Don't sell "software", sell "a solution to the customer's problem." This sounds cliched, but it's amazing how many people and companies work around actually doing so.
In my business, anyway, the open source support I sell is really business support. Companies want to know how improve their business with software, and I can help them figure that out, and open source is most often the best answer. I usually save them a bunch of money, deliver a robust solution, and pay some bills by doing so.
Granted, that's not what most 'investors' are looking to do - they want to mass-produce support scripts for that 800 number and charge $40/call. But in my case, what people are really buying is my ~20 years of IT experience and knowledge and its application to cutting-edge technology, which can't get mass produced by the end of next quarter.
Actually, what they want is rapid revenue growth. An open source solution lacks the ability to scale - i.e. you can't just churn out and sell more copies to go from 1 to 10 to 100 dollars in revenue at very little marginal cost. Such a company has a high multiple.
Revenue growth comes from support / consulting which requires staff and is much harder to scale. Such companies have small multiples, generally around 1.
Since investors like rapid revenue growth and high multiples they prefer to invest in the first type of comapny I mentioned.
You can do that online (BBB.org); my experience is that a real person in Texas will respond and help resolve it. That's what happened when an order of my went into Dell's little version of customer service hell.
I spoke with a real person in TX who not only solved it but gave me a credit for a future purchase.
As a side note - did you checkout the deals on AKO? Soemtimes they are better than those online.
I don't see how you address GP's point. He is saying, as far as I can tell, he's willing to support them with his checkbook (which strikes me as extravagant, but hey, it's not my money). But that is the support GP means: early adapters willing to pay more. After the early adapters successfully fund the corporation, so goes his argument, the rest of us will be able to afford these cars. I guess the parallel is with computers, etc.
GP seems to be against gov't funding, or at least does not argue for it.
The GP's line"
It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
seemed to argue for the inclusion of Tesla in the bailout; on the grounds that it would help them survive as well.
I have no problem with people voting with their paycheck and buying n item; I don't think the government should vote with mine on who survives in the marketplace.
I don't get what you are saying here. This isn't Tesla asking for money by itself, but asking to be included with the other companies that also claim to be "American Automotive Manufacturers" and for the Feds to maintain a level playing field. Are you sure the feds should subsidize Ford and Chrysler at the expense of taxing Tesla out of existence?
No, I don't think the feds should bail any of them out; at least not under the terms the Big 3 seem to want - basically "give us cheap money and trust us to do the right thing."
Or, why not give the same deal to BMW/Mercedes/KIA/Toyota/Honda/Panoz/etc. who also manufacture cars here?
To say that a low interest loan to Tesla is a bailout for billionaires is to seriously ignore what Tesla is doing. While everyone else is either developing low-speed electric cars (e.g. cars that can't run on the highway and don't have to pass all of the safety regulations) or estimating that their electric hybrid will run AT MOST 40 miles off the battery, Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
That's great, and if it is a viable business they they'll succeed. The government should not be in the business of picking winners.
If you want to fund R&D, then fund that and make the results available to all manufacturers. A far better use of money than saving Tesla.
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
It shouldn't. All it is doing is keeping them alive to the determent of other manufactures, many of whom also build cars in the US.
OTOH, as with anything politicians fear losing votes so we have bailouts.
My business partner and I both reserved '09 Tesla Roadsters. Why? Not because it's a hot car, or it drives like a rocket, but because we want to see electric car research pushed faster. And it was the next best thing to investing in the company. It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
No, they don't. If they want to survive then they need to price cars at a profitable level; even if it means very expensive. Just because they are "greener" tan an Aston doesn't mean they deserve help.
Either their biz plan works or it doesn't - the government ought not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
See for instance the Federalist Papers, #41, in which the Federalist (pro-Constitution) faction explained why the new Constitution was desirable. Their argument was that they had created a Constitution of sharply limited powers, and that the idea of such phrases as "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" into unlimited powers was a paranoid fantasy.
(snipped Madison's arguement)
Unfortunately, Madison was part of one political faction; others viewed it differently. At any rate, it grants powers that today's Supreme Court decides if they are constitutional.
Strict constructions will argue but history has shown the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation.
"General welfare" was limited to the powers specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Furthermore, 'General welfare' was applied to the united States as a whole, not to individuals.
"General welfare" does not mean General Welfare Checks.
No where in Section 8 does it limit the "General Welfare" only to the powers enumerated in Sec 8; in fact it provides a broad latitude for Congress to act at the end where it states:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Given those broad powers Congress can decide how to act and what constitutes "General Welfare."
Visit the National Constitution Center and search for rainbow and blowjobs - they must be part of the improved government healthcare program, cause it ain't in the document that gives government its authority.
Found it - Article I
"the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises... "
so I fixed your post for you:
"...they must be part of the improved government healthcare program, and you'll find it is in the document that gives government its authority.
As science fiction readers we always seem to approach a movie release of our favourite stories with dread.
I, Robot is a classic example of the whole point of the book being sacrificed for extra action. Similarly I am Legend for those who have read the book is most thought provoking in its ending but Hollywood sacrificed that for a... well, Hollywood ending.
Why do film makers so often get it wrong?
I'm not so sure filmamkers get it wrong as make it different. SF fans often develop a very personal view of the story, the characters and meaning. When someone else comes along with a differing view the new view immediately becomes wrong; not a different opinion. SF fans are very opinionated and not often open to differing interpretations; so when a filmmaker puts their creative spin on the story it is viewed as destroying the story.
While there have been many bad SF movies, not remaining true to the original story does not automatically make a movie bad; just as being faithful to the story does not make one good. That's a result of how well the film's creative talent tells a story.
"For Official Use Only" is a type of non-public but unclassified government information. Which means that either that website shouldn't be there or the banner shouldn't be there...
That "publicly available at GSA Advantage" link from the article goes to:
Session Terminated Your Advantage! or e-Buy session has been terminated for one of the following reasons:...
So was it really publicly available?
Also they'd have to state that HP authorized it to be public on the GSA site. Otherwise you could just have two sites referencing each other saying the info is already public.
Well, considering that GSA Advantage is readily accessible and searched from gsa.gov; it's pretty much publically available.
The only disclaimer on GSA Advantage's main page is:
*** WARNING *** This is a U.S. General Services Administration computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Privacy and Security
which is a pretty standard US Government disclaimer; what constitutes "Official Use?" is certainly an open question; especially since much of that info is probably available via a FOIA request anyway I would doubt that simply searching prices would cause any problems.
Interestingly, the disclaimer seems to be aimed at US Government employees because it refers to "disciplinary action including criminal prosecution" rather than just criminal prosecution.
Remember those? When the price of stamps kept going up every 6 months and they offered stamps that you could buy that would be good forever. No more inconvenience of buying penny stamps, or getting returned mail because they did a stealth price change. I posited that they would stop selling those in only a few months or perhaps even declare them invalid. Looks like I was half right as I can't find them at any of my nearby postal facilities.
They're still around - the beauty for the USPS is they simply can raise the price to the new one on remaining stock. I would not be surprised if they sell forever stamps forever; in addition to commemoratives. That actually makes some sense since you don't have a large stock of fixed postal value stamps that all of a sudden need an additional 2 cents to be used; lowering your inventory costs.
Deals like this are designed to make money. Fujitsu is banking on warranty sales to make their additional profit; essentially tuning this into a laptop lease deal. If you decide to go off lease you keep the laptop you bought; if you stay on you get 100% of your payment down on the next model. It's like a lease with a 0 buyout; plus they get cash upfront instead of over 3 years. If you turn it in they get the resale / scrap value plus a new warranty - want to bet it won't be cheap and probably a significant percentage of the laptop's cost?
Look at dell - an $820 laptop 3 year warranty is $190 - about 25%. After 3 years you get $820 towards a laptop; but that $820 laptop retailed for about $1100 - Dell had an $320 special deal going. So, if they don't offer a similar deal you could wind up getting $820 off of a full priced machine (assuming the 10% fine print will let you), plus paying for a new warranty. As a result, that new machine would cost you $560. (190 plus 190 plus 1000 minus 820)
It should be protected, but under trademark? Or under copyright law, which is meant to deal with creative material?
Especially since, in this case, trademark essentially prevents anything from ever coming into public domain, as long as its characters are trademarked by a corporation or the trademarks pass into corporate hands.
That's actually the purpose of trademark - to protect the distinctive symbols / name/.etc. a company uses to market itself and be recognized by the public. To that end, yes it appropriate to trademark Godzilla. It is not a generic term nor figure.
Should trademark be allowed to prevent otherwise out of copyright items from being used by the public? I'd argue no; as long as they are used as in the original work. It should be OK to use a cut from an old film without violating trademark or getting permission from the trademark owner; unfortunately that does not appear to be how the law works in such cases.
There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.
The Godzilla likeness, name and roar are distinctive and used in commerce; trademark protection seems reasonable to me.
Prtotecting it is important to keep it form becoming generic, resulting in their loss of the trademark.
Just because something has become well known and popular doesn't mean it should loss protection; in fact popularity and recognition is a goal of most trademark owners.
Throw the covers off the guns and blast them into next year.
Your punishment may be a bit extreme but maybe it's just because I'm the kind of guy that likes fair justice & is concerned that the rest of the world sees my country as one that blindly kills people.
You are forgetting that these pirates are (aside from being human beings) winning people over by giving them things in a very Robin-Hood-esque type scenario--even if it's only offering the people a paying job as a pirate in an otherwise devastated and unstable economy. You would very quickly fall into disfavor with the locals... these pirates have even alegedly defended fishing areas for locals. They claim they are more like the coast guard trying to protect the food of hungry people. I think entire cities have bought into their propaganda and are willing to harbor/help them.
True or not, it's brazen disregard for how other people see things that causes really really bad things for America. Going in there, shooting up criminals & leaving is not going to improve anyone's image. Yes, these people are kidnappers & thieves but I don't think insta-death is a good way to deal with them.
Not a whole lot in this world is purely black and white.
They are pirates, and an ancient law of the sea is that pirates can be hunted and destroyed wherever they roam.
They chose a life of piracy, and should not be surprised when others hunt them down mercilessly; which is what needs to be done to make sea lanes safe for commerce.
One need not worry about image when dealing with pirates on the high seas; other than the one in the pirates mind where they see themselves hanging from a yardarm.
Basic plumbing skills now take a day to acquire and, by following the instructions, you can do a safe job. But plumbers are still employed
The people you are referring to do not follow the instructions. (and to be honest I don't have "basic mechanical aptitude" - I have a 30 year engineering career including 5 years as a general manager of a plumbing company - as a result I have some experience of getting untrained people to use modern plumbing fixtures. It was while working for this company that I got interested first in MRPII and then in the actual coding of MRPII systems, which is how I come to have 3 years of assembler, 5 years of C, 8 years of Java, as well as ten years of management and four years of metallurgy and component design. So perhaps I do have a clue as to the value of experience.) The skill level of your straw men is not comparable to that of the average IT worker. You have to take my remarks in context - that is, that in software just as in metallurgy, once people know how to do something properly less skilled people can build on it. Graphic designers can build working websites without knowing anything about Apache under the hood.
While we are probably closer in view point than our comments would indicate, I do disagree on several points:
1) Instructions alone are not enough to ensure someone can adequately perform even simple tasks. For example, I could provide someone with very precise directions on how to perform the very simple task of soldering a fitting on a piece of copper pipe - but even so they'll probably wind up with a leak and cold joint. Even something as basic as gluing plastic pipe can be messed up - and while you might attribute it to not following directions I contend it is lack of basic aptitude or experience. It's gotten easier for non-plumbers to do basic jobs; to a large extent because manufacturers have decided to design for the weekend fixer upper; but deign and instructions alone aren't enough in many cases.
2) Your "once people know how to do something properly less skilled people can build on it" comment shows a subtle bias - you assume because something requires lesser skills and uses other's creations it somehow requires a less skilled person to do it. The web designer has a different set of skills, not a lesser set, than the coder. You could just as easily have said once the graphic designer laid out the design a lesser skilled person could code it - which would be equally as wrong.
To take an example from the automotive world, one of the most basic cars money can buy - the Hyundai i10 - has an engine with 3 valves per cylinder, electronic management, and electronic fuel injection - all of which would be unavailable on an exotic sports car of the 1960s. The industry now regards this as an entry level bread and butter engine, using technology freely available to anybody.
I'm not sure what your point is - sophisticated technology need not be hard to use. In fact, good design make sit easy to use technology. However, using it is different from being able to understand or fix it. As technology gets sophisticated, the skills required to maintain it change and often grow in complexity as well.
Do you remember when it took real skill to be a plumber? To attach a faucet to a pipe, you had to be able to melt solder and shape it with tools while using a kerosene-fueled blowtorch. Get it wrong and you melted the lead pipe. Putting in a faucet was half a day's work. When it froze, pipes split and had to be cut out and repaired, also at vast expense. The training to do all the jobs was expensive and took years.
Now go round the hardware store. In ours there are several kinds of push fit and screw fit plumbing. The pipe is plastic, you cut it with a simple little tool. I recently had to replace the water softener and the new one had different plumbing. It took me nearly half an hour to put in four bends and a few joints.
That's the race for the bottom. Basic plumbing skills now take a day to acquire and, by following the instructions, you can do a safe job. But plumbers are still employed. I'm not about to service my boiler, or install a bath. I have more sense than to try to put in an oil tank and all the safety equipment, following all the codes.
It's like that with software. It is not a race for the bottom, it is called progress. An SMTP server is now a basic piece of kit. The learning curve for spreadsheet design is, basically, over. Unlike the so-called creative arts, engineering does not recognise the idea that somebody should be rewarded forever for a one-off contribution. In a knowledge society, new knowledge has value but old knowledge is free.
While you may have the basic mechanical aptitude to do simple plumbing; most people don't and efforts to do so would result in water running everywhere. I have several plumber friends who often get paid to fix someone else's Home Depot job.
Similarly with software - while it may look easy to code; doing it right takes experience, training and some aptitude for it.
Eventually, kicking and screaming, I expect we will get Open Source Law, and so-called lawyers will no longer be able to charge excessively for basic legal advice in simple cases. But specialist lawyers and the Supreme Court will still be needed, because there will still be hard cases. The same should really apply to all professions.
Once again, you fail to account for the value of experience and training - things often look easy because of the skill of the person doing the job. There is value in knowing how to apply your experiences in new situations.
Flying a plane or running a nuclear plant is easy - until something goes wrong; at that point experience kicks in to correct a potentially bad situation.
Know, you can move knowledge based work to places where it is cheaper - such as coding and accounting to India where the per hour rate is low; but you still need experience to get the work done.
The EULA is a contract between you and the software vendor; separate from copyright. While the enforceability of EULA terms is open to debate, vendors can define conditions on the use of their software; you can agree and buy it or not agree and not buy it.
I don't buy the game from Activision. I buy it from HMV. I hand over some cash and they hand me a disc in a box. Contract for sale of goods fulfilled to the satisfaction of both parties. Nobody at HMV ever mentioned anything about separate contracts, and once they have my money I don't think HMV care whether I play the game with an official controller, an unofficial controller, psychic powers, or indeed whether I play the game at all instead of, say, setting fire to it.
However, HMV sold you the physical disk; which you own, and a license to the software on it; just as if you bought any other copyrighted material.
Purchasing a copy does not give you the right to use it in ways not covered by the license agreement, assuming a court finds the license enforceable.
I don't see where I have any contract with Activision at all. Sure, something comes up on screen saying 'don't use this game with other controllers', but fuck 'em; as I see it, short of copyright violation I can do as I please.
You have agreed to Activision's license by using the software; and are bound by it as a result.
I do not like shrink wrap licenses that don't allow you to either read the terms before you buy or return the software if you don't agree to them, nor do particularly like them in general; but if you use the software it means you agree to the terms.
Last time I checked, the EULA on the loading screen explicitly states that you are only licensed to use the software with an official Guitar Hero controller.
Good luck to them enforcing that. The right that the publisher has that I do not is 'copyright' - the right to copy, plus associated rights regarding public performance and so forth. The idea behind an EULA is that in installing THE SOFTWARE You are creating a copy, and to do that You need a licence from Us. But here, when I use THE SOFTWARE I don't create a copy at all, I run direct from the disc (YMMV, dependent on your system).
So I don't need a licence, because I'm doing nothing that would otherwise infringe the copyright holder's rights. I can do as I please with THE SOFTWARE as long as that's true: I can shove it up my arse if I like and they can't stop me. I only need a licence if my use of THE SOFTWARE would otherwise be a breach of copyright.
You have a rather odd view of copyright and license agreements. The EULA is a contract between you and the software vendor; separate from copyright. While the enforceability of EULA terms is open to debate, vendors can define conditions on the use of their software; you can agree and buy it or not agree and not buy it.
Now, if Nintendo tried to enforce the EULA to stop disabled gamers from playing GH3, Nintendo would have a PR nightmare to contend with and is better off either ignoring the mod or working with developers to incorporate it into GH.
Many of the more esoteric financial disciplines require a lot of math; as do even the basic stuff such as M&A. As a result Wall Street has hired a lot of physics/math majors over the years; if she doesn't want to major in those areas then business is an option. Even so, I'd load up on math.
In general, regulated industries can sustain higher prices and have less competition than unregulated ones. That's not o say regulation does not have a place; but to think it results in lower prices to consumers is wrong
Precisely. And when you're talking of transporting people on public roads, lower prices is not the primary factor when developing policy; safety is. lower prices is good ONLY when it doesn't result in lower safety...
However, the artificial barriers to entry in regulated industries often results in higher prices, at the same level of safety, than would occur if entry was easier. Airline prices are one classic example of this.
One of the things that modern society seems incapable of understanding is that erring on the laissez faire side of things can create really interesting services with minimal hassle. People focus excessively on perceived problems like "oh nos... without intrusive government regulations, the water would be poisoned!!" when a capitalist approach, holding those who harm others civilly and criminally liable for harm to limb and property would suffice in most cases.
These regulatory boards look great on paper to the sort of people who see the world through the rosy colored lenses of community involvement, communitarian ethics, etc., but they don't really work. The FCC is a glorious example of how such regulatory boards invariably get utterly coopted by those they are supposed to regulate.
The moral of stories like this is simple. If you are going to implement semi-socialistic policies like public busing or giving a company a monopoly on providing a bus service, at least have the good sense to compartmentalize that so much that it doesn't interfere with any other aspect of public life.
The problem is the cost of discovering that products were deadly outweighs the added cost due to regulations requiring meeting safety standards.
In fact, lack of such regulation might result in higher costs (time and money)as consumers replace government testing with their own to ensure their safety.
While many libertarians believe free markets can solve all problems, theory and practice are two very different things in many cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't sell "software", sell "a solution to the customer's problem." This sounds cliched, but it's amazing how many people and companies work around actually doing so.
In my business, anyway, the open source support I sell is really business support. Companies want to know how improve their business with software, and I can help them figure that out, and open source is most often the best answer. I usually save them a bunch of money, deliver a robust solution, and pay some bills by doing so.
Granted, that's not what most 'investors' are looking to do - they want to mass-produce support scripts for that 800 number and charge $40/call. But in my case, what people are really buying is my ~20 years of IT experience and knowledge and its application to cutting-edge technology, which can't get mass produced by the end of next quarter.
Actually, what they want is rapid revenue growth. An open source solution lacks the ability to scale - i.e. you can't just churn out and sell more copies to go from 1 to 10 to 100 dollars in revenue at very little marginal cost. Such a company has a high multiple. Revenue growth comes from support / consulting which requires staff and is much harder to scale. Such companies have small multiples, generally around 1. Since investors like rapid revenue growth and high multiples they prefer to invest in the first type of comapny I mentioned.
You can do that online (BBB.org); my experience is that a real person in Texas will respond and help resolve it. That's what happened when an order of my went into Dell's little version of customer service hell. I spoke with a real person in TX who not only solved it but gave me a credit for a future purchase. As a side note - did you checkout the deals on AKO? Soemtimes they are better than those online.
I don't see how you address GP's point. He is saying, as far as I can tell, he's willing to support them with his checkbook (which strikes me as extravagant, but hey, it's not my money). But that is the support GP means: early adapters willing to pay more. After the early adapters successfully fund the corporation, so goes his argument, the rest of us will be able to afford these cars. I guess the parallel is with computers, etc.
GP seems to be against gov't funding, or at least does not argue for it.
The GP's line"
It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
seemed to argue for the inclusion of Tesla in the bailout; on the grounds that it would help them survive as well. I have no problem with people voting with their paycheck and buying n item; I don't think the government should vote with mine on who survives in the marketplace.
I don't get what you are saying here. This isn't Tesla asking for money by itself, but asking to be included with the other companies that also claim to be "American Automotive Manufacturers" and for the Feds to maintain a level playing field. Are you sure the feds should subsidize Ford and Chrysler at the expense of taxing Tesla out of existence?
No, I don't think the feds should bail any of them out; at least not under the terms the Big 3 seem to want - basically "give us cheap money and trust us to do the right thing." Or, why not give the same deal to BMW/Mercedes/KIA/Toyota/Honda/Panoz/etc. who also manufacture cars here?
To say that a low interest loan to Tesla is a bailout for billionaires is to seriously ignore what Tesla is doing. While everyone else is either developing low-speed electric cars (e.g. cars that can't run on the highway and don't have to pass all of the safety regulations) or estimating that their electric hybrid will run AT MOST 40 miles off the battery, Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done. In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
That's great, and if it is a viable business they they'll succeed. The government should not be in the business of picking winners. If you want to fund R&D, then fund that and make the results available to all manufacturers. A far better use of money than saving Tesla.
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
It shouldn't. All it is doing is keeping them alive to the determent of other manufactures, many of whom also build cars in the US. OTOH, as with anything politicians fear losing votes so we have bailouts.
My business partner and I both reserved '09 Tesla Roadsters. Why? Not because it's a hot car, or it drives like a rocket, but because we want to see electric car research pushed faster. And it was the next best thing to investing in the company. It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
No, they don't. If they want to survive then they need to price cars at a profitable level; even if it means very expensive. Just because they are "greener" tan an Aston doesn't mean they deserve help. Either their biz plan works or it doesn't - the government ought not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
See for instance the Federalist Papers, #41, in which the Federalist (pro-Constitution) faction explained why the new Constitution was desirable. Their argument was that they had created a Constitution of sharply limited powers, and that the idea of such phrases as "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" into unlimited powers was a paranoid fantasy. (snipped Madison's arguement)
Unfortunately, Madison was part of one political faction; others viewed it differently. At any rate, it grants powers that today's Supreme Court decides if they are constitutional. Strict constructions will argue but history has shown the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation.
Wrong.
"General welfare" was limited to the powers specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Furthermore, 'General welfare' was applied to the united States as a whole, not to individuals.
"General welfare" does not mean General Welfare Checks.
No where in Section 8 does it limit the "General Welfare" only to the powers enumerated in Sec 8; in fact it provides a broad latitude for Congress to act at the end where it states: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Given those broad powers Congress can decide how to act and what constitutes "General Welfare."
Visit the National Constitution Center and search for rainbow and blowjobs - they must be part of the improved government healthcare program, cause it ain't in the document that gives government its authority.
Found it - Article I "the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises ... "
so I fixed your post for you:
"...they must be part of the improved government healthcare program, and you'll find it is in the document that gives government its authority.
As science fiction readers we always seem to approach a movie release of our favourite stories with dread.
I, Robot is a classic example of the whole point of the book being sacrificed for extra action. Similarly I am Legend for those who have read the book is most thought provoking in its ending but Hollywood sacrificed that for a... well, Hollywood ending.
Why do film makers so often get it wrong?
I'm not so sure filmamkers get it wrong as make it different. SF fans often develop a very personal view of the story, the characters and meaning. When someone else comes along with a differing view the new view immediately becomes wrong; not a different opinion. SF fans are very opinionated and not often open to differing interpretations; so when a filmmaker puts their creative spin on the story it is viewed as destroying the story.
While there have been many bad SF movies, not remaining true to the original story does not automatically make a movie bad; just as being faithful to the story does not make one good. That's a result of how well the film's creative talent tells a story.
"For Official Use Only" is a type of non-public but unclassified government information. Which means that either that website shouldn't be there or the banner shouldn't be there...
Wiki page on FOUO
I'm not sure that it's a FOUO classification but a statement of use similar to US Gov vehicles that say FOUO but certainly are not document.
I'd say the banner was incorrectly used if they really meant it to be FOUO.
That "publicly available at GSA Advantage" link from the article goes to:
Session Terminated ...
Your Advantage! or e-Buy session has been terminated for one of the following reasons:
So was it really publicly available?
Also they'd have to state that HP authorized it to be public on the GSA site. Otherwise you could just have two sites referencing each other saying the info is already public.
Well, considering that GSA Advantage is readily accessible and searched from gsa.gov; it's pretty much publically available.
The only disclaimer on GSA Advantage's main page is:
*** WARNING *** This is a U.S. General Services Administration computer system that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Privacy and Security
which is a pretty standard US Government disclaimer; what constitutes "Official Use?" is certainly an open question; especially since much of that info is probably available via a FOIA request anyway I would doubt that simply searching prices would cause any problems.
Interestingly, the disclaimer seems to be aimed at US Government employees because it refers to "disciplinary action including criminal prosecution" rather than just criminal prosecution.
Remember those? When the price of stamps kept going up every 6 months and they offered stamps that you could buy that would be good forever. No more inconvenience of buying penny stamps, or getting returned mail because they did a stealth price change. I posited that they would stop selling those in only a few months or perhaps even declare them invalid. Looks like I was half right as I can't find them at any of my nearby postal facilities.
They're still around - the beauty for the USPS is they simply can raise the price to the new one on remaining stock. I would not be surprised if they sell forever stamps forever; in addition to commemoratives. That actually makes some sense since you don't have a large stock of fixed postal value stamps that all of a sudden need an additional 2 cents to be used; lowering your inventory costs.
Deals like this are designed to make money. Fujitsu is banking on warranty sales to make their additional profit; essentially tuning this into a laptop lease deal. If you decide to go off lease you keep the laptop you bought; if you stay on you get 100% of your payment down on the next model. It's like a lease with a 0 buyout; plus they get cash upfront instead of over 3 years. If you turn it in they get the resale / scrap value plus a new warranty - want to bet it won't be cheap and probably a significant percentage of the laptop's cost?
Look at dell - an $820 laptop 3 year warranty is $190 - about 25%. After 3 years you get $820 towards a laptop; but that $820 laptop retailed for about $1100 - Dell had an $320 special deal going. So, if they don't offer a similar deal you could wind up getting $820 off of a full priced machine (assuming the 10% fine print will let you), plus paying for a new warranty. As a result, that new machine would cost you $560. (190 plus 190 plus 1000 minus 820)
"Anyone in the USA can be sued for anything in this day and age."
Fixed that for you
"Anyone can be sued in the USA for anything in this day and age."
Fixed that for you
It should be protected, but under trademark? Or under copyright law, which is meant to deal with creative material?
Especially since, in this case, trademark essentially prevents anything from ever coming into public domain, as long as its characters are trademarked by a corporation or the trademarks pass into corporate hands.
That's actually the purpose of trademark - to protect the distinctive symbols / name /.etc. a company uses to market itself and be recognized by the public. To that end, yes it appropriate to trademark Godzilla. It is not a generic term nor figure.
Should trademark be allowed to prevent otherwise out of copyright items from being used by the public? I'd argue no; as long as they are used as in the original work. It should be OK to use a cut from an old film without violating trademark or getting permission from the trademark owner; unfortunately that does not appear to be how the law works in such cases.
There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.
The Godzilla likeness, name and roar are distinctive and used in commerce; trademark protection seems reasonable to me.
Prtotecting it is important to keep it form becoming generic, resulting in their loss of the trademark.
Just because something has become well known and popular doesn't mean it should loss protection; in fact popularity and recognition is a goal of most trademark owners.
Throw the covers off the guns and blast them into next year.
Your punishment may be a bit extreme but maybe it's just because I'm the kind of guy that likes fair justice & is concerned that the rest of the world sees my country as one that blindly kills people.
You are forgetting that these pirates are (aside from being human beings) winning people over by giving them things in a very Robin-Hood-esque type scenario--even if it's only offering the people a paying job as a pirate in an otherwise devastated and unstable economy. You would very quickly fall into disfavor with the locals ... these pirates have even alegedly defended fishing areas for locals. They claim they are more like the coast guard trying to protect the food of hungry people. I think entire cities have bought into their propaganda and are willing to harbor/help them.
True or not, it's brazen disregard for how other people see things that causes really really bad things for America. Going in there, shooting up criminals & leaving is not going to improve anyone's image. Yes, these people are kidnappers & thieves but I don't think insta-death is a good way to deal with them.
Not a whole lot in this world is purely black and white.
They are pirates, and an ancient law of the sea is that pirates can be hunted and destroyed wherever they roam.
They chose a life of piracy, and should not be surprised when others hunt them down mercilessly; which is what needs to be done to make sea lanes safe for commerce.
One need not worry about image when dealing with pirates on the high seas; other than the one in the pirates mind where they see themselves hanging from a yardarm.
You notice I wrote
The people you are referring to do not follow the instructions. (and to be honest I don't have "basic mechanical aptitude" - I have a 30 year engineering career including 5 years as a general manager of a plumbing company - as a result I have some experience of getting untrained people to use modern plumbing fixtures. It was while working for this company that I got interested first in MRPII and then in the actual coding of MRPII systems, which is how I come to have 3 years of assembler, 5 years of C, 8 years of Java, as well as ten years of management and four years of metallurgy and component design. So perhaps I do have a clue as to the value of experience.) The skill level of your straw men is not comparable to that of the average IT worker. You have to take my remarks in context - that is, that in software just as in metallurgy, once people know how to do something properly less skilled people can build on it. Graphic designers can build working websites without knowing anything about Apache under the hood.
While we are probably closer in view point than our comments would indicate, I do disagree on several points:
1) Instructions alone are not enough to ensure someone can adequately perform even simple tasks. For example, I could provide someone with very precise directions on how to perform the very simple task of soldering a fitting on a piece of copper pipe - but even so they'll probably wind up with a leak and cold joint. Even something as basic as gluing plastic pipe can be messed up - and while you might attribute it to not following directions I contend it is lack of basic aptitude or experience. It's gotten easier for non-plumbers to do basic jobs; to a large extent because manufacturers have decided to design for the weekend fixer upper; but deign and instructions alone aren't enough in many cases.
2) Your "once people know how to do something properly less skilled people can build on it" comment shows a subtle bias - you assume because something requires lesser skills and uses other's creations it somehow requires a less skilled person to do it. The web designer has a different set of skills, not a lesser set, than the coder. You could just as easily have said once the graphic designer laid out the design a lesser skilled person could code it - which would be equally as wrong.
To take an example from the automotive world, one of the most basic cars money can buy - the Hyundai i10 - has an engine with 3 valves per cylinder, electronic management, and electronic fuel injection - all of which would be unavailable on an exotic sports car of the 1960s. The industry now regards this as an entry level bread and butter engine, using technology freely available to anybody.
I'm not sure what your point is - sophisticated technology need not be hard to use. In fact, good design make sit easy to use technology. However, using it is different from being able to understand or fix it. As technology gets sophisticated, the skills required to maintain it change and often grow in complexity as well.
Do you remember when it took real skill to be a plumber? To attach a faucet to a pipe, you had to be able to melt solder and shape it with tools while using a kerosene-fueled blowtorch. Get it wrong and you melted the lead pipe. Putting in a faucet was half a day's work. When it froze, pipes split and had to be cut out and repaired, also at vast expense. The training to do all the jobs was expensive and took years.
Now go round the hardware store. In ours there are several kinds of push fit and screw fit plumbing. The pipe is plastic, you cut it with a simple little tool. I recently had to replace the water softener and the new one had different plumbing. It took me nearly half an hour to put in four bends and a few joints.
That's the race for the bottom. Basic plumbing skills now take a day to acquire and, by following the instructions, you can do a safe job. But plumbers are still employed. I'm not about to service my boiler, or install a bath. I have more sense than to try to put in an oil tank and all the safety equipment, following all the codes.
It's like that with software. It is not a race for the bottom, it is called progress. An SMTP server is now a basic piece of kit. The learning curve for spreadsheet design is, basically, over. Unlike the so-called creative arts, engineering does not recognise the idea that somebody should be rewarded forever for a one-off contribution. In a knowledge society, new knowledge has value but old knowledge is free.
While you may have the basic mechanical aptitude to do simple plumbing; most people don't and efforts to do so would result in water running everywhere. I have several plumber friends who often get paid to fix someone else's Home Depot job.
Similarly with software - while it may look easy to code; doing it right takes experience, training and some aptitude for it.
Eventually, kicking and screaming, I expect we will get Open Source Law, and so-called lawyers will no longer be able to charge excessively for basic legal advice in simple cases. But specialist lawyers and the Supreme Court will still be needed, because there will still be hard cases. The same should really apply to all professions.
Once again, you fail to account for the value of experience and training - things often look easy because of the skill of the person doing the job. There is value in knowing how to apply your experiences in new situations.
Flying a plane or running a nuclear plant is easy - until something goes wrong; at that point experience kicks in to correct a potentially bad situation.
Know, you can move knowledge based work to places where it is cheaper - such as coding and accounting to India where the per hour rate is low; but you still need experience to get the work done.
The EULA is a contract between you and the software vendor; separate from copyright. While the enforceability of EULA terms is open to debate, vendors can define conditions on the use of their software; you can agree and buy it or not agree and not buy it.
I don't buy the game from Activision. I buy it from HMV. I hand over some cash and they hand me a disc in a box. Contract for sale of goods fulfilled to the satisfaction of both parties. Nobody at HMV ever mentioned anything about separate contracts, and once they have my money I don't think HMV care whether I play the game with an official controller, an unofficial controller, psychic powers, or indeed whether I play the game at all instead of, say, setting fire to it.
However, HMV sold you the physical disk; which you own, and a license to the software on it; just as if you bought any other copyrighted material.
Purchasing a copy does not give you the right to use it in ways not covered by the license agreement, assuming a court finds the license enforceable.
I don't see where I have any contract with Activision at all. Sure, something comes up on screen saying 'don't use this game with other controllers', but fuck 'em; as I see it, short of copyright violation I can do as I please.
You have agreed to Activision's license by using the software; and are bound by it as a result.
I do not like shrink wrap licenses that don't allow you to either read the terms before you buy or return the software if you don't agree to them, nor do particularly like them in general; but if you use the software it means you agree to the terms.
Last time I checked, the EULA on the loading screen explicitly states that you are only licensed to use the software with an official Guitar Hero controller.
Good luck to them enforcing that. The right that the publisher has that I do not is 'copyright' - the right to copy, plus associated rights regarding public performance and so forth. The idea behind an EULA is that in installing THE SOFTWARE You are creating a copy, and to do that You need a licence from Us. But here, when I use THE SOFTWARE I don't create a copy at all, I run direct from the disc (YMMV, dependent on your system).
So I don't need a licence, because I'm doing nothing that would otherwise infringe the copyright holder's rights. I can do as I please with THE SOFTWARE as long as that's true: I can shove it up my arse if I like and they can't stop me. I only need a licence if my use of THE SOFTWARE would otherwise be a breach of copyright.
You have a rather odd view of copyright and license agreements. The EULA is a contract between you and the software vendor; separate from copyright. While the enforceability of EULA terms is open to debate, vendors can define conditions on the use of their software; you can agree and buy it or not agree and not buy it.
Now, if Nintendo tried to enforce the EULA to stop disabled gamers from playing GH3, Nintendo would have a PR nightmare to contend with and is better off either ignoring the mod or working with developers to incorporate it into GH.
Many of the more esoteric financial disciplines require a lot of math; as do even the basic stuff such as M&A. As a result Wall Street has hired a lot of physics/math majors over the years; if she doesn't want to major in those areas then business is an option. Even so, I'd load up on math.
In general, regulated industries can sustain higher prices and have less competition than unregulated ones. That's not o say regulation does not have a place; but to think it results in lower prices to consumers is wrong
Precisely. And when you're talking of transporting people on public roads, lower prices is not the primary factor when developing policy; safety is. lower prices is good ONLY when it doesn't result in lower safety...
However, the artificial barriers to entry in regulated industries often results in higher prices, at the same level of safety, than would occur if entry was easier. Airline prices are one classic example of this.
One of the things that modern society seems incapable of understanding is that erring on the laissez faire side of things can create really interesting services with minimal hassle. People focus excessively on perceived problems like "oh nos... without intrusive government regulations, the water would be poisoned!!" when a capitalist approach, holding those who harm others civilly and criminally liable for harm to limb and property would suffice in most cases.
These regulatory boards look great on paper to the sort of people who see the world through the rosy colored lenses of community involvement, communitarian ethics, etc., but they don't really work. The FCC is a glorious example of how such regulatory boards invariably get utterly coopted by those they are supposed to regulate.
The moral of stories like this is simple. If you are going to implement semi-socialistic policies like public busing or giving a company a monopoly on providing a bus service, at least have the good sense to compartmentalize that so much that it doesn't interfere with any other aspect of public life.
The problem is the cost of discovering that products were deadly outweighs the added cost due to regulations requiring meeting safety standards.
In fact, lack of such regulation might result in higher costs (time and money)as consumers replace government testing with their own to ensure their safety.
While many libertarians believe free markets can solve all problems, theory and practice are two very different things in many cases.