It IS a government subsidy just like boeing get defence contracts in the hope of beating airbus. There is a grain of truth in the "Keeping an important skill set in the country" but really this is way around the WTO.
I am sorry but I will not have space in my pockets for this extra box. Nor do I wish to reward sony for making me buy two handhelds from them instead of one.
I have a 10Mbps fibre line in my living room (it's been available for most my city - Milan -for a year or more) yes it really is a bit of waste. I get mostly 2.5Mbps for long downloads if that. Rarely I get 2 or three times that.
It takes longer than that to get a drug through FDA testing. There are a lot of things wrong with the way the US healthcare system works but I think 20 year patent which leads to 10 to 15 years exclusivity on the market is about right to encourage the massive investment needed. Writing songs or books etc. requires almost no investment by comparison yet they get protection for up to 10 times as long.
I normally refrain from commenting on business stories waiting leaving it for those who work in the industry to comment. But there is so much theological capitalist clap trap being written here I think I must say a thing or two. Firstly it is not the business of governments to be major providers of capital to businesses BUT it is definitely a government's job (and they ALL do it) to provide a good environment for businesses to thrive. Some people feel subsidies are always a bad way to do this but in this case peter is proposing very modest sums which like the film grants will only go to companies which have not been able to gain funding from elsewhere. Secondly, many people are saying that we should not subsidise unprofitable businesses. This is an odd argument for two reasons 1)Profitability is a poor indication of whether a business is a "goer". The majority of small businesses that go bankrupt are in fact profitable it's just that the sources of finance run out. (Check my sig I know what I'm talking about). 2) governments are not investors trying to make a return on the shares that they bought. They are governments trying to improve the whole nation and get re-elected. I don't expect any government to try to recoup it's grants in tax revunues from the companies it directly invested in but I do expect it to explain how the subsidies helped the country e.g. helping revitalise a run down area, fostering skills which widely available or even boosting the profile of the country not just for tourism but also to encourage inward investment. This last one is I think the best reason for subsidies for small game companies. By saying look "these succesful companies are already here" the likes of Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft(er..) feel more confident that this is a good place to base a games software company and who knows maybe more later on. Thirdly, governments should not be expected to pick winning companies. Every bank manager, stock picker and venture capitalist picks a good proportion of loosers. Don't expect governments to be perfect especially when their investment criteria are different (see above). Finally and to tie into this thread, The British film industry has improved dramatically since the Lottery fund began the subsidies about 8 years ago. It may never get up to the level of the fifties but that has much more to do with television, consolidation of the cinema (theatre)owners video rental etc. than with subsidies. Any film which can find capital from elsewhere definitely should not be subsidised by the government. The fact that major moviess like Bond use private money from America is a fact of capitalism. The business is seeking the cheapest capital which happens to be from America becasue America has a critical mass of investors who feel they understand film risk and markets well enough that they are prepared to invest large sums. Britain does not have such an investor pool but with the financial success of British films due in part to subsidies that may yet occur. PS personally government subsidised films seem a lot less narrow in scope than Hllywood pulp.
My point exactly since technical drawings came along models of buildings went out of fashion for doing real work and ended up being used to show off an overall project (usually to get people to pay for it).
For centuries architects have been using 2d plans to understand copmlex 3d buildings. Kewlness aside, why do programmers always want to reverse this process?
First of all good on you I hope you do well.
Secondly, I think it's important to have a clear objective for the course you are going to teach. I tought English as a foreign language in eastern Europe and like you was almost total freedom to teach what I wanted. I think that whatever advice you are given on/. you should pick a few very simple goals. If you try too hard to teach a bit of everything you will not convince yourself (and others) that you really made a difference. That would be very sad since whatever you do simply sharing your enthusiasm really does count.
I've been thinking for a while about quietening down my computer(s) while watching DVDs. My solution is to put it inside an old fridge. (No venitilation problems if it still works.) I'm still looking for an appropriate fridge (I think one of those ones they put coke in in shops with a glass front would be good.)
Lawyers are rather expensive and have no interest in keeping your business alive.
From the sound of your orginal post this is a big hit to your own cash flow since these guys were a major if not primary source of revenue.
Where I come from there is a saying "ye cannae take the breeks off a highlander" meaning if somone doesn't have any money it's not worth sueing them.
Even if you sign this agreement (which is dubiously legal by my very limited understanding) I don't think you'll get a bean.
Much more important is to think about your own business (and job) survival and finding a new revenue source is much more likely to help you there.
Accountants are likely to come up with some simple matters of good business practice which will help you stay afloat. Also accounting firms actually deal with both sides of bankruptcy so they know a great deal of the small print that lawyers do.
Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the S word I see here?
http://www.microsoft.com/com/tech/DCOM.asp
"more titles for people who aren't 16-20 years old"
?!
12 to 15 more like.
It IS a government subsidy just like boeing get defence contracts in the hope of beating airbus.
There is a grain of truth in the "Keeping an important skill set in the country" but really this is way around the WTO.
can any Indian enlighten me, do they measure the strength of candidates by the amount of money they have collected over there?
I am sorry but I will not have space in my pockets for this extra box. Nor do I wish to reward sony for making me buy two handhelds from them instead of one.
I have a 10Mbps fibre line in my living room (it's been available for most my city - Milan -for a year or more) yes it really is a bit of waste. I get mostly 2.5Mbps for long downloads if that. Rarely I get 2 or three times that.
It takes longer than that to get a drug through FDA testing.
There are a lot of things wrong with the way the US healthcare system works but I think 20 year patent which leads to 10 to 15 years exclusivity on the market is about right to encourage the massive investment needed. Writing songs or books etc. requires almost no investment by comparison yet they get protection for up to 10 times as long.
I normally refrain from commenting on business stories waiting leaving it for those who work in the industry to comment. But there is so much theological capitalist clap trap being written here I think I must say a thing or two.
Firstly it is not the business of governments to be major providers of capital to businesses BUT it is definitely a government's job (and they ALL do it) to provide a good environment for businesses to thrive. Some people feel subsidies are always a bad way to do this but in this case peter is proposing very modest sums which like the film grants will only go to companies which have not been able to gain funding from elsewhere.
Secondly, many people are saying that we should not subsidise unprofitable businesses. This is an odd argument for two reasons 1)Profitability is a poor indication of whether a business is a
"goer". The majority of small businesses that go bankrupt are in fact profitable it's just that the sources of finance run out. (Check my sig I know what I'm talking about). 2) governments are not investors trying to make a return on the shares that they bought. They are governments trying to improve the whole nation and get re-elected. I don't expect any government to try to recoup it's grants in tax revunues from the companies it directly invested in but I do expect it to explain how the subsidies helped the country e.g. helping revitalise a run down area, fostering skills which widely available or even boosting the profile of the country not just for tourism but also to encourage inward investment. This last one is I think the best reason for subsidies for small game companies. By saying look "these succesful companies are already here" the likes of Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft(er..) feel more confident that this is a good place to base a games software company and who knows maybe more later on.
Thirdly, governments should not be expected to pick winning companies. Every bank manager, stock picker and venture capitalist picks a good proportion of loosers. Don't expect governments to be perfect especially when their investment criteria are different (see above).
Finally and to tie into this thread, The British film industry has improved dramatically since the Lottery fund began the subsidies about 8 years ago. It may never get up to the level of the fifties but that has much more to do with television, consolidation of the cinema (theatre)owners video rental etc. than with subsidies. Any film which can find capital from elsewhere definitely should not be subsidised by the government. The fact that major moviess like Bond use private money from America is a fact of capitalism. The business is seeking the cheapest capital which happens to be from America becasue America has a critical mass of investors who feel they understand film risk and markets well enough that they are prepared to invest large sums. Britain does not have such an investor pool but with the financial success of British films due in part to subsidies that may yet occur.
PS personally government subsidised films seem a lot less narrow in scope than Hllywood pulp.
My point exactly since technical drawings came along models of buildings went out of fashion for doing real work and ended up being used to show off an overall project (usually to get people to pay for it).
For centuries architects have been using 2d plans to understand copmlex 3d buildings. Kewlness aside, why do programmers always want to reverse this process?
What club has a decent sound system? There all PAs
First of all good on you I hope you do well. Secondly, I think it's important to have a clear objective for the course you are going to teach. I tought English as a foreign language in eastern Europe and like you was almost total freedom to teach what I wanted. I think that whatever advice you are given on /. you should pick a few very simple goals. If you try too hard to teach a bit of everything you will not convince yourself (and others) that you really made a difference. That would be very sad since whatever you do simply sharing your enthusiasm really does count.
I've been thinking for a while about quietening down my computer(s) while watching DVDs. My solution is to put it inside an old fridge. (No venitilation problems if it still works.) I'm still looking for an appropriate fridge (I think one of those ones they put coke in in shops with a glass front would be good.)
Lawyers are rather expensive and have no interest in keeping your business alive. From the sound of your orginal post this is a big hit to your own cash flow since these guys were a major if not primary source of revenue. Where I come from there is a saying "ye cannae take the breeks off a highlander" meaning if somone doesn't have any money it's not worth sueing them. Even if you sign this agreement (which is dubiously legal by my very limited understanding) I don't think you'll get a bean. Much more important is to think about your own business (and job) survival and finding a new revenue source is much more likely to help you there. Accountants are likely to come up with some simple matters of good business practice which will help you stay afloat. Also accounting firms actually deal with both sides of bankruptcy so they know a great deal of the small print that lawyers do. Good luck.