Wikipedia will be the first encyclopedia to have a version which actually directly pushes readers to more authoritative sources (specialized books, etc.) How many other encyclopedias will be able to say that they have such integration?
There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.
Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.
It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.
Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.
So? Amazon is a private company, no one has any free speech rights wrt what Amazon chooses to host. They are free to decide how to run their business based on what they believe will be most profitable and what they need to do to avoid any liability for their hosting material.
you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade
The slashdot ideological brigade is, and has been ever since the site was founded, been solidly, rabidly, and fanatically anti-tax, anti-poor, pro-rich libertarian.
I don't know if I'd call them liberterian based on their seemingly rabid anti-contract law stances on everything except protecting the GPL.
Interesting. Out of curiosity, hoe confident are you that the jury would have spent as much time and as much attention to detail had you not been on it?
It's hard to say, but enough of the other jurors had similar questions and issues as I did, they just didn't have the same understanding of probability as I did. Specifically, if 25% of test results are false positives; and that is true for all the tests run; it means that after four independent, different tests the chance of a false positive is about 2%, despite the defense attorney's constant "the test are unreliable" argument. At the start, the jury was split on guilt; even without me I think they would have had the same amount of deliberation on the most serious charge. My argument gave weight to the "the defendant failed all four tests" argument from a logical POV; they probably would have reached the same conclusion but have less of a factual basis for it.
Oddly enough, my main input was on a relatively minor charge where the law was very unclear - I eventually convinced the holdouts that if the law is not clear about what constitutes an offense you can't find someone guilty since the law, as written, both allowed and disallowed the conduct in question. I guess all that time "rules lawyering" during boardgames while in college wasn't wasted after all.
I mean I would expect that most people on Slashdot to work to ensure a proper fact based finding (as opposed to a purely emotional one, or one based on facts but only on a very cursory overview of them) so their presence may have a significant impact on how the jury operates.
I would hope many juries do try to do a good job. Unfortunately it is definitely the case that at least some juries simply don't care, and want to be done as quickly as possible. I wish i had some good numbers on this, but that would be very hard to come by.
I don't know if its not caring - all of us realized the impact we would have on someone's life. The problem is you are trying to sort out which facts are true and convincing, understand the facts and what happened, and stay within the judge's explanation of the law as it applies.
The most important things I learned was get the best lawyer available; and if your case is shaky cutting a deal may be better than betting everything on a jury verdict. As our judge explained - the jury is the most feared part of the court - because no one knows how we will decide; as a result most cases get pleaded to avoid the risk of a really bad verdict.
2. Rolling the dice with 12 folks who couldn't get out of jury duty with the downside being years in prison.
That this case even got as far as it did is a very sad commentary on our legal system - what if the defendant had been scared enough about the prospect of spending years in prison that he HAD taken the plea deal?
While I realize many people have a very cynical view of who winds up on a jury; in my experience with jury duty there really wasn't anyone who tried to use teh system to get out of it. Everyone called did there time; which involved a lot of sitting around (thankfully with free WiFi) waiting to be selected. As for deliberations, the jury I was on took their job very seriously - we deliberated what the law meant and how to apply it; asked the judge a number of questions about the law, reviewed evidence multiple times before we reached our verdict. I felt that we gave the defendant a very fair shake.
As for judges, ours seemed to be very intolerant of even long winded or repetitive questions from the prosecutor while giving the defense a lot of leeway.
I was really surprised the lawyers seated two engineers - we spent a lot of time analyzing the technical details of the evidence and often reached conclusions different from what the defense implied to try to discredit test result. The defense actually hurt their case every time they provided data into evidence because while they probably thought they were confusing the issue all they did was strengthen the case against their client.
In a free market, no one sets prices and determines desired profits. Rather prices are a function of market equilibrium and market equilibrium determines the normal profit in any given market segment.
A free market is simply one with no government regulation so everyone is free to price as they see fit. You may be confusing that with a commodity market where all producers are price takers.
Selling below cost distorts this process. A rational seller cannot consistantly sell below cost. A negative profit would drive him or her out of business over time.
True, which is an argument for predatory pricing as well; although that is a separate discussion.
What happens with loss leaders is that sellers are effectively using the market as advertising. They are hoping that buyers will be attracted by what is an irrational price. Sellers hope to recoup their losses on other commodities. Be that as it may, the practice distorts the price of the loss leader as a commodity. This is a market inefficiency. A free market, in the economic sense, theoretically weeds out such inefficiencies over time.
Loss leaders are not necessarily market inefficiencies - if they produce the desired result the seller makes the desired profit; if not they stop selling it at that price. Either way, consumers benefit from a lower price.
But that this practice distorts the free market should not be confused with whether or not the egents involved have the freedom to distort the market in such a way. That's a whole other discussion.
True. I clearly believe they should be allowed to do that since it benefits the consumer.
That sounds a lot like insurance - unless you have specific citations.
Well, the US Government offers survivor benefits for retiree's spouses and children after a retiree dies. A spouse can keep collecting a check until they die or remarry; for example.
Berne Convention is only applicable to works that fall under the 1976 Copyright Act. Anything from before falls under the 1909 Copyright Act. If you didn't renew, the work became public domain. It's a Wonderful Life was a forgotten flop until someone figured out that it had fallen into the public domain through non-renewal. The UHF channels picked it up and started showing it since they wouldn't need to pay anyone. Now it's a Christmas classic. Go figure.
Actually, no. While it was not properly renewed, it was still protected as a derivative work, amongst other reasons.
From Wiki:
However, a clerical error at NTA prevented the copyright from being renewed properly in 1974.[34] Despite the lapsed copyright, television stations that aired it still were required to pay royalties. Although the film's images had entered the public domain, the film's story was still protected by virtue of it being a derivative work of the published story "The Greatest Gift", whose copyright was properly renewed by Philip Van Doren Stern in 1971.[35][N 6] The film became a perennial holiday favorite in the 1980s, possibly due to its repeated showings each holiday season on hundreds of local television stations. It was mentioned during the deliberations on the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.[36] In 1993, Republic Pictures, which was the successor to NTA, relied on the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend (which involved another Stewart film, Rear Window) to enforce its claim to the copyright. While the film's copyright had not been renewed, Republic still owned the original film elements, the music score, and the film rights to "The Greatest Gift"; thus the plaintiffs were able to argue its status as a derivative work of a work still under copyright
Mind you, loss leaders (which subsidised hardware for expensive consumables are) are a distortion of a free market. Anything which undermines it is wholesome and good.
How? The consumer can decide what they want to buy and where - and get slower prices as a result. If consumables are the real profit center, a store could not sell the loss leader and put some of the savings to lower consumable prices; so the store selling the loss leader either lowers consumable prices or loses money. In the end, the consumer benefits from free market prices.
A free market allows individuals to set prices and determine desired profits; not some manufacturer or government. Nor does it ensure everyone will make a profit.
Considering the cost of home ownership(and rentals for that matter) in the Bay area/San Jose area, this is pretty obvious. They attract a lot of people out of college who simply can't afford to live within any reasonable distance of the facility. So they rent/buy in places like Tracy, which are 90+minutes away. It would be nice if more companies did this.
Stanford University has a similar setup; not bad for a Junior University.
That model isn't somehow coupled to large area served / hence preferable for such scenario. Russia operates very much in the "European" model, while having larger area (generally much, much lower population density - lower than the average for the whole surface of the planet in fact - which tends to complicate telecommunication services; it still manages to have higher mobile phone penetration)
I'm not saying it's because of the size - rather it's because of the way the market evolved based on business and cultural norms. With the US model, an unlocked phone offers no benefits, even if it works on multiple carriers - since you can use one number all over the US switching carriers and numbers would be a real pain and not save you any money.
Area does play a role in plans - given the propensity for American families to be geographically diverse; a nationwide calling network is a big plus. In Europe, calling within one country is probably more prevalent than within one state in the US.
Neither is better, just a result of the forces involved when the markets were created.
Me, I'd prefer the ability to switch carriers and not to have this hidden subsidy. If the phone works and you're happy with it, why quasi-require the owner to chuck it for a new model? Just more e-waste with no tangible benefit except for those that like to further line the pockets of wireless carriers through the use of additional (previously unreachable) services. I also like that the EU mandates that the caller to the cell pays for the call. Seriously cuts down spam calls - because calls to cell phones are 5x more expensive than landline calls. An additional benefit is the possibility of giving a phone to your kid and being able to call them at will - but they cannot make calls unless they refill the SIM bank account.
The upside of the US model is I have 1 phone that works all over the US and I don't have to worry about paying high per minute rates when I go from say NY to LA; and people can call me without having to pay extra. Sure it uses my minutes, but with in-Network cell calls aren't using minutes so family members and many others call without using either of our minutes. Nights and weekends are unlimited as well - so being charged per minute is not a big deal.
One model is not inherently better - it all depends on the market and what works best in that market.
I have an unlocked phone for travel - pay as you go plans work well in that regard in Europe but it is a pain that my Orange SIM from the UK won't work in Germany for the same incoming free - low rates I get in the UK.
As a side note - what happens if you are near a border - can a "foreign" operator get your signal and result in your being charged out of network rates for calls?
So it was flight 808. Either the DoD and FAA were unable to figure that out in short order or else they just don't care about giving the public answers to those kind of questions.
Neither one of those possibilities is particularly good.
wasting time finding an answer to every ridiculous news story would be a huge waste of money when there are better things to waste money on. Once they knew it wasn't theirs they move one.
I wonder how many lawyers get paranoid about open source licensing and yet don't bat an eyelid when presented with a business software license that gives the vendor the right to audit the client at any time at any business location to check for license violations, or other such wackiness that you can find on the contracts for super-expensive business software.
Probably because they are dealing with one specific vendor whom they can reach an agreement with, or go to court against, if they have a contractual dispute; unlike GPL code where many different people who are involved. The first gives them certantity and a familiar set of circumstances while the second looks like anarchy and confusion. Not hard to see which they'd prefer.
Re:What dould possibly go wrong?
on
USB 'Dead Drops'
·
· Score: 1
Don Scott Field's parallels are roughly aligned with CMH. There's a reason the restaurant at Don Scott is called the 707 Room.
Meanwhile there are some new really interesting concepts in the ebook world, like free online reading
We used to call that a library; B&N and Borders extended it by putting Starbucks coffee companies and chairs in the store where you can read anything for free off the shelves.
coupled with new approaches to low-overhead publishing.
Don Lancaster, back in the Apple ][ days, extolled the virtues of desktop publishing on an on demand basis; complete with laser printer and thermal or ring binding.
So there actually is some really interesting stuff going on in the free books field.
There is, but ebooks expanded the market for older ideas and eased distribution. As with much technology, it has enabled a broader application of an old idea.
Well in our case (and I know it doesn't apply to the original poster), we use Linux, so that saved us even more, because getting Dell to drop Windows on a non-server build is like pulling teeth.
As for the time and pay, I got some overtime pay and got to play with some neat machines. It takes only 30 mins or so to actually build each box and I have our Linux as an image on a USB stick, so it takes another half an hour to copy the image over. All said and done, I probably only spent four hours putting the whole thing together.
I got lucky in that there were no defective parts, although one hard drive went bad about six months later. Other than that though, it's been 18 months since I did this and we haven't had any problems.
Of course, I wouldn't want to scale this process to 1000 machines, but with a little planning and foresight, it's definitely do-able in the tens of machines range.
If yo use your assumption of 1 hour per machine to build and load an OS, and then factor in problems - bad parts, etc - say 4 hours of troubleshooting per 100 machines - thats another 40 hours. At this point you're at 1040 hours (one half of a full time employee (FTE) for a year). If you assume say a 50K all in cost for the employee - that's another $50 per machine. Unless they are using Liniux, theres also the cost of OS licenses. I suspect it quickly adds up to the cost of a Dell - before you factor in the warranty costs for maintaining them yourself. I suspect the OP doesn't want to use the cheapest no name parts possible - the repair time and bad press over machines that employee X "don't work" would be a real cost and reputation killer.
I'm not sure why you don't believe it hasn't morphed - the term personal computer has been around long before IBM introduced its PC;
I don't believe it because it hasn't happened. "PC" has been synonymous with "IBM compatible PC" and "x86 PC" since the mid-80s, and the only slightly vague muddying of the term during that period has been with the recent introduction of x86 Macs.
and even today PC refers to the OS (Windows) that a program requires rather than the underlying architecture. It just so happens that is most likely an Intel x86 variant.
The is simply flat-out wrong. Essentially the only media that makes "PC" and "Windows" synonymous are Apple's ads. Pretty much everyone else uses the term "PC" to refer to an x86-compatible home computer [that isn't a Mac], then further differentiates with "Windows PC", "Linux PC", etc, as necessary. This has been true since the mid-80s.
Well, most games say PC on the front to indicate it runs on Windows (and ads/Mac for the handful of dual OS games), for example. When someone asks - will it run on a PC or work with a PC they aren't saying "Will it run on x86 architecture," they mean "Will it work with Windows." PC has become, in general usage, synonymous with a Windows box. Given Linux's tiny fraction of mind-share, most people wouldn't recognize a Linux PC if it hit them on the head, so they are unlikely to confuse a "PC" with a Linux box.
Even then, for a good bit of it's life PC's that ran Windows were not necessarily IBM compatible.
Which PCs are you thinking of that have been around for "a good bit" of the last 25 years, ran Windows, but "were not necessarily IBM compatible" ? You do realise that even the newest, flashiest PC today starts up looking nearly identical to the original IBM PC, right ?
I realized, after I posted, I meant to say MS-DOS - there were plenty of machines that ran MS-DOS but were not IBM compatible.
Our company is even worse than that - we have shown them the cost savings of switching from Microsoft Office (Standard) to Open Office, demo'd the interoperability and the ease of switching, but because it's not Microsoft they just can't consider it "reliable".
It makes me want to rip my hair out. Then glue it on their faces as silly mustaches. Point is it makes me have crazy thoughts.
One question - how did you verify the interoperability? Did you go to a broad segment of the user population, plus any that may do some odd things with office, and get files and verify 100% compatibility with office? Or did you just point out that OO opens MS files?
I've been burned enough by the "interoperability" statement to want to rip the hair off the IT guy that suggests it and stick it someplace besides his face. Come to think of it, it probably still would be a mustache because his head is no doubt already far up there as well....
No, imho the POTUS is the CEO of the Executive branch. His orders should be followed in the same way as if the CEO of your current employer walked over to your office and told you to do something. Sure, sometimes things don't work out, are technically impossible, etc. But generally you'd better at least begrudgingly attempt to do what he wants. Otherwise what the heck is the point of electing him?
It does. CEO walks in, says do this. You think "Is it a good idea" If yes, do it. If no - what is the penalty for not doing it? Will I outlast the CEO? If teh answer is high and no, what is the minimum I can do until the idea dies or I can kill it? If kill it is chosen, what is the best way to kill it? Form a committee to implement it? require approvals from everyone from the janitor up before we can proceed?
Never said it was - just that the term "personal computer" has morphed in meaning over time; it was even applied to the HP-65 at one point.
The person you originally replied to was, which is why I'm in this thread.
Further, my point is that it hasn't really morphed over time - it's remained basically stable for ~25 years now. For the majority of the time the term has existed, it's been a synonym for so-called "IBM Compatible PCs".
I'm not sure why you don't believe it hasn't morphed - the term personal computer has been around long before IBM introduced its PC; and even today PC refers to the OS (Windows) that a program requires rather than the underlying architecture. It just so happens that is most likely an Intel x86 variant.
Even then, for a good bit of it's life PC's that ran Windows were not necessarily IBM compatible.
Actually, it has changed quite a bit since its early usage - from a discriptor to delineate small desktop machines from terminals and big iron to today's use as a generic term for Windows based machines.
"PC" has been used almost exclusively to refer to x86-compatible computers since the mid-80s. It has never, ever been a commonplace term for a Mac.
Never said it was - just that the term "personal computer" has morphed in meaning over time; it was even applied to the HP-65 at one point.
If confusion follows then you are not using the word in its commonly accepted fashion. Languages evolve - and words take on new meanings. There are plenty of words whose modern meaning differs from the older meaning; or whose meaning is very context specific.
Though this is not an example of that. The contextual meaning of "PCs" has been essentially unchanged for 2-3 decades now.
Actually, it has changed quite a bit since its early usage - from a discriptor to delineate small desktop machines from terminals and big iron to today's use as a generic term for Windows based machines.
"PC", on the other hand, is not used exclusively to refer to a personal computer running Microsoft Windows. It can just as easily refer to any personal computer. One of the meanings is logical and useful, the other one isn't. Not that I really mind. I sort of enjoy calling Macs PCs and then watching the inevitable rage or confusion that follows.
If confusion follows then you are not using the word in its commonly accepted fashion. Languages evolve - and words take on new meanings. There are plenty of words whose modern meaning differs from the older meaning; or whose meaning is very context specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia will be the first encyclopedia to have a version which actually directly pushes readers to more authoritative sources (specialized books, etc.) How many other encyclopedias will be able to say that they have such integration?
Uh, any with a decent bibliography and cites?
Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.
Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.
So? Amazon is a private company, no one has any free speech rights wrt what Amazon chooses to host. They are free to decide how to run their business based on what they believe will be most profitable and what they need to do to avoid any liability for their hosting material.
you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade The slashdot ideological brigade is, and has been ever since the site was founded, been solidly, rabidly, and fanatically anti-tax, anti-poor, pro-rich libertarian.
I don't know if I'd call them liberterian based on their seemingly rabid anti-contract law stances on everything except protecting the GPL.
Interesting. Out of curiosity, hoe confident are you that the jury would have spent as much time and as much attention to detail had you not been on it?
It's hard to say, but enough of the other jurors had similar questions and issues as I did, they just didn't have the same understanding of probability as I did. Specifically, if 25% of test results are false positives; and that is true for all the tests run; it means that after four independent, different tests the chance of a false positive is about 2%, despite the defense attorney's constant "the test are unreliable" argument. At the start, the jury was split on guilt; even without me I think they would have had the same amount of deliberation on the most serious charge. My argument gave weight to the "the defendant failed all four tests" argument from a logical POV; they probably would have reached the same conclusion but have less of a factual basis for it.
Oddly enough, my main input was on a relatively minor charge where the law was very unclear - I eventually convinced the holdouts that if the law is not clear about what constitutes an offense you can't find someone guilty since the law, as written, both allowed and disallowed the conduct in question. I guess all that time "rules lawyering" during boardgames while in college wasn't wasted after all.
I mean I would expect that most people on Slashdot to work to ensure a proper fact based finding (as opposed to a purely emotional one, or one based on facts but only on a very cursory overview of them) so their presence may have a significant impact on how the jury operates.
I would hope many juries do try to do a good job. Unfortunately it is definitely the case that at least some juries simply don't care, and want to be done as quickly as possible. I wish i had some good numbers on this, but that would be very hard to come by.
I don't know if its not caring - all of us realized the impact we would have on someone's life. The problem is you are trying to sort out which facts are true and convincing, understand the facts and what happened, and stay within the judge's explanation of the law as it applies.
The most important things I learned was get the best lawyer available; and if your case is shaky cutting a deal may be better than betting everything on a jury verdict. As our judge explained - the jury is the most feared part of the court - because no one knows how we will decide; as a result most cases get pleaded to avoid the risk of a really bad verdict.
2. Rolling the dice with 12 folks who couldn't get out of jury duty with the downside being years in prison.
That this case even got as far as it did is a very sad commentary on our legal system - what if the defendant had been scared enough about the prospect of spending years in prison that he HAD taken the plea deal?
While I realize many people have a very cynical view of who winds up on a jury; in my experience with jury duty there really wasn't anyone who tried to use teh system to get out of it. Everyone called did there time; which involved a lot of sitting around (thankfully with free WiFi) waiting to be selected. As for deliberations, the jury I was on took their job very seriously - we deliberated what the law meant and how to apply it; asked the judge a number of questions about the law, reviewed evidence multiple times before we reached our verdict. I felt that we gave the defendant a very fair shake.
As for judges, ours seemed to be very intolerant of even long winded or repetitive questions from the prosecutor while giving the defense a lot of leeway.
I was really surprised the lawyers seated two engineers - we spent a lot of time analyzing the technical details of the evidence and often reached conclusions different from what the defense implied to try to discredit test result. The defense actually hurt their case every time they provided data into evidence because while they probably thought they were confusing the issue all they did was strengthen the case against their client.
In a free market, no one sets prices and determines desired profits. Rather prices are a function of market equilibrium and market equilibrium determines the normal profit in any given market segment.
A free market is simply one with no government regulation so everyone is free to price as they see fit. You may be confusing that with a commodity market where all producers are price takers.
Selling below cost distorts this process. A rational seller cannot consistantly sell below cost. A negative profit would drive him or her out of business over time.
True, which is an argument for predatory pricing as well; although that is a separate discussion.
What happens with loss leaders is that sellers are effectively using the market as advertising. They are hoping that buyers will be attracted by what is an irrational price. Sellers hope to recoup their losses on other commodities. Be that as it may, the practice distorts the price of the loss leader as a commodity. This is a market inefficiency. A free market, in the economic sense, theoretically weeds out such inefficiencies over time.
Loss leaders are not necessarily market inefficiencies - if they produce the desired result the seller makes the desired profit; if not they stop selling it at that price. Either way, consumers benefit from a lower price.
But that this practice distorts the free market should not be confused with whether or not the egents involved have the freedom to distort the market in such a way. That's a whole other discussion.
True. I clearly believe they should be allowed to do that since it benefits the consumer.
That sounds a lot like insurance - unless you have specific citations.
Well, the US Government offers survivor benefits for retiree's spouses and children after a retiree dies. A spouse can keep collecting a check until they die or remarry; for example.
3) How many jobs keep paying you money after you've died? Why do authors deserve this special privilege?
Some actually do keep paying surviving spouses and children.
Berne Convention is only applicable to works that fall under the 1976 Copyright Act. Anything from before falls under the 1909 Copyright Act. If you didn't renew, the work became public domain. It's a Wonderful Life was a forgotten flop until someone figured out that it had fallen into the public domain through non-renewal. The UHF channels picked it up and started showing it since they wouldn't need to pay anyone. Now it's a Christmas classic. Go figure.
Actually, no. While it was not properly renewed, it was still protected as a derivative work, amongst other reasons.
From Wiki:
However, a clerical error at NTA prevented the copyright from being renewed properly in 1974.[34] Despite the lapsed copyright, television stations that aired it still were required to pay royalties. Although the film's images had entered the public domain, the film's story was still protected by virtue of it being a derivative work of the published story "The Greatest Gift", whose copyright was properly renewed by Philip Van Doren Stern in 1971.[35][N 6] The film became a perennial holiday favorite in the 1980s, possibly due to its repeated showings each holiday season on hundreds of local television stations. It was mentioned during the deliberations on the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.[36] In 1993, Republic Pictures, which was the successor to NTA, relied on the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend (which involved another Stewart film, Rear Window) to enforce its claim to the copyright. While the film's copyright had not been renewed, Republic still owned the original film elements, the music score, and the film rights to "The Greatest Gift"; thus the plaintiffs were able to argue its status as a derivative work of a work still under copyright
Mind you, loss leaders (which subsidised hardware for expensive consumables are) are a distortion of a free market. Anything which undermines it is wholesome and good.
How? The consumer can decide what they want to buy and where - and get slower prices as a result. If consumables are the real profit center, a store could not sell the loss leader and put some of the savings to lower consumable prices; so the store selling the loss leader either lowers consumable prices or loses money. In the end, the consumer benefits from free market prices.
A free market allows individuals to set prices and determine desired profits; not some manufacturer or government. Nor does it ensure everyone will make a profit.
Considering the cost of home ownership(and rentals for that matter) in the Bay area/San Jose area, this is pretty obvious. They attract a lot of people out of college who simply can't afford to live within any reasonable distance of the facility. So they rent/buy in places like Tracy, which are 90+minutes away. It would be nice if more companies did this.
Stanford University has a similar setup; not bad for a Junior University.
That model isn't somehow coupled to large area served / hence preferable for such scenario. Russia operates very much in the "European" model, while having larger area (generally much, much lower population density - lower than the average for the whole surface of the planet in fact - which tends to complicate telecommunication services; it still manages to have higher mobile phone penetration)
I'm not saying it's because of the size - rather it's because of the way the market evolved based on business and cultural norms. With the US model, an unlocked phone offers no benefits, even if it works on multiple carriers - since you can use one number all over the US switching carriers and numbers would be a real pain and not save you any money.
Area does play a role in plans - given the propensity for American families to be geographically diverse; a nationwide calling network is a big plus. In Europe, calling within one country is probably more prevalent than within one state in the US.
Neither is better, just a result of the forces involved when the markets were created.
Me, I'd prefer the ability to switch carriers and not to have this hidden subsidy. If the phone works and you're happy with it, why quasi-require the owner to chuck it for a new model? Just more e-waste with no tangible benefit except for those that like to further line the pockets of wireless carriers through the use of additional (previously unreachable) services. I also like that the EU mandates that the caller to the cell pays for the call. Seriously cuts down spam calls - because calls to cell phones are 5x more expensive than landline calls. An additional benefit is the possibility of giving a phone to your kid and being able to call them at will - but they cannot make calls unless they refill the SIM bank account.
The upside of the US model is I have 1 phone that works all over the US and I don't have to worry about paying high per minute rates when I go from say NY to LA; and people can call me without having to pay extra. Sure it uses my minutes, but with in-Network cell calls aren't using minutes so family members and many others call without using either of our minutes. Nights and weekends are unlimited as well - so being charged per minute is not a big deal.
One model is not inherently better - it all depends on the market and what works best in that market.
I have an unlocked phone for travel - pay as you go plans work well in that regard in Europe but it is a pain that my Orange SIM from the UK won't work in Germany for the same incoming free - low rates I get in the UK.
As a side note - what happens if you are near a border - can a "foreign" operator get your signal and result in your being charged out of network rates for calls?
So it was flight 808. Either the DoD and FAA were unable to figure that out in short order or else they just don't care about giving the public answers to those kind of questions.
Neither one of those possibilities is particularly good.
wasting time finding an answer to every ridiculous news story would be a huge waste of money when there are better things to waste money on. Once they knew it wasn't theirs they move one.
I wonder how many lawyers get paranoid about open source licensing and yet don't bat an eyelid when presented with a business software license that gives the vendor the right to audit the client at any time at any business location to check for license violations, or other such wackiness that you can find on the contracts for super-expensive business software.
Probably because they are dealing with one specific vendor whom they can reach an agreement with, or go to court against, if they have a contractual dispute; unlike GPL code where many different people who are involved. The first gives them certantity and a familiar set of circumstances while the second looks like anarchy and confusion. Not hard to see which they'd prefer.
Don Scott Field's parallels are roughly aligned with CMH. There's a reason the restaurant at Don Scott is called the 707 Room.
Meanwhile there are some new really interesting concepts in the ebook world, like free online reading
We used to call that a library; B&N and Borders extended it by putting Starbucks coffee companies and chairs in the store where you can read anything for free off the shelves.
coupled with new approaches to low-overhead publishing.
Don Lancaster, back in the Apple ][ days, extolled the virtues of desktop publishing on an on demand basis; complete with laser printer and thermal or ring binding.
So there actually is some really interesting stuff going on in the free books field.
There is, but ebooks expanded the market for older ideas and eased distribution. As with much technology, it has enabled a broader application of an old idea.
Well in our case (and I know it doesn't apply to the original poster), we use Linux, so that saved us even more, because getting Dell to drop Windows on a non-server build is like pulling teeth.
As for the time and pay, I got some overtime pay and got to play with some neat machines. It takes only 30 mins or so to actually build each box and I have our Linux as an image on a USB stick, so it takes another half an hour to copy the image over. All said and done, I probably only spent four hours putting the whole thing together.
I got lucky in that there were no defective parts, although one hard drive went bad about six months later. Other than that though, it's been 18 months since I did this and we haven't had any problems.
Of course, I wouldn't want to scale this process to 1000 machines, but with a little planning and foresight, it's definitely do-able in the tens of machines range.
If yo use your assumption of 1 hour per machine to build and load an OS, and then factor in problems - bad parts, etc - say 4 hours of troubleshooting per 100 machines - thats another 40 hours. At this point you're at 1040 hours (one half of a full time employee (FTE) for a year). If you assume say a 50K all in cost for the employee - that's another $50 per machine. Unless they are using Liniux, theres also the cost of OS licenses. I suspect it quickly adds up to the cost of a Dell - before you factor in the warranty costs for maintaining them yourself. I suspect the OP doesn't want to use the cheapest no name parts possible - the repair time and bad press over machines that employee X "don't work" would be a real cost and reputation killer.
I'm not sure why you don't believe it hasn't morphed - the term personal computer has been around long before IBM introduced its PC;
I don't believe it because it hasn't happened. "PC" has been synonymous with "IBM compatible PC" and "x86 PC" since the mid-80s, and the only slightly vague muddying of the term during that period has been with the recent introduction of x86 Macs.
and even today PC refers to the OS (Windows) that a program requires rather than the underlying architecture. It just so happens that is most likely an Intel x86 variant.
The is simply flat-out wrong. Essentially the only media that makes "PC" and "Windows" synonymous are Apple's ads. Pretty much everyone else uses the term "PC" to refer to an x86-compatible home computer [that isn't a Mac], then further differentiates with "Windows PC", "Linux PC", etc, as necessary. This has been true since the mid-80s.
Well, most games say PC on the front to indicate it runs on Windows (and ads /Mac for the handful of dual OS games), for example. When someone asks - will it run on a PC or work with a PC they aren't saying "Will it run on x86 architecture," they mean "Will it work with Windows." PC has become, in general usage, synonymous with a Windows box. Given Linux's tiny fraction of mind-share, most people wouldn't recognize a Linux PC if it hit them on the head, so they are unlikely to confuse a "PC" with a Linux box.
Even then, for a good bit of it's life PC's that ran Windows were not necessarily IBM compatible.
Which PCs are you thinking of that have been around for "a good bit" of the last 25 years, ran Windows, but "were not necessarily IBM compatible" ? You do realise that even the newest, flashiest PC today starts up looking nearly identical to the original IBM PC, right ?
I realized, after I posted, I meant to say MS-DOS - there were plenty of machines that ran MS-DOS but were not IBM compatible.
Our company is even worse than that - we have shown them the cost savings of switching from Microsoft Office (Standard) to Open Office, demo'd the interoperability and the ease of switching, but because it's not Microsoft they just can't consider it "reliable".
It makes me want to rip my hair out. Then glue it on their faces as silly mustaches. Point is it makes me have crazy thoughts.
One question - how did you verify the interoperability? Did you go to a broad segment of the user population, plus any that may do some odd things with office, and get files and verify 100% compatibility with office? Or did you just point out that OO opens MS files?
I've been burned enough by the "interoperability" statement to want to rip the hair off the IT guy that suggests it and stick it someplace besides his face. Come to think of it, it probably still would be a mustache because his head is no doubt already far up there as well....
No, imho the POTUS is the CEO of the Executive branch. His orders should be followed in the same way as if the CEO of your current employer walked over to your office and told you to do something. Sure, sometimes things don't work out, are technically impossible, etc. But generally you'd better at least begrudgingly attempt to do what he wants. Otherwise what the heck is the point of electing him?
It does. CEO walks in, says do this. You think "Is it a good idea" If yes, do it. If no - what is the penalty for not doing it? Will I outlast the CEO? If teh answer is high and no, what is the minimum I can do until the idea dies or I can kill it? If kill it is chosen, what is the best way to kill it? Form a committee to implement it? require approvals from everyone from the janitor up before we can proceed?
Yup, just like private enterprise.
Never said it was - just that the term "personal computer" has morphed in meaning over time; it was even applied to the HP-65 at one point.
The person you originally replied to was, which is why I'm in this thread.
Further, my point is that it hasn't really morphed over time - it's remained basically stable for ~25 years now. For the majority of the time the term has existed, it's been a synonym for so-called "IBM Compatible PCs".
I'm not sure why you don't believe it hasn't morphed - the term personal computer has been around long before IBM introduced its PC; and even today PC refers to the OS (Windows) that a program requires rather than the underlying architecture. It just so happens that is most likely an Intel x86 variant. Even then, for a good bit of it's life PC's that ran Windows were not necessarily IBM compatible.
Actually, it has changed quite a bit since its early usage - from a discriptor to delineate small desktop machines from terminals and big iron to today's use as a generic term for Windows based machines.
"PC" has been used almost exclusively to refer to x86-compatible computers since the mid-80s. It has never, ever been a commonplace term for a Mac.
Never said it was - just that the term "personal computer" has morphed in meaning over time; it was even applied to the HP-65 at one point.
If confusion follows then you are not using the word in its commonly accepted fashion. Languages evolve - and words take on new meanings. There are plenty of words whose modern meaning differs from the older meaning; or whose meaning is very context specific.
Though this is not an example of that. The contextual meaning of "PCs" has been essentially unchanged for 2-3 decades now.
Actually, it has changed quite a bit since its early usage - from a discriptor to delineate small desktop machines from terminals and big iron to today's use as a generic term for Windows based machines.
"PC", on the other hand, is not used exclusively to refer to a personal computer running Microsoft Windows. It can just as easily refer to any personal computer. One of the meanings is logical and useful, the other one isn't. Not that I really mind. I sort of enjoy calling Macs PCs and then watching the inevitable rage or confusion that follows.
If confusion follows then you are not using the word in its commonly accepted fashion. Languages evolve - and words take on new meanings. There are plenty of words whose modern meaning differs from the older meaning; or whose meaning is very context specific.