I won't delineate all the reasons why what you said is a stupid troll.
But here's a few gems for you.
1) He became a tor node. 2) All the data he examined was on his own computers. 3) Everything on the computers belonged to him. 4) As a responsible tor node person, he examined the contents of it. 5) Refer to number 3. Also in the US, he could be found responsible for
people using his tor node to traffic in say copyrighted works or child
abuse. So he would really pretty much HAVE to inspect the contrents of
his traffic to make sure that no illegal activity was taking place. 6) What law is it you think he broke?
I think it's important to keep these kinds of people away from computers in general and clients specifically, but I don't see how you can "audit" for this kind of thing. I would say, that it might be a good idea to begin bonding IT workers, in certain cases at least. But how do you monitor against this, this guy installed spyware/trojans/adware on computer X while working on it? You'd have to send an auditor with him anytime he worked on something. Good luck with that! Or else you'd have to check every machine the guy worked on periodically, and the external auditor would have to be a top-notch guru on top of that. Yeah these guys are going to be expensive as hell on top of all that. Hmmm, come to think of it where can I apply? Oh and who audits the auditors? These are not like books that can be cooked and also have access to the money that underlies it. PC auditors would be capable of being the attack vector here.
The only way to do this would be for there to be some form of software that could take a snapshot of the equipment before work was done and immediately after. This software would have to be launched by someone. The software would have to have some means of validating that it in itself wasn't compromised and there'd have to be some external non-interested party (like the FBI), that it validated against. So this would be useless on say a computer that won't boot. In which case, a computer would need to validate on "birth".
And by the way, what the FUCK was M$ thinking when they left a backdoor to encrypted data in their OS. And perhaps, more importantly... Why? Would you ever store passwords and important data again with M$ technology, knowing M$ can read this data anytime they want to?
Now that Windows phones home, who is to say M$ won't read that data anytime they want to for any purpose they want? Not a very good protection scheme if you ask me. They might as well go back to XOR encryption.
Lastly, I'd like to see this guy get life+ a day, I mean talk about your BOFH? I'll never complain again.
What could be more fun than having my car collapse when hit from behind and simultaneously catapulting me through the air... [cue Carnival Trapeze Music] with the greatest of ease,,, like that daring young man on the flying trapeze.
Whoo hoo this is better than bungee jumping off the Empire State Building...
Right, but if Congress didn't pass the 22nd amendment and the States didn't ratify it then who did?
That's why I said it would result in a Constitutional crisis. You have to read my entire comment
if you don't want to take my words out of context.
I simplified my comment, so sue me, since it seems to be our new national pasttime.
Those cell jammers also jam emergency use devices used by police and firefighters.
Having those things in a business could easily cost a firefighter his life and no amount of lawsuits will bring back some poor child's father because some restaurant owner wanted to block cell phones.
As to the second part: If, in 2008, 51% of people in states making up at least 270 electoral votes voted for, say, Bill Gates, then he would be the legal winner, on a ballot or not.
He would be the winner of the popular vote and thus could select a majority of electors. The electors are still free to choose anyone they wish. Including someone who wasn't voted for.
For, instance if 12% of the population voted for Stephen Colbert, 44% voted for Pat Buchannan and 44% percent voted for Hillary Clinton, and Colbert sent a bunch of Democratic insiders to the Electoral College and they, along with the rest of the democrats, voted for Bill Clinton. Then since the Constitution would override any law passed by Congress Bill CLinton would become the Elected President even though Congress passed a law that disallows a person from serving a third term as President. Which might lead to a Constitutional crisis and certainly a Supreme Court case. Which would likel lead to an recall of the electors to choose someone else, which could then be Stephen Colbert. Electors are normally chosen by the political party of the candidate.
When you cast a vote in a presidential election you vote only to send an Elector. It is the duty of the Electors to choose the best candidate. Unfortunately, the purpose that our forefathers sought to implement with this hasn't worked out. The electors have for almost all elections fallen in line with the party and not chosen based who would be best. It has also backfired in that a person could win the popular vote and still lose the election, which has happened twice, IIRC.
Blackholes spin very rapidly. Think of a blackhole as a modified double whirlpool. Any matter or light that enters into it's whirlpool (event horizon) is sucked in, compressed under horrendous pressure and spit out along it's axis in tiny pieces... eventually.
It's a lot like those spinning-art-making-thing-a-mabobs in carnivals. Matter (paint) comes in from the top (or bottom) and gets spit out perpendicularly, more or less.
Or a 90 degree shredder, although I've never seen one of those. Could be dangerous.
Telling a judge about how some other judge ruled, but leaving out the fact that the case was overturned is perfectly acceptable. They don't need to tell the judge it was overturned, but usually the other side will and make them look stupid. This is not the same as withholding evidence. Two different topics.
The original article is obviously a Vista troll article.
The number by Redhat being 7 million or so and the fact they probably have about 30-40% (to pull a number out my a..) market share on the high end would put total purchases/downloads of Linux @ > 17 million. Then take that number and multiply it by a good number, and include all the CDs given away by LUGs, and copies made by downloaders and used on other machines. Hey, now your talking real numbers.
Given that about 1/2 of Europe is using Firefox one would have to guess there is a good number of Linux installs in that mix, and since Firefox ONLY runs on the desktop, your crappy 1% install figure and the article's measly 1% market number are obviously totally, completely, and incontrovertibly incorrect. Let's also not forget all those schools that use linux, and city governments, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Furthermore, given that at least 13% of websurfers overall, are using Firefox, you have to wonder where anyone could claim such a low number. Considering the W3 counter shows 1.3% Linux visitors. You have to wonder if really 33% of those users are really using Linux without a desktop. Of course 1/3 of those visitors are US and no other country hits that site in even double digits. W3Schools shows 87% windows 4% MAC and 3.5% Linux. So what are the other 9.5% using? Could it be that a good number of Linux installs no longer report the Os the the actual number of Linux desktops is actually over 5%? Shocking, to think, eh! You see,the problem with statistics is they can only measure what is reported to them. If they only deal with Windows machines and rarely ever look at Linux machines then they'll see numbers like.3% or.8%. Statistics are only as good as the source, size, and response. I'd say TFA failed all three categories. Doubt my numbers, go to wikipedia and lookup web browser share and o/s share. Those will point you to some stats.
Here's my peer reviewed statistic of Linux desktop usage. Linux desktop usage globally is 6.1%. The reason for this is that 72.4% of all Linux Browsers are reporting the OS as Windows NT and Windows XP. Go ahead prove me wrong.
This bogus research article is so bad the writer should be barred from the internet for slander and defamation.
Let me get this straight. We go to the expense to build a nuclear bomb gun, let's face it that's what this is being described as on/., but read on, then we add dampers to absorb some of the energy released by the gun... err... engine, thus wasting a whole bunch of the energy we've just gone through the process of releasing. That's not a very good design for a space engine.
So what would be the efficiency of this monster? Thank goodness, that's not what the engine really is, but is just the confused ranting of the/. crowd.;');') BTW I studied the original Orion in grade school, to figure out a way to make one. Yeah, I was really that geeky.
I RTFA and didn't see any reference to dampers, but the article also writer goofed. The engines should be sufficient to reach Mars in 60-90 days according to the specs, not 6 months. Six months for a round trip.
From what I could determine you wouldn't need dampers. The design of the engine appears to be sufficient to create a near continuous flow of plasma. It's not actually a "nuclear" explosion, but very close. Also, it's small enough that if you wanted/needed to you could stack multiple ones in an array, maybe one attached on a strut on each side of a flat saucer shaped disk, and then fire them rapidly in succession. Personally, I'd like to have four or five of these in a cluster. You know in case one or two engines were to fail. BTW, a 60-90 trip to Mars would be equivalent to the cross-Atlantic trips of our ancestors in ships like the Mayflower. So, it's feasible that some enterprising companies might build some ships and get some colonists to go to Mars. You also have to bear in mind that this could be a constant acceleration vehicle, and thus have a higher than the 10% speed of light velocity quoted. A constant acceleration vehicle would make interstellar travel very feasible, because you might take 3 months to reach.6c, and then another 3 months to decelerate. Giving travel to the nearest star in say 1-3 years, relative to the travelers. I'm too lazy to pull out the equation and do the calculation. I'll leave that to some other/.er. Although the matter-antimatter engine would probably be better.
Chapter 11 won't protect these guys from Novell, IBM, sanctions or jail.
Chapter 11 won't protect you from fraud or other crimes.
You can't use Chapter 11 to evade the law.
It will soon be evident that SCO has done this with unclean hands. Judges don't like it when people do bad things with the courts. Filing bankruptcy was a big mistake for SCO. The SCO officers have been loose and fast with the reins of a company whose stockholders' interest they were responsible to look after. If it turns out, it has all been a scheme to enrichen a few select members, then bankruptcy won't save these guys from jail. Now that they are in bankruptcy, someone outside the company and lots of others outside the company are going to be looking at all the facts about these lawsuits and goings on. I think this has been they're biggest mistake yet.
You'll see, these guys are in for it now. The SEC will be looking over they're finances, as will a bankruptcy judge, and that judge will be talking to the other judges, and all the courts' cases SCO has been involved with, not to mention getting with Novell and IBM. Oh, it's going to be a HELLUVA party.
Images of John Belushi dancing on the graves of SNL folks are playing in my head. Only this time it's McBride dancing on the graves of Linux, IBM, Novell, et al. We all know how that really played out, with John Belushi. [Father Guido Sarducci voice] I predict, SCO folks, going to be in the Big House. Really Soon.
I'm curious, how they will prevent the wake of these ultra-powerful laser beams from slicing through everything in the known Universe. I just hope my house isn't in the path of one of those stray laser beam trails.
I can see it now, and the first casualties are those wonderful communications satellites in orbit. Mars mission leader: "This is Flash Gordon to Houston. Do you read Houston? We saw a flash, are you there Houston?" Houston: Silence
PHP users seem to spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about the latest exploit...
This is true of every successful application. Once any useful application reaches enough deployment, it becomes a target for malicious crackers. Furthermore, the more any application can do the more opportunity for security holes. Since languages are nothing more than complex applications, anything built on languages will have vulnerability opportunities. Yet further, the more important the information which is handled by an application the more determined the assault. Finally, I see no lack of exploits being found for Java either, with several exploits reported over the summer.
That's all I have time for on this "article" without meat, and a jockeying of "my web software is better than yours", peppered with a few intelligent responses. Oh, wait, I forgot... this IS/.;')
I concur, this was about the worst place to ask a mathematical equation, but then again attempting to google for an answer to this type of problem is tantamount to googling for a solution for NP Hard equations. There are a number of excellent books on the subject of approximating all manner of equations. This question sounds more like a question from an undergrad seeking an easy answer to a homework assignment. Of course, I've been known to be wrong before too.;')
I used to be a mathematician, but the dividends just didn't equate.
Well, not so secret! James Bond broke into one of their vaults in Kuala Lumpur, and walked off with Billions and Billions
back at the turn of the false century.
Not to be too cynical, but seeing as/. has all these folks who claim to be uber geeks and hax0rs, I shouldn't have to state that they must have spent a fortune on programming for this product. EVEN if they used only ultra cheap programmers from you-know-where-places, it would still have taken many many thousands of hours to write, and assuming it was put together in China, and shipped to the US, a cost of $220 is about as realistic as the $1000 arse value. No, I suspect, a more realistic cost to be in the neighborhood of $500 to produce.
My reasoning is based on: 1) having worked for years in the assembly of everything from EKGs to IBM Mainframes to 747 flight simulators (not your video programs, but full scale mock ups of the cockpit), so I have firsthand knowledge of what it takes to assemble electronic devices, 2) Having worked for years in the shipping business, I know what it costs to ship products from China in 40' containers over the ocean, 3) the amount of advertising that was done, 4) the cost of software development (my current line of work), 5) cost of prototyping, packaging, product manuals, etc.
1) Since when has ECO101 had anything to do with reality in the Marketplace?
2) Lot's of products are sold at a "giveaway" price to lock you into something else that will actually make you the profit you seek. Or have you never owned any game controllers? XBox ring any bells here? What was the price on them when they came out? IIRC, and I do, they *Lost* money on those. Additionally, I believe I've paid $1 or $0 for most of my cell phones. Surely, one cannot make a profit selling a cellphone for $1.
Or are you merely a troll? How this post rates a 5 insightful can only be explained as/.itis.
Oh,well. Quality seems to be a lost value. I remember back in the day when a/. comment like this would have gotten a troll rating.
That's not true. There are lots of people who steal from *marts every day, and I'll bet they still buy stuff there.
Same thing with downloaders, lots of them *used* to buy their music, and the ones that get caught are forced to do it again - only at highly inflated prices.
Still, if you don't want to face RIAA lawyers, don't share their music, and start looking for other friendlier sources for musical entertainment.
While, I'll agree, it's a nostalgic thing. I can't see how tis is really anything. When I'm hiking, if I want to know the time. I'll look to the sky to figure it out. Any decent hiker should be able to come within 15 minutes by checking th sky. If not then, they probably aren't very good hikers and shouldn't be out there, causing us real hikers problems like having to rescue them from being lost, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't delineate all the reasons why what you said is a stupid troll.
But here's a few gems for you.
1) He became a tor node.
2) All the data he examined was on his own computers.
3) Everything on the computers belonged to him.
4) As a responsible tor node person, he examined the contents of it.
5) Refer to number 3. Also in the US, he could be found responsible for
people using his tor node to traffic in say copyrighted works or child
abuse. So he would really pretty much HAVE to inspect the contrents of
his traffic to make sure that no illegal activity was taking place.
6) What law is it you think he broke?
I think it's important to keep these kinds of people away from computers in general and clients specifically, but I don't see how you can "audit" for this kind of thing. I would say, that it might be a good idea to begin bonding IT workers, in certain cases at least. But how do you monitor against this, this guy installed spyware/trojans/adware on computer X while working on it? You'd have to send an auditor with him anytime he worked on something. Good luck with that! Or else you'd have to check every machine the guy worked on periodically, and the external auditor would have to be a top-notch guru on top of that. Yeah these guys are going to be expensive as hell on top of all that. Hmmm, come to think of it where can I apply? Oh and who audits the auditors? These are not like books that can be cooked and also have access to the money that underlies it. PC auditors would be capable of being the attack vector here.
...
The only way to do this would be for there to be some form of software that could take a snapshot of the equipment before work was done and immediately after. This software would have to be launched by someone. The software would have to have some means of validating that it in itself wasn't compromised and there'd have to be some external non-interested party (like the FBI), that it validated against. So this would be useless on say a computer that won't boot. In which case, a computer would need to validate on "birth".
And by the way, what the FUCK was M$ thinking when they left a backdoor to encrypted data in their OS. And perhaps, more importantly
Why? Would you ever store passwords and important data again with M$ technology, knowing M$ can read this data anytime they want to?
Now that Windows phones home, who is to say M$ won't read that data anytime they want to for any purpose they want?
Not a very good protection scheme if you ask me. They might as well go back to XOR encryption.
Lastly, I'd like to see this guy get life+ a day, I mean talk about your BOFH? I'll never complain again.
NYS is not going to roll over for the Feds.
The only reason they are in closed session is so no
one will see when they bring in the Gambini family to
take out a hit on those stinkin' feds.
Seriously though. NYS is no going to be bullied.
It's not the NY way. Expect NY to blow the Feds a big
Bronx Cheer sometime soon.
What could be more fun than having my car collapse when hit from behind and simultaneously ... ,,,
catapulting me through the air
[cue Carnival Trapeze Music]
with the greatest of ease
like that daring young man on the flying trapeze.
Whoo hoo this is better than bungee jumping off the Empire State Building...
Right, but if Congress didn't pass the 22nd amendment and the States didn't ratify it then who did? That's why I said it would result in a Constitutional crisis. You have to read my entire comment if you don't want to take my words out of context. I simplified my comment, so sue me, since it seems to be our new national pasttime.
Those cell jammers also jam emergency use devices used by police and firefighters.
Having those things in a business could easily cost a firefighter his life
and no amount of lawsuits will bring back some poor child's father because
some restaurant owner wanted to block cell phones.
He would be the winner of the popular vote and thus could select a majority of electors. The electors are still free to
choose anyone they wish. Including someone who wasn't voted for.
For, instance if 12% of the population voted for Stephen Colbert, 44% voted for Pat Buchannan and 44% percent voted for Hillary Clinton, and Colbert sent a bunch of Democratic insiders to the Electoral College and they, along with the rest of the democrats, voted for Bill Clinton. Then since the Constitution would override any law passed by Congress Bill CLinton would become the Elected President even though Congress passed a law that disallows a person from serving a third term as President. Which might lead to a Constitutional crisis and certainly a Supreme Court case. Which would likel lead to an recall of the electors to choose someone else, which could then be Stephen Colbert. Electors are normally chosen by the political party of the candidate.
When you cast a vote in a presidential election you vote only to send an Elector. It is the duty of the Electors to choose the best candidate. Unfortunately, the purpose that our forefathers sought to implement with this hasn't worked out. The electors have for almost all elections
fallen in line with the party and not chosen based who would be best. It has also backfired in that a person could win the popular vote and still lose the election, which has happened twice, IIRC.
IAAAP, by education only.
... eventually.
Blackholes spin very rapidly.
Think of a blackhole as a modified double whirlpool.
Any matter or light that enters into it's whirlpool (event horizon) is sucked in, compressed under horrendous
pressure and spit out along it's axis in tiny pieces
It's a lot like those spinning-art-making-thing-a-mabobs in carnivals.
Matter (paint) comes in from the top (or bottom) and gets spit out perpendicularly, more or less.
Or a 90 degree shredder, although I've never seen one of those. Could be dangerous.
Well here's another angle for you.
People used to say the same thing about Baystar.
Could it not be possible that these people have been asked,
via a shredded email, to do this as a favor to a certain company?
A company who shall remain nameless, but would promise to direct
a boatload of money to YCM for doing this?
Maybe the profit isn't coming from the purchase & resale of SCO,
but from a kick-back from You-Know-Who?
And I don't mean Voldemort!
NWU Grad student: We got to get these two together!
Prof. Hawari: I think that would be extremely dangerous.
[enter stage left: Bill Murray]
[exit stage outta here: Snaggle Puss]
Telling a judge about how some other judge ruled, but leaving out the fact that the case was overturned is perfectly acceptable. They don't need to tell the judge it was overturned, but usually the other side will and make them look stupid. This is not the same as withholding evidence. Two different topics.
Doubt me take a look a Groklaw.
And where do you pull this magic 1% number from?
,the problem with statistics is they can only measure what is reported to them. If they only deal with Windows machines and rarely ever look at Linux machines then they'll see numbers like .3% or .8%. Statistics are only as good as the source, size, and response. I'd say TFA failed all three categories.
The original article is obviously a Vista troll article.
The number by Redhat being 7 million or so and the fact they probably have about 30-40% (to pull a number out my a..) market share on the high end
would put total purchases/downloads of Linux @ > 17 million. Then take that number and multiply it by a good number, and include
all the CDs given away by LUGs, and copies made by downloaders and used on other machines. Hey, now your talking
real numbers.
Given that about 1/2 of Europe is using Firefox one would have to guess there is a good number of Linux installs in that mix,
and since Firefox ONLY runs on the desktop, your crappy 1% install figure and the article's measly 1% market number are
obviously totally, completely, and incontrovertibly incorrect. Let's also not forget all those schools that use linux, and city governments,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Furthermore, given that at least 13% of websurfers overall, are using Firefox, you have to wonder where anyone could claim such a low number.
Considering the W3 counter shows 1.3% Linux visitors. You have to wonder if really 33% of those users are really using Linux without a desktop.
Of course 1/3 of those visitors are US and no other country hits that site in even double digits.
W3Schools shows 87% windows 4% MAC and 3.5% Linux. So what are the other 9.5% using? Could it be that a good number of Linux installs no longer report the Os the the actual number of Linux desktops is actually over 5%? Shocking, to think, eh!
You see
Doubt my numbers, go to wikipedia and lookup web browser share and o/s share. Those will point you to some stats.
Here's my peer reviewed statistic of Linux desktop usage. Linux desktop usage globally is 6.1%. The reason for this is that 72.4% of all Linux Browsers are reporting the OS as Windows NT and Windows XP. Go ahead prove me wrong.
This bogus research article is so bad the writer should be barred from the internet for slander and defamation.
Let me get this straight. We go to the expense to build a nuclear bomb gun, let's face it that's what this is being described as on /., but read on, then we add dampers to absorb some of the energy released by the gun ... err ... engine, thus wasting a whole bunch of the energy we've just gone through the process of releasing. That's not a very good design for a space engine.
/. crowd. ;') ;') BTW I studied the original Orion in grade school, to figure out a way to make one. Yeah, I was really that geeky.
.6c, and then another 3 months to decelerate. Giving travel to the nearest star in say 1-3 years, relative to the travelers. I'm too lazy to pull out the equation and do the calculation. I'll leave that to some other /.er. Although the matter-antimatter engine would probably be better.
So what would be the efficiency of this monster? Thank goodness, that's not what the engine really is, but is just the confused ranting of the
I RTFA and didn't see any reference to dampers, but the article also writer goofed. The engines should be sufficient to reach Mars in 60-90 days according to the specs, not 6 months. Six months for a round trip.
From what I could determine you wouldn't need dampers. The design of the engine appears to be sufficient to create a near continuous flow of plasma. It's not actually a "nuclear" explosion, but very close. Also, it's small enough that if you wanted/needed to you could stack multiple ones in an array, maybe one attached on a strut on each side of a flat saucer shaped disk, and then fire them rapidly in succession. Personally, I'd like to have four or five of these in a cluster. You know in case one or two engines were to fail. BTW, a 60-90 trip to Mars would be equivalent to the cross-Atlantic trips of our ancestors in ships like the Mayflower. So, it's feasible that some enterprising companies might build some ships and get some colonists to go to Mars. You also have to bear in mind that this could be a constant acceleration vehicle, and thus have a higher than the 10% speed of light velocity quoted. A constant acceleration vehicle would make interstellar travel very feasible, because you might take 3 months to reach
Chapter 11 won't protect these guys from Novell, IBM, sanctions or jail.
Chapter 11 won't protect you from fraud or other crimes.
You can't use Chapter 11 to evade the law.
It will soon be evident that SCO has done this with unclean hands.
Judges don't like it when people do bad things with the courts. Filing bankruptcy
was a big mistake for SCO. The SCO officers have been loose and fast with
the reins of a company whose stockholders' interest they were responsible to
look after. If it turns out, it has all been a scheme to enrichen a few select members,
then bankruptcy won't save these guys from jail. Now that they are in bankruptcy,
someone outside the company and lots of others outside the company are going to be looking at
all the facts about these lawsuits and goings on. I think this has been they're biggest mistake yet.
You'll see, these guys are in for it now. The SEC will be looking over they're finances,
as will a bankruptcy judge, and that judge will be talking to the other judges, and all the courts'
cases SCO has been involved with, not to mention getting with Novell and IBM. Oh, it's
going to be a HELLUVA party.
Images of John Belushi dancing on the graves of SNL folks are playing in my head. Only this time
it's McBride dancing on the graves of Linux, IBM, Novell, et al. We all know how that really played out,
with John Belushi.
[Father Guido Sarducci voice] I predict, SCO folks, going to be in the Big House. Really Soon.
I'm curious, how they will prevent the wake of these ultra-powerful laser beams from slicing through everything in the known Universe. I just hope my house isn't in the path of one of those stray laser beam trails.
I can see it now, and the first casualties are those wonderful communications satellites in orbit.
Mars mission leader: "This is Flash Gordon to Houston. Do you read Houston? We saw a flash, are you there Houston?"
Houston: Silence
Oops!
This is true of every successful application. Once any useful application reaches enough deployment, it
becomes a target for malicious crackers. Furthermore, the more any application can do the more opportunity for
security holes. Since languages are nothing more than complex applications, anything built on languages
will have vulnerability opportunities. Yet further, the more important the information which is handled by an
application the more determined the assault. Finally, I see no lack of exploits being found for Java
either, with several exploits reported over the summer.
That's all I have time for on this "article" without meat, and a jockeying of "my web software is better than yours",
peppered with a few intelligent responses. Oh, wait, I forgot
I concur, this was about the worst place to ask a mathematical equation, but then again attempting to google for an answer to this type of problem is tantamount to googling for a solution for NP Hard equations. There are a number of excellent books on the subject of approximating all manner of ;')
equations. This question sounds more like a question from an undergrad seeking an easy answer to a homework assignment. Of course, I've been known to be wrong before too.
I used to be a mathematician, but the dividends just didn't equate.
Try apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade. The latest nv driver seems to be a bit more stable, or maybe it's the latest X.Org.
No comment
Well, not so secret! James Bond broke into one of their vaults in Kuala Lumpur, and walked off with Billions and Billions back at the turn of the false century.
That estimate only covers the cost of parts!
/. has all these folks who claim to be
Not to be too cynical, but seeing as
uber geeks and hax0rs, I shouldn't have to state that they must have spent a
fortune on programming for this product. EVEN if they used only ultra cheap
programmers from you-know-where-places, it would still have taken many many
thousands of hours to write, and assuming it was put together in China, and shipped
to the US, a cost of $220 is about as realistic as the $1000 arse value.
No, I suspect, a more realistic cost to be in the neighborhood of $500 to produce.
My reasoning is based on:
1) having worked for years in the assembly of everything from EKGs to IBM Mainframes to 747 flight simulators
(not your video programs, but full scale mock ups of the cockpit), so I have firsthand knowledge of what
it takes to assemble electronic devices,
2) Having worked for years in the shipping business, I know what it costs to ship products from China in 40'
containers over the ocean,
3) the amount of advertising that was done,
4) the cost of software development (my current line of work),
5) cost of prototyping, packaging, product manuals, etc.
You may want to revisit your post.
/.itis.
/. comment like this would have gotten a troll rating.
1) Since when has ECO101 had anything to do with reality in the Marketplace?
2) Lot's of products are sold at a "giveaway" price to lock you into something else that will actually make you the profit you seek. Or have you never owned any game controllers? XBox ring any bells here? What was the price on them when they came out? IIRC, and I do, they *Lost* money on
those. Additionally, I believe I've paid $1 or $0 for most of my cell phones. Surely, one cannot make a profit selling a cellphone for $1.
Or are you merely a troll? How this post rates a 5 insightful can only be explained as
Oh,well. Quality seems to be a lost value. I remember back in the day when a
That's not true. There are lots of people who steal from *marts every day,
and I'll bet they still buy stuff there.
Same thing with downloaders, lots of them *used* to buy their music,
and the ones that get caught are forced to do it again
- only at highly inflated prices.
Still, if you don't want to face RIAA lawyers, don't share their music, and start looking for other friendlier sources for musical entertainment.
Perhaps you misread the summary. Viacom used the entire commercial.
That's copyright infringement.
He posted a clip of a segment of a portion of a show, that's fair use.
While, I'll agree, it's a nostalgic thing. I can't
see how tis is really anything. When I'm hiking,
if I want to know the time. I'll look to the sky to figure it out.
Any decent hiker should be able to come within 15 minutes
by checking th sky. If not then, they probably aren't
very good hikers and shouldn't be out there, causing
us real hikers problems like having to rescue them from being lost,
etc.