The insurance company will increase rates, drop them (requiring a new more expensive company), or whatever. You know where that money comes from? The people that pay taxes!
You know who pays the taxes? The people who voted for the school board!
Sounds like a good incentive to get people to pay attention to who they vote for.
Yes, I had a similar thought about that headline. During an NPR interview, the researcher essentially said this wasn't "the solution" to the mystery, just another step on the road to solving the mystery.
There is some validity in that. People do sometimes get upset when prices rise, if they think the company is also wasting money. And they may prefer to do business with companies they see as either more frugal or charitable. But usually, people don't care much about what a company does with the customer's money, so long as they received what they paid for.
When I wrote that a business is wasting their own money, my intention was that shareholders are part of that business. If there is a waste, that is an internal issue within that business, between the shareholders and their management.
In the case of government, people see themselves as essentially the shareholders. The elected officials are like our hired management. So if government officials are wasting money, people see it as "wasting MY money".
People believe there is more government waste than private waste because, in theory, there is a profit incentive for a business to be less wasteful. That incentive is missing from government. Although there may be an equivalent motive: more votes by lowering taxes or improving services.
Even if you could show that there is more private waste than government waste, people will still be more upset about government waste. In theory, if a business wastes money, they're only wasting their own money. If a governmnet wastes money, they are wasting the taxpayers' money (i.e., "they are wasting MY money").
Right. The current price of anything is the lowest amount of money a seller is willing to accept in exchange for something. In stock terms, the seller's asking price is the current price.
How about buying a 3rd party radio, or 3rd party tires, or taking it to an independent repair shop?
I expect to be able to do all of that, without voiding the warranty. In fact, I believe I am guaranteed that right under the Magnuson Moss Act.
Limiting apps seems like the kind of "tie in sale" that the Act prohibits.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm#Magnuson-Moss
It's funny. With Dr. Who, I was really turned off by the low budget effect on the first story I saw, "The Horns of Nimon". As I watched more of the show, I got to appreciate it more, and the low effects budget didn't get in the way (although I still think Horns of Nimon is a low point). However, I have also enjoyed the improved effects as the series went on, and have really been enjoying the latest version with modern special effects.
On the other hand, I was very turned off by the digitally enhanced releases of the early seasons of RED DWARF. I think making the ship look relatively low tech worked for the setting and the comedy mood. Adding these great, gleaming special effects seemed out of place to me.
On a straight space drama, I think it can work with older, lower budget effects. I certainly enjoyed STAR TREK and BLAKE'S 7, even with the limited effects. But I think both will also work well with newer, enhanced effects. So I'm looking forward to the new releases.
You are correct that there is no need for a court to test the "validity" or "legality" of the GPL. But there are aspects of the GPL that would benefit from being tested in court. The GPL is written in relatively broad language. There are disputes over how to interpret that language. So what needs to be tested in court is the interpretation of the GPL, and how it applies to specific actions.
In other words, what needs to be tested in court is:
a) whether the GPL allows a specific act.
For example, there is much dispute over whether the GPL allows a closed source program to dynamically link to a GPL library. It will eventually be up to a court to decide whether the GPL allows this.
b) whether a specific act fulfills the requirements of the GPL.
In this case, the court must decide whether the GPL allows what the defendant has done.
Re:How about the free software aspect?
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 1
Most people probably don't know about it. But the previous poster wasn't talking about people in general, he was talking about people who care about open source. If you are a person who cares about open source, you almost certainly know about Firefox.
The subject of the primary article is "Red Hat needs to lower prices". My reply is about a lower priced version of RHEL. That seems relevant to the original article.
The only "handicap" of Professional Workstation is that it comes with a shorter period of tech. support. It is exactly the same software as RHEL WS. It uses the exact same updates as RHEL WS. As far as software maintenance goes, it seems just as well supported as RHEL WS. And they continue to offer support renewals.
It is true that Red Hat does not promote Professional Workstation much in the U.S (although it is still promoted on their European site. Perhaps they are concerned about cannibalizaing higher priced RHEL WS support subscription sales. But the fact remains that a lower priced, supported version of RHEL is widely available.
A cheaper way to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to buy Red Hat Professional Workstation. It is a boxed retail version of RHEL WS 3 that comes with 30-days of tech. support and 1 year of updates through Red Hat Network.
Slashdot Mirror
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands http://git.minix3.org/index.cg...
Suffixes can also be modifiers. Examples: Windows NT, Mustang GT, Bud Light.
The insurance company will increase rates, drop them (requiring a new more expensive company), or whatever. You know where that money comes from? The people that pay taxes!
You know who pays the taxes? The people who voted for the school board! Sounds like a good incentive to get people to pay attention to who they vote for.
What's the solution? Make insurance polices illegal for civil settlements? What would be the consequences of that?
Yes, I had a similar thought about that headline. During an NPR interview, the researcher essentially said this wasn't "the solution" to the mystery, just another step on the road to solving the mystery.
There is some validity in that. People do sometimes get upset when prices rise, if they think the company is also wasting money. And they may prefer to do business with companies they see as either more frugal or charitable. But usually, people don't care much about what a company does with the customer's money, so long as they received what they paid for. When I wrote that a business is wasting their own money, my intention was that shareholders are part of that business. If there is a waste, that is an internal issue within that business, between the shareholders and their management. In the case of government, people see themselves as essentially the shareholders. The elected officials are like our hired management. So if government officials are wasting money, people see it as "wasting MY money".
People believe there is more government waste than private waste because, in theory, there is a profit incentive for a business to be less wasteful. That incentive is missing from government. Although there may be an equivalent motive: more votes by lowering taxes or improving services. Even if you could show that there is more private waste than government waste, people will still be more upset about government waste. In theory, if a business wastes money, they're only wasting their own money. If a governmnet wastes money, they are wasting the taxpayers' money (i.e., "they are wasting MY money").
Right. The current price of anything is the lowest amount of money a seller is willing to accept in exchange for something. In stock terms, the seller's asking price is the current price.
How about buying a 3rd party radio, or 3rd party tires, or taking it to an independent repair shop? I expect to be able to do all of that, without voiding the warranty. In fact, I believe I am guaranteed that right under the Magnuson Moss Act. Limiting apps seems like the kind of "tie in sale" that the Act prohibits. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm#Magnuson-Moss
It's funny. With Dr. Who, I was really turned off by the low budget effect on the first story I saw, "The Horns of Nimon". As I watched more of the show, I got to appreciate it more, and the low effects budget didn't get in the way (although I still think Horns of Nimon is a low point). However, I have also enjoyed the improved effects as the series went on, and have really been enjoying the latest version with modern special effects. On the other hand, I was very turned off by the digitally enhanced releases of the early seasons of RED DWARF. I think making the ship look relatively low tech worked for the setting and the comedy mood. Adding these great, gleaming special effects seemed out of place to me. On a straight space drama, I think it can work with older, lower budget effects. I certainly enjoyed STAR TREK and BLAKE'S 7, even with the limited effects. But I think both will also work well with newer, enhanced effects. So I'm looking forward to the new releases.
"I will agree that Martin is not angel as the broadcast flag passed with no votes against it (which means he voted for it)."
Doesn't it mean he either a) voted for it or b) did not cast a vote?
You are correct that there is no need for a court to test the "validity" or "legality" of the GPL. But there are aspects of the GPL that would benefit from being tested in court. The GPL is written in relatively broad language. There are disputes over how to interpret that language. So what needs to be tested in court is the interpretation of the GPL, and how it applies to specific actions.
In other words, what needs to be tested in court is:
a) whether the GPL allows a specific act.
For example, there is much dispute over whether the GPL allows a closed source program to dynamically link to a GPL library. It will eventually be up to a court to decide whether the GPL allows this.
b) whether a specific act fulfills the requirements of the GPL.
In this case, the court must decide whether the GPL allows what the defendant has done.
Most people probably don't know about it. But the previous poster wasn't talking about people in general, he was talking about people who care about open source. If you are a person who cares about open source, you almost certainly know about Firefox.
The subject of the primary article is "Red Hat needs to lower prices". My reply is about a lower priced version of RHEL. That seems relevant to the original article.
The only "handicap" of Professional Workstation is that it comes with a shorter period of tech. support. It is exactly the same software as RHEL WS. It uses the exact same updates as RHEL WS. As far as software maintenance goes, it seems just as well supported as RHEL WS. And they continue to offer support renewals.
It is true that Red Hat does not promote Professional Workstation much in the U.S (although it is still promoted on their European site. Perhaps they are concerned about cannibalizaing higher priced RHEL WS support subscription sales. But the fact remains that a lower priced, supported version of RHEL is widely available.
A cheaper way to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to buy Red Hat Professional Workstation. It is a boxed retail version of RHEL WS 3 that comes with 30-days of tech. support and 1 year of updates through Red Hat Network.