Oh geez, he's puking, and his hair is falling out... someone call an ambulance? Now?
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sure, a science -- but a dismal one.;-)
There's a lot more agreement among meterologists than economists. Meterologists and economists do share a problem of contradicting each other despite working from the same data, but that doesn't make either look more scientific. But among meterologists it's not like there are divergent philosophical camps that would like to see each other dead (at the moment I'm reading a Paul Krugman piece on Martin Feldstein and Social Security -- my idea of humor). And I can't see meterologists writing dueling op-ed columns any time soon. Most prominent economists tend to have prominent political affiliations as well, which illustrates that their beliefs are oftentimes as philosophical as mathematical.
I was giving an economist friend a hard time; someone commented how he'd been in a roomful of accountants, and they were so down-to-business -- why are economist so different. I said, because accountants are paid to the job done, economists are paid to have an opinion.:) And if your opinion isn't different from other economists, why the hell should they pay you?
It's funny you chose economics and meterology as examples -- perhaps you were already thinking of it, but a meterologist runs Lying In Ponds -- check it out. Maybe I should drop him an email asking whether metereologists go at it bare-knuckled.
Both fields do suffer from the same problem -- the difficulty of getting the right numbers, getting them accurate, and applying them correctly. Little initial goofs have a chaos theory kind of effect. I doubt either field can predict the next year, let along the next century, with much accuracy. (And if either can, let me know because I'll make a fortune off of it.)
*
Anyway... I gotta go to bed... there's an old crack that if it has "science" in the name, it ain't. (Economic science, computer science....) Works for me -- I was a biology and psychology major.
I do remember it was quite a slog to read, but LOTR wasn't light reading. I wonder how many people will or have read the books, and understand the difference? There was a very funny thread here about the number of people overheard in the theater who didn't know it was a trilogy and were pissed that the movie ended so abuptly; who were annoyed they'd "have to wait a year to find out what happens next"; or who didn't even know the movie was based on a book.
And before any wiseass corrects me, I do realize that LOTR is technically not a trilogy, that was just a marketing feint.
Re:Tsk-tsk
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's no fad, I've been involved in it for 30 years. We've made a hell of a lot of progress in that time. Not enough, but a lot more than industry said was possible without wrecking the economy. And more of us would be dying without it. It just took a look time for us to recognize things like the hazard of lead in gasoline or ozone in the atmosphere or arsenic in the water or.....
And we can always do better -- this is not the best-of-all-possible-worlds. The 'third world" (now usually calle developing nations) doesn't have to become a sewer. That's why people criticize sweatshops or worry about NAFTA side-agreements. We can export the "fad" if we choose to.
But maybe i don't understand your point.
This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This may be a devil's advocate troll, but what the heck:
Check out what the greens really believe in: http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Er, OK, don't vote for as party just by its name. Gotcha. Can I choose by color?
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
First of all that's utter nonsense; second, it is irrelevant unless you're saying the gov't should clean up its act along with everyone else. Remember, America consumes about 25% of the world's energy, any improvement will make a difference.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
No, many would trim the fat from the military or farm subsidies, for 2 of 1000 examples.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
That's wrong, people sue the gov't all the time. I don't know why so many people have this 12th century view of sovereign immunity. Before you argue with me that I don't know anything about suing the gov't, (1) I'm a lawyer, and (2) I used to work for a federal appeals courts, and wrote up dozen cases where the gov't was a defendant. Not just civil rights, either.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
We have that now. It's not enough. Unless if by "You pollute my drinking water, I sue you" you mean a strict approach of suing over any pollution -- now, that would cripple both the courts and industry. Good job.
Also, a wait-to-sue approach means we'd have to wait for the nuclear reactor down the street to melt down before we could regulate it. If we were still alive.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
How many jobs would exist if everyone died? Where would the tax money come from? Equally compelling and difficult to answer questions.
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction. If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Uh, proof? Your say-so? Besides, you just told us not to vote for a party by its name alone.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
Your insights are fascinating. And unsupported by any evidence.
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
You haven't even defined "market economics" -- an incredibly vague term -- and I doubt you could anyway. If you do so, please include whose analysis of market economics you adhere to and why. Also unequivocal proof that this analysis is correct and not susceptible to market failures without government regulation.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Tyranny and socialism? Well, I suppose we're halfway there. And the word is "rein."
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Economics is a dismal science. Even economists will tell you that. Despite all the mathematics there is still a fair amount of art involved, and if you really think economics is a monolithic institution, get two economists into a room and watch the fur fly. It's not pretty. Don't get be wrong, I have friends who are economists, and I like them. The good ones don't claim to be omniscient.
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
Hey, we finally agree on something. You to add, "Please disregard the preceding rant."
Beneath my insouciant abuse is a salient point: nothing is as simple as signing on with the right political club, green or libertarian. You must think for yourself, and if you're like most people you'll be hard pressed to find a party you agree with 100% of the time. Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up.
I could provide detailed rebuttals, but you haven't made any concrete statements of fact or opinion taht would support reasoned debate. That's not a put-down, it's a fact. And certainly you would agree we should decide things on the facts?
BTW, I'm not a socialist, though I probably appear one to you.
P.S. Offtopic and Troll police -- IMHO this has been a fairly mild-mannered effort to address the points raised in the parent's post. I really don't think i could be much more charitable, but hope this is informative. Or interesting. Or insightful.:)
Breathing air you don't have to see and cut and chew (I grew up in smoggy L.A.) is hardly a mystical issue!
And that's just the selfish dimension of environmentalism -- which I hope you share? (Hey, I dunno -- maybe you supply your own O2... or are AI.:)
I do know a lot of tech people who love to spend time outdoors. And in the Silicon Valley to S.F. area, and Seattle, too, there are plenty of level-headed "tree huggers."
Your 50% figure for the theater isn't quite right -- it's more like 20% in the early weeks when most people go to see it. The cut gradually rises to ~50% after 5-6 weeks, when the theatre is half-full or less.
From a friend who ran one, the theaters are totally dependant on popcorn and candy to turn a profit, hence the whacko prices. (Popcorn has an even bigger margin than soda.) Here's an overview.
My peeve is that box office totals are never adjusted for inflation, so the term "blockbuster" doesn't mean a whole lot in comparison to a film 20 years ago like Star Wars. On the other hand, the studios have grown much savvier about wringing every last penny out of a film, from product placements to marketing tie-ins to figurines.
I have no doubt LOTR will be a cash cow. It's like the next Star Wars, a tightly threaded trilogy. Or maybe more -- anyone else read the Silmarillion? (It has been 30 years since I did.) Can you say "prequel"?
...whether the software can be separated from the hardware depends on the licensing. On eBay you now have to get an old drive or motherboard in order to buy bundled stuff like DOS. Think of it as a crippled license.
However, if you destroy the old machine, you ought to be able to use the software elsewhere, on one machine. But who knows what wacky terms might be in your license?
As a practical matter you're not going to get caught. Just don't tell anyone....:) Er, seriously, I would never violate a MS license, nor counsel you to do so, so MS lurkers -- go sue someone else....
P.S. Don't forget to swing by the store to tell that Dell salesperson what he can do with your old CPU. Dude! Get a Dell! My ass.
This might be deemed illegal by those picky FCC folk, but how about deliberately broadcasting a misleading signal?
As for legality, well, if it's OK to leak the heterodyne frequency, can't I send out some others at the same level? Make them think I'm listening to 12 stations at once? If it's not legal, how about I just hook up add'l radios tuned to other stations, and without speakers?
Just a relatively aggressive and probably cheap DIY solution. And mischievous.:)
Note these errors were by different individuals, submitter (Sacromento) and editor (Sacramnto). It could be a regionalism.
I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation. Maybe they use cheap keyboards. And the headlines are written on CD-R's and typos can not be altered. Dyslexia maybe? Blurred vision? Don't rush to judgment.
I have to admit I my eye breezed right by both! I'm infected.
As someone put it recently, you can run Word just fine on a Macintosh SE. Miraculous, I survived college with just that, including by thesis work. (You can buy an SE for about $5, BTW.)
Maybe not the latest, most bloated Word, but I figured they'd lost their minds way back when they introduced voice annotations. Also, the screen is a little small...:)
Computers have gotten a lot nicer, and prices have dropped a lot, but there is a lot of exaggeration as to what people "need."
When you figure that the record company is saving distribution costs, and there isn't [sic] the bricks and mortar middleman to pay, a buck a song probably isn't too far wrong for a bulk rate.
I think you're almost right (you fool:), but think you can't extract a raw pro-rata price because the result will be that you save money and the label loses. There will have to be some premium to account for non-pro-rata overhead and transaction costs, plus the safety margin to pay for all the music doesn't sell (a premium you pay automatically when you buy an album with tracks you never listen to). This is the polar opposite of a "bulk rate." Even if the labels accepted such a low price, they'd have to compensate in some way, such as taking fewer risks on new music. So we might get Britney Spears, period.
Yet another problem with cheap online music (I keep thinking of more) is that it will undermine the brick retailers, driving at least some out of business. These retailers are important to the industry as a source of "push" to get music out for a variety of reasons, such as people's preference to physically flip through no-hassle physical media that they can use instantly, and those posters they put up etc. Not everyone knows exactly what they want going in.
BTW, the average U.S. CD price is $12-15 USD, about $30 in 1984 dollars (I looked this up recently). Come visit! (Hot new releases are around $20 now, and list prices are even higher... the average would apply to someone with broader tastes.) The Canadian dollar's not as weak as you suggest, is it? I thought it was at about 80%.
FYI, Half.com was a good experience for me, selling CD's.
No, guys, thesen things are too easily fixed. Think more like the motherboard equivalent of a thermonuclear weapon. A big static discharge might fit the bill.
...this is the only voice readers may hear to contradict the endless marketing hype by computer mfr who realized this a long time ago! This is a general audience pub., and they can repeat this message as often as they like.
To be honest, it only really occurred to me about a year ago, that there wasn't anything you might need for most folks that you could get for 1/2 price on eBay, and then I thought, gee, the industry is in trouble unless these things start breaking a lot. (Soon, we learn about the built-in SELF-DESTRUCT chip.)
...dictates great or popular music draws a higher price. It's not just an exercise by musicians, it is an expressive activity. Some music does better, other not (though someone still wants to buy it), and capitalism rewards that.
the full cost for producing and distributing a CD is less than $2
That's not a full picture, nor an accurate price -- they spend that much on the dosk and packaging alone, depending on the volume of the run. (The cost-per-disc people usually cite tends to be the price in a mega-run of a hit, not an average. As in many industries such as pharmaceuticals, the successes pay for the failures.) There are many other costs, including a significant retailer markup; there's no one making a $10 profit on each CD.
buy songs individually and for less than $1.00 each
I curious about the incredibly low price (IMHO) many expect for individual songs. I suggest the price for individual songs should be relatively high -- like singles at the record store -- and entire albums sold as a package discount. The singles price accounts for overhead and transaction costs, as well as the songs that didn't do so well but still cost money to produce.
If $1 is the most you think fair for that great song... well, haven't we all used a jukebox now and then? How much is it worth to us merely to hear a song with crummy fidelity JUST ONCE? There are other differences, but I'm suggesting a price scale. Parenthetically, that $1 price won't work with current payment schemes because a third would be eaten up just processing the payment. (That's a whole 'nother problem...)
Anyway, it is not ethical to try to extort better prices from the industry by telling them I'm going to go on breaking the law until you do what I say. It's not like they are putting an extortionate price on your daily bread. If you don't like the prices, give up the product. If it weren't for fricking piracy (and you need no quotes around "illegally"), which no I don't do, the industry wouldn't even bother with DRM; after all it costs money and good will.
True, as a marketing strategy, lowering prices will decrease piracy. But you can't spin that around to say that piracy is a vlid strategy for reducing prices. That's just rationalization for what you want to do anyway.
...I can already see the bumpersticker: "Windows 2006 is Macintosh 2001."
(2006 may be a little ambitious; it's a guess.)
Granted, they are catching up, my compliments. But what happened to all that innovation they keep promising? Push the envelope Bill, and I don't mean profit margins.
I don't know the origin, but I sure saw people trying it out and even yelled at one. A friend who was recently in Paris chewed out a bunch of American teenagers for being jerks at the Eiffel Tower (she'd never thought of herself as being the establishment). When I was last in Europe I just told everyone I was Canadian. Everyone seems to like them.
I could tell whether a French person liked me by what nationality they guessed I was. Canadian, they liked me. English or American, so-so. German, well, ah....
What does this have to do with our topic here? Well, please don't "ask" me naturally raises the question of language and communication, and I swear there's an implicit criticism of Windows in there, the SS of the computer world.
A student in my high school, maybe 16, went to Germany for several weeks as part of a student exchange (I later did the same). When he was telling an assembly about his experiences, he said an odd-looking man had once approach him and announced "Ich liebe dich!" (I love you.) He knew what this meant but said huh? and the guy repeated it. He said, "Sorry, I only speak English." The guy looked at him and said, "I love you!"
Yep, that's what I read years ago, usu. SNAFU with no periods. There are many similar military terms. You can buy slang dictionaries that make for interesting reading -- for example, the number of synonyms for female genitalia is frightening.
At least that is an error of the submitter, not someone paid to edit text (hereinafter "editor"). I don't think the editor is obligated to edit the submission, though it is nice for clarity. If we really want to nitpick, I used to do scads of copyediting and would propose, subject to writer approval:
Is Tripwire Still Relev[a]nt?
Security Posted by Cliff on Saturday November 23, @04:07AM from the insufficient-data dept. Deagol asks "I work for a [large] University. I've heard that Tripwire and our software licensing department [are] negotiating [] a site license. I was asked to comment on whether our department [should] buy in. I [] lost interest in Tripwire when they went commercial (I guess seeing a well-respected research tool go proprietary soured the milk for me), and though I've toyed briefly with the 'open source' version, I mainly have experience with the Academic Source Release. [Because] their demo is only a 'simulation' (how lame is that?), I can't get a feel for what the commercial version [would] do for me. Does anyone know the value (if any) of commercial Tripwire [versus] the free [version][, or whether] there open source packages that have made Tripwire obsolete?"
This provides a marginal improvement, though I think it is better prose. However, a misspelling in the headline that you refuse to correct -- the root of this loose thread -- makes you look foolish. (Even the NYT makes mistakes in big type, such as printing "priviledge" I once saw, but once the ink is dry and the paper is sold, what can they do?)
..the figure I've heard is $1.7 million USD per episode. Comparable to "Star Trek" I believe.
Paranormal shows are cheap -- but where are the merchandising possibilities??? Seriously, if they manage to make a good movie, and I think they can, the TV series will skyrocket in value. I don't see much potential in John Edward reruns. Or John Edward, who will be demanding more money for his act and leave SciFi.
But what do I know. I think you have to be a Conehead to be a network exec.
Oh, I know it. But like you said, the problems tend to be easier to fix, even blind over the phone. Installing OS X, for example, couldn't be much more mindless. And viruses are so much rarer.
I'm surprised you get so many calls, though. I'd like to see a scientific count. It could be you are better known among Mac people.
Slashdot Mirror
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
They do!?! Shit, let's cut the f*ckers down! Goddam commie trees!
Smokey the Bear says, "Only you can..."
... someone call an ambulance? Now?
Oh geez, he's puking, and his hair is falling out
Sure, a science -- but a dismal one. ;-)
:) And if your opinion isn't different from other economists, why the hell should they pay you?
... I gotta go to bed ... there's an old crack that if it has "science" in the name, it ain't. (Economic science, computer science....) Works for me -- I was a biology and psychology major.
There's a lot more agreement among meterologists than economists. Meterologists and economists do share a problem of contradicting each other despite working from the same data, but that doesn't make either look more scientific. But among meterologists it's not like there are divergent philosophical camps that would like to see each other dead (at the moment I'm reading a Paul Krugman piece on Martin Feldstein and Social Security -- my idea of humor). And I can't see meterologists writing dueling op-ed columns any time soon. Most prominent economists tend to have prominent political affiliations as well, which illustrates that their beliefs are oftentimes as philosophical as mathematical.
I was giving an economist friend a hard time; someone commented how he'd been in a roomful of accountants, and they were so down-to-business -- why are economist so different. I said, because accountants are paid to the job done, economists are paid to have an opinion.
It's funny you chose economics and meterology as examples -- perhaps you were already thinking of it, but a meterologist runs Lying In Ponds -- check it out. Maybe I should drop him an email asking whether metereologists go at it bare-knuckled.
Both fields do suffer from the same problem -- the difficulty of getting the right numbers, getting them accurate, and applying them correctly. Little initial goofs have a chaos theory kind of effect. I doubt either field can predict the next year, let along the next century, with much accuracy. (And if either can, let me know because I'll make a fortune off of it.)
*
Anyway
Well, OK, how about an animated version?
I do remember it was quite a slog to read, but LOTR wasn't light reading. I wonder how many people will or have read the books, and understand the difference? There was a very funny thread here about the number of people overheard in the theater who didn't know it was a trilogy and were pissed that the movie ended so abuptly; who were annoyed they'd "have to wait a year to find out what happens next"; or who didn't even know the movie was based on a book.
And before any wiseass corrects me, I do realize that LOTR is technically not a trilogy, that was just a marketing feint.
It's no fad, I've been involved in it for 30 years. We've made a hell of a lot of progress in that time. Not enough, but a lot more than industry said was possible without wrecking the economy. And more of us would be dying without it. It just took a look time for us to recognize things like the hazard of lead in gasoline or ozone in the atmosphere or arsenic in the water or.....
And we can always do better -- this is not the best-of-all-possible-worlds. The 'third world" (now usually calle developing nations) doesn't have to become a sewer. That's why people criticize sweatshops or worry about NAFTA side-agreements. We can export the "fad" if we choose to.
But maybe i don't understand your point.
This may be a devil's advocate troll, but what the heck:
:)
Check out what the greens really believe in: http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
Er, OK, don't vote for as party just by its name. Gotcha. Can I choose by color?
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
First of all that's utter nonsense; second, it is irrelevant unless you're saying the gov't should clean up its act along with everyone else. Remember, America consumes about 25% of the world's energy, any improvement will make a difference.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
No, many would trim the fat from the military or farm subsidies, for 2 of 1000 examples.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
That's wrong, people sue the gov't all the time. I don't know why so many people have this 12th century view of sovereign immunity. Before you argue with me that I don't know anything about suing the gov't, (1) I'm a lawyer, and (2) I used to work for a federal appeals courts, and wrote up dozen cases where the gov't was a defendant. Not just civil rights, either.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
We have that now. It's not enough. Unless if by "You pollute my drinking water, I sue you" you mean a strict approach of suing over any pollution -- now, that would cripple both the courts and industry. Good job.
Also, a wait-to-sue approach means we'd have to wait for the nuclear reactor down the street to melt down before we could regulate it. If we were still alive.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
How many jobs would exist if everyone died? Where would the tax money come from? Equally compelling and difficult to answer questions.
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction. If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Uh, proof? Your say-so? Besides, you just told us not to vote for a party by its name alone.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
Your insights are fascinating. And unsupported by any evidence.
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
You haven't even defined "market economics" -- an incredibly vague term -- and I doubt you could anyway. If you do so, please include whose analysis of market economics you adhere to and why. Also unequivocal proof that this analysis is correct and not susceptible to market failures without government regulation.
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Tyranny and socialism? Well, I suppose we're halfway there. And the word is "rein."
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Economics is a dismal science. Even economists will tell you that. Despite all the mathematics there is still a fair amount of art involved, and if you really think economics is a monolithic institution, get two economists into a room and watch the fur fly. It's not pretty. Don't get be wrong, I have friends who are economists, and I like them. The good ones don't claim to be omniscient.
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
Hey, we finally agree on something. You to add, "Please disregard the preceding rant."
Beneath my insouciant abuse is a salient point: nothing is as simple as signing on with the right political club, green or libertarian. You must think for yourself, and if you're like most people you'll be hard pressed to find a party you agree with 100% of the time. Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up.
I could provide detailed rebuttals, but you haven't made any concrete statements of fact or opinion taht would support reasoned debate. That's not a put-down, it's a fact. And certainly you would agree we should decide things on the facts?
BTW, I'm not a socialist, though I probably appear one to you.
P.S. Offtopic and Troll police -- IMHO this has been a fairly mild-mannered effort to address the points raised in the parent's post. I really don't think i could be much more charitable, but hope this is informative. Or interesting. Or insightful.
Breathing air you don't have to see and cut and chew (I grew up in smoggy L.A.) is hardly a mystical issue!
... or are AI. :)
And that's just the selfish dimension of environmentalism -- which I hope you share? (Hey, I dunno -- maybe you supply your own O2
I do know a lot of tech people who love to spend time outdoors. And in the Silicon Valley to S.F. area, and Seattle, too, there are plenty of level-headed "tree huggers."
Your 50% figure for the theater isn't quite right -- it's more like 20% in the early weeks when most people go to see it. The cut gradually rises to ~50% after 5-6 weeks, when the theatre is half-full or less.
From a friend who ran one, the theaters are totally dependant on popcorn and candy to turn a profit, hence the whacko prices. (Popcorn has an even bigger margin than soda.) Here's an overview.
My peeve is that box office totals are never adjusted for inflation, so the term "blockbuster" doesn't mean a whole lot in comparison to a film 20 years ago like Star Wars. On the other hand, the studios have grown much savvier about wringing every last penny out of a film, from product placements to marketing tie-ins to figurines.
I have no doubt LOTR will be a cash cow. It's like the next Star Wars, a tightly threaded trilogy. Or maybe more -- anyone else read the Silmarillion ? (It has been 30 years since I did.) Can you say "prequel"?
...whether the software can be separated from the hardware depends on the licensing. On eBay you now have to get an old drive or motherboard in order to buy bundled stuff like DOS. Think of it as a crippled license.
:) Er, seriously, I would never violate a MS license, nor counsel you to do so, so MS lurkers -- go sue someone else....
However, if you destroy the old machine, you ought to be able to use the software elsewhere, on one machine. But who knows what wacky terms might be in your license?
As a practical matter you're not going to get caught. Just don't tell anyone....
P.S. Don't forget to swing by the store to tell that Dell salesperson what he can do with your old CPU. Dude! Get a Dell! My ass.
This might be deemed illegal by those picky FCC folk, but how about deliberately broadcasting a misleading signal?
:)
As for legality, well, if it's OK to leak the heterodyne frequency, can't I send out some others at the same level? Make them think I'm listening to 12 stations at once? If it's not legal, how about I just hook up add'l radios tuned to other stations, and without speakers?
Just a relatively aggressive and probably cheap DIY solution. And mischievous.
Da man doesn't like criticism!
Note these errors were by different individuals, submitter (Sacromento) and editor (Sacramnto). It could be a regionalism.
I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation. Maybe they use cheap keyboards. And the headlines are written on CD-R's and typos can not be altered. Dyslexia maybe? Blurred vision? Don't rush to judgment.
I have to admit I my eye breezed right by both! I'm infected.
As someone put it recently, you can run Word just fine on a Macintosh SE. Miraculous, I survived college with just that, including by thesis work. (You can buy an SE for about $5, BTW.)
:)
Maybe not the latest, most bloated Word, but I figured they'd lost their minds way back when they introduced voice annotations. Also, the screen is a little small...
Computers have gotten a lot nicer, and prices have dropped a lot, but there is a lot of exaggeration as to what people "need."
When you figure that the record company is saving distribution costs, and there isn't [sic] the bricks and mortar middleman to pay, a buck a song probably isn't too far wrong for a bulk rate.
:), but think you can't extract a raw pro-rata price because the result will be that you save money and the label loses. There will have to be some premium to account for non-pro-rata overhead and transaction costs, plus the safety margin to pay for all the music doesn't sell (a premium you pay automatically when you buy an album with tracks you never listen to). This is the polar opposite of a "bulk rate." Even if the labels accepted such a low price, they'd have to compensate in some way, such as taking fewer risks on new music. So we might get Britney Spears, period.
... the average would apply to someone with broader tastes.) The Canadian dollar's not as weak as you suggest, is it? I thought it was at about 80%.
I think you're almost right (you fool
Yet another problem with cheap online music (I keep thinking of more) is that it will undermine the brick retailers, driving at least some out of business. These retailers are important to the industry as a source of "push" to get music out for a variety of reasons, such as people's preference to physically flip through no-hassle physical media that they can use instantly, and those posters they put up etc. Not everyone knows exactly what they want going in.
BTW, the average U.S. CD price is $12-15 USD, about $30 in 1984 dollars (I looked this up recently). Come visit! (Hot new releases are around $20 now, and list prices are even higher
FYI, Half.com was a good experience for me, selling CD's.
No, guys, thesen things are too easily fixed. Think more like the motherboard equivalent of a thermonuclear weapon. A big static discharge might fit the bill.
I hope I'm not giving "them" ideas....
...this is the only voice readers may hear to contradict the endless marketing hype by computer mfr who realized this a long time ago! This is a general audience pub., and they can repeat this message as often as they like.
To be honest, it only really occurred to me about a year ago, that there wasn't anything you might need for most folks that you could get for 1/2 price on eBay, and then I thought, gee, the industry is in trouble unless these things start breaking a lot. (Soon, we learn about the built-in SELF-DESTRUCT chip.)
...dictates great or popular music draws a higher price. It's not just an exercise by musicians, it is an expressive activity. Some music does better, other not (though someone still wants to buy it), and capitalism rewards that.
the full cost for producing and distributing a CD is less than $2
That's not a full picture, nor an accurate price -- they spend that much on the dosk and packaging alone, depending on the volume of the run. (The cost-per-disc people usually cite tends to be the price in a mega-run of a hit, not an average. As in many industries such as pharmaceuticals, the successes pay for the failures.) There are many other costs, including a significant retailer markup; there's no one making a $10 profit on each CD.
buy songs individually and for less than $1.00 each
... well, haven't we all used a jukebox now and then? How much is it worth to us merely to hear a song with crummy fidelity JUST ONCE? There are other differences, but I'm suggesting a price scale. Parenthetically, that $1 price won't work with current payment schemes because a third would be eaten up just processing the payment. (That's a whole 'nother problem...)
I curious about the incredibly low price (IMHO) many expect for individual songs. I suggest the price for individual songs should be relatively high -- like singles at the record store -- and entire albums sold as a package discount. The singles price accounts for overhead and transaction costs, as well as the songs that didn't do so well but still cost money to produce.
If $1 is the most you think fair for that great song
Anyway, it is not ethical to try to extort better prices from the industry by telling them I'm going to go on breaking the law until you do what I say. It's not like they are putting an extortionate price on your daily bread. If you don't like the prices, give up the product. If it weren't for fricking piracy (and you need no quotes around "illegally"), which no I don't do, the industry wouldn't even bother with DRM; after all it costs money and good will.
True, as a marketing strategy, lowering prices will decrease piracy. But you can't spin that around to say that piracy is a vlid strategy for reducing prices. That's just rationalization for what you want to do anyway.
...I can already see the bumpersticker: "Windows 2006 is Macintosh 2001."
(2006 may be a little ambitious; it's a guess.)
Granted, they are catching up, my compliments. But what happened to all that innovation they keep promising? Push the envelope Bill, and I don't mean profit margins.
I don't know the origin, but I sure saw people trying it out and even yelled at one. A friend who was recently in Paris chewed out a bunch of American teenagers for being jerks at the Eiffel Tower (she'd never thought of herself as being the establishment). When I was last in Europe I just told everyone I was Canadian. Everyone seems to like them.
I could tell whether a French person liked me by what nationality they guessed I was. Canadian, they liked me. English or American, so-so. German, well, ah....
What does this have to do with our topic here? Well, please don't "ask" me naturally raises the question of language and communication, and I swear there's an implicit criticism of Windows in there, the SS of the computer world.
Thank you Mr. Ambassador. :)
A student in my high school, maybe 16, went to Germany for several weeks as part of a student exchange (I later did the same). When he was telling an assembly about his experiences, he said an odd-looking man had once approach him and announced "Ich liebe dich!" (I love you.) He knew what this meant but said huh? and the guy repeated it. He said, "Sorry, I only speak English." The guy looked at him and said, "I love you!"
Proving that love is the international language.
Yep, that's what I read years ago, usu. SNAFU with no periods. There are many similar military terms. You can buy slang dictionaries that make for interesting reading -- for example, the number of synonyms for female genitalia is frightening.
here's one that looks so-so
This provides a marginal improvement, though I think it is better prose. However, a misspelling in the headline that you refuse to correct -- the root of this loose thread -- makes you look foolish. (Even the NYT makes mistakes in big type, such as printing "priviledge" I once saw, but once the ink is dry and the paper is sold, what can they do?)
..the figure I've heard is $1.7 million USD per episode. Comparable to "Star Trek" I believe.
Paranormal shows are cheap -- but where are the merchandising possibilities??? Seriously, if they manage to make a good movie, and I think they can, the TV series will skyrocket in value. I don't see much potential in John Edward reruns. Or John Edward, who will be demanding more money for his act and leave SciFi.
But what do I know. I think you have to be a Conehead to be a network exec.
Geez, I hope our (U.S.?) military isn't coming here to ask for help. What's next -- how to calibrate those frisky antiaircraft missiles?
Oh, I know it. But like you said, the problems tend to be easier to fix, even blind over the phone. Installing OS X, for example, couldn't be much more mindless. And viruses are so much rarer.
I'm surprised you get so many calls, though. I'd like to see a scientific count. It could be you are better known among Mac people.