You don't understand that capacity *has* been increasing. HSPA+ is a much more spectrally efficient system than AT&T's old 3G. 4G will blow even HSPA+ out of the water. The issue here is that video consumption has been growing steadily, and AT&T wants to clamp down on this innovation so that they don't have to provision their networks to prepare for the future.
First off all, the cell to tower connection is only one part of capacity - they still have to deal with backhaul limits; something that is not easy to do. So while they are increasing capacity demand is increasing as well.
Of course, the real question is do cell phone providers want to be in the high data volume business, such as streaming video? They could decide that is not a good business model, from a cost / revenue perspective, and simply not the provide low cost high volume data plans needed for such usage.
Right now, I'd bet a significant percentage of their data plan users don't care about streaming video; rather they want to be able to get email and occasionally surf the web; so taking steps to limit bandwidth usage makes sense since that delivers what most of their customers value.
If video and other high data usage activities become mainstream; the cell phone companies or someone else will fill that demand. Given the cell phone companies have the infrastructure to do it you'll probably seem them adapt their business model as the demand evolves; just as they did with calling plans. To a large extent; the mobile future will be decided by cell phone operators; I expect them to push for ways for content providers to pay to use the pipe if the provides want access to their customers.
Since most customers will see their data plan costs diminish and don't get anywhere near the cap; this move has little risk for ATT. In fact, pushing high volume users to other carriers is probably a good move. Sometimes you have to fire a customer; and I'd bet many of those users are driven by a desire for a specific phone, and as long as ATT has what they want they'll simply live with (and complain about) ATT's pricing.
They just went from unlimited to 2GB, far below the 5GB standard on 3G USB sticks. What in the world makes you think they would ever raise their caps? The history of every ISP that has ever implemented caps after first being unlimited (Canada for example) is that they continually tighten the noose on customers by gradually decreasing the cap and raising prices.
Historically, cell phone companies have raised caps and even gone to unlimited fixed fee pricing for phone calls, which leads me to believe as capacity increases and demand for higher bandwidth applications such as video increases they'll respond to it by increasing caps and offering more tiered pricing to let end users chose what capacity they want.
I also think they will find ways to generate revenue from the data, not the pipe, as services expand; ultimately they have to decide are they bandwidth providers (and price accordingly) or content providers and generate revenue from a broader mix of services.
The airlines are a very poor example. They have had to be bailed out over and over again because their model doesn't work. They are also notorious for aging infrastructure.
Actually, they get bailouts because Congress is unwilling to let the market get rid of the excess capacity that causes the crazy competition we see. Congress does not want that because:
1. Prices would rise significantly, impacting tourism and other leisure travelers who view flying as a discretionary expense
2. Unprofitable cities would lose service, much to the dismay of companies located there as well as local politicians who view jet service as part of being in the big leagues.
3. Jobs. The majors employ a lot of people and buy a lot of stuff.
I agree the current model doesn't work but until Congress stops trying to keep it in place there's little chance of seeing a better (in terms of industry profitability) than we now have. Since each of the three reasons above have significant political backers (votes and dollars) for keeping the status quo there is no interest in changing it. Bailouts are simply a way to hide and spread the true cost of flying, and Congress has been pretty good at spreading costs via taxes to stay in office.
The plan is just a way for AT&T to get rid of its least profitable customers. These are the ones who actually *use* the network capacity that they pay for. Most people are light users. They pay a lot of money but don't actually use much capacity. AT&T loves these people, because it's essentially free money. The ones who actually use the service are not very profitable, because AT&T has to provide capacity for them. (Capacity isn't needed if you don't use the network!) So rather than expanding capacity to match demand, they're making it economically infeasible to *use* the capacity that you pay for.
AT&T claims that most people use less than 2 GB/month. That's great, but that's partly because of the lack of good applications for most smartphones. (iPhone users use much more than half the data on the network.) Imagine if AT&T had imposed a cap based on what most people used in 1993. The web would have no pictures. You couldn't afford them. If they based it on what people used in 1996, the web would have no audio or video. You couldn't afford it. Same with most applications used today, network based software distribution, Skype, and many other things we take for granted. The cap makes higher bandwidth applications unaffordable for most users, and will seriously stifle the development of new technologies for mobile device.
This is a truly bad idea...
Actually, many users may benefit from this. I have 2 iPhones, and checked historical data use. One uses less than 50mb/month and will go on the cheapest plan, the other averages less than 2GB (often around 400mb)and is used daily for email, and multiple data tasks including surfing the web, checking schedules, etc.
Smart users will check their average and chose an appropriate plan, I'd expect many will save money by choosing the cheaper plan. I would like an unlimited plus tethering plan, and would pay a premium for it. As is, I may get a Sprint 4g device for tethering only.
Will it impact new technologies? Probably, but minimally. ATT and others are moving to newer cell technologies and as bandwidth demand increases they'll change their pricing model as well; as they have always done. Just look at how the phone market changed - we went from high per minute fees (I paid $.25/minute on my first plan); severely limited calling areas with roaming charges plus higher call fees; and high per text messages fees to a single flat rate structure for calls across the US and unlimited texting for a fixed fee. Just because they do this today doesn't mean it won't change tomorrow.
AT&T is a far cry from the original company (before the Carterphone Decision and the breakup). The company
was a national treasure in those days. The customer service (free phones, free replacement phones, the best in the world quality, etc).
I hate to break the news to you, but the phones weren't free. For years there was a lease charge and eventually you could buy your phone. Customer service and line quality was good; but you paid for it in high local access charges as well as long distance. Today, in real dollars, I pay a fraction of what local service used to cost, even excluding the difference in the value of a dollar, and can call anywhere in the US and Canada, as well as parts of Europe with no long distance charge.
How to solve all of these problems in one fell swoop: dispose of the income tax, disband the IRS, eliminate the ridiculously lenghty income tax code, and replace all of them with the Fair Tax. A national sales tax (NOT the same as a VAT) has none of these problems, carries no need to track income, is much more difficult to cheat, is paid by foreign nationals who visit this country including illegals, is paid by people who deal drugs and other contraband not currently tracked by the IRS, and has a much lower cost of compliance to businesses than the current ridiculously complex tax code.
I find it odd that people somehow thing the "Fair Tax" will simplify the tax code. All the Fair Tax will do is change the loopholes resulting in people changing their behaviors. Smart people will figure out creative ways to minimize what they pay; the government will enact laws eliminating the loophole; people will find new creative ways to minimize taxes and soon you need an agency in place to monitor compliance.
Of course, some/. will say - "but it's a national sales tax - what don't you understand about that?" Fair enough. The first problem is what do you define as the sales price? Actual selling price? Fair market value? If it is the former, the I, the grocer, can sell you, the gas station owner, groceries for a penny in return for gas for a penny of equivalent value, while paying no tax. If the latter, then someone has to establish a "fair market value" to be applied to all goods sold. Granted that is a simplistic example; but I guarantee when many billions in tax money can be saved by carefully conducting transactions people will get paid well to craft transactions so there is minimal tax costs.
Don't they already distributes GPL'd code on apple.com - why can't they just make source code available the same way they do for what they distribute? They've been doing it a while so however it is handled must not have ruffled the FSF's feathers so, to paraphrase an email "GPL. No big deal."
I own two brother laser printers (one at school one at home) and would recommend them to anyone looking for a cheap laser printer. The older, an HL 2070N has done a little over 10,000 pages in the 5 or so years since I got it. The newer one, an HL 2170W I've had for about a year and printed around 1600 pages on. They come with a toner cartridge good for around a thousand pages, after which I recommend buying the "high yield" ones which are around $40 and good for around 2600 pages. You'll also need a new drum unit ever 13,000 pages or so, but that hasn't happened yet.
Given the low cost of sa new Brother laser it may be cheaper to junk the old one a buy a new one. My 1440, which is going strong after 4 years or so, cost $99, the drum was around $150 (which I have not replace), and I've seen newer models for around $100 on sale. I've also seen Canon multifunction lasers for $100 at Fry's, so a new drum is not really worth it.
The Brother is a decent printer, some quirks, but overall it's been a workhorse for basic printing.
Most businesses don't need to know how Keynesian theories vary from those of Adam Smith; they just need to keep the CFO out of jail when the quarterlies go out. Therefore, the accountant gets a job.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to whether or not the economist needs to understand accounting. Of course, there are businesses that need economists as well to work on such things a economic models to help drive decisions. That, of course, is also irrelevant to whether one field needs to understand the other.
Yep, he's missing the point. People don't get college degrees in order to go cut down trees, they get them in hopes of making a career in their chosen field. They end up cutting down trees (or, as in my case, driving a truck) only after they've failed to accomplish that goal. Perhaps they didn't make the wisest choice about what to study but sometimes it's kind of hard to know that in advance.
Some people actually study something they're interested in even though they don't plan to work in that field. I studied engineering because I like airplanes and rockets but doing "traditional" engineering work is of no interest to me. It did, however, provide me with a logical way to solve problems that is very useful in many other fields I find more interesting.
Not really. An economics degree is useful in virtually all businesses, if only to balance the sheets. Of what value is a history degree to Goldman Sachs or Microsoft or GM?
A 4.0 history major would probably be of more interest to them than a 2.0 econ major; since it shows the ability to succeed by perseverance and a drive to do well.
As a side note, I know several history majors who successfully completed navy nuke power training and passed the engineers exam/
And that's a grave mistake. If you don't actually know how the money is moved, you can't know what the forces on it are, or what sort of uncertainties there are, even in something carried to exact precision.
I beg to differ. One does not need to understand the other in order to be good at one's chosen filed. Economics is about understanding (or trying to understand) the why and what; accounting is about keeping score. There are no 'laws of accounting' but rather a set of rules that are arbitrary but consistently applied. Neither is more important than the other in the sense they both accomplish important things; and while understanding the other may make one more lerned it is not a prerequisite for success in either field.
Posters have already commented on the possibility of pranking the system with weird passages - given the ability to reach diverse groups with social media this seems like a real possibility.
Taken a step further, how about teams vying to get quotes up. In a variation of geo-caching you could have quote-caching - some relative obscure quote from a free text; along with separate quotes for each team. First team to get their quote and their selected passage up gets a point; you'd need a quote-master to select the next one.
Writers could incorporate it into stories- the evil terrorists use it to send coded messages instead of buying ads in newspapers.
Publishers could get passages from books up to promote them.
Even though I want to release my code to the public I don't know whether I have the legal right to do so.
That sounds like "you need to talk to a lawyer" material.
IANAL, but my guess is that if it's in your contract, you'll probably need to demonstrate that you weren't aware of that at the time you signed the contract in order to keep copyright (or control of licensing) on your work.
Your first statement is very correct, in light of your second. Once you sign a contract, saying "I didn't know" is not a very good defense. Having a lawyer look at a contract is a good idea, since they often point out nuances you would never pick up; and can answer questions and recommend changes to address your concerns prior to signing.
Yay... a yet another attempt to work around the First Sale rules. All they're doing is relabeling part of the package, so instead it's an "add-on" now.
By "title updates" they really mean bug-fix patches. In other words, this "Online Pass" thingy is strictly negative.
The doctrine of first sale is not universal nor all encompassing, in the US at least; there are a number of gray areas. In this case, they haven't prevented you from selling the tangible good you bought; but are not providing the same benefits that the original purchaser gets. Their only obligation is to you, the original purchaser; they do not have to provide the same level of support or access to subsequent purchasers. You could, of course, pass on to the subsequent purchaser they login credentials to give them access to the content but I doubt most people will do that.
What this will do, however, put pressure on used game sales as you now need to spend $10 more to get the same experience as a new game; narrowing the gap between new and used unless used prices drop to stay competitive. I'd guess resellers will offer less for games that have the $10 add-on, and would not be surprised if EA offers point of sale opportunities to buy the add-on. If used prices do drop, people who don't care about the additional features will benefit from lower prices, and those that wanted them but couldn't get them now have a way to get them. Those who buy new games will see lower trade in values; and have to decide if having the game when it comes out is worth the now higher premium.
Even if Apple makes the majority of profit on the hardware the software is still part of the business plan. It might not be very profitable today but several years from now it could be and they want as little threats to it as possible as it grows, and flash is a major threat.
It's about both. Apple wants to protect its profits, and having a closed HW/SW ecosystem supports that. I'd be great if SW becomes more profitable, but as long as it creates vendor locking its done its job. If it were easy to migrate from an iPhone to another phone then Apple would not be as easily able to keep its customer base (or get folks to want an iPhone vs a competing phone with the same SW availability); making the iPhone less valuable to carriers and putting downward price pressure; something Apple really wants to avoid.
The technical term for that is monopolistic competition - while there are similar products available you have successfully differentiated yours to allow you some pricing power. Apple will do what they can to defend that position.
My take on it: they decided to do it because Google's doing it, and they don't want to get "left behind". Then they came up with a plausible-sounding business case for their scheme.
Yea, that works for me as well. MS has always been a fast follower; letting someone else build the market and then moving in to capitalize on it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I see MS doing several things with this, including:
The free version builds understanding and credibility; especially if it integrates with teh desktop version. Once taht is done, migrate to paid for versions for businesses since the model is now accepted.
Working to a client server model (despite the "cloud" what's old is new again) and partner / acquire a company in that space to offer businesses a full suite of services.
If OfficeLive catches on, advertising will follow.
Ultimately, I think it's about building a tight eco-system around office / entertainment / information that allows them to capture eyeballs for ads and combat piracy so content providers sign on. This is but one more shot in that battle.
More appropriately, when does something transition from a "good idea that is sparsely implemented" to an industry standard? If you set the criteria as "defined by an industry organization" (such as ANSI, ASNE) then why would a company allow patented tech into the standard? Would MILSPEC constitute an industry standard? I think the battle point would just change, with companies wanting larger license fees early because they'd lose them later; which would limit the adoption of a standard. In addition, they would have little incentive to allow free licensing to encourage adoption since there's no money at the other end.
I'm not sure what the answer is - perhaps a compulsory license fee that is the same for all users of the technology? Of course, then I could charge a high upfront one time fee, rather than a per unit fee, effectively locking out newcomers.
Of course, eliminating submarine patents would go a long way. If a person has applied for a patent, they should be required to notify a potential infringer when they first notice the infringement, not after the patent being granted. After a certain time limit, the infringer should be grandfathered into non-infringement. If they have been notified, and the patent subsequently is upheld, then the are liable if they failed to modify their infringing item. A separate arbitration board would hear arguments, and if they decide the patent appears to be valid then either they settle or the infringer posts a bond set by the panel. The winner of the eventual suit gets the bond. I would even say that granting the patent, and winning a challenge, would be enough to get the patent holder the bond; since a panel of experts decided the infringement issue earlier but did not rule on the patentability. Alternatively, they could settle both issues at once
And they do this with a tone that suggests it's someone else's fault for not having the customer environment constantly updated to the latest release of everything, rather than their problem for not dealing with the actual situation in front of them. If you don't know why customer environments don't get upgraded as soon as the new release comes out, then ask a colleague over coffee.
Of course, when v3.2 came out in 1997, v4.0 came out in 2001 and the software is currently at v7.4 and the software is backwards compatible and either open source or only costs a few hundred bucks to upgrade "Just get the customer to upgrade" may very well be a valid response.
First of all, they are the customer. It may be in their best interests to upgrade; and would be worth making the case why, but if they decide not to it's their money. The software company needs to decide if the customer is worth keeping. I so, then don't break compatibility. There may be contractual reasons as well.
It's a classic IT failure that everyone just starts thinking "we've always done it that way" and any suggestions for change are considered rocking the boat.
There are still companies running ancient off the shelf software on NT4 servers that require daily attention from their IT department because they consider the cost of spending a few hundred or thousand dollar on updated software to be an unnecessary expense, and not just little mom and pop shops either.
While I've dealt with my share of "we've always done it that way" arguments, there are valid reasons not to change as well. The cost of software is often a small fraction of the total cost of a switch. Other activities that must be done with the switch are often the cost drivers. Data migration, for example. People somehow think that all they need to do is move the data from one platform to another; in the end you wind up manually analyzing a bunch of data and throwing out some percentage as unconverted. Even simple rules can fail: one project I was involved with used social security numbers as the unique key to identify employee data during conversion. Of course, multiple duplicate numbers (sometimes dozens of people had the same number), invalid numbers, and valid duplicates (same employee, worked at several different pre-merger firms) meant a lot of manual (unplanned) cleanup needed to be done.
In the end, they are the customer and they decide where to spend their money.
Wow - "As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year; not because he had plants growing their from seeds that blew across his property line.." ???
Isn't that how you plant - from seeds? At least I don't know any other way? And he only collected seeds from his own property! So, if I throw a seed with a marker (well, it was the wind), you know those(?), on your side, you take your(!) plants, seed them and grow next year from those seeds I can sue you? You know, those markers last generations in cells - no way to get rid of them!
The key , of course, is the seeds he collected contained Monsanto's patented gene - and in Canada, at least, you can't use someone's patented product without their permission. Since he did not buy the seed he planted (not that that blew onto his property)from Monsanto; he was violating their patent. While I think there are some fundamental problems with the current state of patent law, that doesn't change the law.
Maybe the free market (take the money where and whatever way you can independent of the consequences) has gone a little too far?
I don't think you understand what a free market is. A free market does not imply there are no laws governing actions; it does however mean individuals, not governments, control production. It may not be perfect, but beats the other way around hands down.
As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year
How was he to tell whether the glyphosate resistance was due to Monsanto's patented gene or due to a different gene created through evolution? Or is the patent as broad as a typical information processing patent, which covers the end result (in this case glyphosate resistance) no matter how it is achieved?
Apparently the courts decided there was enough evidence that the mutation was from Monsanto stock and thus infringed the patent. Given the description of how he got the seed he used to plant his fields I'd say it was not unreasonable to assume it was from Monsanto stock.
I would not be surprised if one of the conditions of sale of genetically modified seed is that you can't harvest the seeds and plant them next year
The conditions of what sale? Schmeiser never signed a contract with Monsanto.
I agree, and that was not what I was implying; rather farmers agree when the buy seed from Monsanto they can't harvest the seed from Monsanto crop and then use it to plant the next year.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand that capacity *has* been increasing. HSPA+ is a much more spectrally efficient system than AT&T's old 3G. 4G will blow even HSPA+ out of the water. The issue here is that video consumption has been growing steadily, and AT&T wants to clamp down on this innovation so that they don't have to provision their networks to prepare for the future.
First off all, the cell to tower connection is only one part of capacity - they still have to deal with backhaul limits; something that is not easy to do. So while they are increasing capacity demand is increasing as well.
Of course, the real question is do cell phone providers want to be in the high data volume business, such as streaming video? They could decide that is not a good business model, from a cost / revenue perspective, and simply not the provide low cost high volume data plans needed for such usage.
Right now, I'd bet a significant percentage of their data plan users don't care about streaming video; rather they want to be able to get email and occasionally surf the web; so taking steps to limit bandwidth usage makes sense since that delivers what most of their customers value.
If video and other high data usage activities become mainstream; the cell phone companies or someone else will fill that demand. Given the cell phone companies have the infrastructure to do it you'll probably seem them adapt their business model as the demand evolves; just as they did with calling plans. To a large extent; the mobile future will be decided by cell phone operators; I expect them to push for ways for content providers to pay to use the pipe if the provides want access to their customers.
Since most customers will see their data plan costs diminish and don't get anywhere near the cap; this move has little risk for ATT. In fact, pushing high volume users to other carriers is probably a good move. Sometimes you have to fire a customer; and I'd bet many of those users are driven by a desire for a specific phone, and as long as ATT has what they want they'll simply live with (and complain about) ATT's pricing.
They just went from unlimited to 2GB, far below the 5GB standard on 3G USB sticks. What in the world makes you think they would ever raise their caps? The history of every ISP that has ever implemented caps after first being unlimited (Canada for example) is that they continually tighten the noose on customers by gradually decreasing the cap and raising prices.
Historically, cell phone companies have raised caps and even gone to unlimited fixed fee pricing for phone calls, which leads me to believe as capacity increases and demand for higher bandwidth applications such as video increases they'll respond to it by increasing caps and offering more tiered pricing to let end users chose what capacity they want.
I also think they will find ways to generate revenue from the data, not the pipe, as services expand; ultimately they have to decide are they bandwidth providers (and price accordingly) or content providers and generate revenue from a broader mix of services.
The airlines are a very poor example. They have had to be bailed out over and over again because their model doesn't work. They are also notorious for aging infrastructure.
Actually, they get bailouts because Congress is unwilling to let the market get rid of the excess capacity that causes the crazy competition we see. Congress does not want that because:
1. Prices would rise significantly, impacting tourism and other leisure travelers who view flying as a discretionary expense
2. Unprofitable cities would lose service, much to the dismay of companies located there as well as local politicians who view jet service as part of being in the big leagues.
3. Jobs. The majors employ a lot of people and buy a lot of stuff.
I agree the current model doesn't work but until Congress stops trying to keep it in place there's little chance of seeing a better (in terms of industry profitability) than we now have. Since each of the three reasons above have significant political backers (votes and dollars) for keeping the status quo there is no interest in changing it. Bailouts are simply a way to hide and spread the true cost of flying, and Congress has been pretty good at spreading costs via taxes to stay in office.
The plan is just a way for AT&T to get rid of its least profitable customers. These are the ones who actually *use* the network capacity that they pay for. Most people are light users. They pay a lot of money but don't actually use much capacity. AT&T loves these people, because it's essentially free money. The ones who actually use the service are not very profitable, because AT&T has to provide capacity for them. (Capacity isn't needed if you don't use the network!) So rather than expanding capacity to match demand, they're making it economically infeasible to *use* the capacity that you pay for.
AT&T claims that most people use less than 2 GB/month. That's great, but that's partly because of the lack of good applications for most smartphones. (iPhone users use much more than half the data on the network.) Imagine if AT&T had imposed a cap based on what most people used in 1993. The web would have no pictures. You couldn't afford them. If they based it on what people used in 1996, the web would have no audio or video. You couldn't afford it. Same with most applications used today, network based software distribution, Skype, and many other things we take for granted. The cap makes higher bandwidth applications unaffordable for most users, and will seriously stifle the development of new technologies for mobile device.
This is a truly bad idea...
Actually, many users may benefit from this. I have 2 iPhones, and checked historical data use. One uses less than 50mb/month and will go on the cheapest plan, the other averages less than 2GB (often around 400mb)and is used daily for email, and multiple data tasks including surfing the web, checking schedules, etc.
Smart users will check their average and chose an appropriate plan, I'd expect many will save money by choosing the cheaper plan. I would like an unlimited plus tethering plan, and would pay a premium for it. As is, I may get a Sprint 4g device for tethering only.
Will it impact new technologies? Probably, but minimally. ATT and others are moving to newer cell technologies and as bandwidth demand increases they'll change their pricing model as well; as they have always done. Just look at how the phone market changed - we went from high per minute fees (I paid $.25/minute on my first plan); severely limited calling areas with roaming charges plus higher call fees; and high per text messages fees to a single flat rate structure for calls across the US and unlimited texting for a fixed fee. Just because they do this today doesn't mean it won't change tomorrow.
All in all, I'd say it's not a bad idea.
AT&T is a far cry from the original company (before the Carterphone Decision and the breakup). The company was a national treasure in those days. The customer service (free phones, free replacement phones, the best in the world quality, etc).
I hate to break the news to you, but the phones weren't free. For years there was a lease charge and eventually you could buy your phone. Customer service and line quality was good; but you paid for it in high local access charges as well as long distance. Today, in real dollars, I pay a fraction of what local service used to cost, even excluding the difference in the value of a dollar, and can call anywhere in the US and Canada, as well as parts of Europe with no long distance charge.
How to solve all of these problems in one fell swoop: dispose of the income tax, disband the IRS, eliminate the ridiculously lenghty income tax code, and replace all of them with the Fair Tax. A national sales tax (NOT the same as a VAT) has none of these problems, carries no need to track income, is much more difficult to cheat, is paid by foreign nationals who visit this country including illegals, is paid by people who deal drugs and other contraband not currently tracked by the IRS, and has a much lower cost of compliance to businesses than the current ridiculously complex tax code.
I find it odd that people somehow thing the "Fair Tax" will simplify the tax code. All the Fair Tax will do is change the loopholes resulting in people changing their behaviors. Smart people will figure out creative ways to minimize what they pay; the government will enact laws eliminating the loophole; people will find new creative ways to minimize taxes and soon you need an agency in place to monitor compliance.
Of course, some /. will say - "but it's a national sales tax - what don't you understand about that?" Fair enough. The first problem is what do you define as the sales price? Actual selling price? Fair market value? If it is the former, the I, the grocer, can sell you, the gas station owner, groceries for a penny in return for gas for a penny of equivalent value, while paying no tax. If the latter, then someone has to establish a "fair market value" to be applied to all goods sold. Granted that is a simplistic example; but I guarantee when many billions in tax money can be saved by carefully conducting transactions people will get paid well to craft transactions so there is minimal tax costs.
Don't they already distributes GPL'd code on apple.com - why can't they just make source code available the same way they do for what they distribute? They've been doing it a while so however it is handled must not have ruffled the FSF's feathers so, to paraphrase an email "GPL. No big deal."
I own two brother laser printers (one at school one at home) and would recommend them to anyone looking for a cheap laser printer. The older, an HL 2070N has done a little over 10,000 pages in the 5 or so years since I got it. The newer one, an HL 2170W I've had for about a year and printed around 1600 pages on. They come with a toner cartridge good for around a thousand pages, after which I recommend buying the "high yield" ones which are around $40 and good for around 2600 pages. You'll also need a new drum unit ever 13,000 pages or so, but that hasn't happened yet.
Given the low cost of sa new Brother laser it may be cheaper to junk the old one a buy a new one. My 1440, which is going strong after 4 years or so, cost $99, the drum was around $150 (which I have not replace), and I've seen newer models for around $100 on sale. I've also seen Canon multifunction lasers for $100 at Fry's, so a new drum is not really worth it.
The Brother is a decent printer, some quirks, but overall it's been a workhorse for basic printing.
back then the internet was totally free
It was? Funny, I remember my ISP wanted to be paid...
Some places had free access - Georgia had Peachnet for example that was accessible via dialup.
Most businesses don't need to know how Keynesian theories vary from those of Adam Smith; they just need to keep the CFO out of jail when the quarterlies go out. Therefore, the accountant gets a job.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to whether or not the economist needs to understand accounting. Of course, there are businesses that need economists as well to work on such things a economic models to help drive decisions. That, of course, is also irrelevant to whether one field needs to understand the other.
Yep, he's missing the point. People don't get college degrees in order to go cut down trees, they get them in hopes of making a career in their chosen field. They end up cutting down trees (or, as in my case, driving a truck) only after they've failed to accomplish that goal. Perhaps they didn't make the wisest choice about what to study but sometimes it's kind of hard to know that in advance.
Some people actually study something they're interested in even though they don't plan to work in that field. I studied engineering because I like airplanes and rockets but doing "traditional" engineering work is of no interest to me. It did, however, provide me with a logical way to solve problems that is very useful in many other fields I find more interesting.
Not really. An economics degree is useful in virtually all businesses, if only to balance the sheets. Of what value is a history degree to Goldman Sachs or Microsoft or GM?
A 4.0 history major would probably be of more interest to them than a 2.0 econ major; since it shows the ability to succeed by perseverance and a drive to do well.
As a side note, I know several history majors who successfully completed navy nuke power training and passed the engineers exam/
And that's a grave mistake. If you don't actually know how the money is moved, you can't know what the forces on it are, or what sort of uncertainties there are, even in something carried to exact precision.
I beg to differ. One does not need to understand the other in order to be good at one's chosen filed. Economics is about understanding (or trying to understand) the why and what; accounting is about keeping score. There are no 'laws of accounting' but rather a set of rules that are arbitrary but consistently applied. Neither is more important than the other in the sense they both accomplish important things; and while understanding the other may make one more lerned it is not a prerequisite for success in either field.
Do you also refer to people from West Virginia as "Virginians" ...
No, they are West By God Virginians.
... and people from New Mexico and "Mexicans"?
No, they generally get asked about visas and passports, especially now in Arizona.
Posters have already commented on the possibility of pranking the system with weird passages - given the ability to reach diverse groups with social media this seems like a real possibility.
Taken a step further, how about teams vying to get quotes up. In a variation of geo-caching you could have quote-caching - some relative obscure quote from a free text; along with separate quotes for each team. First team to get their quote and their selected passage up gets a point; you'd need a quote-master to select the next one.
Writers could incorporate it into stories- the evil terrorists use it to send coded messages instead of buying ads in newspapers.
Publishers could get passages from books up to promote them.
The possibilities are endless...
What's the benefit of being in Germany?
Maybe:
Ve hav vays of making you benefit
or,
Ve no nutting, nutting,
Even though I want to release my code to the public I don't know whether I have the legal right to do so.
That sounds like "you need to talk to a lawyer" material.
IANAL, but my guess is that if it's in your contract, you'll probably need to demonstrate that you weren't aware of that at the time you signed the contract in order to keep copyright (or control of licensing) on your work.
Your first statement is very correct, in light of your second. Once you sign a contract, saying "I didn't know" is not a very good defense. Having a lawyer look at a contract is a good idea, since they often point out nuances you would never pick up; and can answer questions and recommend changes to address your concerns prior to signing.
Yay... a yet another attempt to work around the First Sale rules. All they're doing is relabeling part of the package, so instead it's an "add-on" now.
By "title updates" they really mean bug-fix patches. In other words, this "Online Pass" thingy is strictly negative.
The doctrine of first sale is not universal nor all encompassing, in the US at least; there are a number of gray areas. In this case, they haven't prevented you from selling the tangible good you bought; but are not providing the same benefits that the original purchaser gets. Their only obligation is to you, the original purchaser; they do not have to provide the same level of support or access to subsequent purchasers. You could, of course, pass on to the subsequent purchaser they login credentials to give them access to the content but I doubt most people will do that.
What this will do, however, put pressure on used game sales as you now need to spend $10 more to get the same experience as a new game; narrowing the gap between new and used unless used prices drop to stay competitive. I'd guess resellers will offer less for games that have the $10 add-on, and would not be surprised if EA offers point of sale opportunities to buy the add-on. If used prices do drop, people who don't care about the additional features will benefit from lower prices, and those that wanted them but couldn't get them now have a way to get them. Those who buy new games will see lower trade in values; and have to decide if having the game when it comes out is worth the now higher premium.
Even if Apple makes the majority of profit on the hardware the software is still part of the business plan. It might not be very profitable today but several years from now it could be and they want as little threats to it as possible as it grows, and flash is a major threat.
It's about both. Apple wants to protect its profits, and having a closed HW/SW ecosystem supports that. I'd be great if SW becomes more profitable, but as long as it creates vendor locking its done its job. If it were easy to migrate from an iPhone to another phone then Apple would not be as easily able to keep its customer base (or get folks to want an iPhone vs a competing phone with the same SW availability); making the iPhone less valuable to carriers and putting downward price pressure; something Apple really wants to avoid.
The technical term for that is monopolistic competition - while there are similar products available you have successfully differentiated yours to allow you some pricing power. Apple will do what they can to defend that position.
My take on it: they decided to do it because Google's doing it, and they don't want to get "left behind". Then they came up with a plausible-sounding business case for their scheme.
Yea, that works for me as well. MS has always been a fast follower; letting someone else build the market and then moving in to capitalize on it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I see MS doing several things with this, including:
The free version builds understanding and credibility; especially if it integrates with teh desktop version. Once taht is done, migrate to paid for versions for businesses since the model is now accepted.
Working to a client server model (despite the "cloud" what's old is new again) and partner / acquire a company in that space to offer businesses a full suite of services.
If OfficeLive catches on, advertising will follow.
Ultimately, I think it's about building a tight eco-system around office / entertainment / information that allows them to capture eyeballs for ads and combat piracy so content providers sign on. This is but one more shot in that battle.
More appropriately, when does something transition from a "good idea that is sparsely implemented" to an industry standard? If you set the criteria as "defined by an industry organization" (such as ANSI, ASNE) then why would a company allow patented tech into the standard? Would MILSPEC constitute an industry standard? I think the battle point would just change, with companies wanting larger license fees early because they'd lose them later; which would limit the adoption of a standard. In addition, they would have little incentive to allow free licensing to encourage adoption since there's no money at the other end.
I'm not sure what the answer is - perhaps a compulsory license fee that is the same for all users of the technology? Of course, then I could charge a high upfront one time fee, rather than a per unit fee, effectively locking out newcomers.
Of course, eliminating submarine patents would go a long way. If a person has applied for a patent, they should be required to notify a potential infringer when they first notice the infringement, not after the patent being granted. After a certain time limit, the infringer should be grandfathered into non-infringement. If they have been notified, and the patent subsequently is upheld, then the are liable if they failed to modify their infringing item. A separate arbitration board would hear arguments, and if they decide the patent appears to be valid then either they settle or the infringer posts a bond set by the panel. The winner of the eventual suit gets the bond. I would even say that granting the patent, and winning a challenge, would be enough to get the patent holder the bond; since a panel of experts decided the infringement issue earlier but did not rule on the patentability. Alternatively, they could settle both issues at once
And they do this with a tone that suggests it's someone else's fault for not having the customer environment constantly updated to the latest release of everything, rather than their problem for not dealing with the actual situation in front of them. If you don't know why customer environments don't get upgraded as soon as the new release comes out, then ask a colleague over coffee.
Of course, when v3.2 came out in 1997, v4.0 came out in 2001 and the software is currently at v7.4 and the software is backwards compatible and either open source or only costs a few hundred bucks to upgrade "Just get the customer to upgrade" may very well be a valid response.
First of all, they are the customer. It may be in their best interests to upgrade; and would be worth making the case why, but if they decide not to it's their money. The software company needs to decide if the customer is worth keeping. I so, then don't break compatibility. There may be contractual reasons as well.
It's a classic IT failure that everyone just starts thinking "we've always done it that way" and any suggestions for change are considered rocking the boat.
There are still companies running ancient off the shelf software on NT4 servers that require daily attention from their IT department because they consider the cost of spending a few hundred or thousand dollar on updated software to be an unnecessary expense, and not just little mom and pop shops either.
While I've dealt with my share of "we've always done it that way" arguments, there are valid reasons not to change as well. The cost of software is often a small fraction of the total cost of a switch. Other activities that must be done with the switch are often the cost drivers. Data migration, for example. People somehow think that all they need to do is move the data from one platform to another; in the end you wind up manually analyzing a bunch of data and throwing out some percentage as unconverted. Even simple rules can fail: one project I was involved with used social security numbers as the unique key to identify employee data during conversion. Of course, multiple duplicate numbers (sometimes dozens of people had the same number), invalid numbers, and valid duplicates (same employee, worked at several different pre-merger firms) meant a lot of manual (unplanned) cleanup needed to be done.
In the end, they are the customer and they decide where to spend their money.
Wow - "As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year; not because he had plants growing their from seeds that blew across his property line.." ???
Isn't that how you plant - from seeds? At least I don't know any other way? And he only collected seeds from his own property! So, if I throw a seed with a marker (well, it was the wind), you know those(?), on your side, you take your(!) plants, seed them and grow next year from those seeds I can sue you? You know, those markers last generations in cells - no way to get rid of them!
The key , of course, is the seeds he collected contained Monsanto's patented gene - and in Canada, at least, you can't use someone's patented product without their permission. Since he did not buy the seed he planted (not that that blew onto his property)from Monsanto; he was violating their patent. While I think there are some fundamental problems with the current state of patent law, that doesn't change the law.
Maybe the free market (take the money where and whatever way you can independent of the consequences) has gone a little too far?
I don't think you understand what a free market is. A free market does not imply there are no laws governing actions; it does however mean individuals, not governments, control production. It may not be perfect, but beats the other way around hands down.
As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year
How was he to tell whether the glyphosate resistance was due to Monsanto's patented gene or due to a different gene created through evolution? Or is the patent as broad as a typical information processing patent, which covers the end result (in this case glyphosate resistance) no matter how it is achieved?
Apparently the courts decided there was enough evidence that the mutation was from Monsanto stock and thus infringed the patent. Given the description of how he got the seed he used to plant his fields I'd say it was not unreasonable to assume it was from Monsanto stock.
I would not be surprised if one of the conditions of sale of genetically modified seed is that you can't harvest the seeds and plant them next year
The conditions of what sale? Schmeiser never signed a contract with Monsanto.
I agree, and that was not what I was implying; rather farmers agree when the buy seed from Monsanto they can't harvest the seed from Monsanto crop and then use it to plant the next year.