The article notes 93% of reservations are completed at least 72 hours in advance - but those last 7% can be very lucrative sincereservetions made at the last minute are often business travel; at full fare coach or business rates. Even one full fare business ticket from say London at $7000 or coach at $3000 is a significant revenue impact on teh flight; I doubt airlines will want to forgo that money; plus it also means that last minute changes would be a logistical nightmare for the passenger and airline. The TSA would still have to get a last minute manifest (or require no changes less than 72 hours before a flight) to keep some reasonable level of flexibility in the system.
Honestly you have no clue. Sally in accounting cant configure a Microsoft server let alone her own workstation, why the hell do you expect her to be able to install and configure linux? your expectations are incredibly silly.
Linux is an advanced server operating system, an advanced workstation operating system and a high end embedded OS. it is not a Os for the feeble minded, the apathetic that want their computer to be an appliance, or the undereducated. it is for professionals that know what they are doing.
You completely failed to understand what I was saying - it's not that the end user is expected to configure their environment (most don't even with Macs or Windows), it's the attitude of some parts of the Linux community that is a barrier to wider adoption; as you so amply demonstrate.
In order to adopt technology the decision maker needs to be convinced that it will meet their needs and work as required; and teh decision maker is often not a tech savvy person who will be swayed by properly presented FUD.
If you don't want broader acceptance of Linux that's fine; but there are people who would like to see that and whose efforts are impacted by decisions such as Debian's.
Honestly computers are complex, and any notions otherwise are completely silly.
So are TVs, cars, and many of the day to day appliances we take for granted. You are confusing the technology complexity with the user interface.
Debian have promised their users that only security updates will be rolled out and that they will not release any updates that change the normal behavior of programs. They do this because Debian gets run on lots of mission-critical servers where they don't want a program changing its behavior via an "update".
Rolling clocks forward by two hours is a pretty huge change in behavior for some servers, and there isn't much of a security risk in not rolling out the update automatically, so they're not going to.
They're doing the right thing.
My point is not whether or not they are doing the right thing; it's how the decision can be spun and how it will be viewed by a broader, non-technical audience trying to decide what system to use to run their business. After all did you realize Linux wasn't even patched to properly deal with a chaneg in DST - do you want that type of random behavior in your systems? While that is not really what happened and is designed to create FUD, it's the perception, not the reality that counts; especially amongst non-technical types making buying decisions who may just be looking for reasons not to venture beyond MS.
As a side note; not having my timestamp sync with actual local time is a pretty huge change in behavior; and if the programs I'm running can't deal with such a change gracefully, rolling out a fix only changes when the problem occurs; not the actual problem.
but it's not a flaw. If you have a 1/16th of a brain you can and probably installed it from the Volatile already. Linux users are WAY WAY more savvy than a windows user. they tend to understand how to install software, patches, and how their system runs. If any sysadmins in NZ did not start testing the patch months or even weeks ago, then it's their fault waiting for the magical debian faires to install it for them.
Everyone keeps trying to compare Linux to windows. It's not. Compare Solaris to Linux.
Your last comment is the most telling - if you want to encourage wider adotion you need to address the perceptions of the broader user base you want to reach. Most users (and more importantly, those who make the buying decision) have little clue about Linux; let alone Solaris - but they are the ones who decide what to use.
It doesn't matter if the buyer is swayed by FUD or arguements with little relevance to reality- what matters is what final decision is reached. All too often, perception is reality.
MBAs are not cheap. They are not really a good investment for the engineer undergrad who can get around a 60k starting salary with just an undergraduate engineering degree. Of all my engineer friends who have gone off to get MBAs, they've all done it in order to facilitate a career change out of engineering not to simply increase their salary. I did the calculations for myself and found that if I went and got an MBA without working for 2 years, it would take more than 10 years for the degree to start paying off assuming my salary as an software engineer will not increase. There are MBA programs that allow you to work 30 hours a week and take night classes but I'm not so sure I'm up for that sort of torture.
There are several things to consider:
1) If the programs you are looking at have 10 year paybacks you're looking at the wrong ones and your math is off. Let's assume you are making 7K/month by the time you start school. For 20 months of school that is 140k of lost salary, plus lets add in another 8k for a pay raise forgone during school. Next is tuition - 40 to 80k at the high end for two school years. Add in another 2k for books and you are at 230k of costs - then take out the internship salary of say 10k so you have a nice round 220k investment. That's a 22k per year salary differential for a 10 year payback, or a starting salary of about 100k. Considering that is the average starting salary and you can tack on another 15k or so in bonus the payback is less than 10 years, probably more like 6 or 7 before you factor in raises. For some schools (To[ schools with salaries+bonus in the 140 - 160 k range) the payback is more like 3-5 years. You may notice I did not include living expenses - you'd pay them in either case so they are irrelevant.
2) The differential is life long - you get the extra cash over a career, which is a significant financial gain.
3) The salary potential is much higher for an MBA than an engineer - your plateau is higher and you have the opportunity to move into fields that would be difficult to enter with just an engineering degree.
While I realize there are exceptions to every case (Gates, the founders of Google, the many people who run successful small business and only have a high school education) in most cases an MBA (from a decent school) will result in a lifelong salary differential that more than makes up for the investment, especially if you get the degree at 26 years of age rather than 40.
You can argue the true value of an MBA, but the fact remains it is a powerful signal to employers which results in them being paid high salaries out of school and significant pay increases relative to their pre-degree salaries (44% per GMAC). In the end, the MBA degree can be viewed as an annuity rather than a bond.
adoption. While it is probably not that serious of an issue it provides Linux' competitors with yet another thing to point out as a "flaw" - they can't even be bothered to make sure a computer has the correct timestamp - do you want to depend on the whims of a volunteer to ensure your computer's data is accurately time stamped? And when you press the issue you get accused of being the problem - would you accept taht from any other vendor?
Would you want to be in litigation over how a chain of events occured, only to discover your descktop had been patched in the midst of an exchange that is critical to your defenses; only to discover the email you sent / file you modified in response to an event now shows you did it before the event?
The over all Linux market share for the desktop is low, but it's not zero. In terms of sheer unit numbers, it's still a lot. As more and more embedded devices use Linux (as well as other platforms (mobile) that are not Windows / IE centric,) the demand will grow for more compatibility / open protocols / etc. and manufacturers / sites / etc. will have to support it. Us Linux users are a patient bunch.
Embedded devices only need to interface well with the desktop; it is irrelevant what they use to drive the device as long as the connection works properly. If an embedded OS were to drive desktop demand for the OS we'd see a lot of PalmOS desktops; but since what is valuable is the abilty to transfer information from one device to another we see sync capablity developed for Macand Windows instead.
What could speed Linux adoption is greater use of a client - server model since then the ability to run the application is not always tied to the desktop OS but to the browser. Google could be the biggets driver of Linux growth if their Googiffce takes off.
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
The issues is why do we need to focus on both?
If not having a case was enough to win then the nature of the defendant is irrelevant; I think we can both agree that bringing baseless lawsuits against anyone is a waste of court time and generally a bad thing.
However, not having a case is not enough to accomplish the broader goals - so you want as sympathetic of a defendant as possible - to win in court but more importantly in the court of public opinion. You want the RIAA to look like an evil entity so that they are forced to back off from their tactics. When focusing on both it's not because we want the defendant to win but because we want to win a PR victory as well. While that is not a bad thing, and something I would like to see, lets be honest about what is happening.
Your statement "they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society." is the type of hyperbole that is reinforced by the case under discussion - and it would be a lot harder to say that if the defendant was a rich but innocent jerk; to put the focus on that type of defendant doesn't makes the RIAA look as bad. Let's face it - the RIAA probably sued a number of people who did d/l music and could have paid for it - something that is overshadowed by the publicity surrounding one defendant.
As the saying goes - "Turn to the courts to learn about winning and losing and to God to learn about right and wrong."
I disagree with your assertion that "No possible interpretation of the Constitution would allow DC to have a congressional representative." Article IV would suggests that Congress has the power to give voting rights to the District by making it a state:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
or possibly deciding that it is a needful rule or regulation:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
especially since Congress is composed of representatives from the several states, but not explicitly exclusively composed:
Article I Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
I would think creating a state from the district would be the most direct way to do that rather than simply adding reps by law.
I know there's a guy that likes having a big show about himself and that for asking tricky questions in Florida you'll get arrested and tortured by the state officials. Fine. Another place I don't need to go now.
Avoid Britain as well - apparently wearing coat in the tube is grounds for being shot. And avoid using a PC in Germany unless you want the police to knock down your door at night and drag you away.
is buying a second hand ferrari theft? money changes hands but the creator got none of it. did they suffer a loss because you bought it second hand instead of buying a new from them?
No, because they got their value from the first sale - hence the doctrine of first sale which generally allows you to resell something you bought without the original sellers permission.
Some countries are modifying that to where an artists is entitled to a cut from subsequent sales.
What about the SCOTUS says it isn't theft argument?
Maybe because they didn't say that:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
They ruled on an interstate transportation of stolen goods statute - and the decision has apparently not been used in other cases.
So it's not as simple to say that the SCOTUS has ruled definitively on the issue (and the wikie article you quote points that out)
1) Put all the albums up that aren't selling anyway (Boston's Third Stage; Queen's Stone Cold Classics) from name artists 2) Slap on a DRM standard that even the standard's devloper doesn't support 3) Profit
If you can steal a Ferrari in such a way that the original owner still has his Ferrari and suffers no loss from your theft, then more power to ya.
This is one of the standard/. argument why copying music/video/software is not theft. (I realize you are not making the argument here) I think it is wrong - even if you could magically replicate a Ferrari - the creator of the original has not been compensated for his work in creating it - and so suffers a loss. That to me is theft. As a side note, the ability to create unlimited perfect copies reduces the value of the original paid for Ferrari - so that person has suffered a loss in resale value - which
Now, you can argue that person does not deserve to be compensated for copies produced by others and so the law should be changed; but that is a different position than "anything I can take without cost to the owner is not theft and should be legal."
that position, of course, means the GPL cannot exist - because you can take the code without cost from the original owner and should be able to do whatever you want with it regardless of the creator's wishes. To use the corollary to the "It's not theft argument" - "I would not have bought it anyway so they aren't really losing money" - if a company would not use GPL code unless the code modify it without redistributing the source when the distribute the resulting code they would not make nay changes so your not losing any enhancements since they would not do them if they had to comply with the GPL.
Do I think copyright law is out of date and needs correction? Yes, but silly not theft arguments detract from the real issue.
This, along with Apple's change to the video out to render devices like Philip's DVD/iPod video player unable to play video from iPods is frustrating. It's a shame Apple has gone far from its roots as a company that encourages innovation around their products.
Philip's portable DVD/iPOD player is real neat - drop the iPod in the cradle on the device and watch video on a bigger screen.
Apple even sold similar devices in tehir stores - maybe they just want to extort money from companies that build such devices?
Well, clearly they have not met their long term demand (10 months is a long time in the console business), and we're getting dangerously close to the Christmas buying season. Plus, those marked up consoles online aren't generating any additional profit for Nintendo, the extra profit is going right into the reseller's hands.
I certainly agree about Christmas - they need to get machines out since that is a crucial buying time - until then I don't think it is a major issue.
One thing that has shocked me about the Wii is how it can still be perpetually out of stock 10 months after being released. At this point Nintendo doesn't have any excuse, they need to ramp production up and they need to do it 6 months ago. I have a co-worker who is looking to get one and he's actually being told to stand in line outside of the store on shipment day still, and this was after calling just about every retailer in the area looking for one.
Actually ramping up to meet current demand would be the wrong thing to do - There are actually two parts to the Wii's demand - an initial demand of X and a long term steady state demand of Y units per year. As long as they can increase production without adding fixed costs - i.e. build production lines that would result in a long term capacity greater than the anticipated long term demand of Y then they'll add capacity. However, they shouldn't add enough to quickly meet the initial demand because that would leave them with excess capacity and the associated costs. Ideally, the existing lines can produce enough to accommodate the initial demand over a reasonable period and then ramp down and up as needed to meet the more stable long term demand.
Since Nintendo can reasonably expect the demand to stay around for a while - i.e. gamers who want the Wii are not likely to not buy it because they have to wait (if anything it may increase the demand and desire to buy) plus the ongoing introduction of new games helps maintain demand; unlike some things that are "hot" for a short time period and then become bargain bin buys.
Many people assume you want to make enough things to satisfy all demand, actually you want to make enough to maximize profit, which may not meet all the demand. That's even more true with items that have a variable demand over time - you don't want to be caught with excess inventory that isn't sold and increases your costs.
Even weirder is when you look online and all of the available consoles are marked up over the retail price. That is crazy for a console that has been out on the market for as long as the Wii has.
Why? Demand outstrips supply so prices rise until the two match.
Arby's has a "five for five" deal where you buy five items for five bucks because they *hope* you will spend five dollars instead of, say, two dollars. You, being a clever person, realize you only want two of the five items, so you spend $2.50 on two items and leave.
Actually, they do it just because of what you say - they will make more money selling 2 items to people who only want that and 5 items to people who want 5 but won't pay $6.25 for them - by offering bundles they are able to get a greater combined revenue - if they sold them at $1 they'd still get the % sale but only $2 from you - this way they get 50 cents more.
Why are you talking about the lens? You're not thinking of doing afocal astrophotography, are you? Uck. In afocal, a fast lens is *worse*, because it gives you more vignetting. The whole point of a DSLR, as opposed to just going with a cheaper digital camera, is that you can remove the lens for prime focus or eyepiece projection astrophotography.
Because someone suggested tripod based night shots rather than using a telexcope, in which case a good lens is important. I agree taht you don't want to shot through a lens and then a telescope.
I would say no - there is no obligation on the part of any viewer to view ads - print, web, TV or whatever. Just as you are fee to discard, cut out or mark over any ads in a magazine (or have someone do that to you copy before you read it) you can block ads from web pages.
If that becomes widespread - several things will happen:
1. Websites will block certain browsers (can they tell if FF spoofs itself as IE?) and lose the corresponding web traffic; getting less revenue from advertisers 2. They won't block ads but advertisers will be willing to pay less since they will assume x% of their ads are blocked and adjust their payments accordingly.
Either way websites will get less money - a logical market response.
Companies will also find new ways to deliver ads - and those that do so in a way that results in more viewer ship will make money.
Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
A good dSLR can be had for under $500 (Canon 350d/d40) new or even less used (KEH.com and fredmiranda.com (Buy & Sell forum) are good sources) and quality tripods start at $100.
That leaves the choice of lens - whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens - it's better to buy a $300 body and a $700 lens then vice versa since your glass has a greater impact on picture quality than MP's and you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light). Your investment will pay off over time since the lens will stay with you when you get a new body. Don't get all wrapped up in MP - anything 6mp or above is more than adequate for virtually any shoot. Don't worry about the endless Canon / Nikon fanboy debates - both are great systems so pick one that you like, meets your needs and fits your budget; realizing that you investment in lens will pretty much result in a lock to one manufacturer.
I'd recommend holding of on a purchase until you attend a club meeting or too - you'll get advice there as well as a chance to talk about what you want to do and learn about other's rigs before you invest.
Since Google is selling this service they have no rights to use other peoples trademarks (making the distinction between this and their non-profit web search).
Whether or not they sell something has nothing to do with using a trademark. They can use it within the bounds of the law.
This is akin to company B buying ads in the local paper that say "Come to Company A's new sale, located at 123 Front St." and when you get to 123 Front St, you find Company B selling the same products. They're using the name (which is presumably trademarked) to draw attention. Trademark law says you can't do that.
No., it's more like tell someone "I'm interested in Product X" and they say "Why not try Y - you can get it at..." and they're paid to push Y. They (Google) present a list of options based on your search - some of which are paid insertions - but you are not likely to confuse Pepsi's site with Coke's when you go there.
If Apple wants to sell more than a token number of iPhones to people outside the USA as it is planning to. Given that countries elsewhere are smaller, the likelihood that a user is not in their home country is much larger. If the iPhone cannot be taken outside your home country - even when off - what use is it?
The only correct resolution is for Apple & ATT to eat these charges until the iPhone's GSM radio can be set to OFF when not inside the coverage of the selected carrier.
There's another - European carriers coming up with reasonable roaming plans. We have that in the US - I can go anywhere and not worry about long distance, roaming, SMS, or data charges beyond my flat rate - in an area the rough size of the EU.
We may not have all the neat phones and bells and whistles but our market evolved to a decent model for usage fees. We used to have the "small calling area" and "large roaming area" setup as well but as our market matured and coverage expanded (and companies merged) it moved to a call anywhere anytime without roaming model. I suspect the desire to spur cell phone adoption drove that as well - once companies had enough cell antenna coverage to cover most of their callers and limit their roaming costs it made sense to make it as desirable as possible for a customer to sign up since the marginal cost for one more customer is small compared to the marginal revenue.
I suspect it will take some serious telco mergers in the EU for this to happen there.
While neither model is "better" it is interesting to see the differences and how they evolved.
The NRC was justifiably worried that it was pure luck that nothing really bad happened. It's not right to call it a disaster, but neither would it be reasonable to write it off entirely. If the same thing were to happen often, there would be an actual disaster before long, and the NRC is supposed to prevent disasters, not just identify them after the fact.
TMI lead to the founding of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO); whose charter is to ensue all US nuke operators learn from each other and prevent future TMI's.
Slashdot Mirror
The article notes 93% of reservations are completed at least 72 hours in advance - but those last 7% can be very lucrative sincereservetions made at the last minute are often business travel; at full fare coach or business rates. Even one full fare business ticket from say London at $7000 or coach at $3000 is a significant revenue impact on teh flight; I doubt airlines will want to forgo that money; plus it also means that last minute changes would be a logistical nightmare for the passenger and airline. The TSA would still have to get a last minute manifest (or require no changes less than 72 hours before a flight) to keep some reasonable level of flexibility in the system.
Honestly you have no clue. Sally in accounting cant configure a Microsoft server let alone her own workstation, why the hell do you expect her to be able to install and configure linux? your expectations are incredibly silly.
Linux is an advanced server operating system, an advanced workstation operating system and a high end embedded OS. it is not a Os for the feeble minded, the apathetic that want their computer to be an appliance, or the undereducated. it is for professionals that know what they are doing.
You completely failed to understand what I was saying - it's not that the end user is expected to configure their environment (most don't even with Macs or Windows), it's the attitude of some parts of the Linux community that is a barrier to wider adoption; as you so amply demonstrate.
In order to adopt technology the decision maker needs to be convinced that it will meet their needs and work as required; and teh decision maker is often not a tech savvy person who will be swayed by properly presented FUD.
If you don't want broader acceptance of Linux that's fine; but there are people who would like to see that and whose efforts are impacted by decisions such as Debian's.
Honestly computers are complex, and any notions otherwise are completely silly.
So are TVs, cars, and many of the day to day appliances we take for granted. You are confusing the technology complexity with the user interface.
Debian have promised their users that only security updates will be rolled out and that they will not release any updates that change the normal behavior of programs. They do this because Debian gets run on lots of mission-critical servers where they don't want a program changing its behavior via an "update".
Rolling clocks forward by two hours is a pretty huge change in behavior for some servers, and there isn't much of a security risk in not rolling out the update automatically, so they're not going to.
They're doing the right thing.
My point is not whether or not they are doing the right thing; it's how the decision can be spun and how it will be viewed by a broader, non-technical audience trying to decide what system to use to run their business. After all did you realize Linux wasn't even patched to properly deal with a chaneg in DST - do you want that type of random behavior in your systems? While that is not really what happened and is designed to create FUD, it's the perception, not the reality that counts; especially amongst non-technical types making buying decisions who may just be looking for reasons not to venture beyond MS.
As a side note; not having my timestamp sync with actual local time is a pretty huge change in behavior; and if the programs I'm running can't deal with such a change gracefully, rolling out a fix only changes when the problem occurs; not the actual problem.
but it's not a flaw. If you have a 1/16th of a brain you can and probably installed it from the Volatile already. Linux users are WAY WAY more savvy than a windows user. they tend to understand how to install software, patches, and how their system runs. If any sysadmins in NZ did not start testing the patch months or even weeks ago, then it's their fault waiting for the magical debian faires to install it for them.
Everyone keeps trying to compare Linux to windows. It's not. Compare Solaris to Linux.
Your last comment is the most telling - if you want to encourage wider adotion you need to address the perceptions of the broader user base you want to reach. Most users (and more importantly, those who make the buying decision) have little clue about Linux; let alone Solaris - but they are the ones who decide what to use.
It doesn't matter if the buyer is swayed by FUD or arguements with little relevance to reality- what matters is what final decision is reached. All too often, perception is reality.
MBAs are not cheap. They are not really a good investment for the engineer undergrad who can get around a 60k starting salary with just an undergraduate engineering degree. Of all my engineer friends who have gone off to get MBAs, they've all done it in order to facilitate a career change out of engineering not to simply increase their salary. I did the calculations for myself and found that if I went and got an MBA without working for 2 years, it would take more than 10 years for the degree to start paying off assuming my salary as an software engineer will not increase. There are MBA programs that allow you to work 30 hours a week and take night classes but I'm not so sure I'm up for that sort of torture.
There are several things to consider:
1) If the programs you are looking at have 10 year paybacks you're looking at the wrong ones and your math is off. Let's assume you are making 7K/month by the time you start school. For 20 months of school that is 140k of lost salary, plus lets add in another 8k for a pay raise forgone during school. Next is tuition - 40 to 80k at the high end for two school years. Add in another 2k for books and you are at 230k of costs - then take out the internship salary of say 10k so you have a nice round 220k investment. That's a 22k per year salary differential for a 10 year payback, or a starting salary of about 100k. Considering that is the average starting salary and you can tack on another 15k or so in bonus the payback is less than 10 years, probably more like 6 or 7 before you factor in raises. For some schools (To[ schools with salaries+bonus in the 140 - 160 k range) the payback is more like 3-5 years. You may notice I did not include living expenses - you'd pay them in either case so they are irrelevant.
2) The differential is life long - you get the extra cash over a career, which is a significant financial gain.
3) The salary potential is much higher for an MBA than an engineer - your plateau is higher and you have the opportunity to move into fields that would be difficult to enter with just an engineering degree.
While I realize there are exceptions to every case (Gates, the founders of Google, the many people who run successful small business and only have a high school education) in most cases an MBA (from a decent school) will result in a lifelong salary differential that more than makes up for the investment, especially if you get the degree at 26 years of age rather than 40.
You can argue the true value of an MBA, but the fact remains it is a powerful signal to employers which results in them being paid high salaries out of school and significant pay increases relative to their pre-degree salaries (44% per GMAC). In the end, the MBA degree can be viewed as an annuity rather than a bond.
adoption. While it is probably not that serious of an issue it provides Linux' competitors with yet another thing to point out as a "flaw" - they can't even be bothered to make sure a computer has the correct timestamp - do you want to depend on the whims of a volunteer to ensure your computer's data is accurately time stamped? And when you press the issue you get accused of being the problem - would you accept taht from any other vendor?
Would you want to be in litigation over how a chain of events occured, only to discover your descktop had been patched in the midst of an exchange that is critical to your defenses; only to discover the email you sent / file you modified in response to an event now shows you did it before the event?
The over all Linux market share for the desktop is low, but it's not zero. In terms of sheer unit numbers, it's still a lot. As more and more embedded devices use Linux (as well as other platforms (mobile) that are not Windows / IE centric,) the demand will grow for more compatibility / open protocols / etc. and manufacturers / sites / etc. will have to support it. Us Linux users are a patient bunch.
Embedded devices only need to interface well with the desktop; it is irrelevant what they use to drive the device as long as the connection works properly. If an embedded OS were to drive desktop demand for the OS we'd see a lot of PalmOS desktops; but since what is valuable is the abilty to transfer information from one device to another we see sync capablity developed for Macand Windows instead.
What could speed Linux adoption is greater use of a client - server model since then the ability to run the application is not always tied to the desktop OS but to the browser. Google could be the biggets driver of Linux growth if their Googiffce takes off.
've got a better idea.
How about focusing on both?
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
The issues is why do we need to focus on both?
If not having a case was enough to win then the nature of the defendant is irrelevant; I think we can both agree that bringing baseless lawsuits against anyone is a waste of court time and generally a bad thing.
However, not having a case is not enough to accomplish the broader goals - so you want as sympathetic of a defendant as possible - to win in court but more importantly in the court of public opinion. You want the RIAA to look like an evil entity so that they are forced to back off from their tactics. When focusing on both it's not because we want the defendant to win but because we want to win a PR victory as well. While that is not a bad thing, and something I would like to see, lets be honest about what is happening.
Your statement "they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society." is the type of hyperbole that is reinforced by the case under discussion - and it would be a lot harder to say that if the defendant was a rich but innocent jerk; to put the focus on that type of defendant doesn't makes the RIAA look as bad. Let's face it - the RIAA probably sued a number of people who did d/l music and could have paid for it - something that is overshadowed by the publicity surrounding one defendant.
As the saying goes - "Turn to the courts to learn about winning and losing and to God to learn about right and wrong."
I disagree with your assertion that "No possible interpretation of the Constitution would allow DC to have a congressional representative."
Article IV would suggests that Congress has the power to give voting rights to the District by making it a state:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
or possibly deciding that it is a needful rule or regulation:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
especially since Congress is composed of representatives from the several states, but not explicitly exclusively composed:
Article I Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
I would think creating a state from the district would be the most direct way to do that rather than simply adding reps by law.
I know there's a guy that likes having a big show about himself and that for asking tricky questions in Florida you'll get arrested and tortured by the state officials. Fine. Another place I don't need to go now.
Avoid Britain as well - apparently wearing coat in the tube is grounds for being shot.
And avoid using a PC in Germany unless you want the police to knock down your door at night and drag you away.
is buying a second hand ferrari theft? money changes hands but the creator got none of it. did they suffer a loss because you bought it second hand instead of buying a new from them?
No, because they got their value from the first sale - hence the doctrine of first sale which generally allows you to resell something you bought without the original sellers permission.
Some countries are modifying that to where an artists is entitled to a cut from subsequent sales.
What about the SCOTUS says it isn't theft argument?
Maybe because they didn't say that:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
They ruled on an interstate transportation of stolen goods statute - and the decision has apparently not been used in other cases.
So it's not as simple to say that the SCOTUS has ruled definitively on the issue (and the wikie article you quote points that out)
1) Put all the albums up that aren't selling anyway (Boston's Third Stage; Queen's Stone Cold Classics) from name artists
2) Slap on a DRM standard that even the standard's devloper doesn't support
3) Profit
If you can steal a Ferrari in such a way that the original owner still has his Ferrari and suffers no loss from your theft, then more power to ya.
/. argument why copying music/video/software is not theft. (I realize you are not making the argument here) I think it is wrong - even if you could magically replicate a Ferrari - the creator of the original has not been compensated for his work in creating it - and so suffers a loss. That to me is theft. As a side note, the ability to create unlimited perfect copies reduces the value of the original paid for Ferrari - so that person has suffered a loss in resale value - which
This is one of the standard
Now, you can argue that person does not deserve to be compensated for copies produced by others and so the law should be changed; but that is a different position than "anything I can take without cost to the owner is not theft and should be legal."
that position, of course, means the GPL cannot exist - because you can take the code without cost from the original owner and should be able to do whatever you want with it regardless of the creator's wishes. To use the corollary to the "It's not theft argument" - "I would not have bought it anyway so they aren't really losing money" - if a company would not use GPL code unless the code modify it without redistributing the source when the distribute the resulting code they would not make nay changes so your not losing any enhancements since they would not do them if they had to comply with the GPL.
Do I think copyright law is out of date and needs correction? Yes, but silly not theft arguments detract from the real issue.
This, along with Apple's change to the video out to render devices like Philip's DVD/iPod video player unable to play video from iPods is frustrating. It's a shame Apple has gone far from its roots as a company that encourages innovation around their products.
Philip's portable DVD/iPOD player is real neat - drop the iPod in the cradle on the device and watch video on a bigger screen.
Apple even sold similar devices in tehir stores - maybe they just want to extort money from companies that build such devices?
Well, clearly they have not met their long term demand (10 months is a long time in the console business), and we're getting dangerously close to the Christmas buying season. Plus, those marked up consoles online aren't generating any additional profit for Nintendo, the extra profit is going right into the reseller's hands.
I certainly agree about Christmas - they need to get machines out since that is a crucial buying time - until then I don't think it is a major issue.
One thing that has shocked me about the Wii is how it can still be perpetually out of stock 10 months after being released. At this point Nintendo doesn't have any excuse, they need to ramp production up and they need to do it 6 months ago. I have a co-worker who is looking to get one and he's actually being told to stand in line outside of the store on shipment day still, and this was after calling just about every retailer in the area looking for one.
Actually ramping up to meet current demand would be the wrong thing to do - There are actually two parts to the Wii's demand - an initial demand of X and a long term steady state demand of Y units per year. As long as they can increase production without adding fixed costs - i.e. build production lines that would result in a long term capacity greater than the anticipated long term demand of Y then they'll add capacity. However, they shouldn't add enough to quickly meet the initial demand because that would leave them with excess capacity and the associated costs. Ideally, the existing lines can produce enough to accommodate the initial demand over a reasonable period and then ramp down and up as needed to meet the more stable long term demand.
Since Nintendo can reasonably expect the demand to stay around for a while - i.e. gamers who want the Wii are not likely to not buy it because they have to wait (if anything it may increase the demand and desire to buy) plus the ongoing introduction of new games helps maintain demand; unlike some things that are "hot" for a short time period and then become bargain bin buys.
Many people assume you want to make enough things to satisfy all demand, actually you want to make enough to maximize profit, which may not meet all the demand. That's even more true with items that have a variable demand over time - you don't want to be caught with excess inventory that isn't sold and increases your costs.
Even weirder is when you look online and all of the available consoles are marked up over the retail price. That is crazy for a console that has been out on the market for as long as the Wii has.
Why? Demand outstrips supply so prices rise until the two match.
Arby's has a "five for five" deal where you buy five items for five bucks because they *hope* you will spend five dollars instead of, say, two dollars. You, being a clever person, realize you only want two of the five items, so you spend $2.50 on two items and leave.
Actually, they do it just because of what you say - they will make more money selling 2 items to people who only want that and 5 items to people who want 5 but won't pay $6.25 for them - by offering bundles they are able to get a greater combined revenue - if they sold them at $1 they'd still get the % sale but only $2 from you - this way they get 50 cents more.
Why are you talking about the lens? You're not thinking of doing afocal astrophotography, are you? Uck. In afocal, a fast lens is *worse*, because it gives you more vignetting. The whole point of a DSLR, as opposed to just going with a cheaper digital camera, is that you can remove the lens for prime focus or eyepiece projection astrophotography.
Because someone suggested tripod based night shots rather than using a telexcope, in which case a good lens is important. I agree taht you don't want to shot through a lens and then a telescope.
I would say no - there is no obligation on the part of any viewer to view ads - print, web, TV or whatever. Just as you are fee to discard, cut out or mark over any ads in a magazine (or have someone do that to you copy before you read it) you can block ads from web pages.
If that becomes widespread - several things will happen:
1. Websites will block certain browsers (can they tell if FF spoofs itself as IE?) and lose the corresponding web traffic; getting less revenue from advertisers
2. They won't block ads but advertisers will be willing to pay less since they will assume x% of their ads are blocked and adjust their payments accordingly.
Either way websites will get less money - a logical market response.
Companies will also find new ways to deliver ads - and those that do so in a way that results in more viewer ship will make money.
Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
A good dSLR can be had for under $500 (Canon 350d/d40) new or even less used (KEH.com and fredmiranda.com (Buy & Sell forum) are good sources) and quality tripods start at $100.
That leaves the choice of lens - whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens - it's better to buy a $300 body and a $700 lens then vice versa since your glass has a greater impact on picture quality than MP's and you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light). Your investment will pay off over time since the lens will stay with you when you get a new body. Don't get all wrapped up in MP - anything 6mp or above is more than adequate for virtually any shoot. Don't worry about the endless Canon / Nikon fanboy debates - both are great systems so pick one that you like, meets your needs and fits your budget; realizing that you investment in lens will pretty much result in a lock to one manufacturer.
I'd recommend holding of on a purchase until you attend a club meeting or too - you'll get advice there as well as a chance to talk about what you want to do and learn about other's rigs before you invest.
Since Google is selling this service they have no rights to use other peoples trademarks (making the distinction between this and their non-profit web search).
..." and they're paid to push Y. They (Google) present a list of options based on your search - some of which are paid insertions - but you are not likely to confuse Pepsi's site with Coke's when you go there.
Whether or not they sell something has nothing to do with using a trademark. They can use it within the bounds of the law.
This is akin to company B buying ads in the local paper that say "Come to Company A's new sale, located at 123 Front St." and when you get to 123 Front St, you find Company B selling the same products. They're using the name (which is presumably trademarked) to draw attention. Trademark law says you can't do that.
No., it's more like tell someone "I'm interested in Product X" and they say "Why not try Y - you can get it at
If Apple wants to sell more than a token number of iPhones to people outside the USA as it is planning to. Given that countries elsewhere are smaller, the likelihood that a user is not in their home country is much larger. If the iPhone cannot be taken outside your home country - even when off - what use is it?
The only correct resolution is for Apple & ATT to eat these charges until the iPhone's GSM radio can be set to OFF when not inside the coverage of the selected carrier.
There's another - European carriers coming up with reasonable roaming plans. We have that in the US - I can go anywhere and not worry about long distance, roaming, SMS, or data charges beyond my flat rate - in an area the rough size of the EU.
We may not have all the neat phones and bells and whistles but our market evolved to a decent model for usage fees. We used to have the "small calling area" and "large roaming area" setup as well but as our market matured and coverage expanded (and companies merged) it moved to a call anywhere anytime without roaming model. I suspect the desire to spur cell phone adoption drove that as well - once companies had enough cell antenna coverage to cover most of their callers and limit their roaming costs it made sense to make it as desirable as possible for a customer to sign up since the marginal cost for one more customer is small compared to the marginal revenue.
I suspect it will take some serious telco mergers in the EU for this to happen there.
While neither model is "better" it is interesting to see the differences and how they evolved.
Actually, you'd want INPO or WANO to the inspections; they actually have an impact.
The NRC was justifiably worried that it was pure luck that nothing really bad happened. It's not right to call it a disaster, but neither would it be reasonable to write it off entirely. If the same thing were to happen often, there would be an actual disaster before long, and the NRC is supposed to prevent disasters, not just identify them after the fact.
TMI lead to the founding of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO); whose charter is to ensue all US nuke operators learn from each other and prevent future TMI's.