The real problem is that centralized storage of important documents and media is convenient, but risky. From the great Library at Alexandria to modern times, central data stores get damaged or destroyed. Fire, theft, natural disaster, obsolescence... we have the power to replicate our cultural heritage, every culture's heritage, on a truly global scale. By doing so we make it virtually impossible that civilization can suffer the kind of losses it has in the past. Of course, this all depends upon our maintaining a technological level capable of accessing that information.
In any event, the copyright heavies complain about "theft" of their "intellectual property", but by their mishandling of old media they are risking the loss of much more. That should not be permitted.
Probably means that they want to appear progressive when it comes your regulating authorities, but don't really want to provide that service on a significant scale. Then they can say, "See? We offered it and nobody bought it." I don't know about Canada, but down here they pull that kind of crap all the time.
Requiring a national ID (something all countries around the world except for the US have) as an age verification would be enough. That's no 1984/big bro system whatsoever.
Irrelevant. Whether a National ID system works for another country has no bearing on whether it will work for us. No government can be trusted completely, but some can be trusted in ways that others cannot. Given the nature of our Federal Government today, and where it is heading, I can't believe that a National ID card would benefit of the citizens of this country. Oh, it would make some things convenient, but the downsides are too great. I'm certainly not willing to take the risk, and neither would you, if you were to really think about it for a minute or two.
How any American could find a National ID card to be a good idea is beyond me. The United States Federal Government is already far more powerful than it needs to be, than the Founders intended it to be, and giving it even more authority is just stupid. Many State governments are already aware of this, and are refusing to implement Congress' Real ID scheme/scam or any derivative. There's a reason for that.
It looks like most of the processing is being done by the remote itself, so I'd guess that all the PC is doing is processing co-ordinates for a couple of moving points.
Well, I wouldn't feel to sorry for the shareholders: they're a big part of the problem, because they've made it clear what they want is profit now and to hell with the employees and to hell with the future.
I dunno about capping salary, sometimes that's not what you want. Take Andy Grove, ex-CEO of Intel. Rich beyond dreams of avarice, and at the end his salary was about 2.4 million (sounds like a lot but it's a mere pittance in comparison to the value he created with Intel) and most of his wealth is in Intel stock. Same goes for Bill Gates. Consequently, what you're saying is already true for the most successful operations, at least for those still run by their founders. This is more about what happens with the leadership of a company that isn't doing so well: they get fired and take a good chunk of the company's remaining capital with them.
So trying to limit a CEO's income to some arbitrary number is probably a mistake: no shareholder would begrudge what Grove or Gates or any corporate leaders like them because they return many, many times what they make. As I pointed out in my original post, this kind of abusive activity on the part of other CEOs is more symptomatic of a fundamental change in the relationship between the Chief Executive Office and the Board of Directors. It is they who are supposed to keep the Chief under control, and when they fail (because they themselves are CEOs of other companies, and this CEO serves on their board!) things go from bad to worse.
I agree. Apple sells popular products. The idea that they're somehow a better corporate citizen than any other, simply because they're popular, is sort of naive. That Apple has attack lawyers on staff, and is more than willing to use them, is readily apparent.
In my state, there's something called (I believe) a "Motion for Discovery of Assets". Something like that, anyway, but lawyers can pretty much find out whatever they want, although I think there has to be some judicial oversight. Dunno though... any lawyers out there want to comment?
Well, I'm not sure what a stock tank is (I presume it's where you keep your liquid stocks) but maybe if they'd tried rewarding their execs as people rather than as storage facilities, they might've had better luck.
I didn't say it was the price for one seat. It was the cost to pay for the software maintenance that we had chosen not to pay for the past few years. I wish people would read what I post instead of just the first line. And there was no negotiation involved: just a simple email request for current pricing. I saw the response from Mathworks. We were all kinda surprised at the amount.
Did you read what I said? Yes, I know MatLab is expensive, but the upgrade cost (including the required three or four years of past payments on software maintenance) put that seat at around fifteen grand. They provided no service during that period, yet they insist that they should be paid for it regardless. Apparently they feel that, once you've purchased the program, you are beholden to them indefinitely for support payments, whether you want to pay for support or not, whether you need their support or not.
Slashdot Mirror
If the CEO really was that bad then he will probably never work again anyway ...
Would that were true. In reality it is not, I'm afraid.
Yes, and they even had clownloading, while porno was transmitted via Clit Torrent!
Why is that ironic? Don't you have lightsaber practice with Captain Solo down under?
That's no good. Glass flows over time.
When Chuck Norris sues, he doesn't even bother to come to court since no jury would rule against him.
Regarding your sig, I see I've found another Heinlein fan.
The real problem is that centralized storage of important documents and media is convenient, but risky. From the great Library at Alexandria to modern times, central data stores get damaged or destroyed. Fire, theft, natural disaster, obsolescence ... we have the power to replicate our cultural heritage, every culture's heritage, on a truly global scale. By doing so we make it virtually impossible that civilization can suffer the kind of losses it has in the past. Of course, this all depends upon our maintaining a technological level capable of accessing that information.
In any event, the copyright heavies complain about "theft" of their "intellectual property", but by their mishandling of old media they are risking the loss of much more. That should not be permitted.
True, but if that did happen, the resulting torrential flood of copyright infringement would destroy the entertainment industry. Or so we're told.
Oh, there's plenty of more stupid, evil stuff in the modern American legal system, but you're right: that one's definitely up there.
... most people don't even have a box. They think using someone else's.
Regarding your sig
Probably means that they want to appear progressive when it comes your regulating authorities, but don't really want to provide that service on a significant scale. Then they can say, "See? We offered it and nobody bought it." I don't know about Canada, but down here they pull that kind of crap all the time.
Sounds like you need some QOS handling on your local router.
Requiring a national ID (something all countries around the world except for the US have) as an age verification would be enough. That's no 1984/big bro system whatsoever.
Irrelevant. Whether a National ID system works for another country has no bearing on whether it will work for us. No government can be trusted completely, but some can be trusted in ways that others cannot. Given the nature of our Federal Government today, and where it is heading, I can't believe that a National ID card would benefit of the citizens of this country. Oh, it would make some things convenient, but the downsides are too great. I'm certainly not willing to take the risk, and neither would you, if you were to really think about it for a minute or two.
How any American could find a National ID card to be a good idea is beyond me. The United States Federal Government is already far more powerful than it needs to be, than the Founders intended it to be, and giving it even more authority is just stupid. Many State governments are already aware of this, and are refusing to implement Congress' Real ID scheme/scam or any derivative. There's a reason for that.
Australia Plans to Censor the Internet
... good luck with that.
Yeah well
what's the primary audience for X18+? Children?
... yeah, pretty much.
Well, if it's anything like the X rating here in the U.S., I'd say
It looks like most of the processing is being done by the remote itself, so I'd guess that all the PC is doing is processing co-ordinates for a couple of moving points.
Well, I wouldn't feel to sorry for the shareholders: they're a big part of the problem, because they've made it clear what they want is profit now and to hell with the employees and to hell with the future.
I dunno about capping salary, sometimes that's not what you want. Take Andy Grove, ex-CEO of Intel. Rich beyond dreams of avarice, and at the end his salary was about 2.4 million (sounds like a lot but it's a mere pittance in comparison to the value he created with Intel) and most of his wealth is in Intel stock. Same goes for Bill Gates. Consequently, what you're saying is already true for the most successful operations, at least for those still run by their founders. This is more about what happens with the leadership of a company that isn't doing so well: they get fired and take a good chunk of the company's remaining capital with them.
So trying to limit a CEO's income to some arbitrary number is probably a mistake: no shareholder would begrudge what Grove or Gates or any corporate leaders like them because they return many, many times what they make. As I pointed out in my original post, this kind of abusive activity on the part of other CEOs is more symptomatic of a fundamental change in the relationship between the Chief Executive Office and the Board of Directors. It is they who are supposed to keep the Chief under control, and when they fail (because they themselves are CEOs of other companies, and this CEO serves on their board!) things go from bad to worse.
Well, Microsoft is the Antichrist but I agree ... that doesn't automatically grant sainthood to Apple.
Well, personally I couldn't care less. I have no interest in the product so I'll take your word for it. I just know what I heard at work.
I agree. Apple sells popular products. The idea that they're somehow a better corporate citizen than any other, simply because they're popular, is sort of naive. That Apple has attack lawyers on staff, and is more than willing to use them, is readily apparent.
In my state, there's something called (I believe) a "Motion for Discovery of Assets". Something like that, anyway, but lawyers can pretty much find out whatever they want, although I think there has to be some judicial oversight. Dunno though ... any lawyers out there want to comment?
to boil a few of those kinds of attorneys in oil, just as a warning to others.
Circuit City Rewards Execs As Stock Tanks
Well, I'm not sure what a stock tank is (I presume it's where you keep your liquid stocks) but maybe if they'd tried rewarding their execs as people rather than as storage facilities, they might've had better luck.
There is a reason open source duplication and innovation in these fields is slow - this is HARD stuff.
And it will get even slower once lawyers and software patents start getting involved.
I didn't say it was the price for one seat. It was the cost to pay for the software maintenance that we had chosen not to pay for the past few years. I wish people would read what I post instead of just the first line. And there was no negotiation involved: just a simple email request for current pricing. I saw the response from Mathworks. We were all kinda surprised at the amount.
Did you read what I said? Yes, I know MatLab is expensive, but the upgrade cost (including the required three or four years of past payments on software maintenance) put that seat at around fifteen grand. They provided no service during that period, yet they insist that they should be paid for it regardless. Apparently they feel that, once you've purchased the program, you are beholden to them indefinitely for support payments, whether you want to pay for support or not, whether you need their support or not.