Here's my prediction. In an ideal world we will travel less distance, and more slowly.
Goods and information will be moved to people, and make people virtually present to each other.
Highways will be torn up. Roads will be planted with trees. Travel will become more not less expensive, as it is required to bear the FULL cost of the ecological and habitat destruction that cutting transportation corridors causes...
My utopia is an antitransportation utopia in which people stay in places that are so good that they don't want to go very far, so rich that they don't need to go very far, and so well served materially that and socially that they choose not to travel.
In the ideal world instead of subsidizing the environmental destruction of highways, airports and transportation technologies of every kind, we will make them pay their true cost, and work on creating PLACES.
Transportation is fundamentally about destroying PLACE....
Transportation is the enemy of PLACE.
Movement is a seductive fantasy... it seems to present so many opportunities to the individual, and yet it makes every place the same, and destroys the habitats and environments that lie between places....
Movement is what we all want, but that doesn't mean that we or our planet is better when we have more of it, or faster versions of it....
Just the opposite. Transportation is a seductive illusion... it gets you from here to there, but only at the cost of destroying the difference between here and there and everywhere in between.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Imagine a World Without Patents: Thomas Jefferson
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
Is the whole theory of patents cracked? Do you really think innovation would slow down in their absence?
It seems like the idea of intellectual property idea is an artificial construct. Nothing wrong with "artificial", but does it really make the world better?
Where did we get the idea that ideas would only have value if someone could own them?
It is not like this was an empirically tested proposition. Rather, I assume, the ideology of capitalism and ownership was extended to a new domain that "by its nature" doesn't seem to permit "ownership".
I'm begining to think that rules allowing the "ownership" of ideas and intellectual property are, if not the root of all evil, at least deeply symptomatic of evil.
Jefferson made the point well:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Sigh. Been there. Hard life experience teaches me that you should keep your mouth shut and speak pleasant platitudes.
If someone wants YOUR opinion they will sit down with you in private and solicit it. A "dinner" is just a trap for fools and the unwary. Be pleasant. Be intelligent. Be utterly banal.
Unless you already know that your opinion has strong support and an advocate in a position of power, you don't even bring it up even in a meeting, particularly when you are not in a power position.
I agree wholeheartedly that if you can't pass concerns to your immediate superior, OR if the high level management is fishing around at the lower levels for intelligence about its IT department, then it has middle management problems, and they won't be rectified by anything you say at dinner.
Food is a trap, and you are the prey. Whether you'll get kiled by your boss, or by his boss, is an open question, but if you speak, prepare to die.:-)
Responding both to the above, and to several comments below:
On Groklaw we read in the last few hours that SCO claims
"16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx.
17. In some additional cases it was also possible to infer with reasonable certainty from comments in the source code that the engineer who implemented that code had experience and knowledge of the methods, sequence and structures used in either or both of Dynix/ptx and AIX. Confirmation of this would require depositions from the IBM individuals involved in programming the actual Linux modules in question."
Now I read that word "derived" as the key issue. Copied means copied, in a literal sense. But it sounds like the real argument SCO is making is around "derived".
And then when they talk about "methods, sequence, and structures"... if they can claim to own Linux code based on that then they win big time.
I'm in no position to evaluate the potential for making this case... but it I were an evil scummy SCO general counsel, I would envision a multipart campaign, in which SCO raises enough potentially valid claims (in the eyes of a judge) to pry open more information, and bootstraps its way into information that makes possibly the kind of claims I quote above.
Legal battles aren't about reason and logic alone....
If I rewrote a best selling novel, so that each paragraph used entirely different sentences, and yet the novel's plot and theme was exactly the same... couldn't the author sue my sorry ass?
I'm asking that as a serious and naive quesiton. I don't know the answer. That's the situation I'm envisioning here from SCOs perspective.
I've spent more time than I care to admit to in the last weeks and days trying to figure out what SCO might really be up to. Can they really be as stupid is most people claim? Sure they could be as evil, coniving and greedy as we claim, but could they be as stupid as we claim?
I assume that we have two sides here. One side says "show us the infringing code".... on the theory that in order to demonstrate copying you have to show more or less a letter perfect copy...
I assume that SCOs game is to get inside of the sausage making process and to demonstrate that even though the code is not literally system V you can trace a "legacy" that involves the gradual modification of ideas expressed in one form to ideas expressed today in Linux, and that by linking the people who worked on code to its evolution over time through evidence derived from the discovery process, they will make the case that current Linux code is derived from code that they claim to own. The continuity of people may be part of making the case of continuity of "ideas" and thus of "ownership."
From this perspective (IANAL, etc.) I would think that all of the moaning about how Linux code isn't exactly, or aproximately, Unix code is really beside the point. IBM would of course like to keep it at that level, arguing "if the glove does not fit you must aquit", eg. if this code isn't exactly the copyrighted code then they have no case.
But my understanding of the law (limited and amateur as it is) is that SCO would have a case to make if the concepts ideas, "manner of expression" and all sorts of other stuff in Linux could be shown to be derived through a chain of modification, backed up by the ongoing involvement of individuals in that modification process, even if the code and expression of programing ideas took a very different letter by letter form.
So if they can get inside of IBM records they can begin to stitch a winnable case together, while if the "Match code or acquit" theory holds then the case is over. So if they can satisfy the initial requests enough to make the judge open up IBM to their SCO discover, then they can begin to make the case.
Anyway that's my effort to understand what SCO might be thinking and why this might make more sense than we'd like it to make.
They are scum, but let's not assume that they are stupid scum.
Republicans supporting Dean because they want him to beat Bush.
Republicans supporting Dean because they are sure Bush can beat him. (Karl Rove et al)
Democrats supporting Dean because they want him to win.
Democrats supporting Dean because they want him to lose. (ie. "Gore backs Dean so he can lose, and prepare the ground for a Gore comeback in 2008".... )
Not to mention Democrats and Republicans opposing Dean so that he will lose.... and probably so that he will win too!
I kind of hope Dean wins just because he might be a decent President.
---
The secret of American politics is to advocate radical ideas in ways that seem quite sensible and moderate to the vast dumb middle.
Bush has done it, presenting radical religion as "normal" politics.
I hope that Dean manages to advocate the radical idea of getting corporations out of government and restoring democracy, and that he does it in a way that leaves most Americans thinking that this radical step is just a fine and reasonable centrist idea.
Re:How Do you Know What's Right?
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes you win (when you have the dollars) and sometimes you lose (when you do not have the dollars).
Living in a democracy MIGHT oblige you to accept the outcome, but since dollar dependendent outcomes are evidence that you do NOT live in a democracy.... where's the obligation?
The alternative to one dollar/one vote is one person/ one vote... That would be a nice system to try sometime here in the US.
As James Madision would argue the issue, "people" probably only included white landholders, so let's just leave Madison in his coffin.
I see no harm in thinking about how things ought to be.
... I'm sure it is risky... I don't do anything more risk than mutual funds... but I believe that in shorting you can't lose more than the stock can gain in value, so there is a reasonable limit, unless you think the upside potential is "infinite", which even for SCO seems unlikely.
I'm not a financial advisor but I urge you to follow my advice exactly and invest lots of money based on what I say...
If you really believe SCO valuation is too high and based on wrong facts and a strategy that is bound to fail, I guess it is time to short the stock...
(That's how you make money on a decline in price...... you borrow X units of stock with an agreement to return X units of stock... if they go down in value, you profit from the loss in value... and if they go up, you lose.)
I'm not an investor... but for all you folks who REALLY believe that this isn't going to work because SCO is wrong on the facts.... well, here's a great way to make a tidy profit!
Of course "wrong on the facts" doesn't mean that SCO is going to lose... this is a bet on what will happen, not who is right and who is wrong.:-)
10) Wedding photographers Photographers typically charge $2,000 to $5,000 to shoot a wedding, for what amounts to a one-day assignment plus processing time. Some get $15,000 or more. Yet many mope through the job, bumping guests in their way without apology, with the attitude: I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls.
They must cover equipment and film-development costs. Still, many in major metropolitan areas who shoot two weddings each weekend in the May-to-October marrying season pull in $100,000 for six months' work.
Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league.
As a photographer, this complaint makes no sense to me. Start with the cost of the typical wedding $2000 to $5000 for photography...
Well the average cost for flowers is about $2000 (see here: http://www.letsgetmarried.com/flower2.html )
Here's a breakdown of wedding costs from http://www.toledoweddings.com/planner/budget2.html
WEDDING CONSULTANT 10% Some charge a flat fee and others an hourly charge; however, the wedding consultant's fee can be as much as 10% of the wedding budget if they arrange your wedding from start to finish.
WEDDING DRESS 6% Today's wedding dress is usually white or ivory and accounts for approximately 6% of the wedding budget.
GROOM ATTIRE 1% The groom's wedding attire represents 1% of the wedding budget.
RECEPTION 37% The reception is the most expensive variable of the wedding and on average absorbs approximately 37% of the total budget.
FLOWERS 5% The average flower budget represents approximately 5% of the total wedding budget.
PHOTOGRAPHERS 6% The average cost of wedding photography represents approximately 6% of the wedding budget.
VIDEOGRAPHER 3% The cost of a professional videographer represents approximately 3% of the total wedding budget.
MUSIC 5% The music accounts for approximately 5% of the total wedding budget.
WEDDING RINGS 23% The wedding rings for the bride and groom, including the engagement and wedding bands average 23% of the total budget.
-----
Does photography provide 6% of the value of the wedding? What are your memories worth to you?
The price of ANYTHING is not an exclusive function of the underlying material costs... you have to consider the skills of the provider. Rude providers, and providers who produce crappy work, are obviuosly overpaid... and because there is very little repeat business there are information inefficiencies in the market for wedding photography... by the time you find out you've got a bad photographer it is too late to repeat the once in a lifetime event.
Yes that provides an incentive to make sure you get someone who doesn't make a mistake.... high prices can be used to (falsely) signal quality... "he charges a lot, he must be good, and we don't want a mistake on a once in a lifetime event."
But the bottom line is that it is hard to see why an average 6% of the total cost is inherently too high.
I doubt that wedding photographers are "overpaid" on average... if you've ever done it, you know there is a huge responsibility, a huge hassel, and it can't be described as "fun" in any sense.
The article describes problems of inconsistent quality I suppose, but the average wedding photographer is getting rich....
Besides you can always pay a really cheap photographer or ask your brother in law to do it.... Oh that doesn't sound so good does it?
Having data and using data are two different things.
Having data is good. What you do with it, how you penalize people, how much slack you allow on different violations, that's a judgement call.
If you consider yourself any kind of scientist, you have to support data collection - the alternative is to be blind to reality.
I love driving but cars and roads are literally destroying the planet anyway... the legal regime in which these machines of destruction are operated can hardly be too tight.
I hope you intend this to be ironic:
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
"Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. -Reagan "
When you think of how Reagan and friends have labored to protect wealth and privillege, that comment is a stinging self indictment... but I'm sure the irony would be lost on most people...
Please folks, Microsoft is no more evil than a tiger. It does what its enviornment has bred it to do, and what every firm in a competitive market is bred to do... it eats and competes.
Save your anger for the Republican administration, the political system, the judicial system and all the people responsible for keeping predators from biting the visitors to the zoo, people like you, me and our children.
The problem is the zoo administration and facilities and the lousy cages the animals are kept in... not the fact that the animals bite.
Sure, but I left my job when it got bad, sold a house in LA, moved to a cheaper part of the country and I could live off the house proceeds for a couple of years without worry and still buy another house....
I'm looking for work, but I'm not worried, and dear God in heaven, I'm so glad I left the job from hell... the only question is "why did I stay so long?"
Now my motto, and I really believe it, is "do what you love and the money will follow..." to which I add, "live where you love living... and life will follow." Why live in an industrial hell hole when you can just move to your idea of the most beautiful part of the country and work out the trivial stuff like how exactly you make a living once you get there?
Most people make a living in most places, after all.
That's my theory... but I haven't got a job yet, and in the meantime I have those house proceeds to live off of...:-)
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
I moved to Portland Oregon because of the public transport and clearn air... it's much better than most cities.
Now I want to buy a house, right next to my kids' school, and right next to a nice grocery store and my (nonexistent) place of unemployment.... and guess what... it doesn't exist. The nonexistence of this home is a function of the fact that we have a car based nation/city.
The design of even this public transport friendly city of Portland forces me to own a car I would prefer not to own.
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult. I'd be willing to make sacrifices to do it... but not if massive public subsidies are offerred to car owners and denied to me. I don't want to be a sucker... and right now our society makes me into a sucker if I choose to do the right thing for the planet earth and not own a car....
The satisfaction of doing the right thing and not having to own a car isn't enough to compensate me for the inconvenience and for the knowledge that others are materially benifitting from their car ownership (through all the road subsidies etc.)
If I choose not to own a car I am not able to compete according to the rules of the American game... and I'm not willing to do that to myself and my family.
If paying for cars were truly a private cost born only by the users, the issue would be totally different. But highway policy and pollution externalities mean that car owners and highway builders force everyone to pay for cars whether they want one or not.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth. THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy. Individual volunteerism will never cut it. It's not enough and it's not fair to the volunteers.
So this only good news, since frames are generally bad web design... they are doing themselves and all of us a favor if they succeed in driving people away from using frames.... but it's hard to believe they will be able to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my prediction. In an ideal world we will travel less distance, and more slowly.
Goods and information will be moved to people, and make people virtually present to each other.
Highways will be torn up. Roads will be planted with trees. Travel will become more not less expensive, as it is required to bear the FULL cost of the ecological and habitat destruction that cutting transportation corridors causes...
My utopia is an antitransportation utopia in which people stay in places that are so good that they don't want to go very far, so rich that they don't need to go very far, and so well served materially that and socially that they choose not to travel.
In the ideal world instead of subsidizing the environmental destruction of highways, airports and transportation technologies of every kind, we will make them pay their true cost, and work on creating PLACES.
Transportation is fundamentally about destroying PLACE....
Transportation is the enemy of PLACE.
Movement is a seductive fantasy... it seems to present so many opportunities to the individual, and yet it makes every place the same, and destroys the habitats and environments that lie between places....
Movement is what we all want, but that doesn't mean that we or our planet is better when we have more of it, or faster versions of it....
Just the opposite. Transportation is a seductive illusion... it gets you from here to there, but only at the cost of destroying the difference between here and there and everywhere in between.
If you compare the styling of the Pacer to every other car available in that period I think you can see that it was incredibly innovative.
I think it still looks pretty cool. Of course it was a piece of shit in mechanical terms. But it totally deserves recognition for design innovation.
Here are some folks that appreciate it:
http://www.amcpacer.com/
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Thomas Jefferson
I wonder if post it notes are bad?
Is the whole theory of patents cracked? Do you really think innovation would slow down in their absence?
It seems like the idea of intellectual property idea is an artificial construct. Nothing wrong with "artificial", but does it really make the world better?
Where did we get the idea that ideas would only have value if someone could own them?
It is not like this was an empirically tested proposition. Rather, I assume, the ideology of capitalism and ownership was extended to a new domain that "by its nature" doesn't seem to permit "ownership".
I'm begining to think that rules allowing the "ownership" of ideas and intellectual property are, if not the root of all evil, at least deeply symptomatic of evil.
Jefferson made the point well:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Thomas Jefferson
Sigh. Been there. Hard life experience teaches me that you should keep your mouth shut and speak pleasant platitudes.
:-)
If someone wants YOUR opinion they will sit down with you in private and solicit it. A "dinner" is just a trap for fools and the unwary. Be pleasant. Be intelligent. Be utterly banal.
Unless you already know that your opinion has strong support and an advocate in a position of power, you don't even bring it up even in a meeting, particularly when you are not in a power position.
I agree wholeheartedly that if you can't pass concerns to your immediate superior, OR if the high level management is fishing around at the lower levels for intelligence about its IT department, then it has middle management problems, and they won't be rectified by anything you say at dinner.
Food is a trap, and you are the prey. Whether you'll get kiled by your boss, or by his boss, is an open question, but if you speak, prepare to die.
Responding both to the above, and to several comments below:
... if they can claim to own Linux code based on that then they win big time.
On Groklaw we read in the last few hours that SCO claims
"16. Our engineers have reached the conclusion that parts of Linux have almost certainly been copied or derived from AIX or Dynix/ptx. In those cases, confirmation of this opinion would require access to more current versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx.
17. In some additional cases it was also possible to infer with reasonable certainty from comments in the source code that the engineer who implemented that code had experience and knowledge of the methods, sequence and structures used in either or both of Dynix/ptx and AIX. Confirmation of this would require depositions from the IBM individuals involved in programming the actual Linux modules in question."
Now I read that word "derived" as the key issue. Copied means copied, in a literal sense. But it sounds like the real argument SCO is making is around "derived".
And then when they talk about "methods, sequence, and structures"
I'm in no position to evaluate the potential for making this case... but it I were an evil scummy SCO general counsel, I would envision a multipart campaign, in which SCO raises enough potentially valid claims (in the eyes of a judge) to pry open more information, and bootstraps its way into information that makes possibly the kind of claims I quote above.
Legal battles aren't about reason and logic alone....
If I rewrote a best selling novel, so that each paragraph used entirely different sentences, and yet the novel's plot and theme was exactly the same... couldn't the author sue my sorry ass?
I'm asking that as a serious and naive quesiton. I don't know the answer. That's the situation I'm envisioning here from SCOs perspective.
I've spent more time than I care to admit to in the last weeks and days trying to figure out what SCO might really be up to. Can they really be as stupid is most people claim? Sure they could be as evil, coniving and greedy as we claim, but could they be as stupid as we claim?
I assume that we have two sides here. One side says "show us the infringing code".... on the theory that in order to demonstrate copying you have to show more or less a letter perfect copy...
I assume that SCOs game is to get inside of the sausage making process and to demonstrate that even though the code is not literally system V you can trace a "legacy" that involves the gradual modification of ideas expressed in one form to ideas expressed today in Linux, and that by linking the people who worked on code to its evolution over time through evidence derived from the discovery process, they will make the case that current Linux code is derived from code that they claim to own. The continuity of people may be part of making the case of continuity of "ideas" and thus of "ownership."
From this perspective (IANAL, etc.) I would think that all of the moaning about how Linux code isn't exactly, or aproximately, Unix code is really beside the point. IBM would of course like to keep it at that level, arguing "if the glove does not fit you must aquit", eg. if this code isn't exactly the copyrighted code then they have no case.
But my understanding of the law (limited and amateur as it is) is that SCO would have a case to make if the concepts ideas, "manner of expression" and all sorts of other stuff in Linux could be shown to be derived through a chain of modification, backed up by the ongoing involvement of individuals in that modification process, even if the code and expression of programing ideas took a very different letter by letter form.
So if they can get inside of IBM records they can begin to stitch a winnable case together, while if the "Match code or acquit" theory holds then the case is over. So if they can satisfy the initial requests enough to make the judge open up IBM to their SCO discover, then they can begin to make the case.
Anyway that's my effort to understand what SCO might be thinking and why this might make more sense than we'd like it to make.
They are scum, but let's not assume that they are stupid scum.
"litigious bastards"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Mabye they would consider it an honor to be so recognized.
The Europeans have the right idea, working to create quieter cities and environments, as indicated here: http://www.bksv.com/2932.asp
...so hard to keep track...
Republicans supporting Dean because they want him to beat Bush.
Republicans supporting Dean because they are sure Bush can beat him. (Karl Rove et al)
Democrats supporting Dean because they want him to win.
Democrats supporting Dean because they want him to lose. (ie. "Gore backs Dean so he can lose, and prepare the ground for a Gore comeback in 2008".... )
Not to mention Democrats and Republicans opposing Dean so that he will lose.... and probably so that he will win too!
I kind of hope Dean wins just because he might be a decent President.
---
The secret of American politics is to advocate radical ideas in ways that seem quite sensible and moderate to the vast dumb middle.
Bush has done it, presenting radical religion as "normal" politics.
I hope that Dean manages to advocate the radical idea of getting corporations out of government and restoring democracy, and that he does it in a way that leaves most Americans thinking that this radical step is just a fine and reasonable centrist idea.
Sometimes you win (when you have the dollars) and sometimes you lose (when you do not have the dollars).
Living in a democracy MIGHT oblige you to accept the outcome, but since dollar dependendent outcomes are evidence that you do NOT live in a democracy.... where's the obligation?
The alternative to one dollar/one vote is one person/ one vote... That would be a nice system to try sometime here in the US.
As James Madision would argue the issue, "people" probably only included white landholders, so let's just leave Madison in his coffin.
I see no harm in thinking about how things ought to be.
That's interesting. Thanks.
... I'm sure it is risky... I don't do anything more risk than mutual funds... but I believe that in shorting you can't lose more than the stock can gain in value, so there is a reasonable limit, unless you think the upside potential is "infinite", which even for SCO seems unlikely.
I'm not a financial advisor but I urge you to follow my advice exactly and invest lots of money based on what I say...
If you really believe SCO valuation is too high and based on wrong facts and a strategy that is bound to fail, I guess it is time to short the stock...
:-)
(That's how you make money on a decline in price...... you borrow X units of stock with an agreement to return X units of stock... if they go down in value, you profit from the loss in value... and if they go up, you lose.)
I'm not an investor... but for all you folks who REALLY believe that this isn't going to work because SCO is wrong on the facts.... well, here's a great way to make a tidy profit!
Of course "wrong on the facts" doesn't mean that SCO is going to lose... this is a bet on what will happen, not who is right and who is wrong.
Comes a time in a man's life when he realizes that there is NO wage that is worth working for, and that the only person worth working for is HIMSELF.
To be an employee is to allow someone else to define your day for you, and your life.
10) Wedding photographers
l
Photographers typically charge $2,000 to $5,000 to shoot a wedding, for what amounts to a one-day assignment plus processing time. Some get $15,000 or more. Yet many mope through the job, bumping guests in their way without apology, with the attitude: I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls.
They must cover equipment and film-development costs. Still, many in major metropolitan areas who shoot two weddings each weekend in the May-to-October marrying season pull in $100,000 for six months' work.
Yet let's face it; much of their work is mediocre. Have you ever really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon they're not, but some charge fees as if they're in the same league.
As a photographer, this complaint makes no sense to me. Start with the cost of the typical wedding $2000 to $5000 for photography...
Well the average cost for flowers is about $2000 (see here: http://www.letsgetmarried.com/flower2.html )
Here's a breakdown of wedding costs from http://www.toledoweddings.com/planner/budget2.htm
WEDDING CONSULTANT 10% Some charge a flat fee and others an hourly charge; however, the wedding consultant's fee can be as much as 10% of the wedding budget if they arrange your wedding from start to finish.
WEDDING DRESS 6% Today's wedding dress is usually white or ivory and accounts for approximately 6% of the wedding budget.
GROOM ATTIRE 1% The groom's wedding attire represents 1% of the wedding budget.
RECEPTION 37% The reception is the most expensive variable of the wedding and on average absorbs approximately 37% of the total budget.
FLOWERS 5% The average flower budget represents approximately 5% of the total wedding budget.
PHOTOGRAPHERS 6% The average cost of wedding photography represents approximately 6% of the wedding budget.
VIDEOGRAPHER 3% The cost of a professional videographer represents approximately 3% of the total wedding budget.
MUSIC 5% The music accounts for approximately 5% of the total wedding budget.
WEDDING RINGS 23% The wedding rings for the bride and groom, including the engagement and wedding bands average 23% of the total budget.
-----
Does photography provide 6% of the value of the wedding? What are your memories worth to you?
The price of ANYTHING is not an exclusive function of the underlying material costs... you have to consider the skills of the provider. Rude providers, and providers who produce crappy work, are obviuosly overpaid... and because there is very little repeat business there are information inefficiencies in the market for wedding photography... by the time you find out you've got a bad photographer it is too late to repeat the once in a lifetime event.
Yes that provides an incentive to make sure you get someone who doesn't make a mistake.... high prices can be used to (falsely) signal quality... "he charges a lot, he must be good, and we don't want a mistake on a once in a lifetime event."
But the bottom line is that it is hard to see why an average 6% of the total cost is inherently too high.
I doubt that wedding photographers are "overpaid" on average... if you've ever done it, you know there is a huge responsibility, a huge hassel, and it can't be described as "fun" in any sense.
The article describes problems of inconsistent quality I suppose, but the average wedding photographer is getting rich....
Besides you can always pay a really cheap photographer or ask your brother in law to do it.... Oh that doesn't sound so good does it?
If you want a silent PC (as I do), build it silent from the start...
There are good web sites devoted to doing this.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/
http://www.silent.se/
Troll? I protest. It is a serious comment on a serious issue.
Will it work technologically? I don't know.
Having data and using data are two different things.
Having data is good. What you do with it, how you penalize people, how much slack you allow on different violations, that's a judgement call.
If you consider yourself any kind of scientist, you have to support data collection - the alternative is to be blind to reality.
I love driving but cars and roads are literally destroying the planet anyway... the legal regime in which these machines of destruction are operated can hardly be too tight.
"Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. -Reagan "
When you think of how Reagan and friends have labored to protect wealth and privillege, that comment is a stinging self indictment... but I'm sure the irony would be lost on most people...
Please folks, Microsoft is no more evil than a tiger. It does what its enviornment has bred it to do, and what every firm in a competitive market is bred to do... it eats and competes.
Save your anger for the Republican administration, the political system, the judicial system and all the people responsible for keeping predators from biting the visitors to the zoo, people like you, me and our children.
The problem is the zoo administration and facilities and the lousy cages the animals are kept in... not the fact that the animals bite.
Sure, but I left my job when it got bad, sold a house in LA, moved to a cheaper part of the country and I could live off the house proceeds for a couple of years without worry and still buy another house....
:-)
I'm looking for work, but I'm not worried, and dear God in heaven, I'm so glad I left the job from hell... the only question is "why did I stay so long?"
Now my motto, and I really believe it, is "do what you love and the money will follow..." to which I add, "live where you love living... and life will follow." Why live in an industrial hell hole when you can just move to your idea of the most beautiful part of the country and work out the trivial stuff like how exactly you make a living once you get there?
Most people make a living in most places, after all.
That's my theory... but I haven't got a job yet, and in the meantime I have those house proceeds to live off of...
The problem with cars is that you pay for them, whether or not you own one.
I moved to Portland Oregon because of the public transport and clearn air... it's much better than most cities.
Now I want to buy a house, right next to my kids' school, and right next to a nice grocery store and my (nonexistent) place of unemployment.... and guess what... it doesn't exist. The nonexistence of this home is a function of the fact that we have a car based nation/city.
The design of even this public transport friendly city of Portland forces me to own a car I would prefer not to own.
It is not impossible to raise kids without a car, but it can be difficult. I'd be willing to make sacrifices to do it... but not if massive public subsidies are offerred to car owners and denied to me. I don't want to be a sucker... and right now our society makes me into a sucker if I choose to do the right thing for the planet earth and not own a car....
The satisfaction of doing the right thing and not having to own a car isn't enough to compensate me for the inconvenience and for the knowledge that others are materially benifitting from their car ownership (through all the road subsidies etc.)
If I choose not to own a car I am not able to compete according to the rules of the American game... and I'm not willing to do that to myself and my family.
If paying for cars were truly a private cost born only by the users, the issue would be totally different. But highway policy and pollution externalities mean that car owners and highway builders force everyone to pay for cars whether they want one or not.
Conservatives get all hot under the color about taxes... they ought to see that this is a hidden tax that is forced on the American people and the planet earth.
THAT is why limitations on car use (higher gas prices, engine displacement taxes, toll roads, a new national highway building policy, etc.) need to be a national policy. Individual volunteerism will never cut it. It's not enough and it's not fair to the volunteers.
So this only good news, since frames are generally bad web design... they are doing themselves and all of us a favor if they succeed in driving people away from using frames.... but it's hard to believe they will be able to do so.