From the article: A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.
Okay, how about adding J. Ashcroft, G. Bush, T. Ridge, J. Lieberman, J. Kerry, etc to our list of aliases?
I understand and agree with his point, it's his remedy that I disagree with.
Using the force of law to force private companies to change their operations to fit his perceived 'customer requirements' will create more problems than it solves. Ultimately, anytime you propose a law to deal with a perceived problem, the solution ends up being crafted to suit the needs of the politically influential, not those who need help.
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
There's already a remedy for customers whose needs aren't being met . . . go someplace else. You don't have to watch CNN, or Fox News, or MSNBC, or others. Your choices will be more limited, but you DO have alternatives. The law will never be as effective as customer demand at compelling businesses to run effectively.
Sadly, the media companies are as successful as they are because the services they provide are popular with the public. Personally, that fact appalls me, but it's the truth.
Where I work (a DOD contractor) we can carry just about anything (except a camera). We are, however, required to register it with the security manager. In order to register it, you must give them permission to read the contents on the way into or out of the building. That allows them to maintain their illusion of safety while allowing employees to carry their preferred gadgets.
I don't know of anyone actually being searched, however . ..
At what point has Google violated its maxim of "do no evil?" Assuming this claim by Orkut is true, has Google exceeded its maxim? It seems inevitable to me that any big company will inevitably get involved in less-than-ethical dealings. Saying "Do not evil" will only get you so far.
They're just preparing for their investor-mandated post-IPO business practices.
Yes, I've donated to the EFF. The EFF is also worthy of donations (probably MORE worthy). However, the EFF doesn't have the power to sponsor or vote on legislation. There's no substitute for that.
It's time we started providing financial support for the elected officals who do the right thing. Rep. Boucher's contribution page is here.
By supporting him (and explaining why), we reinforce his commitment to protecting our copyright rights, and show his peers that there is a group of people (voters) who care enough about the issue to contribute.
I dislike having to install all of the above to watch something I paid for [bbc.co.uk] in the first place (10.56 per month last I checked).
Then vote with your wallet, and don't buy it. You can complain all you want, but as long as they're collecting your monthly fee they have no incentive to change anything.
No, Cheaper promotion + cheaper distribution + cheaper capital costs = higher profits
More supply + less demand = lower prices
the RIAA member companies charge what they do because they can, and enough people are willing to pay it. I'm sure that if they thought they could make more at some other price point, they'd be doing it.
On a side note, I've read your criticisms and have distilled from them the mistakes I made in my initial posting. In the future I will try to post more detailed information.
Shhh! This type of attitude is unacceptable! If you show any kind of weakness or hesitation, they'll tear you to shreds!
Instead, we have millions of programmers writing C++ and MFC code because a completely unaccountable entity that's larger than many governments made that choice. It's a tough choice, and we are picking from the bottom of the barrel here, but frankly, we might actually be better off with Ada.
No, we have millions of programmers writing C++ and MFC code because they made that choice. Nobody is compelling them to, and they could have chosen Ada if they were so inclined.
That's how almost all government standards get created anyway: by private companies. Or do you think George W. Bush sits down and drafts them up? Even when a standard was "created by" the government, it's usually contracted out.
They may be created by contractors, but they're enforced by an army of bureaucrats. Government standards enforcement becomes expensive and ineffective.
Do you think that if Microsoft was in control of the early HTML specifications, or even TCP/IP for that matter, that we'd have the ubiquitious internet now?
We'd be even worse off if the US Federal Government was in control of those standards. If the feds were dictating things like that, the internet would quickly be devolved into uselessness. Have you ever used any software developed by the feds, or written to their specifications? Horrible!
It pisses me off that no American company today would ever do something like this.
Here's your solution:
1. Start a company. 2. Be successful enough that you have enough cash to fund this type of effort. 3. Fund this type of effort.
If you don't like how existing companies are run, too bad. Unless you're a big shareholder (or a big customer, I suppose), they don't have any incentive to do things because they're 'very cool'.
Is that management philosophy shirt-sighted? Yes, of course it is. But that's what investors are rewarding these days.
Slashdot Mirror
>> You CAN say "I wish CowboyNeal was dead"
> you're half right
I wish CowboyNeal was half dead!
The patent system is a tool. Like any tool, some people will use it for good purposes, some evil purposes.
From the article: A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.
Okay, how about adding J. Ashcroft, G. Bush, T. Ridge, J. Lieberman, J. Kerry, etc to our list of aliases?
A bad movie which tries to take itself seriously, like Highlander II is unwatchable . . .
There's should have been only one.
I understand and agree with his point, it's his remedy that I disagree with.
Using the force of law to force private companies to change their operations to fit his perceived 'customer requirements' will create more problems than it solves. Ultimately, anytime you propose a law to deal with a perceived problem, the solution ends up being crafted to suit the needs of the politically influential, not those who need help.
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
There's already a remedy for customers whose needs aren't being met . . . go someplace else. You don't have to watch CNN, or Fox News, or MSNBC, or others. Your choices will be more limited, but you DO have alternatives. The law will never be as effective as customer demand at compelling businesses to run effectively.
Sadly, the media companies are as successful as they are because the services they provide are popular with the public. Personally, that fact appalls me, but it's the truth.
True, but that's not the entire purpose.
.
Where I work (a DOD contractor) we can carry just about anything (except a camera). We are, however, required to register it with the security manager. In order to register it, you must give them permission to read the contents on the way into or out of the building. That allows them to maintain their illusion of safety while allowing employees to carry their preferred gadgets.
I don't know of anyone actually being searched, however . .
At what point has Google violated its maxim of "do no evil?" Assuming this claim by Orkut is true, has Google exceeded its maxim? It seems inevitable to me that any big company will inevitably get involved in less-than-ethical dealings. Saying "Do not evil" will only get you so far.
They're just preparing for their investor-mandated post-IPO business practices.
Yes, I've donated to the EFF. The EFF is also worthy of donations (probably MORE worthy). However, the EFF doesn't have the power to sponsor or vote on legislation. There's no substitute for that.
It's time we started providing financial support for the elected officals who do the right thing. Rep. Boucher's contribution page is here.
By supporting him (and explaining why), we reinforce his commitment to protecting our copyright rights, and show his peers that there is a group of people (voters) who care enough about the issue to contribute.
. . . and has Linux support thanks to the HD-2000 [pchdtv.com] card, which I'm happy to report has no support for Windows.
Why would you be happy to report that? It just hurts their chances of staying in business.
Ahhh! I intrepreted your post to mean that BBC offered som soft of extra subscription service that you were paying for . . . my mistake.
I dislike having to install all of the above to watch something I paid for [bbc.co.uk] in the first place (10.56 per month last I checked).
Then vote with your wallet, and don't buy it. You can complain all you want, but as long as they're collecting your monthly fee they have no incentive to change anything.
I attempted to make a small donation at his website, only to find that that they don't accept contributions online. Disapponting.
-"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
Your system sucks.
I believe the record labels are responsible for giving the artist their royalties. So they may get more than a penny . . .
No, Cheaper promotion + cheaper distribution + cheaper capital costs = higher profits
More supply + less demand = lower prices
the RIAA member companies charge what they do because they can, and enough people are willing to pay it. I'm sure that if they thought they could make more at some other price point, they'd be doing it.
It's so fucking stupid that I want to rip my nuts off, cook them, and then eat them.
Yeah! That'll show 'em!
On a side note, I've read your criticisms and have distilled from them the mistakes I made in my initial posting. In the future I will try to post more detailed information.
Shhh! This type of attitude is unacceptable! If you show any kind of weakness or hesitation, they'll tear you to shreds!
Metaweb - A wiki about the Cryptonomicon/Quicksilver Universe, with contributions fro Mr. Stephenson
Instead, we have millions of programmers writing C++ and MFC code because a completely unaccountable entity that's larger than many governments made that choice. It's a tough choice, and we are picking from the bottom of the barrel here, but frankly, we might actually be better off with Ada.
No, we have millions of programmers writing C++ and MFC code because they made that choice. Nobody is compelling them to, and they could have chosen Ada if they were so inclined.
That's how almost all government standards get created anyway: by private companies. Or do you think George W. Bush sits down and drafts them up? Even when a standard was "created by" the government, it's usually contracted out.
They may be created by contractors, but they're enforced by an army of bureaucrats. Government standards enforcement becomes expensive and ineffective.
Do you think that if Microsoft was in control of the early HTML specifications, or even TCP/IP for that matter, that we'd have the ubiquitious internet now?
We'd be even worse off if the US Federal Government was in control of those standards. If the feds were dictating things like that, the internet would quickly be devolved into uselessness. Have you ever used any software developed by the feds, or written to their specifications? Horrible!
It's an excuse to pad the pockets of the fat shareholders at the expense of the middle class.
And an excuse for me to become one of the fat shareholders!
It pisses me off that no American company today would ever do something like this.
Here's your solution:
1. Start a company.
2. Be successful enough that you have enough cash to fund this type of effort.
3. Fund this type of effort.
If you don't like how existing companies are run, too bad. Unless you're a big shareholder (or a big customer, I suppose), they don't have any incentive to do things because they're 'very cool'.
Is that management philosophy shirt-sighted? Yes, of course it is. But that's what investors are rewarding these days.
That's probably not too far from the truth. At some point, I'd probably lose motivation if I had more money than I could possibly spend.
Hell, there are days now when I don't have much motivation, and I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer.