Anti-Competitive needn't be limited to sleazy back room dealings to prevent competitors access to the market.
But Apple hasn't done things to prevent competitors from entering the market; as evidenced by the number of competitors it has in each market it is in.
Apple's devices, in particular, have been unassailable; which puts other CE manufacturers in an awkward position. If Apple could be counted on to add a little "Redmond design" to each product, there would be a more competitive landscape.
Success in the marketplace does not equate to being anti-competitive. In fact, much of what Apple does is rather beneficial to competitors - Apple doesn't slash prices to drive competitors out, they actual tend to keep theirs high even when other products enter their markets, they don't demand exclusivity in order to use their software on a product (they don't even license their OS); they don't limit their competitors ability to distribute and sell their products in the same markets; they don't get other manufacturers together and say "the price of tablets is $600, the price of computers is $900"...
They have a significant presence in the market because their products are popular, not because of any anti-competitive actions on their part.
A monopoly isn't a requirement for an anti-competitive lawsuit, and neither is a monopoly. You must have abused the market in such a way to force others to compete at a disadvantage.
Microsoft did so by trying to force PC vendors to bundle IE.
Actually, you must have used your market power to, for example, damage competitors or control pricing. Apple hasn't got significant market power in the TV market, an quite frankly am curious to see their strategy if the do enter it given how cut throat that market is with regards to price.
In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.
True, but doing that and then not revealing the second password could be considered obstructing justice. The issue is not can they hide the data but what are the consequences of doing that. In addition, just because you hide the data doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't suspect you have it. Missing information, such as email sent from or to you would point to someone trying to hide something; giving them an opening to hold an obstruction charge over your head. Finally, you assume government forensics experts can't crack TrueCrypt or deduce the existence of a hidden volume.
Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes.
So... encryption is now illegal in the US? That doesn't sound right.
No, but that really doesn't hide it since they could be required to provide the key or face charges.
Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?
It might, but in they may see themselves, at least individually, as well hidden and smarter than the FBI and others. Besides, they want attention, and what better way to get it than taunt authorities
Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes. In some ways, that makes it easier for the government since all they basically need to show is they acted to influence the investigation and directed the hiding of the evidence; even if they are not the target of the investigation. it's a pretty broad set of powers, and can be used to "persuade" people to provide information.
While this could be used to chase down prates, I doubt that's that's the real reason behind it. Why? Follow the money. I would assume the labels cut a deal that gives them a share of each subscription, probably based on the relative number of songs that are matched. That makes sense because it allows them to further monetize the music they have, a t virtually no cost to them; in fact it can even lower their distribution costs since everything is electronic rather than hard copy.
I would even call the plan brilliant - not because it provides a (possible) way to track piracy but makes the mantra now "Piracy - the recording industry's new friend (TM)." Now, every pirated song that is matched yields a Ka-ching for no distribution cost. The more a song is pirated, the louder the Ka-ching; which is the real music executives want to hear. I would go so far as to say they may even want to encourage "sharing" as Cloud gains steam since that would increase their relative take. Of course, someone will figure out how to fool the system into transferring songs for files you don't really have - but again, it's to the label's advantage. Apple's as well, because if that drives iCloud subscriptions, Ka - ching.
So who's the loser in this? Well, depending on the contract, musicians if specific sales (CD or online) is how they get paid; at least until they can figure out how to get a cut of the new revenue stream. Other music services, since Apple will be essentially a limitless source of music at a set price. Ultimately, sellers of physical media because there is no need to buy a CD when you can easily and essentially legally get whatever you want from Apple; which will please the labels because Wal-Mart will no longer be able to dictate terms to them.
I'd venture the real end game is to transfer to a subscription based service - for a flat fee d/l whatever you want. Keep it as long as you have a subscription. Create custom playlists and stream you're own radio channel, which for a reduced subscription fee will include select targeted ads. Yes, others have tried it but given the clout behind this Apple and the major labels may finally pull it off.
This is just part of what will be a contentious battle between the bandwidth owners and the content / service providers. Both sides want to extract as much of the consumer dollar as possible for themselves. Bandwidth owners see content / service providers using their lines to make money and as usage increases they see an opportunity to extract some of that money through tiered rate plans. content / service providers, OTOH, want the pipe to be as big and cheap as possible so they can sell more things to the consumer.
As bandwidth gets more expensive, consumers will use less and be willing to pay less for content since it carries an added cost for bandwidth. By introducing tiers early in the bandwidth demand growth phase carriers can start getting their customers used to limiting uptake of new services (and pay more to boot). Why is this important - it gives carriers some leverage to extract money form content/services providers to unthrottle the pipes since the providers want to keep growing and grab as many customers as quickly as possible.
I expect this battle will play out in the commercial and political arena as well - with lamentations about jobs, infrastructure costs, "staying competitive withe (insert country of choice)" being heard as each side tries to gain and maintain the upper hand. In some cases, a company is both - my cable provider is more than happy to sell me a subscription to HBO which I can access on the go via my phone as well (which is provided by another company). My phone company no doubt looks at that and says "Why are we helping our competitor for free?"
Make no mistake, it's an important battle since, if rate caps become the norm, this cool vision of getting everything anywhere over the internet will be a long time coming. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of tyins between content/service providers and carriers that allows you to get premium services w/o being charged for data and the company's splitting the revenue. In fact, I think that may be the end game some have in mind.
Unless they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration. The details of the contract will matter. Remember all this has happened recently. Some of the execs' lawyers may not have had a chance to analyze and discuss the matter in detail with their clients.
Except for the "they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration," I think you are spot on. My experience with employment agreements is simply because a clause is in one it doesn't mean it can be enforced; even if it could when the contract was written.
In addition, the whole "fired" piece was not in the TFA; it seems to be an add by the submitter.
Execs leave pre and post merger for a lot of reasons.
But if being a regulator paid better than the industry did, why would someone risk losing such a great paying job by taking bribes? The reason regulators get bought off now is because, worst case scenario, they lose their job and accept a higher paying job at the company that bought them.
Regulatory capture has nothing to do with taking bribes or other illegal activity. It's about using regulatory power to the company's advantage.
The "deal" he was able to get me ended up being about $42 (after taxes) more expensive than the best internet price I could find. Obviously, I purchased from the internet and am loving my camcorder. I mean, I can certainly understand paying a small premium for the convenience of walking out of the store with an item, but a nearly 10% premium after the employee discount? That's a bit steep for me.
What is your sales tax rate - that could be most of the difference and since most states have a use tax that you must pay for items bought out of state teh real difference may be smaller. Yes, I know actually paying a use tax is another argument...
Most of these big box stores, at least as far as computer sales go, seem to live off the concept of selling the computers, printers and other major components at low margins and then raping the customer over the sale of items like cables, adapters and the like. "Yes, this color laser printer is only $235, and here's your six foot USB cable for $29.95!"
The real money is in service agreements. If you want some laughs, listen to a salesperson push one. If you want more of a discount; negotiate a price and buy the service agreement. If they discount anything it's the item (since the SA covers up to the purchase price for repairs/replacement; not giving you a new item that costs more no matter what the salesperson says); then return the SA for a full refund (most states allow this) and keep the item at the discounted price.
If they had the balls to try and pull that shit on somebody like me, who comes in sporting a geek beard, holding a very fancy power supply and knowing at a glance which of their tools I need to borrow for 15 seconds...I shudder at the thought of what they must have pulled on people like - say - my mother.
I doubt any large chain repair service is any better. I hope the Geek Squad chokes and dies.
Sometimes I wonder if they truly know. I had a "consultation" for home theater install (it was free and I was looking for some advice). I told the GS guy what I was looking for - he proceeded to take a few measures and promise a quote and recommendations. When I got it it was a long list of (expensive) items that would cost as much as a small car, (they seem to simply check every expensive item they sell); when I started asking questions all I got was blank stares. Needless to say, I'm not to impressed with their "consultants." Oh well...
Not that the executives can't sue but they normally have contract that may allow the company to do these things. However the details of the contracts are important. The articles seem to suggest that by removing these execs, the parent company saves a lot of money as the executive stock options that the execs would have gotten either go back to the company for free or extremely reduced cost. That is, unless the contracts stipulate other terms.
Actually, the submission, not TFA, says that. The article only says they left with no reason given for why. Quite frankly, if they were so high up that their departure wasn't noticed and they didn't have a solid employment contract to protect themselves I'd be surprised. While I am not a lawyer my experience with employment law tells me if they were fired for the reason given in the submission there'll be lawsuits and settlements forthcoming. Employment law, in the US at least, changes with each court case so even if they had a contract what was enforceable yesterday may not be today; and courts tend to take a dim view of companies firing someone simply to avoid paying money owed.
your premise, that capture is inevitable, is false in my opinion. If regulating bodies are/were properly funded this would not be the case. The problem is to fund them properly, the governement would have to pay the regulators more than they would get in the industry itself. That is how you prevent losee of people to the industry and thus create minimal conflict of interest.
Actually by doing this you reverse the flow, making being the regulator the end goal, so that the best in the field are regulators.
The problem of course is the cost is really high for this. Especially in areas such as finance.
Regulatory capture is not so much about a revolving door between industry and regulator as about how companies use regulation for their benefit and to keep out competition. While paying regulators more would help lessen the revolving door it would not do much about the underlying reasons behind regulatory capture. You'd just have better regulators to capture.
As for TFA, frankly he is full of shit. Sure you may be able to say technically the first home computer that could be called personal wasn't an IBM, but does anyone run 6502 MOSFET chips anymore? Of course not because IBM PC compatible is the standard PERIOD. Hell even Apple now is IBM PC compatible.
You point out a common feature of many businesses - the company that invented the concept is often not the one who is the most successful or even a survivor as the industry matures. It's often the fast followers, who learn form the pioneer's mistakes and ultimately grow large. MS is very good at that - something, BTW we can also thank IBM for enabling - to the point that many people think they created the concepts since they've become the de facto standard.
While technologies and media platforms go obsolete at an ever more rapid pace, the ideas they engender never really die.
Gee - people have a range of activities that brings please, facilitates work, allows them to be creative, etc.; and they adapt and adopt newer technologies that allow them to continue to do those things. When they discover the newer technology is better (with a wide definition of "better") at providing them what they want they stop using the old in favor of the new. Except for a few, who for whatever reason, prefer the old.
Hmm, if you can get post doc funding for the above, maybe I should get a grant for my proposal to determine "old technologies will come back into vogue, even on a limited basis, when it is discovered they can do specific things in different ways or better than the new.
Film. or at least presentation of my paper, at 11.
The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year.
Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.
True, but just because it can doesn't mean it will. Senators and Representatives may vote for (or against) something they think will not happen (or is inevitable) to get a vote "on record" for that all important election campaign commercial. It's a no-cost political "win." No, if they really have to go on record when something is at stake, they are much less likely to; which is why they'd just as soon let it drop rather than risk a veto and the political cost of voting on an override.
Apparently, you can't publish pictures of the friggin' Eiffel tower, because some company owns the copyright on the lighting. Concert promoters will be all over this. Fireworks. Buildings. Public art. Free Speech Zones. Governments who have no qualms abusing their people (ok, that's all of them).
First of all, it's the SNTE; and the copyright may be valid in France but not necessarily elsewhere. As for publishing pictures, it's the commercial use that would be limited.
As someone who tends to carry a camera around an awful lot, the idea that someone else can disable that is a little worrying... if I'm in public, and if I can see it, I'm entitled to take a picture of it. I don't give a damn that some idiot asserts he owns the copyright to a building... I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences.
You can certainly take the picture (except for a few rare exceptions) - it's how you use it and the composition that comes into play when deciding if it's a copyright violation. It partly boils down to how significant is the copyrighted image in your photo - you couldn't take a picture of a copyrighted object where the object is basically the picture; and how you use it - and then use it commercially. Your snapshots are safe.
Re:Newspaper probably WON'T give RH the rights.
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, you're not aware that the owners of the newspaper are also the owners of Righthaven. Which nullifies all of your points.
Actually, it doesn't but does change the thrust of the argument.
A corporation may create a separate, but wholly owned, corporation for a variety of reasons. For example, a company may create a separate delivery arm to shill the corporate assists from liability in the event of a vehicle accident so that only the assets owned by the delivery company are ultimately at risk in the event of a lawsuit. They may see one aspect of the business is more desirable and create separate companies to concentrate the more valuable assets in one part. Stockholders may like that but bond holders won't since there is now higher risk they may not get paid. Transferring assets from one to another will also change the credit worthiness of each; so it may be harder to borrow money at the one that needs credit.
Consumers who think they are audiophiles with more money than sense use $100 speaker cables too. There's unfortunately no word that means "normal person who wants his music to sound good without buying into the woo".
I wonder why Apple is offering this if no carrier has an appropriate pricing plan to support it? This is like paying cash for a car and STILL making a payment on it every month. Why?
For travelers who want to use their iPhone internationally this makes it a lot easier than before (assuming you can get micro-SIMS easily). Instead of having to carry two phones when you travel one will do.
To those who say: Jailbreak/unlock!1 yes - but with this you are not at the mercy of the cat and mouse game between Apple an the jailbreakers.
Know, if there was a way to copy the needed software to create an "officially" unlocked iPhone, using this phones software, from carrier locked ones life would really be good. Better yet, let this be a prelude for ATT to being able to unlock subsidized iPhones.
simple, run date check, add a leading zero if before set date. If data is modified prompt for new code before saving. Not all old data will have enough information to be moved to the new system but this makes migration pretty simple. Only thing left is correlate old and new code categories which is probably tedious, but should be pretty straight forward.
While in theory data migration sounds easy; in practice it is far more complicated. I did a project for a financial migration where SSN's were used as employee ids (US company); so the IT types used that as the key to create the new records. After they did that they discovered so many duplicate records that manual analysis took forever. At first they did not believe my rule of 10's when it come to data migration - it will take 10x as long, cost 10x as much as in the plan and you will delete at least 10% of the data as unusable do to migration issues.
There are already bar codes, double and triple checks by various personnel, and in some cases the patient actually marks with a sharpie which knee it is they will have surgery on, for example. Everywhere in the case the "laterality" (can't recall what the technical word is) is spelled out. It's really amazing that any of those errors occur. This was always rare but exponentially less so 30 years ago, today it is exceedingly, exceedingly rare.
Actually, it's probably more amazing that more don't occur. I've done post event investigations numerous times; and left/right top/bottom mixups are not that unusual. The clinicians I've worked with recommend the Sharpie method, as well as making every person who comes in contact with you properly clean their hands in your presence.
It may be an "unfunded mandate", but it will probably help eliminate thousands of medical errors (mistaken amputations, incorrect medicine given to patients, etc.)
Not really - the mistakes are made prior to the coding. Now you can just be more accurate about what was mistakenly done so you get paid for it.
the people who dreamt up the new coding system didn't even try to make it backward-compatible with the old one, hence the opportunity for systems houses and consultants to make a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Competitive needn't be limited to sleazy back room dealings to prevent competitors access to the market.
But Apple hasn't done things to prevent competitors from entering the market; as evidenced by the number of competitors it has in each market it is in.
Apple's devices, in particular, have been unassailable; which puts other CE manufacturers in an awkward position. If Apple could be counted on to add a little "Redmond design" to each product, there would be a more competitive landscape.
Success in the marketplace does not equate to being anti-competitive. In fact, much of what Apple does is rather beneficial to competitors - Apple doesn't slash prices to drive competitors out, they actual tend to keep theirs high even when other products enter their markets, they don't demand exclusivity in order to use their software on a product (they don't even license their OS); they don't limit their competitors ability to distribute and sell their products in the same markets; they don't get other manufacturers together and say "the price of tablets is $600, the price of computers is $900"...
They have a significant presence in the market because their products are popular, not because of any anti-competitive actions on their part.
A monopoly isn't a requirement for an anti-competitive lawsuit, and neither is a monopoly. You must have abused the market in such a way to force others to compete at a disadvantage.
Microsoft did so by trying to force PC vendors to bundle IE.
Actually, you must have used your market power to, for example, damage competitors or control pricing. Apple hasn't got significant market power in the TV market, an quite frankly am curious to see their strategy if the do enter it given how cut throat that market is with regards to price.
In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.
True, but doing that and then not revealing the second password could be considered obstructing justice. The issue is not can they hide the data but what are the consequences of doing that. In addition, just because you hide the data doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't suspect you have it. Missing information, such as email sent from or to you would point to someone trying to hide something; giving them an opening to hold an obstruction charge over your head. Finally, you assume government forensics experts can't crack TrueCrypt or deduce the existence of a hidden volume.
So... encryption is now illegal in the US? That doesn't sound right.
No, but that really doesn't hide it since they could be required to provide the key or face charges.
Really, the FBI isn't afraid that capturing one alleged member of LulzSec won't cause the other members to bolt and hide the evidence, but disclosing the names will?
It might, but in they may see themselves, at least individually, as well hidden and smarter than the FBI and others. Besides, they want attention, and what better way to get it than taunt authorities
Sure, they could hide evidence but, in the US at least, hiding evidence could be construed as obstructing justice, which could land them in jail even if they committed no actual crimes. In some ways, that makes it easier for the government since all they basically need to show is they acted to influence the investigation and directed the hiding of the evidence; even if they are not the target of the investigation. it's a pretty broad set of powers, and can be used to "persuade" people to provide information.
I would even call the plan brilliant - not because it provides a (possible) way to track piracy but makes the mantra now "Piracy - the recording industry's new friend (TM)." Now, every pirated song that is matched yields a Ka-ching for no distribution cost. The more a song is pirated, the louder the Ka-ching; which is the real music executives want to hear. I would go so far as to say they may even want to encourage "sharing" as Cloud gains steam since that would increase their relative take. Of course, someone will figure out how to fool the system into transferring songs for files you don't really have - but again, it's to the label's advantage. Apple's as well, because if that drives iCloud subscriptions, Ka - ching.
So who's the loser in this? Well, depending on the contract, musicians if specific sales (CD or online) is how they get paid; at least until they can figure out how to get a cut of the new revenue stream. Other music services, since Apple will be essentially a limitless source of music at a set price. Ultimately, sellers of physical media because there is no need to buy a CD when you can easily and essentially legally get whatever you want from Apple; which will please the labels because Wal-Mart will no longer be able to dictate terms to them.
I'd venture the real end game is to transfer to a subscription based service - for a flat fee d/l whatever you want. Keep it as long as you have a subscription. Create custom playlists and stream you're own radio channel, which for a reduced subscription fee will include select targeted ads. Yes, others have tried it but given the clout behind this Apple and the major labels may finally pull it off.
This is just part of what will be a contentious battle between the bandwidth owners and the content / service providers. Both sides want to extract as much of the consumer dollar as possible for themselves. Bandwidth owners see content / service providers using their lines to make money and as usage increases they see an opportunity to extract some of that money through tiered rate plans. content / service providers, OTOH, want the pipe to be as big and cheap as possible so they can sell more things to the consumer.
As bandwidth gets more expensive, consumers will use less and be willing to pay less for content since it carries an added cost for bandwidth. By introducing tiers early in the bandwidth demand growth phase carriers can start getting their customers used to limiting uptake of new services (and pay more to boot). Why is this important - it gives carriers some leverage to extract money form content/services providers to unthrottle the pipes since the providers want to keep growing and grab as many customers as quickly as possible.
I expect this battle will play out in the commercial and political arena as well - with lamentations about jobs, infrastructure costs, "staying competitive withe (insert country of choice)" being heard as each side tries to gain and maintain the upper hand. In some cases, a company is both - my cable provider is more than happy to sell me a subscription to HBO which I can access on the go via my phone as well (which is provided by another company). My phone company no doubt looks at that and says "Why are we helping our competitor for free?"
Make no mistake, it's an important battle since, if rate caps become the norm, this cool vision of getting everything anywhere over the internet will be a long time coming. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of tyins between content /service providers and carriers that allows you to get premium services w/o being charged for data and the company's splitting the revenue. In fact, I think that may be the end game some have in mind.
Unless they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration. The details of the contract will matter. Remember all this has happened recently. Some of the execs' lawyers may not have had a chance to analyze and discuss the matter in detail with their clients.
Except for the "they can't sue because the contract stipulates arbitration," I think you are spot on. My experience with employment agreements is simply because a clause is in one it doesn't mean it can be enforced; even if it could when the contract was written.
In addition, the whole "fired" piece was not in the TFA; it seems to be an add by the submitter.
Execs leave pre and post merger for a lot of reasons.
But if being a regulator paid better than the industry did, why would someone risk losing such a great paying job by taking bribes? The reason regulators get bought off now is because, worst case scenario, they lose their job and accept a higher paying job at the company that bought them.
Regulatory capture has nothing to do with taking bribes or other illegal activity. It's about using regulatory power to the company's advantage.
The "deal" he was able to get me ended up being about $42 (after taxes) more expensive than the best internet price I could find. Obviously, I purchased from the internet and am loving my camcorder. I mean, I can certainly understand paying a small premium for the convenience of walking out of the store with an item, but a nearly 10% premium after the employee discount? That's a bit steep for me.
What is your sales tax rate - that could be most of the difference and since most states have a use tax that you must pay for items bought out of state teh real difference may be smaller. Yes, I know actually paying a use tax is another argument...
Most of these big box stores, at least as far as computer sales go, seem to live off the concept of selling the computers, printers and other major components at low margins and then raping the customer over the sale of items like cables, adapters and the like. "Yes, this color laser printer is only $235, and here's your six foot USB cable for $29.95!"
The real money is in service agreements. If you want some laughs, listen to a salesperson push one. If you want more of a discount; negotiate a price and buy the service agreement. If they discount anything it's the item (since the SA covers up to the purchase price for repairs/replacement; not giving you a new item that costs more no matter what the salesperson says); then return the SA for a full refund (most states allow this) and keep the item at the discounted price.
If they had the balls to try and pull that shit on somebody like me, who comes in sporting a geek beard, holding a very fancy power supply and knowing at a glance which of their tools I need to borrow for 15 seconds...I shudder at the thought of what they must have pulled on people like - say - my mother.
I doubt any large chain repair service is any better. I hope the Geek Squad chokes and dies.
Sometimes I wonder if they truly know. I had a "consultation" for home theater install (it was free and I was looking for some advice). I told the GS guy what I was looking for - he proceeded to take a few measures and promise a quote and recommendations. When I got it it was a long list of (expensive) items that would cost as much as a small car, (they seem to simply check every expensive item they sell); when I started asking questions all I got was blank stares. Needless to say, I'm not to impressed with their "consultants." Oh well...
Not that the executives can't sue but they normally have contract that may allow the company to do these things. However the details of the contracts are important. The articles seem to suggest that by removing these execs, the parent company saves a lot of money as the executive stock options that the execs would have gotten either go back to the company for free or extremely reduced cost. That is, unless the contracts stipulate other terms.
Actually, the submission, not TFA, says that. The article only says they left with no reason given for why. Quite frankly, if they were so high up that their departure wasn't noticed and they didn't have a solid employment contract to protect themselves I'd be surprised. While I am not a lawyer my experience with employment law tells me if they were fired for the reason given in the submission there'll be lawsuits and settlements forthcoming. Employment law, in the US at least, changes with each court case so even if they had a contract what was enforceable yesterday may not be today; and courts tend to take a dim view of companies firing someone simply to avoid paying money owed.
your premise, that capture is inevitable, is false in my opinion. If regulating bodies are/were properly funded this would not be the case. The problem is to fund them properly, the governement would have to pay the regulators more than they would get in the industry itself. That is how you prevent losee of people to the industry and thus create minimal conflict of interest.
Actually by doing this you reverse the flow, making being the regulator the end goal, so that the best in the field are regulators.
The problem of course is the cost is really high for this. Especially in areas such as finance.
Regulatory capture is not so much about a revolving door between industry and regulator as about how companies use regulation for their benefit and to keep out competition. While paying regulators more would help lessen the revolving door it would not do much about the underlying reasons behind regulatory capture. You'd just have better regulators to capture.
As for TFA, frankly he is full of shit. Sure you may be able to say technically the first home computer that could be called personal wasn't an IBM, but does anyone run 6502 MOSFET chips anymore? Of course not because IBM PC compatible is the standard PERIOD. Hell even Apple now is IBM PC compatible.
You point out a common feature of many businesses - the company that invented the concept is often not the one who is the most successful or even a survivor as the industry matures. It's often the fast followers, who learn form the pioneer's mistakes and ultimately grow large. MS is very good at that - something, BTW we can also thank IBM for enabling - to the point that many people think they created the concepts since they've become the de facto standard.
While technologies and media platforms go obsolete at an ever more rapid pace, the ideas they engender never really die.
Gee - people have a range of activities that brings please, facilitates work, allows them to be creative, etc.; and they adapt and adopt newer technologies that allow them to continue to do those things. When they discover the newer technology is better (with a wide definition of "better") at providing them what they want they stop using the old in favor of the new. Except for a few, who for whatever reason, prefer the old.
Hmm, if you can get post doc funding for the above, maybe I should get a grant for my proposal to determine "old technologies will come back into vogue, even on a limited basis, when it is discovered they can do specific things in different ways or better than the new.
Film. or at least presentation of my paper, at 11.
Read the Constitution much? The Senate passed it with a supermajority. I see no reason it wouldn't pass the House (which is GOP controlled, and the GOP is trying to cut costs right now) with a supermajority as well. If it manages to pass both houses with over 66% of the vote, a veto can be overridden.
True, but just because it can doesn't mean it will. Senators and Representatives may vote for (or against) something they think will not happen (or is inevitable) to get a vote "on record" for that all important election campaign commercial. It's a no-cost political "win." No, if they really have to go on record when something is at stake, they are much less likely to; which is why they'd just as soon let it drop rather than risk a veto and the political cost of voting on an override.
And no, I'm not cynical...
Apparently, you can't publish pictures of the friggin' Eiffel tower, because some company owns the copyright on the lighting. Concert promoters will be all over this. Fireworks. Buildings. Public art. Free Speech Zones. Governments who have no qualms abusing their people (ok, that's all of them).
First of all, it's the SNTE; and the copyright may be valid in France but not necessarily elsewhere. As for publishing pictures, it's the commercial use that would be limited.
As someone who tends to carry a camera around an awful lot, the idea that someone else can disable that is a little worrying ... if I'm in public, and if I can see it, I'm entitled to take a picture of it. I don't give a damn that some idiot asserts he owns the copyright to a building ... I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences.
You can certainly take the picture (except for a few rare exceptions) - it's how you use it and the composition that comes into play when deciding if it's a copyright violation. It partly boils down to how significant is the copyrighted image in your photo - you couldn't take a picture of a copyrighted object where the object is basically the picture; and how you use it - and then use it commercially. Your snapshots are safe.
Apparently, you're not aware that the owners of the newspaper are also the owners of Righthaven. Which nullifies all of your points.
Actually, it doesn't but does change the thrust of the argument.
A corporation may create a separate, but wholly owned, corporation for a variety of reasons. For example, a company may create a separate delivery arm to shill the corporate assists from liability in the event of a vehicle accident so that only the assets owned by the delivery company are ultimately at risk in the event of a lawsuit. They may see one aspect of the business is more desirable and create separate companies to concentrate the more valuable assets in one part. Stockholders may like that but bond holders won't since there is now higher risk they may not get paid. Transferring assets from one to another will also change the credit worthiness of each; so it may be harder to borrow money at the one that needs credit.
Consumers who think they are audiophiles with more money than sense use $100 speaker cables too. There's unfortunately no word that means "normal person who wants his music to sound good without buying into the woo".
There, fixed that for you. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/15/1213249/Music-Pirates-Wont-Rush-To-iCloud-For-Forgiveness#
I wonder why Apple is offering this if no carrier has an appropriate pricing plan to support it? This is like paying cash for a car and STILL making a payment on it every month. Why?
For travelers who want to use their iPhone internationally this makes it a lot easier than before (assuming you can get micro-SIMS easily). Instead of having to carry two phones when you travel one will do.
To those who say: Jailbreak/unlock!1 yes - but with this you are not at the mercy of the cat and mouse game between Apple an the jailbreakers.
Know, if there was a way to copy the needed software to create an "officially" unlocked iPhone, using this phones software, from carrier locked ones life would really be good. Better yet, let this be a prelude for ATT to being able to unlock subsidized iPhones.
simple, run date check, add a leading zero if before set date. If data is modified prompt for new code before saving. Not all old data will have enough information to be moved to the new system but this makes migration pretty simple. Only thing left is correlate old and new code categories which is probably tedious, but should be pretty straight forward.
While in theory data migration sounds easy; in practice it is far more complicated. I did a project for a financial migration where SSN's were used as employee ids (US company); so the IT types used that as the key to create the new records. After they did that they discovered so many duplicate records that manual analysis took forever. At first they did not believe my rule of 10's when it come to data migration - it will take 10x as long, cost 10x as much as in the plan and you will delete at least 10% of the data as unusable do to migration issues.
There are already bar codes, double and triple checks by various personnel, and in some cases the patient actually marks with a sharpie which knee it is they will have surgery on, for example. Everywhere in the case the "laterality" (can't recall what the technical word is) is spelled out. It's really amazing that any of those errors occur. This was always rare but exponentially less so 30 years ago, today it is exceedingly, exceedingly rare.
Actually, it's probably more amazing that more don't occur. I've done post event investigations numerous times; and left/right top/bottom mixups are not that unusual. The clinicians I've worked with recommend the Sharpie method, as well as making every person who comes in contact with you properly clean their hands in your presence.
It may be an "unfunded mandate", but it will probably help eliminate thousands of medical errors (mistaken amputations, incorrect medicine given to patients, etc.)
Not really - the mistakes are made prior to the coding. Now you can just be more accurate about what was mistakenly done so you get paid for it.
the people who dreamt up the new coding system didn't even try to make it backward-compatible with the old one, hence the opportunity for systems houses and consultants to make a lot of money.
There, fixed that for you.