I doubt it's $15 for just shipping, it must be shipping and handling. I'm guessing the $13.49 for handling probably entails a lot of tender loving care for the piece before it's shipped off. It's not like they're just trying to skim extra profit right? I mean come on, corporations have ethics. Yep I bet they spend that $13.49 handling fee by paying some minimum wage worker to take a couple hours and read the adapter a bedtime story before putting it in packaging, giving it pointers on its new life on the outside, making sure the adapters affairs are all in order before the big move. Why now that I think about it, I am appalled that you think this $13.49 surcharge is unnecessary! Think of the adapters welfare for christs sake. Jeez. Barbarian.
"Ah, yes, well, RFID tags in general -- I was just commenting on the photograph part. RFID tags that stay in place could be bad... but in this case, they're part of the packaging, surely? And so not really a problem... who keeps the packaging for their razor blades?"
Read the article:
"...The next phase in tag implementation came with trials on theft-prone products, such as DVDs and razorblades - a murky and seemingly opaque development but, you might say, partly alleviated by the fact that the tags are on the product packaging and can therefore be discarded.
Now, however, the tags are inching their way even deeper into our products. Speaking at the RFID Journal Live! conference in Chicago in June, Keith Mahoney of Marks & Spencer reportedly said, 'Item level tagging is the holy grail.'..."
So yes, at this point the RFID's are in the packaging, but the next step is to have them in the actual product.
From your comment
"...but in this case, they're part of the packaging, surely?..."
"... if they used anonymous IP addresses they wouldn't be able to legally press charges against anyone because it would be entrapment..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't anti entrapment laws only apply to governmental law enforcement agencies? The RIAA is not a part of the government, so I would assume entrapment laws do not apply to their private civil investigations.
Anyone know definitively if I am correct in this line of thought?
"...For the moment, the laughter-recognition software is rather crude and cannot accuratly distinguish between different people..."
Soooo... basically you've come up with this pointless software, which is only interesting due to its novelty (I can't bring myself to say inventiveness), that doesn't work. Stop the presses! This is headline material!!
I see no reason for this zebra infestation to be a problem. If you want to get rid of the zebra's, just set some lions loose. Duh. Wait, then we'll have to get rid of the lions. I know! After the lions take care of the zebra's, we'll release tigers with lasers attached to their heads to take care of the lions. There. Problem solved. It's so simple. Where would you people be without me? Genius is a curse.
...Well, first things first. At first you have to establish that it really was an unjustified and illegal war before you can accuse him of murder. But since that seems to have been the case, it would be very ironic indeed if some leading member(s) of his administration would have to answer to the International Criminal Court which they so opposed...
The tribunal can charge Americans all they like, but the US will not identify any charges, findings, convictions, or sentencing of the tribunal that they do not wish to identify.
To put it bluntly, if some leading member(s) of GWB's administration were charged by the ICC (International Criminal Court), said member(s) of the administration would tell the ICC to bugger off. Charges by the ICC? Possible but unlikely. Anyone from the GWB administration answering to the ICC, cold day in the seventh ring.
Simply calling someone illogical is not an ad hominem fallacy (attacking someone personally to discredit their argument, for any reader not up on their Latin).
You are creating another strawman by implying I stated "Calling someone "illogical" is an ad hominem attack."
Note, I explicitly said:
"...after your strawman, and (as) a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical..."
To translate for you since you are having a difficult time understanding, your entire comment was an illogical rant, not just the portions bastardizing the word "logic" as you imply I meant. Part of your personal attack on the arguer of the argument you were attempting to discredit went as far as to call him illogical, when the only person behaving illogically is you.
In your response, you have created another stawman, tried to beat him up (didn't do so well this time) and attacked me personally (another ad hominem attack) with your lovely:
"I guess you just scraped by in Logic 101 and you wanted to give your new-found knowledge a try, huh?"
So yes, you are very illogical. I think you are a few other things as well, but I'm not going to attack you personally.
"...So I guess we should cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison, get Chemical Ali back into the lab, get those torture racks greased, throw all of those 'Big Brother Saddam' pictures back up in Baghdad, and leave a fruit basket with a letter of apology. You're right...we are indeed in the Twilight Zone."
That's called creating a straw man. It's a fallacy of logic, to summarize it is taking someones words, then giving them new meaning. Usually followed by an attack on the new meaning.
rant rant rant rant
That's just my summary of you beating the hell out of the strawman.
...You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical. You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism.
Now you are attacking the person, and not their argument. Another fallacy of logic. Ontop of it, after your strawman, and a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical.
What makes you think open source developers only copy ideas? Part of the article (you read it right?) had to do with cabilities of open source software that are unmatched by anything else.
...Brightening, Lieutenant Caldwell said some officers even welcomed the posting of their home addresses, if that encouraged Mr. Sheehan to visit.
"If he wants to drop by the house," Lieutenant Caldwell said, "the police officers would be more than happy to welcome him. We're all armed and trained..."
The website creators reason for the existence of the sight is due to his opinion of rampant corruption of WA police. My understanding is it is an attempt to make all officers think twice of their actions since they are real people and should not be able to hide behind a badge if they act out of the public good.
With the very public statement by Lieutenant Caldwell given to the New York Times, stating many officers desire to have Mr. Sheehan drop by since officers are "trained and armed" implies they would like nothing more than an excuse to injure or kill Mr. Sheehan for his perfectly legal efforts. With statements such as that, I find it very likely Mr. Sheehan's opinion of corruption to hold merit.
Lieutenant Caldwell's anger and frustration is understandable, but flagarent statements such as the one given, to the New York Times of all places, speaks volumes for Mr. Sheehan's claim.
I'm really surprised that AOLTW didn't do this on a wider scale earlier.
After all, AOLTW owns a huge music and film library, and they can easily support direct sales through AOL just from this library.
I'm surprised as well. One of the concerns the FTC had about the merger was anti trust possibilities if the companies combined. One of which was if AOL and TW became one company, the media library could be restricted to only AOL customers. Part of the conditions of FTC approval was that the content still be available to competitors.
Most notable from the link concerning the topic: "...The proposed consent order also addresses concerns about potential discriminatory treatment against non-affiliated ISPs in terms of the content and Internet services delivered to subscribers..."
Not only did AOLTW not restrict the media library (to the best of my knowledge), they haven't even offered it themselves in any major endevour until now.
It could've been such an advantage it was a condition of the FTC's merger approval that they not deny competitors this content. On the other hand, AOLTW went a step above that, and didn't even offer it themselves until now.
RTFA, it's a total of four tiny paragraphs, the first of which is:
An AOL spokeswoman said the Internet division of AOL Time Warner Inc. had been using Amazon on an interim basis to sell CDs and DVDs. She added that its pacts with the online retailer are still ongoing.
What bullshit backwater part of Texas do you live in? Here in the D/FW area, you can shop for anything you want. Cars, hammers, ass vibrators...
You should not be able to shop for many 'illicit' items in Texas, on Sunday or otherwise. It is illegal for anyone to sell obscene materials or devices, such as your pleasant "ass vibrator" example, in the entire state of Texas.
From the provided link:
...State law appears a little less forgiving: It's illegal to "wholesale promote" obscene materials or devices. Texas statute says an obscene device is a simulated sexual organ or an item designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs. The law allows investigators to assume that anyone with six or more of the items is intending to promote them...
So, even your beloved D/FW (Dallas/Fort Worth Metro area for the unknowing readers) is a "bullshit backwater part of Texas" by your standards.
I know I shouldn't mess with Texas, but it's still alright to mess with Texans right?;)
the math is simple and available to anyone looking at it
$384,300 is not what Sun would gain for exercising their stock options, $384,300 is what Sun would have to pay to exercise their stock options (purchase 210,000 @ $1.83 a share). They would then gain 210,000 shares of SCO stock, and provided the options agreement allowed, could turn around and sell the 210,000 shares for the current market rate of SCO stock of (last I knew) roughly $11.00. So Profit = 210,000 * (11 - 1.83) or as earlier stated by someone, $1,925,700.
even if shares of SCO went up by -one thousand times- their current value, Sun would only make $384,300,000
If SCO stock went up by -one thousand times- their current value (assuming $11 at this time) then 210,000 shares would be worth (210,000)*(11)*(1000) = $2,310,000,000 ($2.31B). Subtract from this the amount of the cost to exercise the option ($384,300) and you get the profit Sun would receive in your scenario, $2,309,615,700. That is hardly chump change, even for Sun, and is over six times the number your arithmetic came up with.
They word is "spay", past tense "spayed". To spade a pet would be to beat it with a shovel.
Ohhhhhhhh. Damn, I wish I had known that yesterday before I performed the procedure in house. I figured I'd save a buck. No wonder my dog is mad at me. She pee'd on my shoe and everything.
Since there are billions of stars in our galaxy, there are billions of potential star systems to study for evidence of life. If searching for life, I think it is quite reasonable and intelligent for astronomers and scientists to play the odds and direct their limited resources towards studying those stars and systems most similar to our own. I do not believe astronomers and scientists are ruling out the possibility of life in drastically different systems, I think they are simply narrowing down the best possible candidates to direct their attention towards.
In my opinion, searching for life in drastically different star systems should probably come after discovering (proving) whether extraterrestrial life exists at all. Most likely, the quickest way to do this is to acknowledge the obvious fact that we know life can exist in a Sol like system, so Sol like systems should be studied first in the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.
It really just boils down to using resources as efficiently as possible. If any alien looked at Sol and thought it was a bad contender for life since it differed greatly from his own system, I couldn't blame him for playing the odds and directing his attention towards a system more like his own, that he knows can support life.
I couldn't recall if the IIgs proceeded Mac's or not, so I did a little research and found that you are correct.
According to this website: http://www.soltec.net/~cbsc/512k/dates.html Mac's were introduced in January 1984, Mac Plus in January 1986, and the IIgs later in September 1986.
There are multiple wireless standards that operate within the 900mhz range. Without knowing which standard at 900mhz your local ISP's are considering, one cannot comment on the security or reliability of the unknown methods of communication that may be implemented in your area.
I would recommend digging a little deeper to see what standards are being considered, then visiting this very informative page at IBM.com pertaining to current and emerging wireless standards. Once you know the exact standard the ISP's are considering, you should be able to have your questions concerning security and reliability answered on the IBM link provided.
You must have me over the next time you contact a manufacturer to explain why you need a warranty replacement. I'll even help social engineer until we can convince someone from the company that carrier pidgeon related damages have an implied coverage under the warranty. The film would be priceless. We could make thousands. (Well, thousands of peso's at least). Hell we could use some SCO like FUD tactics and threaten to sue for them manufacturing a product that is flagrantly too heavy for "normal use". What fun, we'll drink a lot of beer the whole time in case we fail so the entire evening wouldn't be a waste. Deal?
whoa whoa whoa, let me get this right? You think this about the money? You my friend, are an idiot! Why SCO obviously has an inherent right to everything on this planet, DARL C. MCBRIDE SAYS SO! We all owe him 3 billion dollars for existing, he says he has solid proof that he will share any day now, that gods creation of the Universe was based of off SCO IP. Infact many parts of our own double helix is a direct copy of secret proprietary code (he just won't tell us which yet). Oh my god, I just figured out the missing link in mans evolution! It was SCO source code injected into human DNA by the evil IBM! Nobel prize, here I come.
If you mod me -1 flamebait, you my friend, have no sense of humor.
yea, I accidently submitted that when still working on the message/content/layout. I feel your pain, I'll help you pay for the lasik and we'll get your eyes as good as new. Luckily it got modded down pretty quick to save others from the pain. Sad really, I thought I had a good point, oh well, my bad.
I find your comment insightful, but "Let that be a lesson when designing hardware" is a little harsh on the designers in my opinion. It almost makes the flaw sound intentional, or that the designers threw caution to the wind and were flagrantly ignored an obvious possible problem by not testing what would happen if:
1.)User connects laptop to external power
2.)User disables their phone line
3.)User is connected to a grounded peripheral
4.)User is touching a conductive portion of the chassis
5.)Users phone rings while 1. - 4. are true.
6.)User gets shocked
It's not like they were firestone and aware that their product was killing people and continued to sell it anyways. All products are flawed to a degree (pet rocks et cetera excluded). An elusive but significant flaw was found in Sony's product, and they recalled it to have it fixed. A company that is open about their mistakes and willingly corrects them is a good company in my opinion. What I would consider a bad company on the other hand, would never admit mistakes and would deny a problem even exists, or they would deny that the problem is their fault (MS undocumented "features" anyone?). A bad company will throw red herrings in your path when you attempt to get to the root of a problem, and overall do their best to sabotage your efforts to have the problem resolved. All of that just so they don't have to admit: "Yep, we goofed, let us fix it for you, our dear valued customer who we hope will buy from us again".
So yes, I feel your comment is interesting and insightful, but I disagree with the your last statement if it is implying that the mistake was irresponsible or flagrant on the part of Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it's $15 for just shipping, it must be shipping and handling.
I'm guessing the $13.49 for handling probably entails a lot of tender loving care for the piece before it's shipped off. It's not like they're just trying to skim extra profit right? I mean come on, corporations have ethics. Yep I bet they spend that $13.49 handling fee by paying some minimum wage worker to take a couple hours and read the adapter a bedtime story before putting it in packaging, giving it pointers on its new life on the outside, making sure the adapters affairs are all in order before the big move. Why now that I think about it, I am appalled that you think this $13.49 surcharge is unnecessary! Think of the adapters welfare for christs sake. Jeez. Barbarian.
Read the article:
"...The next phase in tag implementation came with trials on theft-prone products, such as DVDs and razorblades - a murky and seemingly opaque development but, you might say, partly alleviated by the fact that the tags are on the product packaging and can therefore be discarded.
Now, however, the tags are inching their way even deeper into our products. Speaking at the RFID Journal Live! conference in Chicago in June, Keith Mahoney of Marks & Spencer reportedly said, 'Item level tagging is the holy grail.' ..."
So yes, at this point the RFID's are in the packaging, but the next step is to have them in the actual product.
From your comment
"...but in this case, they're part of the packaging, surely?..."
Don't call me Shirley dammit!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't anti entrapment laws only apply to governmental law enforcement agencies? The RIAA is not a part of the government, so I would assume entrapment laws do not apply to their private civil investigations.
Anyone know definitively if I am correct in this line of thought?
Uh, have you been living in a box? YES the org is run by a bunch of retards. ;)
"...For the moment, the laughter-recognition software is rather crude and cannot accuratly distinguish between different people..."
Soooo... basically you've come up with this pointless software, which is only interesting due to its novelty (I can't bring myself to say inventiveness), that doesn't work. Stop the presses! This is headline material!!
I see no reason for this zebra infestation to be a problem. If you want to get rid of the zebra's, just set some lions loose. Duh. Wait, then we'll have to get rid of the lions. I know! After the lions take care of the zebra's, we'll release tigers with lasers attached to their heads to take care of the lions. There. Problem solved. It's so simple. Where would you people be without me? Genius is a curse.
I'm not trying to troll here, but it would be very ironic considering the US has rejected identifying the permanent tribunal.
The tribunal can charge Americans all they like, but the US will not identify any charges, findings, convictions, or sentencing of the tribunal that they do not wish to identify.
To put it bluntly, if some leading member(s) of GWB's administration were charged by the ICC (International Criminal Court), said member(s) of the administration would tell the ICC to bugger off. Charges by the ICC? Possible but unlikely. Anyone from the GWB administration answering to the ICC, cold day in the seventh ring.
You are creating another strawman by implying I stated "Calling someone "illogical" is an ad hominem attack."
Note, I explicitly said:
"...after your strawman, and (as) a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical..."
To translate for you since you are having a difficult time understanding, your entire comment was an illogical rant, not just the portions bastardizing the word "logic" as you imply I meant. Part of your personal attack on the arguer of the argument you were attempting to discredit went as far as to call him illogical, when the only person behaving illogically is you.
In your response, you have created another stawman, tried to beat him up (didn't do so well this time) and attacked me personally (another ad hominem attack) with your lovely:
"I guess you just scraped by in Logic 101 and you wanted to give your new-found knowledge a try, huh?"
So yes, you are very illogical. I think you are a few other things as well, but I'm not going to attack you personally.
Have a nice day! Thank you drive thru!
That's called creating a straw man. It's a fallacy of logic, to summarize it is taking someones words, then giving them new meaning. Usually followed by an attack on the new meaning.
rant rant rant rant
That's just my summary of you beating the hell out of the strawman.
Now you are attacking the person, and not their argument. Another fallacy of logic. Ontop of it, after your strawman, and a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical.
rant rant rant rant
Summary of the rest of your words.
Can someone mod the troll down?
What makes you think open source developers only copy ideas? Part of the article (you read it right?) had to do with cabilities of open source software that are unmatched by anything else.
"If he wants to drop by the house," Lieutenant Caldwell said, "the police officers would be more than happy to welcome him. We're all armed and trained..."
The website creators reason for the existence of the sight is due to his opinion of rampant corruption of WA police. My understanding is it is an attempt to make all officers think twice of their actions since they are real people and should not be able to hide behind a badge if they act out of the public good.
With the very public statement by Lieutenant Caldwell given to the New York Times, stating many officers desire to have Mr. Sheehan drop by since officers are "trained and armed" implies they would like nothing more than an excuse to injure or kill Mr. Sheehan for his perfectly legal efforts. With statements such as that, I find it very likely Mr. Sheehan's opinion of corruption to hold merit.
Lieutenant Caldwell's anger and frustration is understandable, but flagarent statements such as the one given, to the New York Times of all places, speaks volumes for Mr. Sheehan's claim.
After all, AOLTW owns a huge music and film library, and they can easily support direct sales through AOL just from this library.
I'm surprised as well. One of the concerns the FTC had about the merger was anti trust possibilities if the companies combined. One of which was if AOL and TW became one company, the media library could be restricted to only AOL customers. Part of the conditions of FTC approval was that the content still be available to competitors.
See the FTC approval with conditions, Dec. 14 2000.
Most notable from the link concerning the topic: "...The proposed consent order also addresses concerns about potential discriminatory treatment against non-affiliated ISPs in terms of the content and Internet services delivered to subscribers..."
Not only did AOLTW not restrict the media library (to the best of my knowledge), they haven't even offered it themselves in any major endevour until now.
It could've been such an advantage it was a condition of the FTC's merger approval that they not deny competitors this content. On the other hand, AOLTW went a step above that, and didn't even offer it themselves until now.
Very surprising indeed.
An AOL spokeswoman said the Internet division of AOL Time Warner Inc. had been using Amazon on an interim basis to sell CDs and DVDs. She added that its pacts with the online retailer are still ongoing.
You should not be able to shop for many 'illicit' items in Texas, on Sunday or otherwise. It is illegal for anyone to sell obscene materials or devices, such as your pleasant "ass vibrator" example, in the entire state of Texas.
From the provided link:
...State law appears a little less forgiving: It's illegal to "wholesale promote" obscene materials or devices. Texas statute says an obscene device is a simulated sexual organ or an item designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs. The law allows investigators to assume that anyone with six or more of the items is intending to promote them...
So, even your beloved D/FW (Dallas/Fort Worth Metro area for the unknowing readers) is a "bullshit backwater part of Texas" by your standards.
I know I shouldn't mess with Texas, but it's still alright to mess with Texans right? ;)
$384,300 is not what Sun would gain for exercising their stock options, $384,300 is what Sun would have to pay to exercise their stock options (purchase 210,000 @ $1.83 a share). They would then gain 210,000 shares of SCO stock, and provided the options agreement allowed, could turn around and sell the 210,000 shares for the current market rate of SCO stock of (last I knew) roughly $11.00. So Profit = 210,000 * (11 - 1.83) or as earlier stated by someone, $1,925,700.
even if shares of SCO went up by -one thousand times- their current value, Sun would only make $384,300,000
If SCO stock went up by -one thousand times- their current value (assuming $11 at this time) then 210,000 shares would be worth (210,000)*(11)*(1000) = $2,310,000,000 ($2.31B). Subtract from this the amount of the cost to exercise the option ($384,300) and you get the profit Sun would receive in your scenario, $2,309,615,700. That is hardly chump change, even for Sun, and is over six times the number your arithmetic came up with.
Your right, the math is simple.
Ohhhhhhhh. Damn, I wish I had known that yesterday before I performed the procedure in house. I figured I'd save a buck. No wonder my dog is mad at me. She pee'd on my shoe and everything.
Should the ethics and morality of someone who patents ethics and morality be trusted? Seems kind of a no brainer to me.
In my opinion, searching for life in drastically different star systems should probably come after discovering (proving) whether extraterrestrial life exists at all. Most likely, the quickest way to do this is to acknowledge the obvious fact that we know life can exist in a Sol like system, so Sol like systems should be studied first in the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.
It really just boils down to using resources as efficiently as possible. If any alien looked at Sol and thought it was a bad contender for life since it differed greatly from his own system, I couldn't blame him for playing the odds and directing his attention towards a system more like his own, that he knows can support life.
According to this website: http://www.soltec.net/~cbsc/512k/dates.html Mac's were introduced in January 1984, Mac Plus in January 1986, and the IIgs later in September 1986.
I would recommend digging a little deeper to see what standards are being considered, then visiting this very informative page at IBM.com pertaining to current and emerging wireless standards. Once you know the exact standard the ISP's are considering, you should be able to have your questions concerning security and reliability answered on the IBM link provided.
You must have me over the next time you contact a manufacturer to explain why you need a warranty replacement. I'll even help social engineer until we can convince someone from the company that carrier pidgeon related damages have an implied coverage under the warranty. The film would be priceless. We could make thousands. (Well, thousands of peso's at least). Hell we could use some SCO like FUD tactics and threaten to sue for them manufacturing a product that is flagrantly too heavy for "normal use". What fun, we'll drink a lot of beer the whole time in case we fail so the entire evening wouldn't be a waste. Deal?
True, but the alternative you present seems to work wonderfully for Microsoft...
If you mod me -1 flamebait, you my friend, have no sense of humor.
yea, I accidently submitted that when still working on the message/content/layout. I feel your pain, I'll help you pay for the lasik and we'll get your eyes as good as new. Luckily it got modded down pretty quick to save others from the pain. Sad really, I thought I had a good point, oh well, my bad.
1.)User connects laptop to external power 2.)User disables their phone line 3.)User is connected to a grounded peripheral 4.)User is touching a conductive portion of the chassis 5.)Users phone rings while 1. - 4. are true. 6.)User gets shocked
It's not like they were firestone and aware that their product was killing people and continued to sell it anyways. All products are flawed to a degree (pet rocks et cetera excluded). An elusive but significant flaw was found in Sony's product, and they recalled it to have it fixed. A company that is open about their mistakes and willingly corrects them is a good company in my opinion. What I would consider a bad company on the other hand, would never admit mistakes and would deny a problem even exists, or they would deny that the problem is their fault (MS undocumented "features" anyone?). A bad company will throw red herrings in your path when you attempt to get to the root of a problem, and overall do their best to sabotage your efforts to have the problem resolved. All of that just so they don't have to admit: "Yep, we goofed, let us fix it for you, our dear valued customer who we hope will buy from us again".
So yes, I feel your comment is interesting and insightful, but I disagree with the your last statement if it is implying that the mistake was irresponsible or flagrant on the part of Sony.