That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
Actually some lottos offer a lump sum payout, which is the NPV of the total (in your example $15 million)payments made over time. What's key here is what interest rate is used as it greatly impacts the discount for future cash flows and thus your payout. If done right, both result in the same cash at the end of the period.
You completely miss the point. Its obvious that MS's (and most other corporations) sole goal is to maximize profit. The question is- should we, as society, allow such organizations to exist? Is it a wise move to allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power in what basicly amounts to a sociopathic organization? Or should standards of ethics and non-monetary issues be forced onto corporations by society (government)?
Its been tried. Didn't work. Governments have a poor record of distributing scarce resources and ensuring good behavior. See USSR in the Wiki.
Very insightful. Companies generally oppose regulation to begin with, and eventually turn it to their advantage. The higher the regulatory bar, the harder it is for new entrants. Net neutrality, IMHO, is exactly this.
I'd love to claim that as an original idea but somebody beat me to it (and won a Nobel in Economics for it).
Basically, you're limiting the choices to either a) government regulation of the airwaves, or b) complete chaos as people all broadcast on the same airwaves at once.
But what if there were a third choice? Convert the radio spectrum into private property and sell it off, then let the owners do what they want with it. They could use it themselves, lease its use to others, or let it lie fallow. Just like with land.
There's a lot of hand waving here, and there are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but this is definitely a viable third option.
Actually all I was doing was pointing out two ends of the spectrum.
The problem with your idea is the existing investment companies have made in licenses. If you allow anyone to bid, companies would be willing to pay the cost of developing the infrastructure plus cost of spectrum - with the value based on the estimated return. However, the existing company already has the infrastructure so they are only willing to pay for the value of the spectrum, so they won't get the spectrum unless they are willing to overpay. In effect, a straight forward auction would shutout the existing providers. You could say that some percentage of the sale price would go to the existing provider as compensation, but then they would get the current replacement value of the assets; not necessarily the true value; which means they may get a windfall. In fact, they should bid the price to the point that nets out to what would be willing to pay for the spectrum alone since the rest would wind up back in their pockets anyway if it is less then their valuation they should bid it to the point that nets them their valuation; provided the net loss is less.
For example, lets say for purposes of calculating their hurdle rate they value their assets at $1 and the spectrum at $.5 and they get 50% of the winning bid.
When the bidding reaches 1 dollar they are paying for the spectrum what they believe it is worth so they stay in until that point regardless of the others. Now, what happens when I bid$1.01? They are no looking to minimize there loss. They stay in because if they lose they are out $.01; rather than $.495 if they drop out. In fact, they should stay in until it reaches $1.50 - at that point their assets is worth $.75 whether they win or lose. Beyond that they should not bid since that means they wind up with less $1.25 in assets - the spectrum ($.5) and their infrastructure ($.75). Complicating this is what they believe the salvage or sale value of their assets is to the winner, but you get the idea.
You would probably have to have the winning bidder be bidding on the assets plus the spectrum with a fixed price fo rteh assets but then what is a fair valuation?
I'm the 'Pub that posted that story. I agree 100%. I would be thrilled if gov't got out of the licensing business, as you describe. I am not holding my breath, however.
I'm not either - and even liberals can believe in free markets.
Interestingly enough it's often companies that ask for the regulation - look at the utility industry at the start - many companies stringing their own wires and competing for customers. A few companies decided they were better off as regulated monopolies and thus came such things as PUHCA et. al. In the end, regulation benefits the regulated - since it limits competition and helps maintain profits. So it's not just the politicians (Pub or Crat) that won't de-regulate - the outcry from companies (many who decry government intervention) would be deafening - and K street would see more cash than even they could dream of.
Look at the battle over telecommunication s- one side talks competition and lower prices; the other touts jobs and stability.
The Republican free market viewpoint presented isn't - a free market approach would be to allow anyone who wanted to provide cable or television without requiring government approval; since that would result in chaos the governmnet licenses rights - once you agree to that you have a new partner - the government.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with the cost/etc. although those are factors in how pervasive the piracy is. The only thing the labels/MPAA/etc care about is a small, independent movie/album doing an end-run around the major studios. If that practice were to catch on (which would of course require lots of piracy), entire industries could face losses into the billions.
Why? Independents take much of the risk out of releasing albums/films - if it's a hit; the majors can either negotiate to distribute it or sign the artists. While some might want to stay independent the money the majors can offer is hard to turn down. For those that fail the majors didn't have to spend a dime to find out they were busts.
The way Hollywood accounting works is many failures are paid for by one big hit; anything that can reduce the odds of failure is a good thing for studios.
What's sad is the guy has committed career suicide at this point and, if he hasn't already blown a bunch of money lawyering-up for the pricipal/principal(sp?) that this is his code.
Career suicide? Nah, he's got a union; the police union. They rank and file is probably cheering him for sticking it to the man.
read what his union says:
"These people are trying to steal it (from Meredith), there's no nice way to put it," said Glen Jones, president of the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association, the union that represents troopers.
hat's the most extreme example I have encountered, but the general pattern is similar. This is 2006 dudes. Grade school kids today are expected to move from Mac to Windows to Linux machines and software (whichever was cheapest during the last budget cycle - our school district has 5 OS' in some classrooms) without blinking, and they do so with essentially zero training. But people being _paid_ are OK not understanding basic business duties after 5 years and three _paid_ training cycles?
It sounds like something else is at play - my experience is most people get to some functional level that enables them to do their job; if everyone has been trained and you still have serious problems then there is some systemic cause that needs to be identified and fixed. One or two problem children is an individual issue; significant percentages of users with similar problems is a system problem (unless you manage to only hire idiots). At some point a little root cause analysis may help - the challenge is to get beyond operator error and find out what is causing the error. Something is driving that behavior and until it is fixed the problem will continue. Is there a common thread throughout the issues users have? Has the software changed since they were trained?
Speaking as a business manager, I think that is quite appropriate. For an interview conducted in 1986, or perhaps even 1996.
I believe it is as relevant today. Anybody I interview has to pass the airplane seat test - if I wouldn't want to sit next to them for 6 hours on a plane then I don't recommend them for the job.
Harsh? Maybe, but *I* have to work with them for however long they stick around; and there are enough smart people who pass that test that I can pass on the ones that don't. My job is stressful enough without having to deal with a jerk who happens to be a coworker.
My question to that organization is, why in the year 2006 do you have employees who do not possess the skills to use basic, standard tools to process basic business information, and to extend their own skills by themselves moderate amounts (not to learn a new ERP system by themselves, for example, but to figure out the fairly minor differences between AP module 5.5.7 and the new 5.6.1 version now in pre-production testing)? Why do you still have employees who believe that an inability to do a basic search in their own e-mail box merits a deskside visit from an ultra-qualified, ultra-patient analyst who will provide 4 hours of no-charge tutoring? Can you name another support department that does this? Does Finance provide remedial tutoring in financial accounting to sales managers, not just once upon promotion but over and over and over again over 20 years? Is the CFO on call 24x365 to provide personal tutoring on how to read sales reports? Why not?
Part of that is for some reason companies will train people in financial accounting or how to read a sales report - but skimp on basic PC training. They pay for it in IT support costs and lost productivity, but for some reason IT depts can't or won't make a convincing argument on why basic (and refresher) training is needed. I worked for one company that sent us to training on basic and advanced Windows, Outlook, and Word (the 3 programs we used); each session lasted the better part of a day and was not cheap; but we had an IT staff of about 8 people for a 400 person shop - and that included PC / Mainframe / programing / managers and CIO positions - so they saved money and hassle in the long run.
Another part of the problem is IT staff tend to pick solution they find elegant or easy to maintain without regard to how users will respond, which results in solutions that require an inordinate amount of hand holding to keep running. For example, a company I worked for was looking for a new T&E application to replace the one they had - it was old, cumbersome to maintain and ran on people's laptops; users uploaded their time and expense data to the mainframe on a weekly basis. The IT folks came up with a web-based solution that let you directly entire time and even drag and drop items from the company credit card into your expense sheets. I was on the team selecting the application - so when they came to demo it our T3 line was "down" in the conference room and they had to run it via dialup on my laptop (as all our many thousands of field employees would - this was back when 22.2K was a gee whiz modem); needless to say their app was less than impressive and not what we went with for T&E (Thank God). The vendor was not happy but that's his problem - I needed a solution that was workable; and the IT folks forget that most of us didn't have a fast connection because we were on the road.
Again, I am speaking as a business manager who has been through this entire cycle 3 times since the 1970s and who spent tremendous amounts of time in the 1980s providing basic business (computer) skills tutoring.
Unfortunately companies still undervalue training for new employees.
Then again, I might be spoiled in my own experience, running a Nine Inch Nails website. Know any other sizeable artists who make their Pro-Tools masters available to the public, upload DVD cuts of out-of-print or unreleased video compilations and 320kbps MP3s live collaborations to the Pirate Bay, and was posting to Prodigy news groups back in 1991.
The Grateful Dead - their approach was to encourage the trading and taping of live concerts (but not released albums) and have made a lot of their work freely available; in return they got a loyal group of fans and a few bucks along the long strange trip they took.
Nelly Furtado's a freaking Portugese CANADIAN. Where did they get Australian from??/Canadian
Most of us can barely find Canada on the map even though it's our 51st state; let alone figure out where some small island in the Pacific is located so we naturally assume anyone that speaks English and is from the Pacific is Australian. But at least we know Lisboa is Australa's capital; and if you look closely enough at a map of Europe you can find Australia nestled between germany and Hungary. What I find odd is that her last name is Furtado - that doesn't sound very Australian since they speak English, not Spanish.
Hell, I'd wager that Van Halen (both the band and Eddie Van Halen himself) have been at least as influencial to the music industry as most rap/hip-hop artists out today combined. They not only brought about the beginnings of rock and metal in the 80's, popularizing guitar heroes like no one before, but Eddie redefined how to play the guitar (yes, many, if not most of his popular techniques have been used before, but he popularized them like no other) and redefined the guitar itself (not many people before him put humbuckers in Strats, and he helped develop the Floyd Rose vibrato bridge)
Frank Zappa. You want guitar before EVH, look no further. If you like guitar, check him out. He was a guitar hero long before EVH. I'm not knocking EVH's influence or popularity, but he certainly wasn't the first; just one in a line of great guitarists who help define rock.
I appreciate the arguement that hip hop has had a big influence on rock. I'm a big fan of RATM and its a prime example of how rap (de la rocha) and metal (rest of the band) aren't that dissimilar. However, the door swings both ways, and a lot of the artists we consider pop, or r & b, take influences (even unknowingly) from rock music of the last 50 years
Of course, rock has roots in r&b, and was influenced by country and gospel and many other forms that preceeded it. Even classical music has influenced it and resulted in some rock classics. While I agree with your door swings both ways comment, music is much like a larger river, with many sources, that splits and meanders through our collective experience.
They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft. You been listening to too much **AA babble.
Sure it is. Steal: 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
You can agree or disagree with the concept or the severity of the crime, but at least have the balls to call it what it is.
You forget this is slashdot where people will argue they aren't stealing when they pirate software, songs or video and say no one is hurt by it anyway since they wouldn't buy it anyway; then get all upset if some company decides to take GPL'd code and not follow the GPL; even though there is also no monetary loss there either.
Bottom line on/. is it's OK to steal other peoples' stuff but not their own.
There are loads of problems with the Sealand plan, connectivity aside. Firstly, since Sealand was established the UK, and everywhere else, has extended its territorial waters from 3 miles, which excluded Sealand, to 10 miles, which includes. Therefore the UK could make an argument that UK law applied there, move in and arrest people as appropriate.
I believe Sealand came into existence prior to extending the limit so it retained its "sovereignty" under international law since countries can't extend their territorial limits and then automatically claim ownership of territory that previously belonged to another country; that's what wars are for.
The only problem I see right now is that right now the Pirate Bay is operating inside a real country. If they move to sealand, what's to stop the MPAA/RIAA from buying an old Russian Bomber / Diesel Sub / whatever and just destroying the whole platform? Or hiring someone to plant C-4 on the base of hte structure and blowing it up? Further, Sealand only exists because the British have decided it's more trouble than it's worth to just invade it. What if the Brits get pressured into eliminating this grave threat to the international recording industry?
One thing any island nation that is not self sufficient needs to remember is that a blockade can strangle them without a shot being fired. In Sealand's case, all it would take is to cutoff their internet connection to the outside world and their data center is down. If it is a hardwired line the terminating point can kill it; if it is satellite the satellite company can no doubt be pressured into dropping them.
If they really piss people off step two is cutting all sea and air traffic; plus countries could issue arrest warrants for the owners and wait until they left and simply grab them once they are within reach - who wants to spend their entire life on a floating platform simply to pirate movies and songs?
Finally, if they raised the money they'd have the clout to negotiate licenses with many, if not all of the copyright holders - or simply buy whole catalogs. If they could pull off enough donations they'd have people begging to partner with them. then again, your MPAA/RIAA diesel boat scenario is more probable then them raising the cash.
since some have disagreed with the parent's statement, I can say that at least in Finland no carrier does this kind of shit. If you buy a plan that includes a phone, then that may be locked to the carrier, but that's about the extent of limitations we have. In my case, I bought a plan from a smaller carrier, and the phone is not even locked. To me it's incomprehensible that anyone would even do business with a company that screws you like that.
Price. Most US carriers offer plans that let you call anywhere in the US for a flat fee, with nights and weekends free (i.e. no charge to your minutes). For $60 you can get 2 phones and 550 minutes; or 1 phone with 900 (Cingular) and the minutes rollover plus Mobile2Mobile is also "free". No roaming, no long distance and enough time for $60. Some carriers even offer unlimited minutes for a flat rate.
A quick check of European plans (UK - Vodaphone since it is easiest for me to read an English site) has 700 minutes for 35 Pounds - withing $10 of the price in the US, but that only lets you call UK phones - go to Germany and you're paying about $1.00 a minute to call or 50 cents/minute to receive a call. The US used to have that kind of pricing but it disappeared as cellphones became common. Neither system is better; each evolves according to the market forces in their regions.
Our system has resulted in consumers not caring about phone portability - most never pull the SIM from their phone (or even know what a SIM is; assuming they have a GSM and not a CDMA phone) They simply want reliable service that is cheap; and get a new phone when they upgrade or switch carriers.
While the iPhone is much less interesting since Apple decided to cripple it's ability to run 3rd party apps; most users won't care. They want the latest hot phone; and maybe will add a ringtone or two - and for someone paying $600 for a phone %3 for a ringtone is pocket change. I have Treo 700p that is tricked out (as was my 650 and 700w) but I am an anomaly - most of the people I work with that have Treos / Blackberries / etc. have never added an app, or even explored all the features of their phone. Most consumers don't feel they are being "screwed" by crippled or locked phones.
Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone was not "unlockable" - in the US at least - since Apple has a two year exclusive there would be no reason to build in the capability to run on other systems for US models; European ones could have a different firmware if unlocking was needed to comply with local laws.
I was really interested in it; but if I can't use it like a Bluetooth modem (as I do with my Treo)or swap SIMS in Europe and have it work; I'll pass.
If QB is critical to your company then either have a box dedicated to it or dual boot with Bootcamp. The impact of an undetected bug screwing up your financials is, IMHO, too great a risk to warrant using a product such as CrossOver.
Isn't it worth the few hundred bucks for a low end Windows box plus a second internal HD for backup to be sure your data is safe?
I like my Mac as much as the next guy but sometimes you just got to go with the most straight forward lower risk solution.
I realise that/. is mainly a US-centric site, but considering that 'Cingular' doesn't operate in Europe or elsewhere (AFAIK), how is this being handled for other parts of the world? Can anyone help out?
It's Quad Band GSM so as long as Apple sells an unlocked version you should be able to use it (and could in theory buy a Cingular one and use it anywhere if you have piles of money to burn on phone bills); although I'm not sure how the EDGE data network works outside the US - so I don't know if data will work.
When it came time to ramp up to full production we found we could no longer get 120M HDD's but could get 250M for the same price (the HDD's were third party PCMCIA cards that were supposed to be "pre-imaged" by the hardware guys). The Dilbert moment happened when a PHB with way too much time on his hands had to sign the purchase order and demanded 120M HDD's because "that's what's it says in the contract". The solution was illogical but effective, we quietly arranged for our hardware friends to format the 250M physical drive into a 120M logical drive and ignore the remaning space (and told them why). A few PHB readable edits to the PO and hey presto a warehouse full of laptops with our software pre-installed on 120M drives and an extra PHB-invisible partion.
While I don't know the specifics of your situation and am not fond of defending PHB decision, sometimes there is a logical reason to do something that appears stupid because "that's what's it says in the contract". For example, the contract could have a requirement to ship all machines in the same configuration, so if you upgrade it later you have to go back and update all the older machines at your cost; or you could be charging someone else more for 250g machines with contract provisions that give them a "best price" so when you sell 250g devices to A at a price less than you charge B; B is entitled to a refund.
I've seen some really stupid looking (on the surface) things done that were understandable once you learned the contractual reasons behind them - for example we would not let anyone use a conference room in our building - even though it set empty 90% of the time. Why? We were allowed to charge a client for 100% of the cost of the room - and had to discount that if anyone else used it. Since we weren't going to give up the revenue it sat empty most of the time. Stupid? Not when you looked at the bottom line, even if it meant people had to find another room to use.
Generally companies are not so inflexible - until something goes wrong and lawyers start looking over thr contract and contract performance - and suddenly the no big deal things become problems.
Perhaps hate speech and direct threats would be easy examples of things outside the realm of freedom of speech; Also, perhaps try heading into an airport and yelling "bomb"; Or alternatively, walk into a preschool and start making lewd comments about your nether regions. We'll see how well "freedom of speech" holds up then.
What freedom of speech DOES entitle you to is to formulate and express your own opinions without being persecuted; It does NOT give you the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want, and especially not on their property, where their ideas of decency with regard to speech are paramount.
You are addressing several things here:
1. - In the US, freedom of speech is the right not to have the government prevent you from speaking - i.e. exercising prior restraint. In your examples, you still have the right to say those things; however,
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. In those cases, you can be prosecuted for the results of your actions,but not before you actually speak.
3. As you pointed out, you have no free speech rights WRT private entities; no one owes you a forum to speak.
Finally, freedom of speech should encompass the freedom not to be compelled to speak - such as forcing a Jehovah's Witness to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of their religious beliefs.
I strongly recommend Nate Hentoff's "Free Speech for me but not for thee"
Of course, free speech on slashdot means to attack the messenger because you disgaree with soemthing they said and can't distinguish an argument from a position; except we call it "moderation."
I'm glad you brought up the hot coffee suit. I have something you'll need to agree to. A plaintiff sued McDonald's for selling him a milkshake, which he placed between his legs while driving (sound familiar?) Because of this, he temporarialy lost his ability to drive (so he testifies) and crashed his car, causing injuries and costs to the plaintiff. Now, he never won the case, but it seems to me anyone who is in beleif of hot coffee lady needs to write that judge RIGHT NOW and explain their absolute disappointment with him for not awarding several million dollars to the plaintiff for his injuries.
After all, the situation is identical to hot coffee lady, except this time the drink is too cold.
Hardly. The plaintiff was not driving, nor was the car moving when she got burned. She held the cup between her legs and was opening it to put in sweetener when it spilled.
McDonald's had reports of injuries before this event; they even knew it was being served too hot to be consumed. McD's refuised to settle, and eventually lost to the tune of $500,000 - then they settled.
This case is not, despite the FUD, a stellar example of lawsuit abuse; rather it highlights what the court system should do - hold people accountable on both sides. (The award was reduced 20% due to the plaintiffs actions being viewed as partly responsible)
The UCS, which has it's own agenda and pushes it at every opportunity, is upset because someone on the opposite side wants their view heard as well? To bad.
The UCS no more wants open debate over issues than any other special interest - they want to frame all discussion so their viewpoint prevails; since only +they+ have the right answer.
Typical CW fluorescents actually produce a slightly greenish light, not blue (and if you look at a spectrometer's output, you'll see a big spike around 550 nm, which is green), and have a correlated color temperature somewhere around 4000K. I say "somewhere around" because, since they are really producing a number of fairly distinct wavelenths rather than a continuous distribution, they don't have an exact black-body radiator equivalent. But the general consensus is that it's somewhere around 3400-4200K (depending on phosphor), with a greenish cast. It's this green cast that's the real killer, and makes CW fluorescent light so unflattering to most people's skin; the color temperature itself isn't the major issue.
It will be interesting to see the effcet on film - most film is designed for warmer light and will have a greenish tint under flourescent light due to the temperature difference - and most people will no doubt blame : the cheap local photo-finsher - then the camera without ever realizing they need to get film intended for flourescent use.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
Actually some lottos offer a lump sum payout, which is the NPV of the total (in your example $15 million)payments made over time. What's key here is what interest rate is used as it greatly impacts the discount for future cash flows and thus your payout. If done right, both result in the same cash at the end of the period.
You completely miss the point. Its obvious that MS's (and most other corporations) sole goal is to maximize profit. The question is- should we, as society, allow such organizations to exist? Is it a wise move to allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power in what basicly amounts to a sociopathic organization? Or should standards of ethics and non-monetary issues be forced onto corporations by society (government)?
Its been tried. Didn't work. Governments have a poor record of distributing scarce resources and ensuring good behavior. See USSR in the Wiki.
Very insightful. Companies generally oppose regulation to begin with, and eventually turn it to their advantage. The higher the regulatory bar, the harder it is for new entrants. Net neutrality, IMHO, is exactly this.
I'd love to claim that as an original idea but somebody beat me to it (and won a Nobel in Economics for it).
Basically, you're limiting the choices to either a) government regulation of the airwaves, or b) complete chaos as people all broadcast on the same airwaves at once.
But what if there were a third choice? Convert the radio spectrum into private property and sell it off, then let the owners do what they want with it. They could use it themselves, lease its use to others, or let it lie fallow. Just like with land.
There's a lot of hand waving here, and there are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but this is definitely a viable third option.
Actually all I was doing was pointing out two ends of the spectrum.
The problem with your idea is the existing investment companies have made in licenses. If you allow anyone to bid, companies would be willing to pay the cost of developing the infrastructure plus cost of spectrum - with the value based on the estimated return. However, the existing company already has the infrastructure so they are only willing to pay for the value of the spectrum, so they won't get the spectrum unless they are willing to overpay. In effect, a straight forward auction would shutout the existing providers. You could say that some percentage of the sale price would go to the existing provider as compensation, but then they would get the current replacement value of the assets; not necessarily the true value; which means they may get a windfall. In fact, they should bid the price to the point that nets out to what would be willing to pay for the spectrum alone since the rest would wind up back in their pockets anyway if it is less then their valuation they should bid it to the point that nets them their valuation; provided the net loss is less.
For example, lets say for purposes of calculating their hurdle rate they value their assets at $1 and the spectrum at $.5 and they get 50% of the winning bid.
When the bidding reaches 1 dollar they are paying for the spectrum what they believe it is worth so they stay in until that point regardless of the others. Now, what happens when I bid$1.01? They are no looking to minimize there loss. They stay in because if they lose they are out $.01; rather than $.495 if they drop out. In fact, they should stay in until it reaches $1.50 - at that point their assets is worth $.75 whether they win or lose. Beyond that they should not bid since that means they wind up with less $1.25 in assets - the spectrum ($.5) and their infrastructure ($.75). Complicating this is what they believe the salvage or sale value of their assets is to the winner, but you get the idea.
You would probably have to have the winning bidder be bidding on the assets plus the spectrum with a fixed price fo rteh assets but then what is a fair valuation?
I'm the 'Pub that posted that story. I agree 100%. I would be thrilled if gov't got out of the licensing business, as you describe. I am not holding my breath, however.
I'm not either - and even liberals can believe in free markets.
Interestingly enough it's often companies that ask for the regulation - look at the utility industry at the start - many companies stringing their own wires and competing for customers. A few companies decided they were better off as regulated monopolies and thus came such things as PUHCA et. al. In the end, regulation benefits the regulated - since it limits competition and helps maintain profits. So it's not just the politicians (Pub or Crat) that won't de-regulate - the outcry from companies (many who decry government intervention) would be deafening - and K street would see more cash than even they could dream of.
Look at the battle over telecommunication s- one side talks competition and lower prices; the other touts jobs and stability.
The Republican free market viewpoint presented isn't - a free market approach would be to allow anyone who wanted to provide cable or television without requiring government approval; since that would result in chaos the governmnet licenses rights - once you agree to that you have a new partner - the government.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with the cost/etc. although those are factors in how pervasive the piracy is. The only thing the labels/MPAA/etc care about is a small, independent movie /album doing an end-run around the major studios. If that practice were to catch on (which would of course require lots of piracy), entire industries could face losses into the billions.
Why? Independents take much of the risk out of releasing albums/films - if it's a hit; the majors can either negotiate to distribute it or sign the artists. While some might want to stay independent the money the majors can offer is hard to turn down. For those that fail the majors didn't have to spend a dime to find out they were busts.
The way Hollywood accounting works is many failures are paid for by one big hit; anything that can reduce the odds of failure is a good thing for studios.
What's sad is the guy has committed career suicide at this point and, if he hasn't already blown a bunch of money lawyering-up for the pricipal/principal(sp?) that this is his code.
Career suicide? Nah, he's got a union; the police union. They rank and file is probably cheering him for sticking it to the man.
read what his union says:
"These people are trying to steal it (from Meredith), there's no nice way to put it," said Glen Jones, president of the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association, the union that represents troopers.
Think they'll roll over?
hat's the most extreme example I have encountered, but the general pattern is similar. This is 2006 dudes. Grade school kids today are expected to move from Mac to Windows to Linux machines and software (whichever was cheapest during the last budget cycle - our school district has 5 OS' in some classrooms) without blinking, and they do so with essentially zero training. But people being _paid_ are OK not understanding basic business duties after 5 years and three _paid_ training cycles?
It sounds like something else is at play - my experience is most people get to some functional level that enables them to do their job; if everyone has been trained and you still have serious problems then there is some systemic cause that needs to be identified and fixed. One or two problem children is an individual issue; significant percentages of users with similar problems is a system problem (unless you manage to only hire idiots). At some point a little root cause analysis may help - the challenge is to get beyond operator error and find out what is causing the error. Something is driving that behavior and until it is fixed the problem will continue. Is there a common thread throughout the issues users have? Has the software changed since they were trained?
Speaking as a business manager, I think that is quite appropriate. For an interview conducted in 1986, or perhaps even 1996.
I believe it is as relevant today. Anybody I interview has to pass the airplane seat test - if I wouldn't want to sit next to them for 6 hours on a plane then I don't recommend them for the job.
Harsh? Maybe, but *I* have to work with them for however long they stick around; and there are enough smart people who pass that test that I can pass on the ones that don't. My job is stressful enough without having to deal with a jerk who happens to be a coworker.
My question to that organization is, why in the year 2006 do you have employees who do not possess the skills to use basic, standard tools to process basic business information, and to extend their own skills by themselves moderate amounts (not to learn a new ERP system by themselves, for example, but to figure out the fairly minor differences between AP module 5.5.7 and the new 5.6.1 version now in pre-production testing)? Why do you still have employees who believe that an inability to do a basic search in their own e-mail box merits a deskside visit from an ultra-qualified, ultra-patient analyst who will provide 4 hours of no-charge tutoring? Can you name another support department that does this? Does Finance provide remedial tutoring in financial accounting to sales managers, not just once upon promotion but over and over and over again over 20 years? Is the CFO on call 24x365 to provide personal tutoring on how to read sales reports? Why not?
Part of that is for some reason companies will train people in financial accounting or how to read a sales report - but skimp on basic PC training. They pay for it in IT support costs and lost productivity, but for some reason IT depts can't or won't make a convincing argument on why basic (and refresher) training is needed. I worked for one company that sent us to training on basic and advanced Windows, Outlook, and Word (the 3 programs we used); each session lasted the better part of a day and was not cheap; but we had an IT staff of about 8 people for a 400 person shop - and that included PC / Mainframe / programing / managers and CIO positions - so they saved money and hassle in the long run.
Another part of the problem is IT staff tend to pick solution they find elegant or easy to maintain without regard to how users will respond, which results in solutions that require an inordinate amount of hand holding to keep running. For example, a company I worked for was looking for a new T&E application to replace the one they had - it was old, cumbersome to maintain and ran on people's laptops; users uploaded their time and expense data to the mainframe on a weekly basis. The IT folks came up with a web-based solution that let you directly entire time and even drag and drop items from the company credit card into your expense sheets. I was on the team selecting the application - so when they came to demo it our T3 line was "down" in the conference room and they had to run it via dialup on my laptop (as all our many thousands of field employees would - this was back when 22.2K was a gee whiz modem); needless to say their app was less than impressive and not what we went with for T&E (Thank God). The vendor was not happy but that's his problem - I needed a solution that was workable; and the IT folks forget that most of us didn't have a fast connection because we were on the road.
Again, I am speaking as a business manager who has been through this entire cycle 3 times since the 1970s and who spent tremendous amounts of time in the 1980s providing basic business (computer) skills tutoring.
Unfortunately companies still undervalue training for new employees.
Then again, I might be spoiled in my own experience, running a Nine Inch Nails website. Know any other sizeable artists who make their Pro-Tools masters available to the public, upload DVD cuts of out-of-print or unreleased video compilations and 320kbps MP3s live collaborations to the Pirate Bay, and was posting to Prodigy news groups back in 1991.
The Grateful Dead - their approach was to encourage the trading and taping of live concerts (but not released albums) and have made a lot of their work freely available; in return they got a loyal group of fans and a few bucks along the long strange trip they took.
Nelly Furtado's a freaking Portugese CANADIAN. Where did they get Australian from?? /Canadian
Most of us can barely find Canada on the map even though it's our 51st state; let alone figure out where some small island in the Pacific is located so we naturally assume anyone that speaks English and is from the Pacific is Australian. But at least we know Lisboa is Australa's capital; and if you look closely enough at a map of Europe you can find Australia nestled between germany and Hungary.
What I find odd is that her last name is Furtado - that doesn't sound very Australian since they speak English, not Spanish.
Obrigado for playing.
Hell, I'd wager that Van Halen (both the band and Eddie Van Halen himself) have been at least as influencial to the music industry as most rap/hip-hop artists out today combined. They not only brought about the beginnings of rock and metal in the 80's, popularizing guitar heroes like no one before, but Eddie redefined how to play the guitar (yes, many, if not most of his popular techniques have been used before, but he popularized them like no other) and redefined the guitar itself (not many people before him put humbuckers in Strats, and he helped develop the Floyd Rose vibrato bridge)
Frank Zappa. You want guitar before EVH, look no further. If you like guitar, check him out. He was a guitar hero long before EVH. I'm not knocking EVH's influence or popularity, but he certainly wasn't the first; just one in a line of great guitarists who help define rock.
I appreciate the arguement that hip hop has had a big influence on rock. I'm a big fan of RATM and its a prime example of how rap (de la rocha) and metal (rest of the band) aren't that dissimilar. However, the door swings both ways, and a lot of the artists we consider pop, or r & b, take influences (even unknowingly) from rock music of the last 50 years
Of course, rock has roots in r&b, and was influenced by country and gospel and many other forms that preceeded it. Even classical music has influenced it and resulted in some rock classics. While I agree with your door swings both ways comment, music is much like a larger river, with many sources, that splits and meanders through our collective experience.
They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft. You been listening to too much **AA babble.
/. is it's OK to steal other peoples' stuff but not their own.
Sure it is. Steal: 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
You can agree or disagree with the concept or the severity of the crime, but at least have the balls to call it what it is.
You forget this is slashdot where people will argue they aren't stealing when they pirate software, songs or video and say no one is hurt by it anyway since they wouldn't buy it anyway; then get all upset if some company decides to take GPL'd code and not follow the GPL; even though there is also no monetary loss there either.
Bottom line on
There are loads of problems with the Sealand plan, connectivity aside. Firstly, since Sealand was established the UK, and everywhere else, has extended its territorial waters from 3 miles, which excluded Sealand, to 10 miles, which includes. Therefore the UK could make an argument that UK law applied there, move in and arrest people as appropriate.
I believe Sealand came into existence prior to extending the limit so it retained its "sovereignty" under international law since countries can't extend their territorial limits and then automatically claim ownership of territory that previously belonged to another country; that's what wars are for.
The only problem I see right now is that right now the Pirate Bay is operating inside a real country. If they move to sealand, what's to stop the MPAA/RIAA from buying an old Russian Bomber / Diesel Sub / whatever and just destroying the whole platform? Or hiring someone to plant C-4 on the base of hte structure and blowing it up? Further, Sealand only exists because the British have decided it's more trouble than it's worth to just invade it. What if the Brits get pressured into eliminating this grave threat to the international recording industry?
One thing any island nation that is not self sufficient needs to remember is that a blockade can strangle them without a shot being fired. In Sealand's case, all it would take is to cutoff their internet connection to the outside world and their data center is down. If it is a hardwired line the terminating point can kill it; if it is satellite the satellite company can no doubt be pressured into dropping them.
If they really piss people off step two is cutting all sea and air traffic; plus countries could issue arrest warrants for the owners and wait until they left and simply grab them once they are within reach - who wants to spend their entire life on a floating platform simply to pirate movies and songs?
Finally, if they raised the money they'd have the clout to negotiate licenses with many, if not all of the copyright holders - or simply buy whole catalogs. If they could pull off enough donations they'd have people begging to partner with them. then again, your MPAA/RIAA diesel boat scenario is more probable then them raising the cash.
since some have disagreed with the parent's statement, I can say that at least in Finland no carrier does this kind of shit. If you buy a plan that includes a phone, then that may be locked to the carrier, but that's about the extent of limitations we have. In my case, I bought a plan from a smaller carrier, and the phone is not even locked. To me it's incomprehensible that anyone would even do business with a company that screws you like that.
Price. Most US carriers offer plans that let you call anywhere in the US for a flat fee, with nights and weekends free (i.e. no charge to your minutes). For $60 you can get 2 phones and 550 minutes; or 1 phone with 900 (Cingular) and the minutes rollover plus Mobile2Mobile is also "free". No roaming, no long distance and enough time for $60. Some carriers even offer unlimited minutes for a flat rate.
A quick check of European plans (UK - Vodaphone since it is easiest for me to read an English site) has 700 minutes for 35 Pounds - withing $10 of the price in the US, but that only lets you call UK phones - go to Germany and you're paying about $1.00 a minute to call or 50 cents/minute to receive a call. The US used to have that kind of pricing but it disappeared as cellphones became common. Neither system is better; each evolves according to the market forces in their regions.
Our system has resulted in consumers not caring about phone portability - most never pull the SIM from their phone (or even know what a SIM is; assuming they have a GSM and not a CDMA phone) They simply want reliable service that is cheap; and get a new phone when they upgrade or switch carriers.
While the iPhone is much less interesting since Apple decided to cripple it's ability to run 3rd party apps; most users won't care. They want the latest hot phone; and maybe will add a ringtone or two - and for someone paying $600 for a phone %3 for a ringtone is pocket change. I have Treo 700p that is tricked out (as was my 650 and 700w) but I am an anomaly - most of the people I work with that have Treos / Blackberries / etc. have never added an app, or even explored all the features of their phone. Most consumers don't feel they are being "screwed" by crippled or locked phones.
Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone was not "unlockable" - in the US at least - since Apple has a two year exclusive there would be no reason to build in the capability to run on other systems for US models; European ones could have a different firmware if unlocking was needed to comply with local laws.
I was really interested in it; but if I can't use it like a Bluetooth modem (as I do with my Treo)or swap SIMS in Europe and have it work; I'll pass.
If QB is critical to your company then either have a box dedicated to it or dual boot with Bootcamp. The impact of an undetected bug screwing up your financials is, IMHO, too great a risk to warrant using a product such as CrossOver.
Isn't it worth the few hundred bucks for a low end Windows box plus a second internal HD for backup to be sure your data is safe?
I like my Mac as much as the next guy but sometimes you just got to go with the most straight forward lower risk solution.
"the iphone is cingular only"
/. is mainly a US-centric site, but considering that 'Cingular' doesn't operate in Europe or elsewhere (AFAIK), how is this being handled for other parts of the world? Can anyone help out?
I realise that
It's Quad Band GSM so as long as Apple sells an unlocked version you should be able to use it (and could in theory buy a Cingular one and use it anywhere if you have piles of money to burn on phone bills); although I'm not sure how the EDGE data network works outside the US - so I don't know if data will work.
When it came time to ramp up to full production we found we could no longer get 120M HDD's but could get 250M for the same price (the HDD's were third party PCMCIA cards that were supposed to be "pre-imaged" by the hardware guys). The Dilbert moment happened when a PHB with way too much time on his hands had to sign the purchase order and demanded 120M HDD's because "that's what's it says in the contract". The solution was illogical but effective, we quietly arranged for our hardware friends to format the 250M physical drive into a 120M logical drive and ignore the remaning space (and told them why). A few PHB readable edits to the PO and hey presto a warehouse full of laptops with our software pre-installed on 120M drives and an extra PHB-invisible partion.
While I don't know the specifics of your situation and am not fond of defending PHB decision, sometimes there is a logical reason to do something that appears stupid because "that's what's it says in the contract". For example, the contract could have a requirement to ship all machines in the same configuration, so if you upgrade it later you have to go back and update all the older machines at your cost; or you could be charging someone else more for 250g machines with contract provisions that give them a "best price" so when you sell 250g devices to A at a price less than you charge B; B is entitled to a refund.
I've seen some really stupid looking (on the surface) things done that were understandable once you learned the contractual reasons behind them - for example we would not let anyone use a conference room in our building - even though it set empty 90% of the time. Why? We were allowed to charge a client for 100% of the cost of the room - and had to discount that if anyone else used it. Since we weren't going to give up the revenue it sat empty most of the time. Stupid? Not when you looked at the bottom line, even if it meant people had to find another room to use.
Generally companies are not so inflexible - until something goes wrong and lawyers start looking over thr contract and contract performance - and suddenly the no big deal things become problems.
Perhaps hate speech and direct threats would be easy examples of things outside the realm of freedom of speech; Also, perhaps try heading into an airport and yelling "bomb"; Or alternatively, walk into a preschool and start making lewd comments about your nether regions. We'll see how well "freedom of speech" holds up then.
What freedom of speech DOES entitle you to is to formulate and express your own opinions without being persecuted; It does NOT give you the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want, and especially not on their property, where their ideas of decency with regard to speech are paramount.
You are addressing several things here:
1. - In the US, freedom of speech is the right not to have the government prevent you from speaking - i.e. exercising prior restraint. In your examples, you still have the right to say those things; however,
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. In those cases, you can be prosecuted for the results of your actions,but not before you actually speak.
3. As you pointed out, you have no free speech rights WRT private entities; no one owes you a forum to speak.
Finally, freedom of speech should encompass the freedom not to be compelled to speak - such as forcing a Jehovah's Witness to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of their religious beliefs.
I strongly recommend Nate Hentoff's "Free Speech for me but not for thee"
Of course, free speech on slashdot means to attack the messenger because you disgaree with soemthing they said and can't distinguish an argument from a position; except we call it "moderation."
I'm glad you brought up the hot coffee suit. I have something you'll need to agree to. A plaintiff sued McDonald's for selling him a milkshake, which he placed between his legs while driving (sound familiar?) Because of this, he temporarialy lost his ability to drive (so he testifies) and crashed his car, causing injuries and costs to the plaintiff. Now, he never won the case, but it seems to me anyone who is in beleif of hot coffee lady needs to write that judge RIGHT NOW and explain their absolute disappointment with him for not awarding several million dollars to the plaintiff for his injuries.
After all, the situation is identical to hot coffee lady, except this time the drink is too cold.
Hardly. The plaintiff was not driving, nor was the car moving when she got burned. She held the cup between her legs and was opening it to put in sweetener when it spilled.
McDonald's had reports of injuries before this event; they even knew it was being served too hot to be consumed. McD's refuised to settle, and eventually lost to the tune of $500,000 - then they settled.
This case is not, despite the FUD, a stellar example of lawsuit abuse; rather it highlights what the court system should do - hold people accountable on both sides. (The award was reduced 20% due to the plaintiffs actions being viewed as partly responsible)
The UCS, which has it's own agenda and pushes it at every opportunity, is upset because someone on the opposite side wants their view heard as well? To bad.
The UCS no more wants open debate over issues than any other special interest - they want to frame all discussion so their viewpoint prevails; since only +they+ have the right answer.
Typical CW fluorescents actually produce a slightly greenish light, not blue (and if you look at a spectrometer's output, you'll see a big spike around 550 nm, which is green), and have a correlated color temperature somewhere around 4000K. I say "somewhere around" because, since they are really producing a number of fairly distinct wavelenths rather than a continuous distribution, they don't have an exact black-body radiator equivalent. But the general consensus is that it's somewhere around 3400-4200K (depending on phosphor), with a greenish cast. It's this green cast that's the real killer, and makes CW fluorescent light so unflattering to most people's skin; the color temperature itself isn't the major issue.
It will be interesting to see the effcet on film - most film is designed for warmer light and will have a greenish tint under flourescent light due to the temperature difference - and most people will no doubt blame : the cheap local photo-finsher - then the camera without ever realizing they need to get film intended for flourescent use.