I agree with wholeheartedly with everything you said. And that is why I used the word try in my comment. I didn't say they "must" make a profit. I said they must "try" to make a profit.
The board is required by law to act in the best interests of the shareholders. That means that they must try to make a profit.
Now whether a specific company should close their doors is always a difficult to question, but if it is a reasonable alternative the board is required to consider it.
And it has been updated regularly and is installed on all new iMacs.
And when will this rumour die -- Microsoft's money was for nonvoting shares, was a trivial amount of Apple's net worth, and was primarily part of a deal to settle patent infringement suits.
Many people don't realize that best seller lists are restricted. For example, the NY Times best seller list automatically excludes all religous books. I learned this several years ago when some scandal book made the list and editorialists were bemoaning the sad state of America. It turns out that the pope had just published a book that was far outselling the scandal book. But because it was a religous text, it was excluded.
Similarly it has been reported that some children's best seller lists are reworking their rules to exclude Harry Potter books. The Potter books were pushing other books off the children's lists, to appease the book sellers the rules are being changed.
I disagree that copyright tries to accomplish two things. It only does one - control distribution. It has nothing to do with maintaining authenticity. For example, I can quote you out of context all day long (i.e., misrepresent your ideas) and you cannot sue me for copyright violation. At best, you could sue me for libel. However, if I exceed reasonable fair use quotations, you can sue me for copyright violation and force me to stop distributing my product.
Actually no. You can easily fly above small arms fire (a rifle bullet doesn't fly very far straight up). Even if a few bullets hit it, you have a few small holes in the gas bag. Some helium gas leakage is expected, so its not an issue. Blimps are not hot like jet aircraft, so typical handheld anti-aircraft weapons, such as Stinger missiles, which use IR guidance are useless. Most narcs and terrorists don't have sophisticated long-range anti-air missiles. Even then, the radar signature of a plastic bag is pretty small, so its hard to hit.
Weather restrictions are a much bigger problem. You can't take off or land in even modest winds.
This is not a new idea. In fact, tethered blimps (aka aerostats) with radars and other equipment are used throughout the world. The U.S. has several based along the southern border for drug intrediction. fas.org has more info.
Before it is said too many times, the Hindenburg did not explode because of hydrogen. The doping material used to seal the canvas had a chemical composition close to rocket fuel. Doesn't anyone watch Nova?
I think you're being a little hard on them. Nowhere does the article imply that they used security through obscurity. Any security system is only as good as the amount of money thrown at it. In this regard, it should be remembered that we're not talking about the world's richest country. I'm sure Chile has lots of money to throw at a traffic center that is nuclear-bomb proof, guarded by 3000 commandos, surrounded by motion and heat sensors, and triple-redundent communication links to the individual traffic lights.
Since the judge said video games were closer to sports than free speech, this raises an interesting question-- what if a town banned baseball within the city limits? While I don't think a town should be allowed to do this, I don't think its a violation of free speech. What consitutional agrument would you use?
I'll remember Canada's great free speech protections the next time I read something like this on the EFF:
The ACLU's fears about the censorious effects of the
MacKinnon/Dworkin law have been borne out in Canada, where the Canadian
Supreme Court incorporated that law's definition of pornography into a
1992 obscenity ruling. Since then, more than half of all feminist
bookstores in Canada have had materials confiscated or the sales of some
materials suspended by the government. The most susceptible to repression
have been stores that specialize in lesbian and gay writings.
Not to be snide, but while the U.S. isn't perfect, you'll be hard press to find anywhere on the world with greater free speech protections.
The Supreme Court did not rule that since its virtual its ok. They ruled that the definition of child pornography, as defined in the statute was too broad. For example, they were concerned that your typical Hollywood summer teen flick arguably fell under the statute's definition -- adults with make-up so that they appear to be younger than 18, pretending to have sex -- in other words virtual sex with minors. The Supreme Court ruled First Amendment protections for these types of films were important and that the statute was too vague.
something you *haven't* signed can't restrict your rights in any way...
Based on this argument, I can go to the local bookstore, buy the latest best-seller, and make all the copies I want. I didn't sign anything, so I can't be bound to it. Obviously this is illegal (except in some parts of Asia).
This first thing you have to do with an argument is transfer it to similar cases to see if it makes sense. Clearly this one doesn't. There are many cases where you don't sign a thing, but you're still bound by the law.
For example, someone serves me with a supeona. You don't sign for those. In many locals verbal contracts are binding. The examples go on and on...
If the patent office can't understand something, it should deny the patent.
So if they're a bunch of idiots, inventors should pay the price.
If the patent office doesn't have the resources to properly investigate the patent, it should deny it.
If they're underfunded, inventors should pay the price.
If a single company submits too many patents, they should be denied.
If they're inventive, they should be penalized. Think about Edison, under your rules he would be denied
While I agree the Patent Office needs to be reformed. Your suggestion doesn't fix any of the problems, and only penalizes inventors. How about some useful suggestions like more funding to hire more examiners. Or did you know that examiners have to fill quotas -- that is process X number of applications per week. How about getting rid of the quotas or reducing them.
I live in D.C. and actually know some patent examiners. They are not the complete idiots that./'ers think they are. Many of them have Ph.D.'s in the field that they examine -- e.g., a Ph.D. in biochemistry looks at biochemistry patents. At the same time, they have to live within the beauracracy, and it's inane rules.
I agree faceplates tend to be cheap, and oriented to the fashion conscience. However, they have uses.
My sister-in-law carries her cellphone in her purse (a lot of dresses just don't have pockets). When it rang, she had a hard time finding it. Flip-o change-o to a bright colored faceplate and the problem was solved.
The real issue with faceplates is when they're cheap pieces of plastic, as opposed to those made for cellphones which tend to be more rugged.
Sometimes these countries have legitimate concerns.
For example, the media played up the "Balloon Spy" thing, but the Chinese had other concerns. Specifically, their air traffic control system is extremely limited. Large areas of China are not covered by radar. To prevent accidents, they carefully schedule flights. The Chinese were concerned that allowing an uncontrolled balloon to fly through their air routes was too dangerous.
For the Russians, I could guess that they don't want to have the responsiblity for rescuing these guys if something goes wrong. Sure its easy to say it's the driver's neck, and that they could sign some release. But who wants the bad PR. I can see it now, weeping relatives on CNN begging the Russians for assistance. The Russians holding up a signed release. Guess who wins.
From a beaurcrat's point of view, these decisions are easy -- piss off a handful of people or risk world condemnation.
I'm reminded of a story involving one of the SkyLab astronauts. He had been on one of the long duration missions spending a few months in space.
Arriving back at the Cape, he was standing in the hallway, drinking coffee, and talking to one of the other astronauts. In mid-sentence, he put his coffee cup out in the middle of air and let go.
As he cleaned up the mess on the floor, he mentioned that he still wasn't used to gravity.
I don't know if this story is true, but I love it.
30 years ago my father owned an applicance store, back when microwave ovens were becoming popular. GE told the store owners about some neat tricks to impress the customers.
Nothing draws them in like putting light bulbs in the microwave and letting the magic turn them on.
Not too long after they told us how to do the tricks, GE yelled STOP. It's scaring the bejebbus out of the public. We're getting frantic calls about the death rays.
I agree that Raskin makes some incorrect assumptions. But, I think you miss his point with your car example. I don't think he would say that car windows all have to be in the same position, but he would argue that the windows controls should be in the same location and work the same in all models.
Similarly, he would not argue that radio listen to only one radio station, but that all cars have the radio controls in the same location, and that they operate in the same way.
To be honest, I see his point. I travel alot as part of my job. Hence, I use a lot of rental cars. It can be a bitch arriving at night, trying to operate an unfamiliar car. Where's the dimmer switch. Damn, not this stack, that's the windshield washer. Let me feel around for the overhead light switch so I can read the map. Is the overhead light in the front, the middle, somewhere else. Etc. Etc.
Do I want all cars to be identical. No. But do I wish that manufactutors could agree on some standards. Yes.
How I miss the days of my youth where the light dimmer was a floor switch under the emergency brake. A lousy location, but I always knew where it was.
then what death toll would be needed to justify these measures?
Alot higher than 5. The Post Office is doing this for PR. The flu kills thousands of people every year. Is there a law requiring people to stay home from work when they're sick so they don't infect more people. How about mandatory flu shots? Tens of thousands die every year from car accidents, a large fraction due to driver error. Is there a mandatory program of driver training?
I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine.
Gosh, if they allowed this, do you think terrorists might write it on their next anthrax-laden package?
Since you work in an ad agency, maybe you can answer this question. Ad agencies seem to be disappointed that few people click on banner ads. My reaction is surprise, surprise. Many people can read an entire magazine or newspaper and not remember any of the ads that arein it. So why is it surprising that no one reacts to banner ads? Similarly, what proof is there that anyone actually read print advertisement. By proof for prints I mean random advertisements. I know that I only read ads -- either in print or on the web -- when I am in the market for something specific. In which case I actually search for ads on specific items/stores.
You're missing the point -- you need a wiretap to listen to the phone conversations, whereas you need a search warrent to read a diary. The FBI was NOT arguing that it was less of an invasion of privacy, they were arguing that a particular law was not applicable.
I'm reminded of a court case a few years ago. A man was videotaping his sexual escapades without the knowledge of the women involved. To their embarassment, he showed the tapes to his friends. There wasn't a law that specifically addressed his actions. So he was prosecuted for illegal wiretapping, AFTER the courts ruled that sexual intercourse is a form of communication.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to believe his aim of making a manly computer when he has a matching potpourri candle next to the computer.
I agree with wholeheartedly with everything you said. And that is why I used the word try in my comment. I didn't say they "must" make a profit. I said they must "try" to make a profit.
Now whether a specific company should close their doors is always a difficult to question, but if it is a reasonable alternative the board is required to consider it.
And when will this rumour die -- Microsoft's money was for nonvoting shares, was a trivial amount of Apple's net worth, and was primarily part of a deal to settle patent infringement suits.
Similarly it has been reported that some children's best seller lists are reworking their rules to exclude Harry Potter books. The Potter books were pushing other books off the children's lists, to appease the book sellers the rules are being changed.
I disagree that copyright tries to accomplish two things. It only does one - control distribution. It has nothing to do with maintaining authenticity. For example, I can quote you out of context all day long (i.e., misrepresent your ideas) and you cannot sue me for copyright violation. At best, you could sue me for libel. However, if I exceed reasonable fair use quotations, you can sue me for copyright violation and force me to stop distributing my product.
Weather restrictions are a much bigger problem. You can't take off or land in even modest winds.
Before it is said too many times, the Hindenburg did not explode because of hydrogen. The doping material used to seal the canvas had a chemical composition close to rocket fuel. Doesn't anyone watch Nova?
I think you're being a little hard on them. Nowhere does the article imply that they used security through obscurity. Any security system is only as good as the amount of money thrown at it. In this regard, it should be remembered that we're not talking about the world's richest country. I'm sure Chile has lots of money to throw at a traffic center that is nuclear-bomb proof, guarded by 3000 commandos, surrounded by motion and heat sensors, and triple-redundent communication links to the individual traffic lights.
Since the judge said video games were closer to sports than free speech, this raises an interesting question-- what if a town banned baseball within the city limits? While I don't think a town should be allowed to do this, I don't think its a violation of free speech. What consitutional agrument would you use?
The Supreme Court did not rule that since its virtual its ok. They ruled that the definition of child pornography, as defined in the statute was too broad. For example, they were concerned that your typical Hollywood summer teen flick arguably fell under the statute's definition -- adults with make-up so that they appear to be younger than 18, pretending to have sex -- in other words virtual sex with minors. The Supreme Court ruled First Amendment protections for these types of films were important and that the statute was too vague.
Based on this argument, I can go to the local bookstore, buy the latest best-seller, and make all the copies I want. I didn't sign anything, so I can't be bound to it. Obviously this is illegal (except in some parts of Asia).
This first thing you have to do with an argument is transfer it to similar cases to see if it makes sense. Clearly this one doesn't. There are many cases where you don't sign a thing, but you're still bound by the law.
For example, someone serves me with a supeona. You don't sign for those. In many locals verbal contracts are binding. The examples go on and on...
While I agree the Patent Office needs to be reformed. Your suggestion doesn't fix any of the problems, and only penalizes inventors. How about some useful suggestions like more funding to hire more examiners. Or did you know that examiners have to fill quotas -- that is process X number of applications per week. How about getting rid of the quotas or reducing them.
I live in D.C. and actually know some patent examiners. They are not the complete idiots that ./'ers think they are. Many of them have Ph.D.'s in the field that they examine -- e.g., a Ph.D. in biochemistry looks at biochemistry patents. At the same time, they have to live within the beauracracy, and it's inane rules.
Reform is good, as long as its sensible.
My sister-in-law carries her cellphone in her purse (a lot of dresses just don't have pockets). When it rang, she had a hard time finding it. Flip-o change-o to a bright colored faceplate and the problem was solved.
The real issue with faceplates is when they're cheap pieces of plastic, as opposed to those made for cellphones which tend to be more rugged.
For example, the media played up the "Balloon Spy" thing, but the Chinese had other concerns. Specifically, their air traffic control system is extremely limited. Large areas of China are not covered by radar. To prevent accidents, they carefully schedule flights. The Chinese were concerned that allowing an uncontrolled balloon to fly through their air routes was too dangerous.
For the Russians, I could guess that they don't want to have the responsiblity for rescuing these guys if something goes wrong. Sure its easy to say it's the driver's neck, and that they could sign some release. But who wants the bad PR. I can see it now, weeping relatives on CNN begging the Russians for assistance. The Russians holding up a signed release. Guess who wins.
From a beaurcrat's point of view, these decisions are easy -- piss off a handful of people or risk world condemnation.
Arriving back at the Cape, he was standing in the hallway, drinking coffee, and talking to one of the other astronauts. In mid-sentence, he put his coffee cup out in the middle of air and let go.
As he cleaned up the mess on the floor, he mentioned that he still wasn't used to gravity.
I don't know if this story is true, but I love it.
Nothing draws them in like putting light bulbs in the microwave and letting the magic turn them on.
Not too long after they told us how to do the tricks, GE yelled STOP. It's scaring the bejebbus out of the public. We're getting frantic calls about the death rays.
How times have changed.
Similarly, he would not argue that radio listen to only one radio station, but that all cars have the radio controls in the same location, and that they operate in the same way.
To be honest, I see his point. I travel alot as part of my job. Hence, I use a lot of rental cars. It can be a bitch arriving at night, trying to operate an unfamiliar car. Where's the dimmer switch. Damn, not this stack, that's the windshield washer. Let me feel around for the overhead light switch so I can read the map. Is the overhead light in the front, the middle, somewhere else. Etc. Etc.
Do I want all cars to be identical. No. But do I wish that manufactutors could agree on some standards. Yes.
How I miss the days of my youth where the light dimmer was a floor switch under the emergency brake. A lousy location, but I always knew where it was.
If you read the article, they point out that the man withdrew $220,000 from his bank before disappearing....
Come'on Cmdr, the three button mouse line is like shooting fish in a barrel. Be a little more inventive.
How about the new Quicksilvers don't have an off button, only an on button. How do I turn it off?
Alot higher than 5. The Post Office is doing this for PR. The flu kills thousands of people every year. Is there a law requiring people to stay home from work when they're sick so they don't infect more people. How about mandatory flu shots? Tens of thousands die every year from car accidents, a large fraction due to driver error. Is there a mandatory program of driver training?
Gosh, if they allowed this, do you think terrorists might write it on their next anthrax-laden package?
Since you work in an ad agency, maybe you can answer this question. Ad agencies seem to be disappointed that few people click on banner ads. My reaction is surprise, surprise. Many people can read an entire magazine or newspaper and not remember any of the ads that arein it. So why is it surprising that no one reacts to banner ads? Similarly, what proof is there that anyone actually read print advertisement. By proof for prints I mean random advertisements. I know that I only read ads -- either in print or on the web -- when I am in the market for something specific. In which case I actually search for ads on specific items/stores.
I'm reminded of a court case a few years ago. A man was videotaping his sexual escapades without the knowledge of the women involved. To their embarassment, he showed the tapes to his friends. There wasn't a law that specifically addressed his actions. So he was prosecuted for illegal wiretapping, AFTER the courts ruled that sexual intercourse is a form of communication.