I don't think TiVo is mostly worried about being sued by the networks; the time-shifting battle is over, and it's legal. What TiVo is worried about is that their business plan includes partnerships with various TV networks, by which I means investments from those networks (NBC and various cable channels at the moment). They don't want that to dry up. So it's not quite the same as a Napster-like TV tool.
Yes -- I'll grant you that it's only an in-the-money option that has the kind of value I'm talking about. Trading of out-of-the-money options is indeed based on speculation and the value you can sell it for based on *other* people's valuations of it.
I still don't care that I can't eat the cash value of an in-the-money option, though, but I think that's a side point to Original AC's point -- like I say, cash has no intrinsic value either, but it'll do.
Something as abstract as a stock option cannot have intrinsic value. It is of no use to you unless you can trade it to someone in exchange (eventually) for goods or services.
No -- the underlying value of the option is that, if it's an option to buy a thousand shares at 5, and the current price is 10, you can exercise the option, and buy a thousand shares for $5000 and instantly sell them for $10,000. Unless you're going to say that the money has no "intrinsic value" either, in which case I'll take the $5000 profit anyway. I can get a lot of oranges with that.
You can probabably substitute "marketer" for "programmer" here. If programmers did the design things would probably work better...
Cooper is talking about design in the sense of "how it appears and functions to the user", as opposed to implementation, and Cooper's exact point is that programmers think that they can design good user interfaces, and they can't. It's a separate skill.
This book also includes an interesting sidelight on the Amazon 1-click patent: when the programmers came up with their first implementation of 1-click shopping -- under that name -- it brought up a confirm box when the user tried to buy something with 1 click, thus undoing the whole point of it. In other words, this "obvious" feature was non-obvious enough that the programmers didn't understand it at first.
But you bought the book and the right to use the information. The book is short-lived, but there's no reason to expect that the right to use the information is linked to the paper.
That's just ridiculous. Why on earth would anyone think the author or publisher was due more money if you read your friend's book after your was ruined? And if you could go and read your friend's book, why couldn't you copy those words for yourself to read later?
Your right to read your friend's copy has nothing to do with the fact that you previously bought a copy. He's lending you his book. An underlying assumption of the system that makes that acceptable is that while you've got his copy, he doesn't have his copy, and so the amount of unpaid reading is limited -- or, looking at it another way, the pass-along readership is included in the price you paid for the original.
But the fact that you already bought the book once is a red herring.
If you do that you can only digitize in real time, which limits the amount of "damage" you can do, so in the long run it's not easier than CD's (which I presume you really meant.) No more ripping a whole album in 5 or 10 minutes.
If a man from France comes over to my store in the United States and buys a Nazi flag, French law does not apply. If he takes that flag back to France, then he most certainly has a problem. It is not my problem, and I cannot be compelled to not sell to him.
Now extend this to the web. The man is in France and visits my web site in the United States. Why is this really any different?
Because despite a language confusion up there, when he "visits your web site in the United States", he's not actually visiting it; he's still in France.
If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population.
Bear in mind that Bush won a whole lot of relatively empty states, so a lot of land mass voted for him, but the effect you're talking about is not nearly as overwhelming as it appears. I've seen a map of the USA with all of the state-sizes adjusted for population, and coloring that would be much less dramatic.
Well, strictly, it would have to be 5-man teams of poker players, because the electors are technically the ones on the ballot...or, they could use this to break up the winner-takes-all rule, which any state is allowed to do.
Hey, thanks. If just a few of you guys had voted for Gore, as would have happened if Nader hadn't been running, we wouldn't be in this mess. And you yourself think Gore had the least-obnoxious statement on the whole thing.
Then there's the Asimov story, where the science of polling has advanced to the state where the election is settled by carefully selecting one person, asking him a bunch of seeming-irrelevant questions, and then extrapolating from that information to determine how the election would go if they were to actually go to the expense of having everyone vote.
No, there's a value to being unable to prove to anyone how you voted; that way, effective duress is impossible. You can annouce your vote all you want, but you could be lying.
Not quite -- any Jew is *eligible* for Israeli citizenship, but to actually get it you have to move there. I also know of people who are dual citizens of other countries, such as if they are born to an American parent and (in this case) an Australian parent, since both countries automatically extend citizenship to the children of citizens.
If you want, then disqualify the 25 Florida electoral votes - the result's the same: neither candidate has the 270 electoral votes needed.
I'm not so sure this is right: Amendment XII says: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;..." Now, if the Florida votes are not certified, is that the same as saying they are not "appointed"? If so, then you only need the majority of the leftovers, which Gore has now...unless Wisconsin and New Mexico are themselved both recounted and turned over to Bush, AND Oregon ends up going to Bush.
Which brings up another potential argument against the Electoral College -- going to an overall popular vote might discourage this kind of targeted fraud, because you wouldn't be leveraging a few fraudulent votes into a big EC win.
Because people are complaining that they made a mistake, asked the poll watchers how to fix it, and were told it was too late and their votes had to be counted for Buchanan.
1. You could remove the EC and require a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.
2. If the election goes into the House, it's one vote per state, so the relevant number is the 27 states that will be Republican in the new House, not the 218-210 you mention. But Bush still wins in that situation, yes.
Not according to exit polling. Perot took both from conservatives, thus from Bush, and from "we want a change" voters, thus from Clinton. Clinton would have won anyway.
Now, in 1996, the Perot vote did come out of the Republican vote, but it wasn't enough to change that result either.
What I found amusing was that Bush had 55-60% of the vote in Florida for the longest time, with 2% reporting, but yet the liberal media was still reporting Gore as the winner. How strange.
This would make sense if the 2% were known to be from more conservative areas, so you extrapolate how much stronger you expect Gore to be in the more liberal areas.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think TiVo is mostly worried about being sued by the networks; the time-shifting battle is over, and it's legal. What TiVo is worried about is that their business plan includes partnerships with various TV networks, by which I means investments from those networks (NBC and various cable channels at the moment). They don't want that to dry up. So it's not quite the same as a Napster-like TV tool.
Yes -- I'll grant you that it's only an in-the-money option that has the kind of value I'm talking about. Trading of out-of-the-money options is indeed based on speculation and the value you can sell it for based on *other* people's valuations of it.
I still don't care that I can't eat the cash value of an in-the-money option, though, but I think that's a side point to Original AC's point -- like I say, cash has no intrinsic value either, but it'll do.
Something as abstract as a stock option cannot have intrinsic value. It is of no use to you unless you can trade it to someone in exchange (eventually) for goods or services.
No -- the underlying value of the option is that, if it's an option to buy a thousand shares at 5, and the current price is 10, you can exercise the option, and buy a thousand shares for $5000 and instantly sell them for $10,000. Unless you're going to say that the money has no "intrinsic value" either, in which case I'll take the $5000 profit anyway. I can get a lot of oranges with that.
ever since the original InfoGames adaption of HHG as a text adventure
That's Infocom. Pardon the nit, but it used to be a really important game company.
You can probabably substitute "marketer" for "programmer" here. If programmers did the design things would probably work better...
Cooper is talking about design in the sense of "how it appears and functions to the user", as opposed to implementation, and Cooper's exact point is that programmers think that they can design good user interfaces, and they can't. It's a separate skill.
This book also includes an interesting sidelight on the Amazon 1-click patent: when the programmers came up with their first implementation of 1-click shopping -- under that name -- it brought up a confirm box when the user tried to buy something with 1 click, thus undoing the whole point of it. In other words, this "obvious" feature was non-obvious enough that the programmers didn't understand it at first.
Make it so that when you press record mid-way through a show that you've been watching it doesn't discard what you've already watched?
This is allowed in the 2.0 Tivo software which, if you don't already have it, will update itself over your phone line sometime in the next few weeks.
But you bought the book and the right to use the information. The book is short-lived, but there's no reason to expect that the right to use the information is linked to the paper.
That's just ridiculous. Why on earth would anyone think the author or publisher was due more money if you read your friend's book after your was ruined? And if you could go and read your friend's book, why couldn't you copy those words for yourself to read later?
Your right to read your friend's copy has nothing to do with the fact that you previously bought a copy. He's lending you his book. An underlying assumption of the system that makes that acceptable is that while you've got his copy, he doesn't have his copy, and so the amount of unpaid reading is limited -- or, looking at it another way, the pass-along readership is included in the price you paid for the original.
But the fact that you already bought the book once is a red herring.
It might be where he learned to spell "went".
If you do that you can only digitize in real time, which limits the amount of "damage" you can do, so in the long run it's not easier than CD's (which I presume you really meant.) No more ripping a whole album in 5 or 10 minutes.
If a man from France comes over to my store in the United States and buys a Nazi flag, French law does not apply. If he takes that flag back to France, then he most certainly has a problem. It is not my problem, and I cannot be compelled to not sell to him. Now extend this to the web. The man is in France and visits my web site in the United States. Why is this really any different? Because despite a language confusion up there, when he "visits your web site in the United States", he's not actually visiting it; he's still in France.
The latest figure was over 1million absentee ballots that would not be counted(estimated at over 60/40 in favor of Bush).
I've been hearing that "latest figure" of over 1 million for almost 3 weeks now, and it must be much less than that by now.
If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population.
Bear in mind that Bush won a whole lot of relatively empty states, so a lot of land mass voted for him, but the effect you're talking about is not nearly as overwhelming as it appears. I've seen a map of the USA with all of the state-sizes adjusted for population, and coloring that would be much less dramatic.
Well, strictly, it would have to be 5-man teams of poker players, because the electors are technically the ones on the ballot...or, they could use this to break up the winner-takes-all rule, which any state is allowed to do.
Heck, that's exactly why I voted for Nader.
Hey, thanks. If just a few of you guys had voted for Gore, as would have happened if Nader hadn't been running, we wouldn't be in this mess. And you yourself think Gore had the least-obnoxious statement on the whole thing.
Then there's the Asimov story, where the science of polling has advanced to the state where the election is settled by carefully selecting one person, asking him a bunch of seeming-irrelevant questions, and then extrapolating from that information to determine how the election would go if they were to actually go to the expense of having everyone vote.
No, there's a value to being unable to prove to anyone how you voted; that way, effective duress is impossible. You can annouce your vote all you want, but you could be lying.
Brave words from an AC. Normally that's an irrelevant argument, but in this case it applies.
Anyway, even if you would quit, millions don't have that option.
Not quite -- any Jew is *eligible* for Israeli citizenship, but to actually get it you have to move there. I also know of people who are dual citizens of other countries, such as if they are born to an American parent and (in this case) an Australian parent, since both countries automatically extend citizenship to the children of citizens.
According to this, the Republicans filed many court cases trying to get recounts, all the while claiming Nixon had nothing, nothing to do with it.
If you want, then disqualify the 25 Florida electoral votes - the result's the same: neither candidate has the 270 electoral votes needed.
I'm not so sure this is right: Amendment XII says: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;..." Now, if the Florida votes are not certified, is that the same as saying they are not "appointed"? If so, then you only need the majority of the leftovers, which Gore has now...unless Wisconsin and New Mexico are themselved both recounted and turned over to Bush, AND Oregon ends up going to Bush.
Which brings up another potential argument against the Electoral College -- going to an overall popular vote might discourage this kind of targeted fraud, because you wouldn't be leveraging a few fraudulent votes into a big EC win.
Because people are complaining that they made a mistake, asked the poll watchers how to fix it, and were told it was too late and their votes had to be counted for Buchanan.
1. You could remove the EC and require a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.
2. If the election goes into the House, it's one vote per state, so the relevant number is the 27 states that will be Republican in the new House, not the 218-210 you mention. But Bush still wins in that situation, yes.
Not according to exit polling. Perot took both from conservatives, thus from Bush, and from "we want a change" voters, thus from Clinton. Clinton would have won anyway.
Now, in 1996, the Perot vote did come out of the Republican vote, but it wasn't enough to change that result either.
What I found amusing was that Bush had 55-60% of the vote in Florida for the longest time, with 2% reporting, but yet the liberal media was still reporting Gore as the winner. How strange.
This would make sense if the 2% were known to be from more conservative areas, so you extrapolate how much stronger you expect Gore to be in the more liberal areas.