you want their products - but you want them on *your* terms
Yeah, and music companies want me to have their products on *their* terms. One of the problems is (was) that there's no market mechanism for the two to meet somewhere in the middle.
But look, you can't make an entire society care about an issue like music sharing. You just can't. People see rock stars rolling around in piles of drugs, women, cars, with houses larger then their block, and they simply don't give a shit whether they're taking $2 out of those people's pockets. Yes, there are more people affected than just the stars, but when you put that lifestyle front and center, when you use it to market your product, then don't complain when that's the connection people make in their minds. The record labels have been spending the better part of the last century trying to seer that image into people's minds, and now they want to say "Hey, don't forget about the little guys!" Sorry, it's too late. Let the people with a Ferrari in every color worry about the little guys.
Music is not, has not traditionally been, and will never again be a product. It *was* a product for about a hundred years, but that was only due to a fluke of technology where recording and distribution were expensive enough that only a select few could afford it. Now it's back to being a service, the same way it's been for 10s of thousands of years, and that's where it will remain. Yes, I agree that people *deserve* to be compensated for their creations, but I don't agree that they should have a legal right to it. People *deserve* a lot of things, but those protections aren't enshrined in law, because it's not practical or efficient. Likewise, it's not practical or efficient to try to prop up an industry that costs more to keep alive than it's worth to society. Music will not disappear without an industry to turn a profit off of it; if anything, it will evolve into something much more personal and, consequently, of greater value.
You're free to continue hemming and hawing about the change in post after post, but no complaining about how things *should* be will prevent or undo the destruction of the music industry. Change is not only inevitable, it's already here.
As they don't run an uncensored store, and have, in the past, censored applications based on their arbitrary moral judgements, then it implies anything they allow through their filter is, by that same moral judgement, deemed acceptable by them.
Nonsense. Do you think Penguin Classics condones the word "nigger," (as in Huck Finn), or that Random House approves of pedophilia (Lolita)? It's possible to have standards and not publish a book of fart jokes while at the same time not necessary agreeing with the content put forth in the works that *do* meet your standards. The same applies to apps.
Free speech isn't just to protect speech we agree with -- anyone can do that -- but to protect speech we *disagree* with, however vehemently.
I have to agree with whomever stated that it's disappointing to see Apple fold by mere virtue of a petition. This is especially troubling when lawmakers are pressuring Apple to remove apps as well. Will they bow to that pressure too? Where does it end?
You're just setting yourself up for higher premiums later in life. A system where people don't buy insurance until they need it can't work any other way.
High deductible (aka catastrophic coverage) insurance is a crock of shit. The savings in premiums may exist, but often its insubstantial -- possibly as little as 5 or 10% -- unless other provisions exist, such as low lifetime caps on treatment, which completely defeats the purpose of having insurance in the first place. Worse, the lack of any co-pay before meeting the deductible discourages people from seeking treatment *before* something minor turns into something big. That's the point when a true savings can be realized, not to mention treatability and life expectancy for many ailments that get worse, sometimes irreversibly, over time.
The NYT had a great article on high deductible policies...
âoeFor most people, a high-deductible plan is basically a bet against yourself,â said Ms. Stoll. âoeYouâ(TM)re betting that you wonâ(TM)t get sick and you wonâ(TM)t have an accident. But isnâ(TM)t that exactly what insurance is supposed to be? A bet that something might happen, and if it does youâ(TM)ll be protected?â
Basically, unless you get very sick within a very short window after starting high deductible coverage, you're probably better off putting your money into an HSA. Still, saving money specifically for potential healthcare expenses only really benefits a very narrow window of people: those who can save enough money to cover potential expenses AND never need to use that money. For everyone else, standard insurance is the far better option, which is why we carry it on almost everything else of value that we insure in life.
I suffer from the same problem so a continual problem with tablets that I don't see going away.
I just started using a napkin.
Yeah, but Angry Birds just isn't as compelling when you have to draw each one by hand, and trying to animate them by flipping napkins is just an exercise in futility. That's why I've gone back to using an actual legal pad. As a bonus, I won't freak the fuck out if I drop it.
...running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC and runs 50 specially adapted computers in the University Library.
Computers already run on DC -- the only question is where the conversion takes place. The downside to having a single converter (rectifier) is that you have a single point of failure, but obviously you can place it away from the actual computers to reduce noise and such.
As for efficiency, it all depends how efficient the individual power supplies are/were for each PC. There's nothing inherently more efficient about converting once for all PCs vice converting once for each PC. In fact, your losses might even be higher depending on your distribution network. Additionally, there's the not-insignificant monetary and environmental cost of installing DC-DC power supplies for each PC, upgrading the transmission lines, etc. Depending on how long the network is used and the actual efficiency gains, if any, those investments may or may not pay off over time.
It does when you're talking about the standard (or former standard) meaning of the word, as the GP was. At least, I'm pretty sure he wasn't discussing politics... maybe I'm wrong.
Android is under the Apache license, not the LGPL. The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license.
Power and frequency are related only in that they are both characteristics of a signal, like color and top speed are characteristics of a car, but one doesn't affect the other. The reason devices are limited to a given power rating is simply to minimize their footprint.
The idea of exceptionalism isn't really a pro or a con. It's all in how it's used. When it's used to justify hard work and strong ethics, it's a huge pro. People really do tend to live up to high standards when it's expected of them. "We don't torture people because we're exceptional."
But when it's used to justify bad behavior, it's a con. The privileged-youth attitude that a different set of standards apply to them: "It's not wrong when we torture people because we're exceptional."
The same is true for any other pseudo root-cause people like to throw around, be it religion, violent video games, gun control, drugs, etc.
That's why I use a mail forwarding service in India and a Skype number with a +91 country code. As a bonus, I don't have to proofread my resume, people are delighted by my ability to speak and understand English without a foreign accent, and I can pretend it's 2AM when people call me.
Mod parent up. It's ridiculous that certs still cost as much as they do. Personal certs should be made available in the price range of domain names (or included with them).
Exactly. It's pointless to discuss radiation dosages without talking about the method of exposure. The problem with fallout is not strictly the radiation levels, but rather the spread of radioactive particles -- the source(s) of that radiation.
Depending on the particular particles, ingestion/inhalation can pose a risk 20-100x the same exposure outside the body. Heavy alpha emitters like polonium can do a lot of damage in a relatively short amount of time; beta and gamma emitters like cesium work a bit less quickly, but have a relatively long biological half-life.
But hey, we have a nearly irrelevant chart to tell us we're all safe, so let's just go with that.
Which really begs the question* of why they haven't shipped in a new generator in the past 7 (8?) days. Hell, that's more than enough time to source one from abroad, let alone elsewhere in Japan (surely someone in Japan has a working generator they aren't using). The first thing they should have done when they discovered the generators were offline should have been to start sourcing temporary replacements.
And why they didn't commission a ship to moor up alongside the plant to provide power in the interim is another mind boggling question. Almost any major ship is equipped to run on shore power when in-port, and that can just as easily be used to feed power instead of drawing it. Worst case, the ship is a write-off due to being irradiated, but that's a lot cheaper than a meltdown.
They should have had power restored within 24 hours; 36 at worst. At least going forward, the solution seems rather obvious: keep a set of backup generators off-site (but nearby).
* Yes, I know that's not the proper use of the phrase. No, I don't care.
The cost of fighting in CA vs NJ is immaterial for a company like Sony. Corporations use venue shopping all the time to find favorable jurisdictions, and this is almost certainly why they want the case tried in the northern district of CA. This becomes crystal clear when you look at the history of decisions by this particular judge, both in this case and others (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they are. Several security holes in OSX and, perhaps more importantly, iOS have been found specifically by looking at the Darwin code base.
It sounds like your sarcasm detector is spot on.
you want their products - but you want them on *your* terms
Yeah, and music companies want me to have their products on *their* terms. One of the problems is (was) that there's no market mechanism for the two to meet somewhere in the middle.
But look, you can't make an entire society care about an issue like music sharing. You just can't. People see rock stars rolling around in piles of drugs, women, cars, with houses larger then their block, and they simply don't give a shit whether they're taking $2 out of those people's pockets. Yes, there are more people affected than just the stars, but when you put that lifestyle front and center, when you use it to market your product, then don't complain when that's the connection people make in their minds. The record labels have been spending the better part of the last century trying to seer that image into people's minds, and now they want to say "Hey, don't forget about the little guys!" Sorry, it's too late. Let the people with a Ferrari in every color worry about the little guys.
Music is not, has not traditionally been, and will never again be a product. It *was* a product for about a hundred years, but that was only due to a fluke of technology where recording and distribution were expensive enough that only a select few could afford it. Now it's back to being a service, the same way it's been for 10s of thousands of years, and that's where it will remain. Yes, I agree that people *deserve* to be compensated for their creations, but I don't agree that they should have a legal right to it. People *deserve* a lot of things, but those protections aren't enshrined in law, because it's not practical or efficient. Likewise, it's not practical or efficient to try to prop up an industry that costs more to keep alive than it's worth to society. Music will not disappear without an industry to turn a profit off of it; if anything, it will evolve into something much more personal and, consequently, of greater value.
You're free to continue hemming and hawing about the change in post after post, but no complaining about how things *should* be will prevent or undo the destruction of the music industry. Change is not only inevitable, it's already here.
As they don't run an uncensored store, and have, in the past, censored applications based on their arbitrary moral judgements, then it implies anything they allow through their filter is, by that same moral judgement, deemed acceptable by them.
Nonsense. Do you think Penguin Classics condones the word "nigger," (as in Huck Finn), or that Random House approves of pedophilia (Lolita)? It's possible to have standards and not publish a book of fart jokes while at the same time not necessary agreeing with the content put forth in the works that *do* meet your standards. The same applies to apps.
Free speech isn't just to protect speech we agree with -- anyone can do that -- but to protect speech we *disagree* with, however vehemently.
I have to agree with whomever stated that it's disappointing to see Apple fold by mere virtue of a petition. This is especially troubling when lawmakers are pressuring Apple to remove apps as well. Will they bow to that pressure too? Where does it end?
You're just setting yourself up for higher premiums later in life. A system where people don't buy insurance until they need it can't work any other way.
High deductible (aka catastrophic coverage) insurance is a crock of shit. The savings in premiums may exist, but often its insubstantial -- possibly as little as 5 or 10% -- unless other provisions exist, such as low lifetime caps on treatment, which completely defeats the purpose of having insurance in the first place. Worse, the lack of any co-pay before meeting the deductible discourages people from seeking treatment *before* something minor turns into something big. That's the point when a true savings can be realized, not to mention treatability and life expectancy for many ailments that get worse, sometimes irreversibly, over time.
The NYT had a great article on high deductible policies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/health/30patient.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Basically, unless you get very sick within a very short window after starting high deductible coverage, you're probably better off putting your money into an HSA. Still, saving money specifically for potential healthcare expenses only really benefits a very narrow window of people: those who can save enough money to cover potential expenses AND never need to use that money. For everyone else, standard insurance is the far better option, which is why we carry it on almost everything else of value that we insure in life.
T-Mobile had a particular niche that they served better than anyone else - the deaf community.
Well you know they're not going to use Verizon...
Yeah, but Angry Birds just isn't as compelling when you have to draw each one by hand, and trying to animate them by flipping napkins is just an exercise in futility. That's why I've gone back to using an actual legal pad. As a bonus, I won't freak the fuck out if I drop it.
...running a large network of devices on DC rather than AC is both more secure and more energy efficient. AC electric power from the grid is converted to DC and runs 50 specially adapted computers in the University Library.
Computers already run on DC -- the only question is where the conversion takes place. The downside to having a single converter (rectifier) is that you have a single point of failure, but obviously you can place it away from the actual computers to reduce noise and such.
As for efficiency, it all depends how efficient the individual power supplies are/were for each PC. There's nothing inherently more efficient about converting once for all PCs vice converting once for each PC. In fact, your losses might even be higher depending on your distribution network. Additionally, there's the not-insignificant monetary and environmental cost of installing DC-DC power supplies for each PC, upgrading the transmission lines, etc. Depending on how long the network is used and the actual efficiency gains, if any, those investments may or may not pay off over time.
It does when you're talking about the standard (or former standard) meaning of the word, as the GP was. At least, I'm pretty sure he wasn't discussing politics... maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks for that. I will never look at toothpaste commercials the same way again. :(
Are you implying that it's windier, or that there are no cute secretaries in Chicago?
If the former, New York is actually as windy or windier than Chicago on average, though if the latter, I'll have to defer to your expertise.
Motorola's Android phones starting from the Milestone - why wouldn't those be able to run Gingerbread?
Everybody knows you can't catch the Gingerbread, man, no matter how fast you run.
Android is under the Apache license, not the LGPL. The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license.
Power and frequency are related only in that they are both characteristics of a signal, like color and top speed are characteristics of a car, but one doesn't affect the other. The reason devices are limited to a given power rating is simply to minimize their footprint.
The idea of exceptionalism isn't really a pro or a con. It's all in how it's used. When it's used to justify hard work and strong ethics, it's a huge pro. People really do tend to live up to high standards when it's expected of them. "We don't torture people because we're exceptional."
But when it's used to justify bad behavior, it's a con. The privileged-youth attitude that a different set of standards apply to them: "It's not wrong when we torture people because we're exceptional."
The same is true for any other pseudo root-cause people like to throw around, be it religion, violent video games, gun control, drugs, etc.
Watching American Idol and the likes and being good at work are not mutually exclusive.
Not mutually exclusive, just a naturally occurring selection bias.
That's why I use a mail forwarding service in India and a Skype number with a +91 country code. As a bonus, I don't have to proofread my resume, people are delighted by my ability to speak and understand English without a foreign accent, and I can pretend it's 2AM when people call me.
-Dave Snyder aka "Sanjay Mohapatra"
Your statement is factual and well reasoned, and as such it will be ignored by moderators.
Mod parent up. It's ridiculous that certs still cost as much as they do. Personal certs should be made available in the price range of domain names (or included with them).
Exactly. It's pointless to discuss radiation dosages without talking about the method of exposure. The problem with fallout is not strictly the radiation levels, but rather the spread of radioactive particles -- the source(s) of that radiation.
Depending on the particular particles, ingestion/inhalation can pose a risk 20-100x the same exposure outside the body. Heavy alpha emitters like polonium can do a lot of damage in a relatively short amount of time; beta and gamma emitters like cesium work a bit less quickly, but have a relatively long biological half-life.
But hey, we have a nearly irrelevant chart to tell us we're all safe, so let's just go with that.
jigga watt?
Which really begs the question* of why they haven't shipped in a new generator in the past 7 (8?) days. Hell, that's more than enough time to source one from abroad, let alone elsewhere in Japan (surely someone in Japan has a working generator they aren't using). The first thing they should have done when they discovered the generators were offline should have been to start sourcing temporary replacements.
And why they didn't commission a ship to moor up alongside the plant to provide power in the interim is another mind boggling question. Almost any major ship is equipped to run on shore power when in-port, and that can just as easily be used to feed power instead of drawing it. Worst case, the ship is a write-off due to being irradiated, but that's a lot cheaper than a meltdown.
They should have had power restored within 24 hours; 36 at worst. At least going forward, the solution seems rather obvious: keep a set of backup generators off-site (but nearby).
* Yes, I know that's not the proper use of the phrase. No, I don't care.
It can be, yes, but is that legal?
Anyway, a simple workaround is to enable VPN to your home (or elsewhere) so AT&T can't snoop.
The cost of fighting in CA vs NJ is immaterial for a company like Sony. Corporations use venue shopping all the time to find favorable jurisdictions, and this is almost certainly why they want the case tried in the northern district of CA. This becomes crystal clear when you look at the history of decisions by this particular judge, both in this case and others (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc.).