The value isn't in people actually typing it in. The value is in the links you put on the page back to the thing you want to advertise, which in turn pushes you up the rankings on the various search engines.
The limiting resource here is not disk space. It's administration.
Wikipedia needs to be administrated. The more articles, the harder it is to administrate. Thus, eliminating CRAP improves the content overall.
Additionally, Wikipedia needs to avoid being turned into an ad factory. Letting anyone put up an 'article' advertising their own pet project, if left unchecked, turns Wikipedia into an ad factory.
A list of articles deleted from Wikipedia is NOT AN ARTICLE! It's a list. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists.
We lowered the bar 8 years ago. She is, frankly, almost as qualified to be President as the current President. About the only differences are that she's governor of a smaller state (but it's closer to Russia), while Bush co-owned a sports team Palin just talked about sports teams, Palin is even MORE of a religious conservative than Bush, and Bush's parents had the political clout to get him through Yale instead of community college.
Of course, we haven't exactly been doing well with the current President....
That should be the message. "Sarah Palin: Even less qualified than George Bush."
A driver's license is used because it meets the requirement for government-issued photo-identification. You can also use a state-issued ID card any time you would use a driver's license EXCEPT for driving. It just so happens that most adults want to be licensed to drive, so if they need a driver's license anyway, there's not much point in ALSO having a state ID card.**
You can NOT use your pet owner's license card or your hunting license card (depending on the state and purpose, your hunting license might be acceptable) because they generally do not require as rigorous a verification of identity as a state ID or driver's license.
** Although I used to have a state ID card AND a state driver's license when I was younger and lived in IL so that I could still get in the bar when they cops took my license as bond for the speeding tickets. (Fortunately I've lost my youthful good looks*** and my lead foot and neither is an issue anymore.)
*** Ok, fine, the looks were never good, but they were at least youthful.
At some point, the suspects were caught, and the state needed to collect evidence of their BAC. Unfortunately, the state, instead of using a device that could provide accurate, verifiable evidence, used a device that, due to the lack of source code, could not provide verifiable evidence. Since the evidence is not verifiable, then the evidence is not admissible. Next time, the state should buy and use breathalyzers that produce admissible evidence.
While their action is despicable, the breathalyzer vendor didn't agree to provide their source code as part of the purchase, and shouldn't be forced to do so after the fact because the state didn't buy a device suitable for the task.
It's a bit like if I went to the state and offered to sell them a breathalyzer, and delivered a bicube blood alcohol measurement device, which is used by giving the two cubes to the suspect, having them throw the cubes on the ground, and then counting the number of dots that are showing on the top faces of the cubes. The state should know my breathalyzer isn't going to produce admissible evidence and shouldn't buy it and try and use the results in court.
Just like voting machines, states need to learn to stop spending millions of dollars on technology that doesn't work.
But we don't know that they're willing to sell for $0.01. All we know is that none of the participants think that lowering the price will get them more revenue. That's the price the market will bear.
It's hard to argue that some sort of oligarchy is pushing the price up when looking at something like text messages, for which there are several alternatives - it's not like anyone is ever faced with 'send a text message or die'. Or even suffer significant cost. Anyone who doesn't want to pay the costs for text messaging can simply USE THE SAME THING THEY ARE HOLDING to MAKE A PHONE CALL.
Did you know that the post office charges $0.42 per text message, and it takes days to get there?
I should have made clear, contingent on no one exercising monopoly pricing power. But that's a lot different than just 'the prices went up'. Consolidation often results when there are too many companies in a business and the prices are too low for the businesses to sustain themselves.
The fact that it hasn't implies that the cellular market is not free.
Says who? There are four providers of text messages, and several other means of communicating data. Would you believe that for many people, the VERY SAME DEVICE that sends text messages for $0.10 can be used to send a one-minute voice communication for ZERO INCREMENTAL COST to the customer, but the customer chooses to pay the $0.10 anyway?
Not to mention the myriad of other ways people have to share information OTHER than text messages.
The high prices of text messages indicate that there's no competition in that market.
Except that YOU don't get to decide whether the price is high or not. The market does. And the *MARKET* has decided that the price of text messages is reasonable. People are willing to pay $0.10 to send a text message. What it COSTS to provide the message is irrelevant.
Did you know that people sell oil and gold for more than the cost to mine it? Did you know that that soft drink you pay $3.50 for at the movie theater costs the movie theater pennies worth of syrup and cold water?
Did you know that you can get a cell phone plan that lets you talk on your phone from nearly anywhere in the country and to anywhere in the country for *LESS* than it used to cost for a landline and long distance?
Did you know that many drugs sold for $10 or more a pill cost mere pennies to manufacture? All you have to do is invest a few billion in finding one that works.
And while the incremental cost of sending a text message may be $0, all you have to do to send them is invest a few hundred billion in a cell phone network....
At the end of the day, if people are willing to pay $0.10 a minute and $0.10 a message, then that's what people are willing to pay. Which one provides the better margins to the cellular company is irrelevant, as long as people are willing to pay the price charged and the company has enough revenue to stay in business.
First, I think what a lot of people have missed here is something basic: The market. Microsoft is not selling their product to the same people that Apple is selling to. Microsoft has to please a lot more middle-aged corporate types, and a lot of common types. Even the place this ad premiered reflects that - NFL football game. Not the Oscars, MTV Music awards, American Idol - NFL football game. Domain of white guys.
Second, the point of the ad is not to advertise the product. Microsoft and their ad agency have probably done quite a bit of research and realized that the brand perception of Microsoft is mostly large, faceless, corporate machine. Insert 'evil' in there, if you'd like. The point of the ad is to put a human face on the company. "Oh look, Microsoft's founder has to buy shoes just like me!" Jerry's contribution is to be annoyingly quirky, which allows Bill to be tolerant and 'humor' Jerry. The whole ad is Bill playing along even though you suspect he thinks Jerry is quite odd (also making Bill look not-so-odd by comparison.)
The ad is effective for what Microsoft is trying to accomplish with it. Hell, even proving Bill isn't ACTUALLY equipped with a Borg eye is worth a few million.
... a registered trademark trumps natural-born name use. For example, William H. Macy could not have a department store chain named "Macy's" or "William H. Macy's". Both would violate Macy's trademark.
To your second point, I agree. Someone who has so much money that they don't notice an average of $20,000 per month missing from what is apparently a very active account should probably hire an accountant. For that much money you can get a very good one and apparently still have enough money left over that you will come out ahead.
*IF* you happen to be stolen from. If you're not unlucky enough to be stolen from, then the accountant to watch your account is a waste of money.
Since the odds you become a victim are probably in the single-digit percentile (or less), paying for the accountant would be a bad investment. It would be cheaper to buy some sort of insurance.
It's a classic case of where paying for the losses is less expensive than preventing the losses, especially when the cost of the loss is spread around everyone at risk of loss.
Whenever possible, only buy things that run on standard, rechargeable batteries - A, AA, C, D and 9V - although I only actually use A, AA and in very limited cases 9V.
The only place this hasn't worked for me is cell phones, but even there I mitigate by sticking with one cell phone manufacturer. And I suppose one could argue it doesn't work with laptops either, but I consider the power adapter there to just be an external power supply. That it also charges the battery is a bonus.
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
The part your missing is that, for copyright purposes, the installed software *IS* an exact copy, in the same way copying a song from a record to a CD is an exact copy. The installed software is not an adaptation (unless Psystar somehow modifies the function of said software). Another way to look at it is you own the copyright of a photo, which you sell on 18x27" poster paper, and I take a picture of it and sell framed copies made on a color photo copier. That's an exact copy. If I put a big red circle on the image and sell copies of the original image with a big red circle, that's an adaptation.
Other examples:
A novel printed in hard cover is an exact copy of a novel with the exact same series of words printed in paperback.
A novel printed in paperback which identical in every way to another novel printed in paperback with the exception of the series of words is an adaptation.
A work of art sold printed on posters is an exact copy of the original work of art painted on canvas.
A work of art with the colors in negative sold printed on posters is an adaptation of the original work of art sold on posters.
A 12" tall sculpture of the same scale form is an exact copy of the 12' tall original.
A 12' tall sculpture with an arm bent in a different direction is an adaptation of a 12' original sculpture otherwise identical in every way.
Under your interpretation, Microsoft can prohibit you from selling your unused copy of Windows
Under his interpretation, HE doesn't have an 'unused' copy of Windows in the first place. Microsoft could litter the planet with Windows CDs with copies of the software in EULA shrink-wrap that would all belong to Microsoft that no one could legally open and use without agreeing to Microsoft's license.
In any area of creative work OTHER than software, if the copyright owner copies the work, and the copyright owner distributes that copy, that copy can be traded/sold/whatever as any other piece of property. In ADDITION, the possessor of said copy has fair use rights to make more copies for archival/backup purposes.
The GP's interpretation is that for some reason, a creative SOFTWARE work has some unique property whereby the copyright holder has some right to provide a copy WITHOUT relinquishing control of that copy. That would be equivalent to buying a CD, and not being allowed to give the CD to your friend.
Were the scam 'real', the 'victim' would be guilty of multiple felonies.
That's the only REAL difference here. If you ACTUALLY helped wire a few million out of an African country, you'd be a criminal. But if you fall for someone else PRETENDING that you're helping wire said money, then you're a victim.
A few thousand dollars lost to a scam is a small price to pay when the alternative is that it's NOT a scam and you get to spend a few years in prison instead.
Care to tell me how you'd deal with the epidemic of obesity in the west?
First, by West, you must mean US. There is no epidemic of obesity in Europe.
My solution is simple - the new "Can't catch it, can't eat it" policy. Worked for millions of years. Put it in place in stages.
Stage one is a ban on food delivery services. The morbidly obese will starve down to a weight where they can at least get into their cars and get to the drive thru.
Stage two is a ban on drive thrus, so people will starve down to a weight when they can actually get out of their cars and into the counter or grocery store to get their food.
Stage three is a weight limit on disabled parking passes. If you're so fat that you need a special parking permit to get to your food, you'll starve down to a weight where you can at least hobble in to get your food.
Stage four is a ban on any personal scooters or electric wheelchairs that can support more than 250 lbs. If you're too fat to propel yourself, you'll starve down to a weight where you can at least stand up on your own.
Stage five is the big one - the doors of any food retailer will no longer be allowed to be any wider than 20". Then people will at least starve down to a size where they can fit through the door.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems the primary criteria would be, can I conveniently download, install, and play the game I want to play?
As long as Steam's DRM doesn't interfere with that (it doesn't) it should be a non-issue.
The value isn't in people actually typing it in. The value is in the links you put on the page back to the thing you want to advertise, which in turn pushes you up the rankings on the various search engines.
Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The limiting resource here is not disk space. It's administration.
Wikipedia needs to be administrated. The more articles, the harder it is to administrate. Thus, eliminating CRAP improves the content overall.
Additionally, Wikipedia needs to avoid being turned into an ad factory. Letting anyone put up an 'article' advertising their own pet project, if left unchecked, turns Wikipedia into an ad factory.
A list of articles deleted from Wikipedia is NOT AN ARTICLE! It's a list. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists.
We lowered the bar 8 years ago. She is, frankly, almost as qualified to be President as the current President. About the only differences are that she's governor of a smaller state (but it's closer to Russia), while Bush co-owned a sports team Palin just talked about sports teams, Palin is even MORE of a religious conservative than Bush, and Bush's parents had the political clout to get him through Yale instead of community college.
Of course, we haven't exactly been doing well with the current President....
That should be the message. "Sarah Palin: Even less qualified than George Bush."
Trademark.
Inflammatory subject lines get people to read levelheaded posts.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of everything.
If you want a directory of everything, try here:
No deletionism!
A driver's license is used because it meets the requirement for government-issued photo-identification. You can also use a state-issued ID card any time you would use a driver's license EXCEPT for driving. It just so happens that most adults want to be licensed to drive, so if they need a driver's license anyway, there's not much point in ALSO having a state ID card.**
You can NOT use your pet owner's license card or your hunting license card (depending on the state and purpose, your hunting license might be acceptable) because they generally do not require as rigorous a verification of identity as a state ID or driver's license.
** Although I used to have a state ID card AND a state driver's license when I was younger and lived in IL so that I could still get in the bar when they cops took my license as bond for the speeding tickets. (Fortunately I've lost my youthful good looks*** and my lead foot and neither is an issue anymore.)
*** Ok, fine, the looks were never good, but they were at least youthful.
At some point, the suspects were caught, and the state needed to collect evidence of their BAC. Unfortunately, the state, instead of using a device that could provide accurate, verifiable evidence, used a device that, due to the lack of source code, could not provide verifiable evidence. Since the evidence is not verifiable, then the evidence is not admissible. Next time, the state should buy and use breathalyzers that produce admissible evidence.
While their action is despicable, the breathalyzer vendor didn't agree to provide their source code as part of the purchase, and shouldn't be forced to do so after the fact because the state didn't buy a device suitable for the task.
It's a bit like if I went to the state and offered to sell them a breathalyzer, and delivered a bicube blood alcohol measurement device, which is used by giving the two cubes to the suspect, having them throw the cubes on the ground, and then counting the number of dots that are showing on the top faces of the cubes. The state should know my breathalyzer isn't going to produce admissible evidence and shouldn't buy it and try and use the results in court.
Just like voting machines, states need to learn to stop spending millions of dollars on technology that doesn't work.
... the post office is charging $0.42 per text message, and it takes days to get there!
But we don't know that they're willing to sell for $0.01. All we know is that none of the participants think that lowering the price will get them more revenue. That's the price the market will bear.
It's hard to argue that some sort of oligarchy is pushing the price up when looking at something like text messages, for which there are several alternatives - it's not like anyone is ever faced with 'send a text message or die'. Or even suffer significant cost. Anyone who doesn't want to pay the costs for text messaging can simply USE THE SAME THING THEY ARE HOLDING to MAKE A PHONE CALL.
Did you know that the post office charges $0.42 per text message, and it takes days to get there?
I should have made clear, contingent on no one exercising monopoly pricing power. But that's a lot different than just 'the prices went up'. Consolidation often results when there are too many companies in a business and the prices are too low for the businesses to sustain themselves.
The fact that it hasn't implies that the cellular market is not free.
Says who? There are four providers of text messages, and several other means of communicating data. Would you believe that for many people, the VERY SAME DEVICE that sends text messages for $0.10 can be used to send a one-minute voice communication for ZERO INCREMENTAL COST to the customer, but the customer chooses to pay the $0.10 anyway?
Not to mention the myriad of other ways people have to share information OTHER than text messages.
The high prices of text messages indicate that there's no competition in that market.
Except that YOU don't get to decide whether the price is high or not. The market does. And the *MARKET* has decided that the price of text messages is reasonable. People are willing to pay $0.10 to send a text message. What it COSTS to provide the message is irrelevant.
Did you know that people sell oil and gold for more than the cost to mine it? Did you know that that soft drink you pay $3.50 for at the movie theater costs the movie theater pennies worth of syrup and cold water?
Did you know that you can get a cell phone plan that lets you talk on your phone from nearly anywhere in the country and to anywhere in the country for *LESS* than it used to cost for a landline and long distance?
Did you know that many drugs sold for $10 or more a pill cost mere pennies to manufacture? All you have to do is invest a few billion in finding one that works.
And while the incremental cost of sending a text message may be $0, all you have to do to send them is invest a few hundred billion in a cell phone network....
At the end of the day, if people are willing to pay $0.10 a minute and $0.10 a message, then that's what people are willing to pay. Which one provides the better margins to the cellular company is irrelevant, as long as people are willing to pay the price charged and the company has enough revenue to stay in business.
First, I think what a lot of people have missed here is something basic: The market. Microsoft is not selling their product to the same people that Apple is selling to. Microsoft has to please a lot more middle-aged corporate types, and a lot of common types. Even the place this ad premiered reflects that - NFL football game. Not the Oscars, MTV Music awards, American Idol - NFL football game. Domain of white guys.
Second, the point of the ad is not to advertise the product. Microsoft and their ad agency have probably done quite a bit of research and realized that the brand perception of Microsoft is mostly large, faceless, corporate machine. Insert 'evil' in there, if you'd like. The point of the ad is to put a human face on the company. "Oh look, Microsoft's founder has to buy shoes just like me!" Jerry's contribution is to be annoyingly quirky, which allows Bill to be tolerant and 'humor' Jerry. The whole ad is Bill playing along even though you suspect he thinks Jerry is quite odd (also making Bill look not-so-odd by comparison.)
The ad is effective for what Microsoft is trying to accomplish with it. Hell, even proving Bill isn't ACTUALLY equipped with a Borg eye is worth a few million.
... a registered trademark trumps natural-born name use. For example, William H. Macy could not have a department store chain named "Macy's" or "William H. Macy's". Both would violate Macy's trademark.
To your second point, I agree. Someone who has so much money that they don't notice an average of $20,000 per month missing from what is apparently a very active account should probably hire an accountant. For that much money you can get a very good one and apparently still have enough money left over that you will come out ahead.
*IF* you happen to be stolen from. If you're not unlucky enough to be stolen from, then the accountant to watch your account is a waste of money.
Since the odds you become a victim are probably in the single-digit percentile (or less), paying for the accountant would be a bad investment. It would be cheaper to buy some sort of insurance.
It's a classic case of where paying for the losses is less expensive than preventing the losses, especially when the cost of the loss is spread around everyone at risk of loss.
Legal definition of 'exact copy' != technical definition of 'exact copy'.
Whenever possible, only buy things that run on standard, rechargeable batteries - A, AA, C, D and 9V - although I only actually use A, AA and in very limited cases 9V.
The only place this hasn't worked for me is cell phones, but even there I mitigate by sticking with one cell phone manufacturer. And I suppose one could argue it doesn't work with laptops either, but I consider the power adapter there to just be an external power supply. That it also charges the battery is a bonus.
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
If I have the gun, then yes.
The part your missing is that, for copyright purposes, the installed software *IS* an exact copy, in the same way copying a song from a record to a CD is an exact copy. The installed software is not an adaptation (unless Psystar somehow modifies the function of said software). Another way to look at it is you own the copyright of a photo, which you sell on 18x27" poster paper, and I take a picture of it and sell framed copies made on a color photo copier. That's an exact copy. If I put a big red circle on the image and sell copies of the original image with a big red circle, that's an adaptation.
Other examples:
A novel printed in hard cover is an exact copy of a novel with the exact same series of words printed in paperback.
A novel printed in paperback which identical in every way to another novel printed in paperback with the exception of the series of words is an adaptation.
A work of art sold printed on posters is an exact copy of the original work of art painted on canvas.
A work of art with the colors in negative sold printed on posters is an adaptation of the original work of art sold on posters.
A 12" tall sculpture of the same scale form is an exact copy of the 12' tall original.
A 12' tall sculpture with an arm bent in a different direction is an adaptation of a 12' original sculpture otherwise identical in every way.
Under your interpretation, Microsoft can prohibit you from selling your unused copy of Windows
Under his interpretation, HE doesn't have an 'unused' copy of Windows in the first place. Microsoft could litter the planet with Windows CDs with copies of the software in EULA shrink-wrap that would all belong to Microsoft that no one could legally open and use without agreeing to Microsoft's license.
In any area of creative work OTHER than software, if the copyright owner copies the work, and the copyright owner distributes that copy, that copy can be traded/sold/whatever as any other piece of property. In ADDITION, the possessor of said copy has fair use rights to make more copies for archival/backup purposes.
The GP's interpretation is that for some reason, a creative SOFTWARE work has some unique property whereby the copyright holder has some right to provide a copy WITHOUT relinquishing control of that copy. That would be equivalent to buying a CD, and not being allowed to give the CD to your friend.
Right to distribute copies != right to transfer a copy.
Just wanted to point out that having a felony conviction doesn't necessarily mean somebody is an evil person.
That's exactly what an evil person would say.
And money laundering is money laundering.
Were the scam 'real', the 'victim' would be guilty of multiple felonies.
That's the only REAL difference here. If you ACTUALLY helped wire a few million out of an African country, you'd be a criminal. But if you fall for someone else PRETENDING that you're helping wire said money, then you're a victim.
A few thousand dollars lost to a scam is a small price to pay when the alternative is that it's NOT a scam and you get to spend a few years in prison instead.
It would be like meeting the real Duke Nukem.
As long as you don't mind waiting forever, it could happen.
Care to tell me how you'd deal with the epidemic of obesity in the west?
First, by West, you must mean US. There is no epidemic of obesity in Europe.
My solution is simple - the new "Can't catch it, can't eat it" policy. Worked for millions of years. Put it in place in stages.
Stage one is a ban on food delivery services. The morbidly obese will starve down to a weight where they can at least get into their cars and get to the drive thru.
Stage two is a ban on drive thrus, so people will starve down to a weight when they can actually get out of their cars and into the counter or grocery store to get their food.
Stage three is a weight limit on disabled parking passes. If you're so fat that you need a special parking permit to get to your food, you'll starve down to a weight where you can at least hobble in to get your food.
Stage four is a ban on any personal scooters or electric wheelchairs that can support more than 250 lbs. If you're too fat to propel yourself, you'll starve down to a weight where you can at least stand up on your own.
Stage five is the big one - the doors of any food retailer will no longer be allowed to be any wider than 20". Then people will at least starve down to a size where they can fit through the door.
See? Piece of cake. Er....