Applecare, as I understand it, is just an extended hardware warranty with limited software support ("How do I ____ with OSX?" type stuff).
I didn't buy it for mine, because $379 seems a bit egregious. If a manufacturing defect doesn't manifest in the first year, I don't see the point in paying for 2 more years of coverage. I use my laptop every day on the go, if something's screwy on it, it's gonna die young.
While I generally agree Appleworks is a bit expensive; I did buy it because i use my Mac everyday for work, and need to be able to walk in to an Apple store and get it fixed as quickly as possible if it fails. Last i looked they also offered a business support package that offers loaners (not sure if they still do) that I may spring for since I can't afford to be w/o my Mac to the point I'd buy a 13" MBP or 11 Air if it died and would take longer than a day to fix.
Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"?
This may be something that can be easily challenged in federal court, and I truly hope someone does challenge it.
The worst part of this state bill is that every transaction, along with the verified identity of both parties, be recorded and submitted to law enforcement on demand.
Considering there is no federal mandate that says some one *must* accept US currency for payment, I think your question is moot. US currency is legal tender so you can accept it, just as you can accept anything else in payment that you want. That is the real question, IMHO - is the state's argument for limiting the use of cash compelling enough to allow it to limit your ability to choose to pay with cash?
Go out to your local downtown area - ask people if they've heard of OpenOffice - maybe 10% will say yes. Ask them aboute LibreOffice and I'd be surprised if 1/1000 have heard of it.
I did - two guys said yes and asked me for money, one said he couldn't get any medication and asked for $5, and a young lady said $20.
This isn't really that new, just a new approach to more targeted marketing. Retailers have been counting you as you walk through the door, collecting your name, address, and purchasing habits for years. Some customers even volunteer their information by signing up for club cards and rewards cards.
How true. I'm surprised stores I shop at haven't trumpeted that G Washington, B Franklin, Jesus H Christ all shop at their stores. Of course, they may not want to explain why Gengus Khan, Vlad T. Impaler and Khan Noonien Singh also shop there.
As an old - school rocket hobbyist - one of the good outcomes was furthering an interest in science and engineering. Personally, model rocketry influenced my decision on which university to attend (one of the professors there was heavily invalid with the NAR) and design to study Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering.
My question is this - how can we foster the same interest today, given the attacks on rocketry by various well meaning, but misguided, agencies?
This is what happens when you let the free market decide on standards with geographical monopolies. This is why a particular protocol is mandated with spectrum sales in most of the world. Irrespective of the relative technical merits of GSM versus CDMA, it's pretty clear that GSM is superior to CDMA and GSM with incompatible client devices for the two networks and customers locked in to one or the other depending on what phone they bought. It appears that the USA didn't learn from this mistake the first time around...
That's so right. I really like the ability to pay 20Euros a month and roam anywhere within the EU without paying any roaming charges since all my calls/texts are included in the flat fee no matter where I am in the EU. Add in a data plan and I don't have to worry about data charges while I roam either.
Different markets evolve differently - for 90% of the US phone use the incompatibility is a non-issue - they have a phone that works wherever they go. They get a flat price no matter where they roam in an area roughly as big as the EU. With the advent of "free" mobile to mobile and nights and weekends even the minute caps are largely a non-issue. Nor do I have to worry if I call a cell phone form a land line - no extra charge their either.
While what we have is different than what you have, it's not inherently better or worse - just different and an adaptation to our market characteristics.
Let's assume you are going to take the new job. I'd try to make the move as gracefully as possible by:
1. Explain your situation to the new company. Explain you don't want to leave your old company in a bind but want to take their offer. find out how flexible they are in start dates. Also find out what's the earliest you can start if step 2 falls apart. If they are a decent company , they'll appreciate that you are not the type of person to bail out and leave someone in a bind, since at some point you may leave them as well.
2. Explain to your current company the situation - you will be leaving and want to engineer a smooth transition as well as be around for the initial launch hiccups. Work out a date within the time the new company gave you. If they sack you, leave and start at the new one.
3. If they counter, then you have to decide what is best for you.
Many posters talk about the lack of company loyalty to employees. Yes, it is true. I've been there and it sucks. But I caution you - separate the company from the people who work there. Not only are they friends, they are potential employers / employees / references / job leads in the future. They will appreciate your trying to do the right thing even if "the company" doesn't. Don't waste the trust and relationships you've built up over the years. It's bad personally and professionally; not to mention bad karma - a/. -1 is a joke, but a -1 in real life isn't. As a valued mentor pointed out to me: most businesses live in a small pond, just because someone else pee'd in it doesn't mean you need to remembered for doing it as well.
I've stayed friends with people who have had to make business decisions that negatively impacted me. I don't take this etchings personally, and prefer to take the high road. They appreciate it, and I feel good about who and what I am.
the only time you should burn your bridges behind you is if you are leading a powerful army on a mission of conquest and want to clearly show the choices are victory or death.
That depends on the book. If it is a simple compilation of facts lacking sufficient creative expression to qualify for copyright protection, you can.
While that's probably technically correct - I would not be surprised if a book's layout would be copyrightable. The underlying facts aren't but a verbatim copy which includes the layout (such as scanning and creating a PDF) might, just as taking someone's electronic phone database and creating an electronic copy that mirrors the presentation layout of the original might.
I guess one issue would be is how different was the presentation of the facts - if the TZ DB was substantially different then it would seem that they have a strong case. Even when a company admits to copying facts (as in the Trivial Pursuit case) it seems as long as the way the facts are presented is what is key. You can't copy the book verbatim, but you can use the facts therein to create a distinctly different product. INAL, but that is what I garnered from the TP case.
Interesting point. But they would be helping Gamestop continue to sell their games used without giving them a cut of that, so I would expect that factor to enter the equation as well. Preventing that was the entire point of this move, so I don't think they will then turn around and reverse it or diminish it quite so easily. It will be a little more difficult of a negotiation than your scenario posits.
I agree, and I don't think it will be a quick and easy scenario. It does, however, give them a way to benefit from used game sales as well as simplify getting the product (PSN Keys) into the hands of consumers without making it look like an added "fee" since it will simply be part of the purchase price.
Since they can't kill used game sales I think its in their best interests to cut a deal with the major vendors of used games.
Game publishers have want dot limit the used market as much as possible - since they view, rightly or wrongly, that every used game sale is potentially a lost new game sale and money they don't get a cut of even if it's not.
This is a way to depress used game value and get money in their pockets - a win - win for them. While gamers may get games for less now, used prices will drop as well so there is less incentive to sell; limiting the used game market and making it less attractive; form both a revenue aspect for sellers and from an availability aspect for buyers.
What is overlooked is the possibility that the big used game sellers - such as Gamestop - can cut a deal with Sony. They can buy PSN passes at a discount, pay less of for used games and then sell them at a higher price because the multi-play is included. There would be no "single player" discount. Sony is happy because they get a revenue stream, retailers are happy because prices and margins are protected (and may even go up); gamers get a "full game" - but get less when they go to sell one. Don't think publishers and retailers of used games are enemies- they just need to find a way to extract more cash from each sale by working together.
What might you do that's not within the "norms?" can you run through walls - find a way to get an unfair advantage through quirks in the programming? I'd look for things that can ruin the experience if not fixed. That's what adds value to a beta test - finding the bugs that no one thought about.
There is no such thing as truly free speech, due to the existence of slander lawsuits. You can also experience the lack of truly free speech by talking with a friend about what all is required in weaponizing a plane while you're going through the security checkpoints at an airplane. If you prefer a more old fashioned example, start screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
While we say we have free speech, we also have laws to enforce consequences based on the reactions to that speech. Incite a panic? There's consequences. Make threats? There's consequences. Yeah it's a delicate balance, which is why discussion is good, but it's hard to advocate that people have a right to verbally and emotionally abuse others.
I fully agree - there are consequences to your actions, including when you exercise your right to free speech. I am not arguing that you have a right to harm others. But causing harm is separate form exercising your right to free speech; and I am troubled by people's willingness to limit that right, even when the desired outcome is good, because soon for later something your I may like will become "bad" and be banned as well.
Free speech means an absence of prior restraint - the government does not have the right to prevent you from saying something, and you are still responsible of the consequences of your act. Many people tend to ignore the "and there are consequences" part of the equation.
In addition, the right to free speech is one that limits the government's actions, not individuals. You have no right to use someone else's property as a forum to express your views; they are have very right to block or limit your access to their property - whether it is physical or online. That's something that many people seem to forget as well when they whine about being banned or having posts deleted.
Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised.
The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like
IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN
HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!
Actually, no. The first amendment is pretty clear - and prior restraint is a violation of free speech. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you should ban it - you can still make certain types of statements a crime - but to suggest that preventing someone from uttering them is not a first amendment violation is wrong, IMHO.
They may be trying to make a good faith effort to not violate the first, but I think they fail.
Or they could be trying to set precedent. Whether or not they succeed is another matter entirely, but it's possible that they'd try to lean on the ISPs to tell their customers "LOL sry you gotta use wired connections now." The trolls will grow stronger and more bold with every settlement they're fed.
IIRC, Civil suits don't set precedents in the sense that they are binding, especially if they are decided in another jurisdiction. If a higher court in the same jurisdiction reaches a decision that could provide case law that sets a precedent, but even then it may not be binding. Judges do like to decide the same facts in the same manner; which makes sense since fit adds some measure of stability to the system and is why we have case law.
A series of suits that reach a verdict establishes case law - so judges can use it to reach a similar decision based on similar facts. Of course, you can argue the facts - that they the same or different to your facts - depending on your position.
Of course, trying to sue thousands of individuals in thousands of jurisdictions may prove problematic and expensive. Plus, I would think judges would look askance at a company trying to enforce a patent claim on an innocent third party consumer using a product.
Then again, IANAL, so take what I said for what it is - musings based on experience, some study, and working with lawyers.
Which is why they must be killed with fire, assassinated outright as others above have suggested.
There is no money in going after home users. They would have to basically drive around looking for WiFi hotspots, and the money they would spend doing so would never be recouped. Much more profitable to just go after businesses.
While that is true; the last thing they want is bunch of pissed off people calling their representatives and demanding action; especially if some of the angry mob are donors. Congress could end their game in one swell foop, and if they made the mistake of targeting people in multiple distrust it'd be tantamount to suicide.
This is the first step towards working out a way for content providers (and ultimately users) to pay for bandwidth on a stream or d/l basis. All the major ISPs know, as streaming video and digital d/ls become more popular, demand for bandwidth will go up. They don't want to merely become a commodity provider of bandwidth, especially since as demand goes up they will need to spend on infrastructure to keep up with demand. As a result, they are looking for ways to get a cut of the dollars flowing one their bandwidth in the form of content.
Amazon, with it's own device and content, is a logical place to start with the "pay to deliver" model. Amazon knows what content is accessed, and can pay a cut to their service provider. If they let people browse the web and access other services, they have no way to know what was sent, or charge, for the bandwidth used. By cutting it off they avoid that issue. Their move to cloud-based browser enhance meant forwards that model as well - it lets them see what is accessed and charge the provider for the bandwidth. If the provider doesn't agree, then the service will not be available.
This has implications beyond Amazon - as Apple moves more and more to online delivery of everything, ISPs will want a cut. That's why you see bandwidth caps starting to creep in - it's a way to put the structure in place to force the content providers hand.
If they can't get money from the content providers, look for them to get it from users via tiered pricing or overage charges.
Can anyone honestly pretend that information which has been leaked and posted on the internet still qualifies as classified?
Also, hasn't the Govt. ever heard of the streisand effect?
Unfortunately, the release of classified information, even if it has already been released, by someone not authorized to release it is still a violation of the laws governing classified material; something made clear in every security brief I have attended.
While it seems ridiculous, it is the law - until it is formally declassified or you are authorized to release it, you can't release it. Even if all the material is unclassified, if the document containing it is classified, it still falls under those rules.
Now, IMHO, linking to a post is not a release; but that's a different argument than "its already been released so what I did was OK."
... we've been doing this for years. Converting USAF ICBM's into non-warhead launch vehicles isn't exactly a new practice. We've been doing this since the late 50's.
Very true - Mercury and Gemini depended on the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan as launch vehicles (although the Redstone was not an ICBM but a short range surface to surface missile and the manned Titans were built as a civilian variant; I don't think any Gemini flights used former ICBMs although satellites launches did). Without the military's building and testing of the missiles it would have taken a lot longer to get to Apollo. Many of NASA's sounding rockets relied on military hardware as well, such as the Nike and Honest John missiles. If you look at a photo of a Nike-Tomahawk you'll see two parallel olive drab strips on the Nike part - that's the cradle marks where the original olive drab military color was not painted white because the painting cradle covered that part of the missile and NASA didn't bother to paint over them once they were removed from the cradle.
The Titan and Atlas flew, as civilian variants, long after the ICBMs were gone.
From Univ of Illinois - it arguably changed the internet from a tool for techies to a new way to do business. One of the problems is if something is really good commercial companies may morph it into products that eclipse the original; but their contribution, when though of as basic research, was invaluable. So the definition of success should not be limited to widely used, popular, or well know; but also include defined a new industry or way of approaching a problem.
So as far as I can tell this is a failed attempt to create a trojan that was released into the wild, possibly as part of testing or as an experiment. It's not really much in the way of news, but for security geeks it is quite interesting; which is why the complete failure of the security companies to provide a decent description is so frustrating. Does anyone have real information about this trojan?
Of course it is a failed attempt - they should have got it on the app store and given Apple control of 30% of the infected machines.
Seriously, security is one area where, IMHO, Apple users have a bit of a head in the sand attitude. Other than hearing some (non-Apple) stores that are authorized retailers attempt to sell "protection" plans for Macs because "Macs have two viruses in the wild" (really? What are they?); the general attitude is "Macs are immune because no one attacks them." While strident fanboys will proclaim OSX's security superiority, I think ignoring the possibility that Macs are/will become targets is dangerous. there is precious little information out there on how to protect yourself from an attack; and the prevalent attitude of "there are no Mac viruses/trojans/etc" leads to a false sense of security and may actually make it easier to convince mac users to enter their admin pw and install malware.
A search of Apple's support site for "security" or "viruses" turns up general articles on why Apple doesn't discuss security issues until they are fixed or to not open unknown files in emails. It would be nice if they had a Top 10 Things to Do to secure your Mac. Even if there isn't a problem now, building a false sense of security will lead to great problems later and a blackeye on Apple's brand.
I've used Apples since the original Apple ][ and like tim for a lot of reasons, but there are areas where Apple and its users need to be more aware of the potential threats rather than trumpeting Apple's superiority. For a long time, it simply wasn't worth attacking Macs because they are a tiny fraction of the user base. As Apple grows (and not just in the Mac market), that "advantage" goes away.
See the numerous other replies in this thread, or God forbid, RTFA, where the methodology is mentioned.
Because the contractor billing rates published by GSA include not only salaries but also other costs including benefits contractors provide their employees,[66] POGO added OPM’s 36.25 percent benefit rate to federal employee salaries[67] and BLS’s 33.5 percent loading to private sector employee salaries to reflect the full fringe benefit package paid to full-time employees in service-providing organizations that employ 500 or more workers.[68] All supporting data for this study are found in Table 1 and Appendices B through D.[69]
Actually, I did RTFA and nothing in it discussed POGO's methodology or its limitations. In fact, it said To make its cost comparisons, POGO used the General Services Administration's listed contractor billing rates alongside data from the Office of Personnel Management and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. which sheds no light on the methodology or how the comparison was determined.
As for the other posts, yea, I missed them. I RTFA and made some comments based on the article. However, while POGO did make adjustments what is telling is this part:
However, there are a number of factors that potentially limit the accuracy of POGO’s findings. For instance, over the course of our investigation, we discovered some disturbing limitations to the federal databases available to us. The most critical limitations are that: 1) the government’s coding, classification, and data collection systems are inconsistent and do not allow for reliable cost analyses[72] ; 2) government websites do not provide access to agency documents that detail cost estimates and the justifications for outsourcing decisions; 3) the government does not publish information on the number of actual contractor employees holding a specific occupational position under any given contract; 4) the government only lists the ceiling prices that it can be billed by contractors for the specific occupational positions—the government is at liberty to negotiate prices that are lower than those listed, but it does not publish those negotiated rates (however, based on POGO’s review of GSA contracts, and anecdotal evidence, the government tends to pay the listed billing rates rather than negotiating lower rates[73]) ; and 5) government websites do not disclose what the expected cost savings for service contracts are, nor the actual savings (or lack of savings) that result from those contracts. These shortcomings prevent government officials, as well as the public, from accurately assessing outsourcing costs.
In short, they really don't know how accurate their data is but decided to base conclusions on it. That's not to say their isn't a problem with what the feds pay for outsourced IT but headlines as in TFA Fed. Government Pays IT Contractors Nearly Twice As Much As Its Own IT Workers are misleading. TFA cherry picked key parts to make it sound like the sky is falling without providing any details to put context around the numbers.
I wonder if the salary comparisons were all in costs of the federal employee - which I doubt because then you're at at a GS11/12 step 5 or so position for the quoted numbers, assuming a 1.5x salary multiplier to account for benefits. A 14 step 9 in DC already makes 133K per the salary table - so an all in cost would be around 200K minimum.
What contractors bring is the ability to change the staffing levels quickly. Unlike federal employees, who after a year, are very hard to let go; a contractor can be terminated rather quickly for virtually any reason. So, the life cycle cost is probably much less than for an employee.
The contractor isn't getting all than money either - as much as 20 - 30% is going to the company he or she works for to cover costs and profit. I know a lot of contractors that would gladly convert to federal positions because of the security and benefits but can't - the positions just aren't there. Unless Congress approves and funds positions an agency can't hire someone - even if both sides would love to do that. So, hiring contractor is a way to get needed skills without having federal positions. It's not like government agencies have tons of funded vacant positions in IT that they can't fill.
My point is a simple salary comparison doesn't tell the whole story.
Slashdot Mirror
Applecare, as I understand it, is just an extended hardware warranty with limited software support ("How do I ____ with OSX?" type stuff).
I didn't buy it for mine, because $379 seems a bit egregious. If a manufacturing defect doesn't manifest in the first year, I don't see the point in paying for 2 more years of coverage. I use my laptop every day on the go, if something's screwy on it, it's gonna die young.
While I generally agree Appleworks is a bit expensive; I did buy it because i use my Mac everyday for work, and need to be able to walk in to an Apple store and get it fixed as quickly as possible if it fails. Last i looked they also offered a business support package that offers loaners (not sure if they still do) that I may spring for since I can't afford to be w/o my Mac to the point I'd buy a 13" MBP or 11 Air if it died and would take longer than a day to fix.
does not mean having the right to physically block people from doing something like getting to work.
Let me introduce you to the concept of the picket line - recognized by law. Of course a protest is not the same thing, but it's the same general idea.
UH - you can cross a picket line. Every one I've seen has allowed access to the place being picketed, in the US at least.
Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"? This may be something that can be easily challenged in federal court, and I truly hope someone does challenge it.
The worst part of this state bill is that every transaction, along with the verified identity of both parties, be recorded and submitted to law enforcement on demand.
Considering there is no federal mandate that says some one *must* accept US currency for payment, I think your question is moot. US currency is legal tender so you can accept it, just as you can accept anything else in payment that you want. That is the real question, IMHO - is the state's argument for limiting the use of cash compelling enough to allow it to limit your ability to choose to pay with cash?
growing up as the son of Bennet Cerf?
BS.
Go out to your local downtown area - ask people if they've heard of OpenOffice - maybe 10% will say yes. Ask them aboute LibreOffice and I'd be surprised if 1/1000 have heard of it.
I did - two guys said yes and asked me for money, one said he couldn't get any medication and asked for $5, and a young lady said $20.
>
This isn't really that new, just a new approach to more targeted marketing. Retailers have been counting you as you walk through the door, collecting your name, address, and purchasing habits for years. Some customers even volunteer their information by signing up for club cards and rewards cards.
How true. I'm surprised stores I shop at haven't trumpeted that G Washington, B Franklin, Jesus H Christ all shop at their stores. Of course, they may not want to explain why Gengus Khan, Vlad T. Impaler and Khan Noonien Singh also shop there.
As an old - school rocket hobbyist - one of the good outcomes was furthering an interest in science and engineering. Personally, model rocketry influenced my decision on which university to attend (one of the professors there was heavily invalid with the NAR) and design to study Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering. My question is this - how can we foster the same interest today, given the attacks on rocketry by various well meaning, but misguided, agencies?
This is what happens when you let the free market decide on standards with geographical monopolies. This is why a particular protocol is mandated with spectrum sales in most of the world. Irrespective of the relative technical merits of GSM versus CDMA, it's pretty clear that GSM is superior to CDMA and GSM with incompatible client devices for the two networks and customers locked in to one or the other depending on what phone they bought. It appears that the USA didn't learn from this mistake the first time around...
That's so right. I really like the ability to pay 20Euros a month and roam anywhere within the EU without paying any roaming charges since all my calls/texts are included in the flat fee no matter where I am in the EU. Add in a data plan and I don't have to worry about data charges while I roam either.
Different markets evolve differently - for 90% of the US phone use the incompatibility is a non-issue - they have a phone that works wherever they go. They get a flat price no matter where they roam in an area roughly as big as the EU. With the advent of "free" mobile to mobile and nights and weekends even the minute caps are largely a non-issue. Nor do I have to worry if I call a cell phone form a land line - no extra charge their either.
While what we have is different than what you have, it's not inherently better or worse - just different and an adaptation to our market characteristics.
Let's assume you are going to take the new job. I'd try to make the move as gracefully as possible by:
1. Explain your situation to the new company. Explain you don't want to leave your old company in a bind but want to take their offer. find out how flexible they are in start dates. Also find out what's the earliest you can start if step 2 falls apart. If they are a decent company , they'll appreciate that you are not the type of person to bail out and leave someone in a bind, since at some point you may leave them as well.
2. Explain to your current company the situation - you will be leaving and want to engineer a smooth transition as well as be around for the initial launch hiccups. Work out a date within the time the new company gave you. If they sack you, leave and start at the new one.
3. If they counter, then you have to decide what is best for you.
Many posters talk about the lack of company loyalty to employees. Yes, it is true. I've been there and it sucks. But I caution you - separate the company from the people who work there. Not only are they friends, they are potential employers / employees / references / job leads in the future. They will appreciate your trying to do the right thing even if "the company" doesn't. Don't waste the trust and relationships you've built up over the years. It's bad personally and professionally; not to mention bad karma - a /. -1 is a joke, but a -1 in real life isn't. As a valued mentor pointed out to me: most businesses live in a small pond, just because someone else pee'd in it doesn't mean you need to remembered for doing it as well.
I've stayed friends with people who have had to make business decisions that negatively impacted me. I don't take this etchings personally, and prefer to take the high road. They appreciate it, and I feel good about who and what I am.
the only time you should burn your bridges behind you is if you are leading a powerful army on a mission of conquest and want to clearly show the choices are victory or death.
> You can't copy the book verbatim...
That depends on the book. If it is a simple compilation of facts lacking sufficient creative expression to qualify for copyright protection, you can.
While that's probably technically correct - I would not be surprised if a book's layout would be copyrightable. The underlying facts aren't but a verbatim copy which includes the layout (such as scanning and creating a PDF) might, just as taking someone's electronic phone database and creating an electronic copy that mirrors the presentation layout of the original might.
I guess one issue would be is how different was the presentation of the facts - if the TZ DB was substantially different then it would seem that they have a strong case. Even when a company admits to copying facts (as in the Trivial Pursuit case) it seems as long as the way the facts are presented is what is key. You can't copy the book verbatim, but you can use the facts therein to create a distinctly different product. INAL, but that is what I garnered from the TP case.
Interesting point. But they would be helping Gamestop continue to sell their games used without giving them a cut of that, so I would expect that factor to enter the equation as well. Preventing that was the entire point of this move, so I don't think they will then turn around and reverse it or diminish it quite so easily. It will be a little more difficult of a negotiation than your scenario posits.
I agree, and I don't think it will be a quick and easy scenario. It does, however, give them a way to benefit from used game sales as well as simplify getting the product (PSN Keys) into the hands of consumers without making it look like an added "fee" since it will simply be part of the purchase price.
Since they can't kill used game sales I think its in their best interests to cut a deal with the major vendors of used games.
Game publishers have want dot limit the used market as much as possible - since they view, rightly or wrongly, that every used game sale is potentially a lost new game sale and money they don't get a cut of even if it's not.
This is a way to depress used game value and get money in their pockets - a win - win for them. While gamers may get games for less now, used prices will drop as well so there is less incentive to sell; limiting the used game market and making it less attractive; form both a revenue aspect for sellers and from an availability aspect for buyers.
What is overlooked is the possibility that the big used game sellers - such as Gamestop - can cut a deal with Sony. They can buy PSN passes at a discount, pay less of for used games and then sell them at a higher price because the multi-play is included. There would be no "single player" discount. Sony is happy because they get a revenue stream, retailers are happy because prices and margins are protected (and may even go up); gamers get a "full game" - but get less when they go to sell one. Don't think publishers and retailers of used games are enemies- they just need to find a way to extract more cash from each sale by working together.
What might you do that's not within the "norms?" can you run through walls - find a way to get an unfair advantage through quirks in the programming? I'd look for things that can ruin the experience if not fixed. That's what adds value to a beta test - finding the bugs that no one thought about.
There is no such thing as truly free speech, due to the existence of slander lawsuits. You can also experience the lack of truly free speech by talking with a friend about what all is required in weaponizing a plane while you're going through the security checkpoints at an airplane. If you prefer a more old fashioned example, start screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
While we say we have free speech, we also have laws to enforce consequences based on the reactions to that speech. Incite a panic? There's consequences. Make threats? There's consequences. Yeah it's a delicate balance, which is why discussion is good, but it's hard to advocate that people have a right to verbally and emotionally abuse others.
I fully agree - there are consequences to your actions, including when you exercise your right to free speech. I am not arguing that you have a right to harm others. But causing harm is separate form exercising your right to free speech; and I am troubled by people's willingness to limit that right, even when the desired outcome is good, because soon for later something your I may like will become "bad" and be banned as well.
Free speech means an absence of prior restraint - the government does not have the right to prevent you from saying something, and you are still responsible of the consequences of your act. Many people tend to ignore the "and there are consequences" part of the equation.
In addition, the right to free speech is one that limits the government's actions, not individuals. You have no right to use someone else's property as a forum to express your views; they are have very right to block or limit your access to their property - whether it is physical or online. That's something that many people seem to forget as well when they whine about being banned or having posts deleted.
Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised. The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like
HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!
Actually, no. The first amendment is pretty clear - and prior restraint is a violation of free speech. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you should ban it - you can still make certain types of statements a crime - but to suggest that preventing someone from uttering them is not a first amendment violation is wrong, IMHO.
They may be trying to make a good faith effort to not violate the first, but I think they fail.
Or they could be trying to set precedent. Whether or not they succeed is another matter entirely, but it's possible that they'd try to lean on the ISPs to tell their customers "LOL sry you gotta use wired connections now." The trolls will grow stronger and more bold with every settlement they're fed.
IIRC, Civil suits don't set precedents in the sense that they are binding, especially if they are decided in another jurisdiction. If a higher court in the same jurisdiction reaches a decision that could provide case law that sets a precedent, but even then it may not be binding. Judges do like to decide the same facts in the same manner; which makes sense since fit adds some measure of stability to the system and is why we have case law.
A series of suits that reach a verdict establishes case law - so judges can use it to reach a similar decision based on similar facts. Of course, you can argue the facts - that they the same or different to your facts - depending on your position.
Of course, trying to sue thousands of individuals in thousands of jurisdictions may prove problematic and expensive. Plus, I would think judges would look askance at a company trying to enforce a patent claim on an innocent third party consumer using a product.
Then again, IANAL, so take what I said for what it is - musings based on experience, some study, and working with lawyers.
Which is why they must be killed with fire, assassinated outright as others above have suggested.
Hmm, slow roasted troll - tastes like chicken?
There is no money in going after home users. They would have to basically drive around looking for WiFi hotspots, and the money they would spend doing so would never be recouped. Much more profitable to just go after businesses.
While that is true; the last thing they want is bunch of pissed off people calling their representatives and demanding action; especially if some of the angry mob are donors. Congress could end their game in one swell foop, and if they made the mistake of targeting people in multiple distrust it'd be tantamount to suicide.
This is the first step towards working out a way for content providers (and ultimately users) to pay for bandwidth on a stream or d/l basis. All the major ISPs know, as streaming video and digital d/ls become more popular, demand for bandwidth will go up. They don't want to merely become a commodity provider of bandwidth, especially since as demand goes up they will need to spend on infrastructure to keep up with demand. As a result, they are looking for ways to get a cut of the dollars flowing one their bandwidth in the form of content.
Amazon, with it's own device and content, is a logical place to start with the "pay to deliver" model. Amazon knows what content is accessed, and can pay a cut to their service provider. If they let people browse the web and access other services, they have no way to know what was sent, or charge, for the bandwidth used. By cutting it off they avoid that issue. Their move to cloud-based browser enhance meant forwards that model as well - it lets them see what is accessed and charge the provider for the bandwidth. If the provider doesn't agree, then the service will not be available.
This has implications beyond Amazon - as Apple moves more and more to online delivery of everything, ISPs will want a cut. That's why you see bandwidth caps starting to creep in - it's a way to put the structure in place to force the content providers hand.
If they can't get money from the content providers, look for them to get it from users via tiered pricing or overage charges.
Can anyone honestly pretend that information which has been leaked and posted on the internet still qualifies as classified? Also, hasn't the Govt. ever heard of the streisand effect?
Unfortunately, the release of classified information, even if it has already been released, by someone not authorized to release it is still a violation of the laws governing classified material; something made clear in every security brief I have attended.
While it seems ridiculous, it is the law - until it is formally declassified or you are authorized to release it, you can't release it. Even if all the material is unclassified, if the document containing it is classified, it still falls under those rules.
Now, IMHO, linking to a post is not a release; but that's a different argument than "its already been released so what I did was OK."
... we've been doing this for years. Converting USAF ICBM's into non-warhead launch vehicles isn't exactly a new practice. We've been doing this since the late 50's.
Very true - Mercury and Gemini depended on the Redstone, Atlas, and Titan as launch vehicles (although the Redstone was not an ICBM but a short range surface to surface missile and the manned Titans were built as a civilian variant; I don't think any Gemini flights used former ICBMs although satellites launches did). Without the military's building and testing of the missiles it would have taken a lot longer to get to Apollo. Many of NASA's sounding rockets relied on military hardware as well, such as the Nike and Honest John missiles. If you look at a photo of a Nike-Tomahawk you'll see two parallel olive drab strips on the Nike part - that's the cradle marks where the original olive drab military color was not painted white because the painting cradle covered that part of the missile and NASA didn't bother to paint over them once they were removed from the cradle.
The Titan and Atlas flew, as civilian variants, long after the ICBMs were gone.
From Univ of Illinois - it arguably changed the internet from a tool for techies to a new way to do business. One of the problems is if something is really good commercial companies may morph it into products that eclipse the original; but their contribution, when though of as basic research, was invaluable. So the definition of success should not be limited to widely used, popular, or well know; but also include defined a new industry or way of approaching a problem.
So as far as I can tell this is a failed attempt to create a trojan that was released into the wild, possibly as part of testing or as an experiment. It's not really much in the way of news, but for security geeks it is quite interesting; which is why the complete failure of the security companies to provide a decent description is so frustrating. Does anyone have real information about this trojan?
Of course it is a failed attempt - they should have got it on the app store and given Apple control of 30% of the infected machines.
Seriously, security is one area where, IMHO, Apple users have a bit of a head in the sand attitude. Other than hearing some (non-Apple) stores that are authorized retailers attempt to sell "protection" plans for Macs because "Macs have two viruses in the wild" (really? What are they?); the general attitude is "Macs are immune because no one attacks them." While strident fanboys will proclaim OSX's security superiority, I think ignoring the possibility that Macs are/will become targets is dangerous. there is precious little information out there on how to protect yourself from an attack; and the prevalent attitude of "there are no Mac viruses/trojans/etc" leads to a false sense of security and may actually make it easier to convince mac users to enter their admin pw and install malware.
A search of Apple's support site for "security" or "viruses" turns up general articles on why Apple doesn't discuss security issues until they are fixed or to not open unknown files in emails. It would be nice if they had a Top 10 Things to Do to secure your Mac. Even if there isn't a problem now, building a false sense of security will lead to great problems later and a blackeye on Apple's brand.
I've used Apples since the original Apple ][ and like tim for a lot of reasons, but there are areas where Apple and its users need to be more aware of the potential threats rather than trumpeting Apple's superiority. For a long time, it simply wasn't worth attacking Macs because they are a tiny fraction of the user base. As Apple grows (and not just in the Mac market), that "advantage" goes away.
See the numerous other replies in this thread, or God forbid, RTFA, where the methodology is mentioned.
Because the contractor billing rates published by GSA include not only salaries but also other costs including benefits contractors provide their employees,[66] POGO added OPM’s 36.25 percent benefit rate to federal employee salaries[67] and BLS’s 33.5 percent loading to private sector employee salaries to reflect the full fringe benefit package paid to full-time employees in service-providing organizations that employ 500 or more workers.[68] All supporting data for this study are found in Table 1 and Appendices B through D.[69]
Actually, I did RTFA and nothing in it discussed POGO's methodology or its limitations. In fact, it said To make its cost comparisons, POGO used the General Services Administration's listed contractor billing rates alongside data from the Office of Personnel Management and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. which sheds no light on the methodology or how the comparison was determined.
As for the other posts, yea, I missed them. I RTFA and made some comments based on the article. However, while POGO did make adjustments what is telling is this part:
However, there are a number of factors that potentially limit the accuracy of POGO’s findings. For instance, over the course of our investigation, we discovered some disturbing limitations to the federal databases available to us. The most critical limitations are that: 1) the government’s coding, classification, and data collection systems are inconsistent and do not allow for reliable cost analyses[72] ; 2) government websites do not provide access to agency documents that detail cost estimates and the justifications for outsourcing decisions; 3) the government does not publish information on the number of actual contractor employees holding a specific occupational position under any given contract; 4) the government only lists the ceiling prices that it can be billed by contractors for the specific occupational positions—the government is at liberty to negotiate prices that are lower than those listed, but it does not publish those negotiated rates (however, based on POGO’s review of GSA contracts, and anecdotal evidence, the government tends to pay the listed billing rates rather than negotiating lower rates[73]) ; and 5) government websites do not disclose what the expected cost savings for service contracts are, nor the actual savings (or lack of savings) that result from those contracts. These shortcomings prevent government officials, as well as the public, from accurately assessing outsourcing costs.
In short, they really don't know how accurate their data is but decided to base conclusions on it. That's not to say their isn't a problem with what the feds pay for outsourced IT but headlines as in TFA Fed. Government Pays IT Contractors Nearly Twice As Much As Its Own IT Workers are misleading. TFA cherry picked key parts to make it sound like the sky is falling without providing any details to put context around the numbers.
I wonder if the salary comparisons were all in costs of the federal employee - which I doubt because then you're at at a GS11/12 step 5 or so position for the quoted numbers, assuming a 1.5x salary multiplier to account for benefits. A 14 step 9 in DC already makes 133K per the salary table - so an all in cost would be around 200K minimum.
What contractors bring is the ability to change the staffing levels quickly. Unlike federal employees, who after a year, are very hard to let go; a contractor can be terminated rather quickly for virtually any reason. So, the life cycle cost is probably much less than for an employee.
The contractor isn't getting all than money either - as much as 20 - 30% is going to the company he or she works for to cover costs and profit. I know a lot of contractors that would gladly convert to federal positions because of the security and benefits but can't - the positions just aren't there. Unless Congress approves and funds positions an agency can't hire someone - even if both sides would love to do that. So, hiring contractor is a way to get needed skills without having federal positions. It's not like government agencies have tons of funded vacant positions in IT that they can't fill.
My point is a simple salary comparison doesn't tell the whole story.