Agreed, but regardless of what you or I think, NY believes that Amazon having "people" in NY is sufficient, and is probably the loophole through which they're acting. Their logic may be flawed and the whole thing subject to appeal, but I suspect that they've decided to roll the dice.
Lose, they're out legal fees for lawyers they already have on staff, win, and they stand to collect millions in tax revenues.
"I think bandwidth is more like water in BC than NM, because once you build your infrastructure there's no supply issue."
Once you've built your infrastructure you still have to maintain it and power it and administer it. Further, X amount of infrastructure is a finite resource, providing Y amount of bandwidth. Swamp your pipe or router with P2P traffic, and you've swamped your system.
Finite resources are scarce resources, and one charges for scarce resources according to demand.
You're missing the key point. Reread the summary, especially the part that says "... which applies to Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs."
Obviously, they're proceeding on the grounds that since Amazon must have affiliates that live in New York, Amazon has a "physical presence" in New York, which in turn allows them to collect sales tax. So the question becomes, is having an "agent" in that state the same as having employees or a b&m store?
This one may have to work it's way up to the Supreme Court.
"... but today, equipment swap-outs will essentially give them that capability for next to nothing."
Yeah, like all of that replacement equipment is free. Further, you don't buy bargain basement equipment when you do a swap-out, but often go near high-end in order to maximize the useful life of your investment. Drop in cheap current-generation hardware, and you'll simply have to replace it sooner.
Sorry, but I think "pay per use" solves all sorts of problems. Use more gas, oil, water, or electricity, and you pay more. Use less and you pay less. Simple. (And before someone starts the tangibleintangible argument, we're still faced with the fact that there's only so much electricity/water/bandwidth available at a certain place and point in time. They're all finite resources.)
And personally, I think that for most accounts the system should be biased towards paying more for "upstream" usage than downstream. In fact, most ISPs already state two bandwidth rates, with, say, 600Kbps up and 1.5Mbps down. I say charge accordingly. (Helps the ISPs with the P2P problem too. If upstream traffic costs more then you turn more people into leachers, which in turn drives more providers off the web.)
Secondly, if you have a home account you're ALREADY paying a monthly fee to get Ubuntu. It's not "free". And if you don't think you're going to get $3 worth of value from it, then you're probably better off not wasting the bandwidth in the first place.
The whole concept is flawed. First, "content creators" and ISPs and telco's are all different people. Second, we're talking about the same content creators who're supposed to be providing all of their content for free? And all subsidized by advertising that no one wants? Those content creators?
Only on Slashdot would someone propose that all of the "content creators" pay more to provide you with free services.
In reality, we're already double-dipping the system, with content providers paying for bandwidth and users paying for theirs. That same byte was paid for both upstream and downstream. And if that's not enough to fund maintenance and further development, then someone needs to raise prices.
"Your position is understandable as an author; you are selfish, and want to increase what you get..."
Right. And the parasite who wants anything and everything given to him for free isn't selfish either? Your argument boils down to saying that EVERYONE is selfish, on both sides of the table. A position that--to be honest--is scarely illuminating.
"...and only give you the bare minimum that it will take in order..."
Since market forces apply here as well, I suspect that we need a little more than the "bare mimimum". These people, especially the successful ones, tend to be among the most creative minds on the planet. As such, creating works for you to enjoy and ponder has to be worthwhile, otherwise, most any sane person with a house and family would simply do something else.
Further, your argument tends to imply that authors are interchangable cogs in the machine, another fallacy. Most any smuck can run a cash register at McDonalds, and his compensation is valued as such. The number of people, OTOH, who can write an Atlas Shrugged or The Shining or Stranger in a Strange Land or Lord of the Rings are exceedingly rare and valuable treasures.
And unlike you, I have no problem whatsoever compensating them for their efforts.
"Copyright is artificial, and a lack of it is the natural state of things."
You do NOT want to go there. "All men created equal..." is an equally artificial concept. "The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness..." likewise. The "natural" order of things would be the survival of the fittest, with the strong taking what they want whenever they want and the weak digging among the scraps, or doing without entirely.
However, an enlightened society recognizes those principles and attempts to apply them. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. And the same applies to copyright law. I totally agree that a better balance needs to be struck, but the founding fathers recognized the need for protections and also the need to encourage and promote the development of works of art and science.
Is a better system possible? Perhaps. Then again, the current system encourages the production of thousands upon thousands of works each year, all produced "on spec", and all available to you and I to enjoy for an infintesimal fraction of the costs of creation and production.
So dazzle me. What system do you propose that's "fair" (another artificial concept) to content creators and consumers alike? That's guaranteed to make the same amount of work available, if not more? That doesn't require forcing something people DON'T want (advertising) on them just so they can get what they do want?
It's all very well to speak of "publishers" in a derogatory sense, but totally ignore the fact that we're also talking about "authors". You know, the people who spend a year or so up front WRITING those books.
What I'm interested in is preserving EVERYONE'S rights.
From a user's perspective, finding a game or application on the App Store, clicking the "install" button, and having it download directly to your phone is pretty damn simple. Just ask most reviewers about being able to purchase and directly download content to the Kindle.
As to Java, I feel the same way about it as I do about Flash. Standard Java/Flash applications aren't tied into the iPhone's custom APIs, don't use the hardware accelerated systems, don't know beans about multi-touch, accelerometers, cameras, or half of all of the other hardware features, and tend to want to use their own widgets, buttons, sliders, and so on.
In short, they'd tend to make pretty crappy iPhone applications.
Well, quite a few people also listen to them on subways, trains, buses, and airplanes. I also listen to them at the gym, and pretty much anyplace where I have to wait in line.
Well, to be precise, it says, "Wal-Mart sold out the in-store gPC inventory but decided not to restock..." from which one can infer... nothing. They might have sold them below cost to rid the stores of the last few boxes. Or it may have taken 6 months to move 5 units. Or they could have simply keep them in the store because it might not have been cost effective to pack them up and ship them back.
They also could have gotten in 5 units and sold 5 units in a single day... not. Because if that were the case they'd keep selling them. Or they could have sold 5 and gotten 4 back once the user found it couldn't run Word and most games, which I could attribute to "This really wasn't what our customers were looking for..."
But the lead says it best. "Computers that run the Linux operating system instead of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows didn't attract enough attention from Wal-Mart customers, and the chain has stopped selling them in stores..."
You're assuming that they're thinking that far ahead. How about just announcing a new law banning some "scary" or unpopular practice and getting free publicity?
"Slap Android on a pure touchscreen phone and what do you have?"
A phone that's not available? That has no supporting infrastructure? No stores that sell it? No support staff ready, willing, and able to help? No iTunes? No backing from any major carrier? And no one, other than a few geeks, who care if it's "open", closed, or just cracked ajar?
"... your code will need lots of adaptation to be used on other phone substrates..."
Well... I guess that flip side of that equation is that your code is Cocoa and Objective-C, which means that existing MAC developers have a leg up in porting versions of their applications to the iPhone. And that any iPhone application you create can have it's code moved over to the mothership OS relatively easily.
How many Symbian applications can I write that, with a few changes here and there, run just fine under OS X?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but regardless of what you or I think, NY believes that Amazon having "people" in NY is sufficient, and is probably the loophole through which they're acting. Their logic may be flawed and the whole thing subject to appeal, but I suspect that they've decided to roll the dice.
Lose, they're out legal fees for lawyers they already have on staff, win, and they stand to collect millions in tax revenues.
"I think bandwidth is more like water in BC than NM, because once you build your infrastructure there's no supply issue."
Once you've built your infrastructure you still have to maintain it and power it and administer it. Further, X amount of infrastructure is a finite resource, providing Y amount of bandwidth. Swamp your pipe or router with P2P traffic, and you've swamped your system.
Finite resources are scarce resources, and one charges for scarce resources according to demand.
You conveniently forgot to add electricity, which is just electrons moving around, same as bits.
"... the non free ones, though somewhat functional, are not available without some kind of restrictions."
Yeah, like they expect you to pay for them.
You're missing the key point. Reread the summary, especially the part that says "... which applies to Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs."
Obviously, they're proceeding on the grounds that since Amazon must have affiliates that live in New York, Amazon has a "physical presence" in New York, which in turn allows them to collect sales tax. So the question becomes, is having an "agent" in that state the same as having employees or a b&m store?
This one may have to work it's way up to the Supreme Court.
"... but today, equipment swap-outs will essentially give them that capability for next to nothing."
Yeah, like all of that replacement equipment is free. Further, you don't buy bargain basement equipment when you do a swap-out, but often go near high-end in order to maximize the useful life of your investment. Drop in cheap current-generation hardware, and you'll simply have to replace it sooner.
Sorry, but I think "pay per use" solves all sorts of problems. Use more gas, oil, water, or electricity, and you pay more. Use less and you pay less. Simple. (And before someone starts the tangibleintangible argument, we're still faced with the fact that there's only so much electricity/water/bandwidth available at a certain place and point in time. They're all finite resources.)
And personally, I think that for most accounts the system should be biased towards paying more for "upstream" usage than downstream. In fact, most ISPs already state two bandwidth rates, with, say, 600Kbps up and 1.5Mbps down. I say charge accordingly. (Helps the ISPs with the P2P problem too. If upstream traffic costs more then you turn more people into leachers, which in turn drives more providers off the web.)
Secondly, if you have a home account you're ALREADY paying a monthly fee to get Ubuntu. It's not "free". And if you don't think you're going to get $3 worth of value from it, then you're probably better off not wasting the bandwidth in the first place.
The whole concept is flawed. First, "content creators" and ISPs and telco's are all different people. Second, we're talking about the same content creators who're supposed to be providing all of their content for free? And all subsidized by advertising that no one wants? Those content creators?
Only on Slashdot would someone propose that all of the "content creators" pay more to provide you with free services.
In reality, we're already double-dipping the system, with content providers paying for bandwidth and users paying for theirs. That same byte was paid for both upstream and downstream. And if that's not enough to fund maintenance and further development, then someone needs to raise prices.
"Your position is understandable as an author; you are selfish, and want to increase what you get..."
Right. And the parasite who wants anything and everything given to him for free isn't selfish either? Your argument boils down to saying that EVERYONE is selfish, on both sides of the table. A position that--to be honest--is scarely illuminating.
"...and only give you the bare minimum that it will take in order..."
Since market forces apply here as well, I suspect that we need a little more than the "bare mimimum". These people, especially the successful ones, tend to be among the most creative minds on the planet. As such, creating works for you to enjoy and ponder has to be worthwhile, otherwise, most any sane person with a house and family would simply do something else.
Further, your argument tends to imply that authors are interchangable cogs in the machine, another fallacy. Most any smuck can run a cash register at McDonalds, and his compensation is valued as such. The number of people, OTOH, who can write an Atlas Shrugged or The Shining or Stranger in a Strange Land or Lord of the Rings are exceedingly rare and valuable treasures.
And unlike you, I have no problem whatsoever compensating them for their efforts.
"Of course, I love writing, and choose this method freely."
Of course you did. Just how many offers from Bantam did you turn down?
"Copyright is artificial, and a lack of it is the natural state of things."
You do NOT want to go there. "All men created equal..." is an equally artificial concept. "The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness..." likewise. The "natural" order of things would be the survival of the fittest, with the strong taking what they want whenever they want and the weak digging among the scraps, or doing without entirely.
However, an enlightened society recognizes those principles and attempts to apply them. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. And the same applies to copyright law. I totally agree that a better balance needs to be struck, but the founding fathers recognized the need for protections and also the need to encourage and promote the development of works of art and science.
Is a better system possible? Perhaps. Then again, the current system encourages the production of thousands upon thousands of works each year, all produced "on spec", and all available to you and I to enjoy for an infintesimal fraction of the costs of creation and production.
So dazzle me. What system do you propose that's "fair" (another artificial concept) to content creators and consumers alike? That's guaranteed to make the same amount of work available, if not more? That doesn't require forcing something people DON'T want (advertising) on them just so they can get what they do want?
"Then we need to create a segregated community: their content and Our content."
Cool. I eagerly wait your next book.
You know, the one you're going to spend the next year writing, and that you're going to donate to the world, free of charge?
Odd, isn't it, that it's easy to advocate that eveyone else give away their work for free?
It's all very well to speak of "publishers" in a derogatory sense, but totally ignore the fact that we're also talking about "authors". You know, the people who spend a year or so up front WRITING those books.
What I'm interested in is preserving EVERYONE'S rights.
"To make things worst, most customers do not understand engineering and sometimes they may not even know exactly what it is they want."
As Henry Ford said, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse."
"But at a quite substantial but at least feasible cost of say $20k US, personally I'd start saving up the coin."
Probably have to save a bit more than that. Heck, you need $20K just for a MIG-29 flight.
"No wireless, less space than a nomad, Lame."
Do you think CmdrTaco cringes every time that's repeated?
".... there are ROM dumps and direct address locations provided throughout ."
The days of being able to code and touch everything in the system are long, long gone.
From a user's perspective, finding a game or application on the App Store, clicking the "install" button, and having it download directly to your phone is pretty damn simple. Just ask most reviewers about being able to purchase and directly download content to the Kindle.
As to Java, I feel the same way about it as I do about Flash. Standard Java/Flash applications aren't tied into the iPhone's custom APIs, don't use the hardware accelerated systems, don't know beans about multi-touch, accelerometers, cameras, or half of all of the other hardware features, and tend to want to use their own widgets, buttons, sliders, and so on.
In short, they'd tend to make pretty crappy iPhone applications.
Good riddance.
Well, quite a few people also listen to them on subways, trains, buses, and airplanes. I also listen to them at the gym, and pretty much anyplace where I have to wait in line.
Well, to be precise, it says, "Wal-Mart sold out the in-store gPC inventory but decided not to restock..." from which one can infer... nothing. They might have sold them below cost to rid the stores of the last few boxes. Or it may have taken 6 months to move 5 units. Or they could have simply keep them in the store because it might not have been cost effective to pack them up and ship them back.
They also could have gotten in 5 units and sold 5 units in a single day... not. Because if that were the case they'd keep selling them. Or they could have sold 5 and gotten 4 back once the user found it couldn't run Word and most games, which I could attribute to "This really wasn't what our customers were looking for..."
But the lead says it best. "Computers that run the Linux operating system instead of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows didn't attract enough attention from Wal-Mart customers, and the chain has stopped selling them in stores..."
You're assuming that they're thinking that far ahead. How about just announcing a new law banning some "scary" or unpopular practice and getting free publicity?
Which simply gives rise to the "who mods the moderators" problem one has on Slashdot. Or groups of people gaming the system, as they do on digg.
If you write a good enough app, why shouldn't everyone who uses it pay for it?
"Slap Android on a pure touchscreen phone and what do you have?"
A phone that's not available? That has no supporting infrastructure? No stores that sell it? No support staff ready, willing, and able to help? No iTunes? No backing from any major carrier? And no one, other than a few geeks, who care if it's "open", closed, or just cracked ajar?
"... your code will need lots of adaptation to be used on other phone substrates..."
Well... I guess that flip side of that equation is that your code is Cocoa and Objective-C, which means that existing MAC developers have a leg up in porting versions of their applications to the iPhone. And that any iPhone application you create can have it's code moved over to the mothership OS relatively easily.
How many Symbian applications can I write that, with a few changes here and there, run just fine under OS X?