We increase the level of oxygen in the air which in turns increases the growth rate of plants which in turns creates an accelerated decrease in the amount of oxygen. This is explained by the formula(via. the steady state) (C02)1/(plants)1 * (constant/variable)=(CO2)2/(plants)2 * (constant/variable).
If the constants/variables are equal, they cancel out. If some point it changes, they have to be maintained.
Nature will eventually work itslef out and man will slowly become less polutant by nature(government regulations mostly)
----
If it isn't atleast party self explanatory then it is not a good product. It's like those games that use stupid icons with no words to go with them, how in the world am I suppose to know what that button does, does it allow me to save, load, nuke my computer, crash windows, etc. Self documentation is the best solution. Some documentation is helpful when some item is a new and unfamiliar concept but generally, is unneeded if it is a good product and wrote to be self explanatory. If this is not the case then the end-user is going to be frustrated and probably put a whole through their monitor anyway before reading documentation(most people don't read documentation) and then switch to another program. ----
Re:B&N/Borders vs. Mom & Pop?
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 1
Depends on the licensing. If they only make money on the machine, they are going to keep the prices reasonably high enough that businesses can still afford them but they still make a hell of a profit. If they make a fraction of the money on each book printed on their machine, they are going to keep prices low so everybody can buy one so more books get printed and they make more money in the long-run. Also, if they decide to do the first, they may actually keep prices low in order to stimulate growth in the business so that the long-run profit maximizing price is actually lower(with a higher amount of profits) than they can currently sale it for. Xerox already has a developed business and doesn't need to do this because every one who really needs or wants one already has one... Knight blocks Bishop in check of King. ----
Re:B&N/Borders vs. Mom & Pop?
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 1
Did I not say luxury items(such as antiques) or I am talking to myself. Also, have you ever heard of inflation(you know, where the prices for the same goods and services go up.) Xerox has a limited number of consumer base(schools, businesses, etc.) and really has no competion has no competition so it can afford to keep the prices high. Also, the Xerox machine in 2001 is much cheaper then 1985 due to inflation. Assuming 3% inflation, that $15,000 machine in 1985 would theoretically cost $24,070.60 with inflation at todays prices but it only costs $15,000, $9,070.60 cheaper then the 1985 version or 37.7% less, even though it has the same price tage on it. ----
This is different. CD-Rs don't last as long as pressed CDs nor do they have as pretty labels(although you could probably get a label printer) and their is no one centralized point to make sure that the companies that who own the data on the CDs get the money that is coming to them. Books, on the other hand, can be more easily forced by law and regulation to comply and to give money where do(although pirating will still happen.) This might become a major problem in third world countries such as India where the laws are different and people could easily manufacture a few million of these books and not pay the publishers a cent. The book printing on demand is a cool idea but still is slower then prepressed books and would not be very useful for popular books. I doubt these machines will become wide-spread for quite some time but we'll wait and see. ----
Re:B&N/Borders vs. Mom & Pop?
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 1
$30,000 dollars today is $5,500 in 4 years. Just wait and Mom & Pop will be able to afford this, someday. ----
The bill of rights were designed to protect the people against the federal government and institutions that maybe seperate from it. Although their is a fine line between the two, Microsoft still can't stop a peaceful assembly protesting against Microsoft. The constitution was designed to protect against the government but is not limited to the government. When businesses step over the thin line and their acts violate that then it is unconstitutional. Violating peoples rights are against the constitution, via. the "un" part. If businesses did not have to abide by the constitution atleast in part, they could do anything they wanted to such as install hidden cameras in toilets. ----
With the previous link in mind, the license itself is not illegal. Microsoft can never force people to give up their freedom of privacy but in order to get XP working, you have to give up your freedom of privacy which is protected(as decided by the Supreme court) by the Bill of Rights, which if a company is big enough to highly encourage this type of behavior, this becomes a federal problem, one that their really isn't a set law against. On another part of a different argument, section 2 of the sherman act:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
In loose terms, this could be considered an attempt to monopolize the market because they know 95% of all PC users are going to use it and a small percentage of them are going to be pirated(I own like >6 licenses of windows whatever version and I wanted 0 of them) and this reenforces this claim, making more companies bow down to the Gods at Microsoft and encouraging their claim to a monopoly. This is just one of a series of attempts to do this and is illegal within itself. ----
You can get it up on 48 mb of ram but can you still be productive and still do all the things that need to be done like MS-Word, apache, a little ftp server, etc. I've managed to get it down to 30 MB, removing all the services I don't really need but that's still a lot of memory(not really since pricewatch has generic 128 mb of memory(SDRAM 133) at $10 plus $11+ shipping. ----
You're not wrong. People are still entitled to follow the license even if they don't read it. Unfortunately, this is not the issue at hand. The problem is, can a company legally force you to register every single copy of its products and then reregister every single time the machine is changed. If I bought a car, I would be forced to register by law. No biggie their. The problem comes when I decide to add some new speakers. Under Microsoft's proposal, I would have to reregister my car even though the speakers have nothing to do with the original product I bought. This kills privacy and privacy is protected by the constitution. This is unconstitutional and that is the issue, not the license. The license can say anything as long as it doesn't violate upper law. This does. ----
Anybody who is that big of a monopoly and is capable of destroying freedom of privacy should be seperated. Plain and Simple. No matter how much you love or hate Microsoft, this is unacceptable and I would go so far to say it is an act of tyranny. We must not allow this to happen or, if it does happen, overcome this. ----
No it is not. It only works if they allow real competiton. Not fake competition where you tell your partners to "compete" with you. Big difference. ----
Maybe. Likely, no. As the article states, they are already partners. So, instead of having one big giant monopoly, AOL time warner, we have an Ogliopoly which is probably worse then the first. Which would you rather have, one giant company who controls the oil supply, a bunch of smaller companies who react to each others decisions but in cooperation, or millions of tiny companies who are competing for survival. We might have the second but we need to move slightly toward the third but not so much that nobody makes any money. ----
How are patents un-maerican? I would like to own a few myself. They give reasons for people to innovate. If you invent something and can't claim it as your own, what is to stop someone else from making money off your idea(in the short run.) In the long run, idea should be open(and they are) for the rest of the world but atleast let them make some money off of it before the rest of the world does. ----
In theory, we could. Unfortunately, we would have to find away to get the electrons from sugars and other molecules that exist in the body at a high enough voltage and amphere to be able to power the heart. Years of technology in bio-mechanics ahead of us for us to be able to do that. Maybe when I'm 50? ----
No, minorities and those who do not agree with the masses and really don't want to be shot want anonymous forums. Nazis, KKK, White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, Atheist, etc. want anonymous forums because if they don't, people can track them down and literally kill them because they don't have the same opionion as the rest of the world. Versatility keeps the world going and when you stop that, everybody will be the same and we will plummit back into the dark ages.
The government can only protect the minorities from the masses so much. ----
What is the current exchange rate of Euros to dollars so I can put it in a prospective I can relate to. If I had the money I would pay it. The project is opensource software and should not be sued for using a common word in their product. If I had a company called something like BS-Word I would get the bejeezes sued out of me because Word is trademarked by MS but is a common English term and could actually represent a non-related product such as a word synthesizer. ----
It is harassment in a way. If they are specifically aiming the camera at you and just following you around, it is not true harassment. None the less, the people have the right to privacy. The question on my mind is, is it constitutional to just leave freedom of privacy within our own homes(except with court orders) or should it also include public streets owned by the government. I think we should include privacy for the public streets because they are maintained by the government and they should know as little as possible about our personal lives. Since we our innocent until proven guilty, they shouldn't just put cameras on the street, wait for us to commit a crime and give them the evidence to prove we are guilty. On the other side, cameras in private stores and government businesses should have cameras "only in locations necessary" to discourage and stop crime. ----
If you're on a public street, the police and anybody who wants to can take your picture unless they go too far like start following you around and then it becomes harassment. Anyway, this is constitutional but their should be some law against it for government use. ----
Slashdot Mirror
We increase the level of oxygen in the air which in turns increases the growth rate of plants which in turns creates an accelerated decrease in the amount of oxygen. This is explained by the formula(via. the steady state) (C02)1/(plants)1 * (constant/variable)=(CO2)2/(plants)2 * (constant/variable).
If the constants/variables are equal, they cancel out. If some point it changes, they have to be maintained.
Nature will eventually work itslef out and man will slowly become less polutant by nature(government regulations mostly)
----
If it isn't atleast party self explanatory then it is not a good product. It's like those games that use stupid icons with no words to go with them, how in the world am I suppose to know what that button does, does it allow me to save, load, nuke my computer, crash windows, etc. Self documentation is the best solution. Some documentation is helpful when some item is a new and unfamiliar concept but generally, is unneeded if it is a good product and wrote to be self explanatory. If this is not the case then the end-user is going to be frustrated and probably put a whole through their monitor anyway before reading documentation(most people don't read documentation) and then switch to another program.
----
Depends on the licensing. If they only make money on the machine, they are going to keep the prices reasonably high enough that businesses can still afford them but they still make a hell of a profit. If they make a fraction of the money on each book printed on their machine, they are going to keep prices low so everybody can buy one so more books get printed and they make more money in the long-run. Also, if they decide to do the first, they may actually keep prices low in order to stimulate growth in the business so that the long-run profit maximizing price is actually lower(with a higher amount of profits) than they can currently sale it for. Xerox already has a developed business and doesn't need to do this because every one who really needs or wants one already has one... Knight blocks Bishop in check of King.
----
Did I not say luxury items(such as antiques) or I am talking to myself. Also, have you ever heard of inflation(you know, where the prices for the same goods and services go up.) Xerox has a limited number of consumer base(schools, businesses, etc.) and really has no competion has no competition so it can afford to keep the prices high. Also, the Xerox machine in 2001 is much cheaper then 1985 due to inflation. Assuming 3% inflation, that $15,000 machine in 1985 would theoretically cost $24,070.60 with inflation at todays prices but it only costs $15,000, $9,070.60 cheaper then the 1985 version or 37.7% less, even though it has the same price tage on it.
----
This is different. CD-Rs don't last as long as pressed CDs nor do they have as pretty labels(although you could probably get a label printer) and their is no one centralized point to make sure that the companies that who own the data on the CDs get the money that is coming to them. Books, on the other hand, can be more easily forced by law and regulation to comply and to give money where do(although pirating will still happen.) This might become a major problem in third world countries such as India where the laws are different and people could easily manufacture a few million of these books and not pay the publishers a cent. The book printing on demand is a cool idea but still is slower then prepressed books and would not be very useful for popular books. I doubt these machines will become wide-spread for quite some time but we'll wait and see.
----
$30,000 dollars today is $5,500 in 4 years. Just wait and Mom & Pop will be able to afford this, someday.
----
The bill of rights were designed to protect the people against the federal government and institutions that maybe seperate from it. Although their is a fine line between the two, Microsoft still can't stop a peaceful assembly protesting against Microsoft. The constitution was designed to protect against the government but is not limited to the government. When businesses step over the thin line and their acts violate that then it is unconstitutional. Violating peoples rights are against the constitution, via. the "un" part. If businesses did not have to abide by the constitution atleast in part, they could do anything they wanted to such as install hidden cameras in toilets.
----
Link to the Sherman Act
With the previous link in mind, the license itself is not illegal. Microsoft can never force people to give up their freedom of privacy but in order to get XP working, you have to give up your freedom of privacy which is protected(as decided by the Supreme court) by the Bill of Rights, which if a company is big enough to highly encourage this type of behavior, this becomes a federal problem, one that their really isn't a set law against. On another part of a different argument, section 2 of the sherman act:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
In loose terms, this could be considered an attempt to monopolize the market because they know 95% of all PC users are going to use it and a small percentage of them are going to be pirated(I own like >6 licenses of windows whatever version and I wanted 0 of them) and this reenforces this claim, making more companies bow down to the Gods at Microsoft and encouraging their claim to a monopoly. This is just one of a series of attempts to do this and is illegal within itself.
----
You can get it up on 48 mb of ram but can you still be productive and still do all the things that need to be done like MS-Word, apache, a little ftp server, etc. I've managed to get it down to 30 MB, removing all the services I don't really need but that's still a lot of memory(not really since pricewatch has generic 128 mb of memory(SDRAM 133) at $10 plus $11+ shipping.
----
You're not wrong. People are still entitled to follow the license even if they don't read it. Unfortunately, this is not the issue at hand. The problem is, can a company legally force you to register every single copy of its products and then reregister every single time the machine is changed. If I bought a car, I would be forced to register by law. No biggie their. The problem comes when I decide to add some new speakers. Under Microsoft's proposal, I would have to reregister my car even though the speakers have nothing to do with the original product I bought. This kills privacy and privacy is protected by the constitution. This is unconstitutional and that is the issue, not the license. The license can say anything as long as it doesn't violate upper law. This does.
----
Boycott Microsoft.
Anybody who is that big of a monopoly and is capable of destroying freedom of privacy should be seperated. Plain and Simple. No matter how much you love or hate Microsoft, this is unacceptable and I would go so far to say it is an act of tyranny. We must not allow this to happen or, if it does happen, overcome this.
----
No it is not. It only works if they allow real competiton. Not fake competition where you tell your partners to "compete" with you. Big difference.
----
Maybe. Likely, no. As the article states, they are already partners. So, instead of having one big giant monopoly, AOL time warner, we have an Ogliopoly which is probably worse then the first. Which would you rather have, one giant company who controls the oil supply, a bunch of smaller companies who react to each others decisions but in cooperation, or millions of tiny companies who are competing for survival. We might have the second but we need to move slightly toward the third but not so much that nobody makes any money.
----
You hate me
Let's hang barney from a tree
and after that's done,
we'll shoot him in the head
thank god, barney is dead.
----
How are patents un-maerican? I would like to own a few myself. They give reasons for people to innovate. If you invent something and can't claim it as your own, what is to stop someone else from making money off your idea(in the short run.) In the long run, idea should be open(and they are) for the rest of the world but atleast let them make some money off of it before the rest of the world does.
----
you know your sig should do an href= link like Bernz's TECH or something like that.
On a side note, I like freedom of speech too and a little nookie here and there never hurt anybody.
----
In theory, we could. Unfortunately, we would have to find away to get the electrons from sugars and other molecules that exist in the body at a high enough voltage and amphere to be able to power the heart. Years of technology in bio-mechanics ahead of us for us to be able to do that. Maybe when I'm 50?
----
404 file not found
file not found 404
not found 404 file
found 404 file not
And so SpanishInquisition flies in the wind of torture and genocide.
Can you say:
The requested URL (A) is not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org
----
So we are dealing with a little over $2100. I know people who make that in a day(not that I'm one of them, grumble grumble grumble)
----
They'll just put up a spam filter and ignore us.
----
No, minorities and those who do not agree with the masses and really don't want to be shot want anonymous forums. Nazis, KKK, White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, Atheist, etc. want anonymous forums because if they don't, people can track them down and literally kill them because they don't have the same opionion as the rest of the world. Versatility keeps the world going and when you stop that, everybody will be the same and we will plummit back into the dark ages.
The government can only protect the minorities from the masses so much.
----
What is the current exchange rate of Euros to dollars so I can put it in a prospective I can relate to. If I had the money I would pay it. The project is opensource software and should not be sued for using a common word in their product. If I had a company called something like BS-Word I would get the bejeezes sued out of me because Word is trademarked by MS but is a common English term and could actually represent a non-related product such as a word synthesizer.
----
It is harassment in a way. If they are specifically aiming the camera at you and just following you around, it is not true harassment. None the less, the people have the right to privacy. The question on my mind is, is it constitutional to just leave freedom of privacy within our own homes(except with court orders) or should it also include public streets owned by the government. I think we should include privacy for the public streets because they are maintained by the government and they should know as little as possible about our personal lives. Since we our innocent until proven guilty, they shouldn't just put cameras on the street, wait for us to commit a crime and give them the evidence to prove we are guilty. On the other side, cameras in private stores and government businesses should have cameras "only in locations necessary" to discourage and stop crime.
----
I couldn't agree with that more.
----
If you're on a public street, the police and anybody who wants to can take your picture unless they go too far like start following you around and then it becomes harassment. Anyway, this is constitutional but their should be some law against it for government use.
----