If you've got $21.95/month for dialup, but don't have an extra $2-4/month for DSL from your phone provider (or $20/month from your cable provider),
I want some of what you're smoking.
$30/month for DSL (on top of POTS) but that only applies if you use one of the LOC's partner ISPs -- which often doesn't include Earthlink.
For cable, you're looking at $40/month for basic cable plus the same $30/month, except this time you have to use the cable company as your ISP, so Earthlink is locked out altogether.
Either way: pay for broadband, use another ISP, and pay Earthlink for online services. Approximate cost: $50/month.
I'm sure MSN will drop theirs as well if this case goes against Yahoo.
The chances of this going to trial are mathematically indistinguishable from zero. The $3E6 number is just a starting point for negotiating a settlement, whose terms will (as always) be undisclosed.
How much influence this would have on MSN and others, given that outcome, is speculative but I doubt that it materially affects their plans.
Why do I suspect that if the hypothetical "typical woman" were offered a nude modeling job the price tag would be quite a bit less than $3 million? Aside, of course, from the fact that the going rate for nude models is so much lower.
Well, it's enough to get Yahoo's attention even if a jury wouldn't award that much. Gives room to negotiate down to a lower number and still come away with more than legal expenses.
I've got to be missing something here. Intel works its rank-and-file in a way that would make an old galley-slaver blush, but at least the management works even harder.
Paul Otellini isn't hurting even slightly for money, but he's seriously short of time with his family. So he spends one of the few hours he gets a week with his daughter playing with her computer instead of with her? What, he doesn't know how to find competent tech support people?
If I held any Intel stock, I'd be dumping it with news like this of the head dude's decision-making.
Standards bodies like the IEEE and JEDEC used to "depend on books sales and other licensing agreements for most of their revenue" too. However silly it may have seemed to pay $90 or so to Global for a 20-page standards document, for which JEDEC got a couple of bucks, that was indeed how it was.
Fortunately, most standards bodies got reality: charging outrageous fees for copies of their publications was horribly cost-ineffective for the industries that they supposedly served; there are other ways to raise those relatively small sums.
Today most standards documents are available online for free. The standards bodies seem to have survived the change. Maybe it's time for academic publishing to do the same.
Microsoft's solution is thin clients. Well, I have run a 100MHz machine with 16M of RAM as a Linux X server with a relatively unimpressive desktop as the application machine which does run KDE and it's quite nice.
You can even play quite a few games as it turns out; stuff like LBreakout work fine. The fact is that an X terminal runs a much smaller footprint than the one proposed for Eiger.
so can this replace old stand-alone machines that aren't connected to any useable server?
No, but instead of replacing the motherboard on that old machine (figure about $150-$200) you can just buy an application server, MSWin2k3 Advanced Server, CALs, server licenses for all of the applications (more CALs) and of course copies of Eiger at $150-$200 per seat.
Well, yes, Eiger is targeted to run on older boxen. However, MS has a couple of nasty dilemmas here:
If they de-feature Eiger to the point of uselessness, nobody buys it.
If they de-feature Eiger to a thin client but require monster servers, nobody buys it.
If they don't de-feature Eiger but still manage to keep the small footprint, they undercut their full-feature offerings.
If they price Eiger at full-feature prices, nobody will buy it.
If they cut the price without massive de-featuring, they undercut their full-feature offerings.
If they don't remove Media Player or IE, they have a much harder time with the footprint.
If they do remove Media Player and IE, they contradict their sworn testimony and potentially land senior executives in jail for perjury (admittely not likely.)
These show up on/. like clockwork. They all have the same problem: unless everyone uses them, they hurt the ones who do more than the ones who don't (network effect).
Go ahead -- demand a bond before you accept mail. Yes, you won't get any spam. You also won't hear from Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo, or your (ex-) customers.
All of these schemes depend on every government on Earth legislating them into existence, simultaneously, and somehow miraculously not adding enough bureaucratic red tape to make e-mail useless before spam gets a chance.
Migratory culture doesn't help you if you'd actually LIKE to keep living in the city you do.
Most cities have more than one employer. Admittedly, a small town is a different story. I have known a few cow-orkers who managed to get enough people to hate them that they couldn't find a job anywhere in town (Phoenix) but that's pretty rare.
If nothing else, the usual startup/foldup cycle pretty much guarantees a supply of new victims even for the most worthless techies.
Personally, I wonder how many of the "he must have hacked it when he left" stories are actually the fact that, absent the geek, nobody actually knows what the software does or how to fix it if they mess it up
Most of the places I've worked had a semi-official policy of blaming everything on the last person to leave. After all, he was gone and when management wants someone to blame, you can't just hold up a mirror; at least the dear departed can't really be hurt by it. On several occasions I've invited cow-orkers to do exactly that as I was headed out the door.
Of course, the net effect is that nobody ever gets asked back after they've left. Life can be like that.
In the final analysis, the only real thing an I.T. professional possesses is their reputation. Trash that, and you'll find it difficult to secure further employment.
Short of a felony conviction, that's hard to do. We're a migratory culture and the fact is that no ex-employer wants to do a competitor a favor by giving them information about a candidate -- especially when any negative comments could result in a lawsuit.
Obviously, the most cost-effective strategy is to get rid of any males in IT. 96% means that ditching the guys will get rid of all but 4% of the threats.
This is, after all, almost an order of magnitude more effective than screening for alcohol, drugs, or felony convictions.
-+-+-+-+-
Don't blame me for posting like a PHB. This is how they think, and the fact that it gives them a business excuse to play Charlie with his IT Angels probably won't hurt either.
IMHO the most important part of "fair use" stems from application of the doctrine of first sale.
That's a little interesting, given that Fair Use dates back to 1841, and First Sale dates back to 1908, IIRC.
Historically yes. I also realize that the origins of Fair Use are in reconciling the First Amendment with the Copyright Clause. However, if you try to put together a coherent theory of fair use outside of American legal history, First Sale is a good starting point for limiting the rights of copyright holders.
You do realize that we're violating the unwritten rules of/. by trying to have a reasoned discussion, don't you?
how about 10 years or X millions of dollars profits, whichever comes first.
What you've done is cap the amount that a producer can get. Not a smart idea for big-ticket productions.
What I think we're looking for is a way to take stuff to PD when the author has "made enough." A not unreasonable way to do that is to say that there's a point of diminishing returns where the time value of future sales is heading into the noise.
Counter suggestion: 10 years minimum, then take it PD when the sales for the previous 4 years drop below 4% of the total for the first ten years. The classics may stay in print and keep racking up sales, but Steamboat Willie will finally be free.
IMHO the most important part of "fair use" stems from application of the doctrine of first sale. If you think in terms of "the copyright holder has the right to sell you the work but not to control your use of it once they've been paid" you get most of the real "fair use" rights.
No, you don't get all of them, but at least you get the most utterly critical ones like being able to make private copies for markup etc, trade or sell the works, and so forth.
Uses such as excerpt for parody, commentary, etc. are understood to be related because they don't compete with the copyright holder's sale of the original work. Again, the copyright holder received his reward when the work was "placed in the stream of commerce."
You'll notice that this doesn't include any right to make copies for friends and family. That's not fair use; in the USA it's quite a different matter and was established as the quid pro quo for a tax on blank media.
I believe the Broadcast flag would have killed HDTV adoption in the US; If my brother-in-law couldn't record his NASCAR to watch after work, what good would HDTV do him?
Once they finish shutting down analog TV, he can do the digital thing, complete with broadcast flag and anti-tampering rules, or he can do without TV altogether.
You know him better than I do -- what do you think he'd do?
I'm reliably informed that despite the FCC rule, there never was a standard implementation of the "broadcast flag." If the rule had actually stayed in force, the manufacturers would simply have stopped selling video devices.
Now I'm sorry the Court ruled as it did -- that would have been interesting!
Slashdot Mirror
I want some of what you're smoking.
$30/month for DSL (on top of POTS) but that only applies if you use one of the LOC's partner ISPs -- which often doesn't include Earthlink.
For cable, you're looking at $40/month for basic cable plus the same $30/month, except this time you have to use the cable company as your ISP, so Earthlink is locked out altogether.
Either way: pay for broadband, use another ISP, and pay Earthlink for online services. Approximate cost: $50/month.
Don't underestimate old farts like me who grew up in the 60s.
Besides, I have three kids in college right now and I know the stories they think are cleaned up enough for me to hear.
The chances of this going to trial are mathematically indistinguishable from zero. The $3E6 number is just a starting point for negotiating a settlement, whose terms will (as always) be undisclosed.
How much influence this would have on MSN and others, given that outcome, is speculative but I doubt that it materially affects their plans.
Why do I suspect that if the hypothetical "typical woman" were offered a nude modeling job the price tag would be quite a bit less than $3 million? Aside, of course, from the fact that the going rate for nude models is so much lower.
Well, it's enough to get Yahoo's attention even if a jury wouldn't award that much. Gives room to negotiate down to a lower number and still come away with more than legal expenses.
Paul Otellini isn't hurting even slightly for money, but he's seriously short of time with his family. So he spends one of the few hours he gets a week with his daughter playing with her computer instead of with her? What, he doesn't know how to find competent tech support people?
If I held any Intel stock, I'd be dumping it with news like this of the head dude's decision-making.
Fortunately, most standards bodies got reality: charging outrageous fees for copies of their publications was horribly cost-ineffective for the industries that they supposedly served; there are other ways to raise those relatively small sums.
Today most standards documents are available online for free. The standards bodies seem to have survived the change. Maybe it's time for academic publishing to do the same.
that Microsoft is adding to the next version of Office?
Microsoft's solution is thin clients. Well, I have run a 100MHz machine with 16M of RAM as a Linux X server with a relatively unimpressive desktop as the application machine which does run KDE and it's quite nice.
You can even play quite a few games as it turns out; stuff like LBreakout work fine. The fact is that an X terminal runs a much smaller footprint than the one proposed for Eiger.
No, but instead of replacing the motherboard on that old machine (figure about $150-$200) you can just buy an application server, MSWin2k3 Advanced Server, CALs, server licenses for all of the applications (more CALs) and of course copies of Eiger at $150-$200 per seat.
Think of the savings!
I never say anything but good about dead languages.
These show up on /. like clockwork. They all have the same problem: unless everyone uses them, they hurt the ones who do more than the ones who don't (network effect).
Go ahead -- demand a bond before you accept mail. Yes, you won't get any spam. You also won't hear from Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo, or your (ex-) customers.
All of these schemes depend on every government on Earth legislating them into existence, simultaneously, and somehow miraculously not adding enough bureaucratic red tape to make e-mail useless before spam gets a chance.
Sorry, I just found your choice of words amusing considering the context.
"De mortuis non nisi bonum" was obviously not coined by anyone in the tech trade, that's for sure.
That's not counting the rest of the MSA, like Chandler (where Intel has a huge plant) etc.
Yeah, it took quite a while but he finally managed it. In some ways it's a small town; nearly everywhere I've worked I knew people already.
Most cities have more than one employer. Admittedly, a small town is a different story. I have known a few cow-orkers who managed to get enough people to hate them that they couldn't find a job anywhere in town (Phoenix) but that's pretty rare.
If nothing else, the usual startup/foldup cycle pretty much guarantees a supply of new victims even for the most worthless techies.
Most of the places I've worked had a semi-official policy of blaming everything on the last person to leave. After all, he was gone and when management wants someone to blame, you can't just hold up a mirror; at least the dear departed can't really be hurt by it. On several occasions I've invited cow-orkers to do exactly that as I was headed out the door.
Of course, the net effect is that nobody ever gets asked back after they've left. Life can be like that.
Short of a felony conviction, that's hard to do. We're a migratory culture and the fact is that no ex-employer wants to do a competitor a favor by giving them information about a candidate -- especially when any negative comments could result in a lawsuit.
This is, after all, almost an order of magnitude more effective than screening for alcohol, drugs, or felony convictions.
-+-+-+-+-
Don't blame me for posting like a PHB. This is how they think, and the fact that it gives them a business excuse to play Charlie with his IT Angels probably won't hurt either.
Historically yes. I also realize that the origins of Fair Use are in reconciling the First Amendment with the Copyright Clause. However, if you try to put together a coherent theory of fair use outside of American legal history, First Sale is a good starting point for limiting the rights of copyright holders.
You do realize that we're violating the unwritten rules of /. by trying to have a reasoned discussion, don't you?
What you've done is cap the amount that a producer can get. Not a smart idea for big-ticket productions.
What I think we're looking for is a way to take stuff to PD when the author has "made enough." A not unreasonable way to do that is to say that there's a point of diminishing returns where the time value of future sales is heading into the noise.
Counter suggestion: 10 years minimum, then take it PD when the sales for the previous 4 years drop below 4% of the total for the first ten years. The classics may stay in print and keep racking up sales, but Steamboat Willie will finally be free.
No, you don't get all of them, but at least you get the most utterly critical ones like being able to make private copies for markup etc, trade or sell the works, and so forth.
Uses such as excerpt for parody, commentary, etc. are understood to be related because they don't compete with the copyright holder's sale of the original work. Again, the copyright holder received his reward when the work was "placed in the stream of commerce."
You'll notice that this doesn't include any right to make copies for friends and family. That's not fair use; in the USA it's quite a different matter and was established as the quid pro quo for a tax on blank media.
Once they finish shutting down analog TV, he can do the digital thing, complete with broadcast flag and anti-tampering rules, or he can do without TV altogether.
You know him better than I do -- what do you think he'd do?
Now I'm sorry the Court ruled as it did -- that would have been interesting!