I fail to see how Bush's tax plan has anything to do with the cancellation of X-33, X-34.
That said, the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics. First of all, really rich (and even some moderately rich) people will be unaffected by the plan. They already dodge estate and income taxes through tax loopholes and offshore investments, etc. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's parents sheltered a good chunk of money in Luxembourg, and now live happily on their yacht without paying any substantial taxes. If they die, no estate tax will touch any of that money. The only thing affected will be their house. In other words, with an estate tax, if you're rich and you want to leave a fortune to your kids, no problem. If you want to bequeath your farm or family home, tough luck.
So who does benefit from the tax cut? The middle class, primarily, especially professionals earning in the $50K - $150K range. Lower income people do benefit, too, just not as much.
Finally, I suggest you study the Laffer Curve to see why tax cuts can actually increase net tax revenue, as they did during the Reagan years. "What?" the liberals shriek, "the deficit increased during the 80's!" Yes, but that's because spending drastically increased. Tax revenues actually increased in response to tax cuts, just not enough to keep up with spending (Reagan poured tons of money into the military in an effort to win the Cold War). Look up the stats if you don't believe me.
If you read the troll FAQ (sorry, don't have the link), you'll recognize this as a classic troll. First sentence is entirely reasonable, but, as the post progesses, it becomes more and more inflammatory. The closing line, "NASA is finally doing something useful.", is the closing barb...
If you don't believe me, check qpt's user info and look at his comment history. See how many -1's qpt has posted? There are also some 3's and 4's, suggesting that he's a pretty successful troll.
Just so I don't wander too far off-topic, I'll analyze and rebut one line:
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application.
Yeah, like quantum mechanics. Oh, wait, about a third of all technology invented in the past 50 years involves QM (directly or indirectly). Think semiconductors, high-temp superconductors, laser diodes...
And what the hell was up with those crazy Watson and Crick guys who were playing with a double helix? And that Newton guy...
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful.
I could go on, but it's just a troll. If you fell for it (as the moderators have), you should be ashamed of yourself.
First, how many people have heard of FairTunes, let alone trust it to get money to the artists?
They're actually pretty good--you can check the status of all your donations, and they post scans of cashed checks on their website. If you're really paranoid, you can email the artist to confirm. They've gotten a fair amount of media coverage, at least in Canada. It's really my ideal payment system, but, unfortunately, nobody uses it.
Second, you are making the mistake of assuming that low-quality MP3 files are what music fans want for their main copy of an album.
128 KBps MP3s are only the beginning. As people Get a Clue, they'll start ripping at 256 KBps, and the quality will become indistinguishable from CD. Napster or its successors will probably evolve to distribute cover art and liner notes, too. With CD burners becoming standard in consumer computers (see the new iMacs) and easy to use (check out iTunes), there will be no reason to buy a CD. The record companies know this, which is why they're freaking out now even thought it's not hurting them yet. They'd be stupid to wait until they were losing milliions a year and it was too late to stop.
But if Sonyster's paying the artists and Napster isn't, they'd have the recordings first. This would enable Sony to charge more, and even delay the propagation of "their" songs to Napster for a few hours by creating a proprietary client that wouldn't facilitate automatic mirroring.
Six minutes after the Grammies, Eminem & Elton John's performance was on Napster. I rest my case:-)
I agree with this suspicion--it probably comes down to this: in the large, people aren't altruistic. There's some kind of self interest--it may be in the form of "warm fuzzies" rather than money, but the person still "gets something" for his/her efforts. I don't really know whether there'd be less real artists, but I am hopeful that they would not only continue to exist, but flourish, being supported by a willing base of patrons rather than through a small percentage of the fruits of systematic intellectual "property" extortion.
I used to think so, too, but the failure of Fairtunes to generate any real revenue for artists ($7000 over 8 months?) has left me disillusioned.
Thank you for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. I appreciate it. It's nice to have such a high level of discussion.
The arguments you have paid attention to only bring to light the arguments you have blatantly ignored. Like, should we really be creating artificial scarcity, here?
You obviously missed my whole discussion of public goods, and the reason for copyright. Go back and re-read my post. It's a subtle argument, and I do presuppose some knowledge of economics and economist jargon, for which I apologize.
Do we really want the RIAA privacy-invasion scan on our hard drives? What about Fair Use? Remember "Fair Use?" You do, don't you?
Privacy-invasion scan? What the hell are you talking about? If you share your MP3s via Napster, you've obviously given permission for people to look at them. Fair use doesn't apply to Napster--at best, Napster is an infringing use for which no criminal charges can be laid (under Home Recording Act, or whatever).
THE RIAA SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTING ANYBODY
In other words, you don't believe in copyright. You'll notice (if you re-read my original post) that I mention and discuss this viewpoint.
Let's face it, if you really want to sell your good on an open market, prosecuting the primary users who buy your goods by the millions just ain't the way to do it.
Last I checked, they're prosecuting Napster users, not those who are legitimately buying CDs in stores. If what the RIAA is doing is really a bad business decision, then they'll suffer for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Titanium PowerBook G4 is its own heatsink. There's a heat pipe connecting the CPU to the titanium shell. For those not in the know, a heat pipe works through the evaporation and condensation of an internal fluid. The fluid evaporates at the hot end, condenses at the cold end, and is drawn back by capilliary action to the hot end. The result is a pipe with an effective thermal conductivity much, much higher than copper (which is pretty damn good to begin with).
The PowerBook G4 does have a fan, but it almost never comes on in normal use (or so I'm told--I'm still drooling over one, and I'm waiting for the revised model due out in July).
Of course, that's all off-topic. To bring it back on topic, you might want to take a look at the PB G4 keyboard, which is semi-flexible, and held rigid to the frame via a few magnets. Very nice engineering.
So, let's say your grandmother's pension plan is invested in a mutual fund that owns stock in a "death row" company. You think she should be liable? Come on.
Just don't extend the "corporate" protection to violations of criminal law, and make the executives responsible. That's way easier, and more reasonable.
You're forgetting that your average American stock-owner is some middle-class person with a family, not some rich fat white guy in a smoky room.
Also, what happens to multi-national corporations, which are probably the ones you hate most? If a company is incorporated in a different country, does business in forty nations, and is traded on four exchanges, who has jurisdiction? How do you execute it? What do you do about the resulting war (trade war or real war)?
Jesus, I can't believe the crazy "logic" that has led people to consider something like a corporate death penalty. Corporations are imaginary--they are a legal fiction. I have never seen a corporation, nor have you. The only reality is people. Trying to impose a "death penalty" on something that is no more than words on a piece of paper is just plain silly.
As for the argument that corporations are created by the State, and are thus subject to destruction by the state (kind of like Bill Cosby's stand-up routine where he says to his kid, "I brought you into this world, boy, and I can take you out of it."), that's also just plain wrong. Just because the State has to approve the creation of a corporation does not mean the State created it--that's the same as claiming the State creates all houses because it has to grant building permits.
If you were to "kill" corporation X, what happens to its assets? What happens to your grandmother who lives off a pension that is heavily in X's stocks and bonds? Just liquidating a company gives you its book value, which is generally nowhere near its market capitalization... What happens to the employees?
Corporations, in many ways, are similar to democracies, except the shareholders are the citizens. Even though we have a democracy, we don't punish citizens for the acts of the government they may or may not have voted for (the punishment of poor governance is generally enough). Likewise, we shouldn't punish shareholders for the actions of the corporate executive.
A much simpler and more reasonable solution is to make executives liable for any violations of criminal law committed by their company. The legal entity of the corporation should still offer protection against civil liability (e.g., getting sued for not honoring warranties, etc.), but not against criminal prosecution (suit for manslaughter for knowingly selling excessively dangerous products without proper warning to consumers).
Next time folks should read the article before flaming CNN.
The CNN article originally said "multiplies... by four", not "four billion". They fixed it some time after the story was posted (kinda like how Taco fixed "Transmeda". If you want confirmation of this, an earlier poster has put up the text of the article, and it still contains the error. Generally, with typos in online articles, journalists just quietly fix the error. Retratctions and apologies are saved for serious mistakes. While "four" versus "four billion" may seem serious, nobody who would actually be basing important decisions on the article would be confused by that, and it's apparent to any knowledgable person that it's a typo.
Wrong. It's called gouging. Soda supply is elastic and is not affected by the weather. So price is based on demand alone - that's gouging.
My god, you would fail Economics 100 so badly... When demand increases, the price increases. This is a basic fucking principle of microeconomics. It's entirely natural. If you don't like it, buy Pepsi (or drink water).
The only time this kind of price increase becomes immoral is when the seller has a monopoly. Coke is big, but they have plenty of competition.
Right now, you're just ignorant. Go read a microeconomics text, then make up your mind as to whether you're capitalist or communist. No informed person who is even slightly capitalist would believe that Coke's temperature-linked price increases are immoral or should be made illegal.
First of all, this was posted a few days ago as part of a Slashback. Why the hell don't the editors remember anything? I read Slashdot every day, and I can tell when I've seen a story before. One would assume that the editors read it, too (although there seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary), and since they also wrote the goddamn stories, they have that much more reason to remember them. You don't see the New York Times doing this kind of crap. Of course, somebody's already mentioned all this...
The point I really wanted to make is that yes, 2600 is probably legally in the right here, but that doesn't make their actions any less stupid. Last time around, somebody mentioned that Ford could just block all requests originating from www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. True, but that wouldn't stop 2600 from buying new stupid domains and pointing them at www.ford.com. Ford doesn't want to have to worry about this constantly, so they're just suing 2600 to stop them from doing it any more.
Could Ford have asked first? Yes, but Corley is just being a jackass. I'm sure he knew Ford didn't want that domain pointed at their site, and he did it just to piss them off. It's like if I came up to you, smacked you in the back of the head, then complained to the judge that you never told me not to.
Considering that, as a member of the EFF, I am paying for 2600's legal defence, I really wish they would act more responsibly. Fight for what's important, Corley, and stop making such an ass of yourself. DMCA, DeCSS, and UCITA are all worthy causes; fuckgeneralmotors.com is not. I sincerely hope the EFF does not pay Corley's bill this time. If they do, I'll find a more intelligent charity...
Imagine if the AYBABTU trolls get ahold of this. All Your Base will no longer be limited to the online world--we'll see it on the side of buildings, hanging from bridges, everywhere.
Then there's the peeping tom factor. One could scale Natalie Portman's apartment buildings, peeking through cracks in curtains...
It's a great day for the trolls, and a sad day for the Rest of Us.
Second, the purpose of .biz was to alleaviate the conjestion in the .com domain, yet the trademark owners will go first.
.biz is stupid--there's nothing to differentiate it from .com. Now, .pro is slightly more promising...
This is why
Also, first-come-first-served is hardly fair when timing will come down to milliseconds and be determined by your ping time to the registrar. Even without guarantees, corporations aren't going to be stupid enough to not buy their domain names a second time. They also have the money to have 50 trained monkeys click "reload" until they get through and buy the domain. Can you say DDoS? Giving priority at least avoids that initial rush...
I know I'm gonna get called a troll for this, but giving Trademark holders priority could be a Good Thing, under the right circumstances. What the hell am I talking about?
.biz are business-related domains (especially .biz), so it makes sense that businesses should get first crack at them. I am assuming (probably erroneously) that the method used will fairly resolve trademark conflicts (e.g. Apple Computer vs. Apple Records for www.apple.biz), and will be fair to holders of trademarks in all countries, not just the US.
.info and
Furthermore, there needs to be the creation of a TLD only for personal use (no trademark lawsuits or WIPO-whining allowed). If all these things happen, this could actually be a good thing. "If"...
I know, I know, given ICANN's track record, it's not looking good for reason and rationality, but we can hope (and write letters to congress, if you happen to be American).
How did this get to be [4: insightful]?
It was written at the leading edge of the dotcom boom, and probably helped fuel some of the irrational exuberance that led to disasters like PSInet stock.
That's right, because saying the computer age is over is sure to drive up tech stocks. WTF?!?!
Gilder takes a few facts and selectively uses them to decorate a pre-existing world view.
Right, as opposed to what you do in the next paragraph, where you decry the Laffer Curve because the deficit increased, even though the Laffer Curve did accurately predict the increase in government revenues that did in fact occur. Talk about selective use (or misuse, rather) of facts.
Basically, your argument is this: Hey, this guy is a Republican, and the book as new as the latest Linux kernel, so why do we care?
Here's why you should care: the guy predicted that the computer age was over, and down it came. All sorts of computer manufacturers are losing money because PCs have become commodities, and even some of the telecom companies are starting to lose cash as their monopolies break up. His views on evolution aren't terribly relevant to the computer industry, and bringing them up is a cheap way to avoid having to address his arguments.
Finally, just about everything in economics (and every other "social science") is far from proven. Say's Law, the basis of supply-side economics and classical economics, has its successes and its failures, as does Keynesian economics, its main competitor. What's your point?
Could be so, it could be that Mars is 20 years away just like AI and (useful) fusion have been 20 years away for the past 30 years. On the other hand, it does sound like he's saying, "we'll be there in 10 years if you fund us more, 20 years if we keep up the current pace".
If he's not lying through his teeth, that's good enough for me.
How true. The conditions on Mars are so harsh that it will make an outstanding location for a penal colony. Mars will be our prison!
Ha! You never know... Maybe it will start out that way, then go the route of Australia. Actually, that would be kind of cool if the penalty for violating the DMCA was deportation to Mars... Copyright violation, here I come.
I also find 6EQUJ5's whining about the 20-year plan to be misleading. Again quoting Goldin:In other words, if we put the same kind of effort and sacrifice into this that we did with the Apollo program, we'll be there in 10 years. Otherwise, 20 years. That's comparable to the timeline for the Apollo program, and it seems reasonable to me.
I wonder what the first human on Mars will say, and whether it will be as memorable as Neil Armstrong's famous words...
Hmm... I've just had one person tell me I'm wrong because Apple doesn't bundle anything that's a vital OS component (ala Internet Explorer for Windows), and another person tell me I'm wrong to compare QuickTime to Media Player because QuickTime does provide important OS functionality. Make up your (collective) minds, people.
Yes, you can disable QuickTime, weird things will break, but most stuff will still work. The same is true of Internet Explorer. In fact, it was a major embarrasment for Microsoft when the DOJ expert witness showed IE could be removed, despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary.
You seem to think that the relative excellence or suckiness of an app or utility is somehow relevant to the legality of bundling it with the OS. It doesn't matter whether iTunes rocks or Disc Burner sucks, bundling them is just as wrong (or right) as bundling media players and CD burners with Windows. If Apple can bundle apps that do X with their OS, then so can Microsoft.
OpenDoc used to be necesary, but the latest version of ASIP removed that requirement...
R.I.P. OpenDoc.
I don't see how anyone could compare Microsoft, who has a monopoly, with Apple who has 10% of the desktop market, or less. If Apple ever gets 90% of the desktop market (or even 50%), then people will question their bundling issues as hard as Microsoft's.
That was my point--we bash Microsoft because of their market position, not because of their actions. Reread my post before you accuse me of trolling again. You have flamed me for having a different perspective on the same conclusions, which seems rather oppresive. I know it goes against the Slashdot Overmind to suggest that Microsoft might be being treated unfairly, but I'm hardly being unreasonable. While I understand that it has far more effect on the market when you have ten times as much market share, you can't fairly double standards like that. It's just plain unfair to penalize someone simply because they're the best at what they do (if everyone else is trying to do the same thing).
As for iTunes, Apple pulled a classic Microsoft move there--they bought out another company's product (Cassidy & Green's SoundJam), gave it a facelift, and are giving it away free. iTunes is quite possibly the best-of-class Mac MP3 player, and, even if it weren't, is MACAST enough better to warrant the $15-25 shareware fee? I don't think so...
Conflict Catcher and Disk Doctor used to be important products, but they've been gradually overshadowed by Apple replacements. I find Extensions Manager perfectly adequate, and, ever since Apple built Disk Doctor functionality into the OS (it runs at startup after a crash), I haven't had much need for Norton. For 90% of users, those Apple substitutes are good enough; those competitors have been relegated to a niche within a niche.
Apple has also destroyed competing commercial products through bundling. Remember Symmantec GreatWorks? Apple crushed it by bundling ClarisWorks/AppleWorks with Performas...
Just in case you were going to suggest I'm a Mac beginner and have no clue what I'm talking about, I've done six years of Mac consulting, as well as commercial software development for the Mac.
As a loyal Mac user, it breaks my heart to say this, but Apple is worse when it comes to bundling. Let's take a look at the list of things Apple has bundled or currently bundled with their OS and computers:
QuickTime: A media player, bundled with all Macs and current MacOS versions.
iTunes: A MP3 player, ripper, and audio-CD burner program, bundled with new Macs and Mac OS X, I believe.
Disc Burner: A CD burner program, bundled with new Macs and Mac OS versions.
Cyberdog: Though now defunct, Apple used to bundle the Cyberdog browser with the OS as part of OpenDoc (a really cool idea that didn't quite make it, possibly killed by MS).
Mail: A decent email client bundled with OS X.
Apache, FTP daemon, etc, all the usual Unix stuff: bundled with Mac OS X.
AppleWorks: a multi-purpose application package, sort of a poor-man's Offfice with a database thrown in. Bundled with new iMacs.
Then there's third-party software like Quicken, which is often bundled with iMacs, and, of course, both Netscape and IE are bundled with the Mac OS (I think IE is the default install).
All in all, Apple seems to bundle more stuff than Microsoft does. My conclusion is that we complain about MS because they're the market leader, not because of their actions, and I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do...
The ruling says that it's illegal to forward email because you're reproducing it without the author's express written permission.
What about SMTP relay? Each SMTP server along the way reproduces a copy of your email. Since you don't always know which SMTP servers it's going through, how can you give them express permission? You can't. Thus, email is illegal in Australia.
The obvious answer to this is that, when you send email, permission to copy it is implicitly given.
This would be useful for Windows, considering how often you need to reboot.
Why would you need it for Linux, though? I mean, who reboots more than once every major kernel upgrade? What would be really cool is a way to upgrade your kernel without rebooting, like QNX...
But hey, at least rich people get a tax cut (even if they don't want one)..."
Not sure whether this is offtopic or a troll, but it's definitely not relevant to NASA. As someone pointed out, NASA got a 3% funding increase this year--the first in 7 years. I fail to see how Bush's tax plan has anything to do with the cancellation of X-33, X-34.
That said, the people trashing Bush's plan seem to have no knowledge of economics. First of all, really rich (and even some moderately rich) people will be unaffected by the plan. They already dodge estate and income taxes through tax loopholes and offshore investments, etc. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's parents sheltered a good chunk of money in Luxembourg, and now live happily on their yacht without paying any substantial taxes. If they die, no estate tax will touch any of that money. The only thing affected will be their house. In other words, with an estate tax, if you're rich and you want to leave a fortune to your kids, no problem. If you want to bequeath your farm or family home, tough luck.
So who does benefit from the tax cut? The middle class, primarily, especially professionals earning in the $50K - $150K range. Lower income people do benefit, too, just not as much.
Finally, I suggest you study the Laffer Curve to see why tax cuts can actually increase net tax revenue, as they did during the Reagan years. "What?" the liberals shriek, "the deficit increased during the 80's!" Yes, but that's because spending drastically increased. Tax revenues actually increased in response to tax cuts, just not enough to keep up with spending (Reagan poured tons of money into the military in an effort to win the Cold War). Look up the stats if you don't believe me.
If you read the troll FAQ (sorry, don't have the link), you'll recognize this as a classic troll. First sentence is entirely reasonable, but, as the post progesses, it becomes more and more inflammatory. The closing line, "NASA is finally doing something useful.", is the closing barb...
If you don't believe me, check qpt's user info and look at his comment history. See how many -1's qpt has posted? There are also some 3's and 4's, suggesting that he's a pretty successful troll.
Just so I don't wander too far off-topic, I'll analyze and rebut one line:
Far too much effort is being wasted in superfluous programs that have no real chance of every producing a usable application.
Yeah, like quantum mechanics. Oh, wait, about a third of all technology invented in the past 50 years involves QM (directly or indirectly). Think semiconductors, high-temp superconductors, laser diodes...
And what the hell was up with those crazy Watson and Crick guys who were playing with a double helix? And that Newton guy...
I dare you to name a single scientific theory that's at least 50 years old and hasn't been useful.
I could go on, but it's just a troll. If you fell for it (as the moderators have), you should be ashamed of yourself.
First, how many people have heard of FairTunes, let alone trust it to get money to the artists?
They're actually pretty good--you can check the status of all your donations, and they post scans of cashed checks on their website. If you're really paranoid, you can email the artist to confirm. They've gotten a fair amount of media coverage, at least in Canada. It's really my ideal payment system, but, unfortunately, nobody uses it.
Second, you are making the mistake of assuming that low-quality MP3 files are what music fans want for their main copy of an album.
128 KBps MP3s are only the beginning. As people Get a Clue, they'll start ripping at 256 KBps, and the quality will become indistinguishable from CD. Napster or its successors will probably evolve to distribute cover art and liner notes, too. With CD burners becoming standard in consumer computers (see the new iMacs) and easy to use (check out iTunes), there will be no reason to buy a CD. The record companies know this, which is why they're freaking out now even thought it's not hurting them yet. They'd be stupid to wait until they were losing milliions a year and it was too late to stop.
But if Sonyster's paying the artists and Napster isn't, they'd have the recordings first. This would enable Sony to charge more, and even delay the propagation of "their" songs to Napster for a few hours by creating a proprietary client that wouldn't facilitate automatic mirroring.
:-)
Six minutes after the Grammies, Eminem & Elton John's performance was on Napster. I rest my case
I agree with this suspicion--it probably comes down to this: in the large, people aren't altruistic. There's some kind of self interest--it may be in the form of "warm fuzzies" rather than money, but the person still "gets something" for his/her efforts. I don't really know whether there'd be less real artists, but I am hopeful that they would not only continue to exist, but flourish, being supported by a willing base of patrons rather than through a small percentage of the fruits of systematic intellectual "property" extortion.
I used to think so, too, but the failure of Fairtunes to generate any real revenue for artists ($7000 over 8 months?) has left me disillusioned.
Van Gogh decided "I think Venus would look better a little lower"?
What if "Venus" is really an accidental splatter of paint he decided to make into a celestial object?
There goes the estimate.
Actually, I really hate people like you
Thank you for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. I appreciate it. It's nice to have such a high level of discussion.
The arguments you have paid attention to only bring to light the arguments you have blatantly ignored. Like, should we really be creating artificial scarcity, here?
You obviously missed my whole discussion of public goods, and the reason for copyright. Go back and re-read my post. It's a subtle argument, and I do presuppose some knowledge of economics and economist jargon, for which I apologize.
Do we really want the RIAA privacy-invasion scan on our hard drives? What about Fair Use? Remember "Fair Use?" You do, don't you?
Privacy-invasion scan? What the hell are you talking about? If you share your MP3s via Napster, you've obviously given permission for people to look at them. Fair use doesn't apply to Napster--at best, Napster is an infringing use for which no criminal charges can be laid (under Home Recording Act, or whatever).
THE RIAA SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTING ANYBODY
In other words, you don't believe in copyright. You'll notice (if you re-read my original post) that I mention and discuss this viewpoint.
Let's face it, if you really want to sell your good on an open market, prosecuting the primary users who buy your goods by the millions just ain't the way to do it.
Last I checked, they're prosecuting Napster users, not those who are legitimately buying CDs in stores. If what the RIAA is doing is really a bad business decision, then they'll suffer for it.