For me, it was about the same cost as getting a Dell. On the plus side, I didn't have to pay for Windows, and I got a form factor I am very happy with.
How can you say this is Disney's last chance? They can afford to churn out non-revenue generating crap for years without the worry about going under. So what if they blow Toy Story 3? They could turn around and make some other 3D movie at a later date that people absolutely love. Sure, Disney's new animated division will be unproven, but that doesn't mean they get one kick at the can in a 'make-or-break' scenario. They simply have too much money in the bank for that to be a concern. Disney probably doesn't even care about critical acclaim, so long as parents take kids to see it, and then follow up with a trip to McDonald's or Burger King to get the product tie-ins.
Put simply, the 800 lb Disney gorrilla can afford to take this risk.
I was going to mod you down, but felt a response was in order. In case you hadn't noticed, there is the typical volume of 'registration required' complaints. This isn't unique to NYT, and in this regard Slashdot is depressingly consistent.
So your post is (-1) Uninformed. Sentiment is 100% correct though.
Then maybe what Apple needs to do is bankroll some indie game makers, helping to reduce that 'incredible amount of money' part of what is needed to produce a quality game. That way they can boost that sector without cannibalizing the ISVs.
Yes they do, but while you can freely modify the code, and contribute your changes back to the project for Open Office Org, you cannot do the same for Star Office. And this is precisely why the two companies excluded OOo from their agreement.
You are right - I worded that poorly. Sun is only able to take responsibility for it's in-house code. Sun isn't about to take responsibility for code written by unknown (by Sun) code contributors for the Open Office project. And the agreement doesn't open the door for MS to go after Sun, it opens the door for MS to go after those same unknown contributors to the OO project.
no, MS can sue END USERS for using versions of OO with patented code in it, and Sun has to help them in this, but MS will reimburse Sun for their troubles.
Please notice that items like Star Office ARE included in the agreement, so I don't think this belies any patent cases against end-users. The biggest difference between Star Office and Open Office is that one is under the control of Sun, and one is not (or at least less-so). Therefore, Sun would obviously not want to be held responsible for things beyond it's control, such as outside coders blatantly putting in patented/copywrited material into Open Office.
Good luck on that - Quebec border guards are striking this weekend. I agree that Canada's solutions to the 'problem' are weak. But at least they aren't as heavy handed as 'solutions' that allow the RIAA to sue end users. I am relieved (and a little surprised) that Canada hasn't just adopted US policy on the whole matter already. Maybe there is some hope for us yet.
Our government isn't 'fucking insane' as you bluntly suggest - it's just inept. There is a difference. Fucking insane would be to pass bills like the Patriot Act, INDUCE, DMCA, Homeland Security measures, etc.
Oh, and as for Sheila Copps, the only reason you know her name is because she pulled the 'badmouth Americans' publicity stunt in a lame-assed effort to show her constituents that she is working for them. Please consider this one of the many examples of ineptitude displayed by our government.
Actually, there is another benefit. As more people start flying instead of commuting on roads, less work will need to be done on expanding the current infrastructure further.
That is usually true for jets and turbine aircraft. However with piston engines, the fuel burn rate is often in GPH. See www.zenithair.com as an example.
With airplanes, fuel burn is usually measured in gallons per hour. And for small (ie. 2 seat) planes, fuel consumption typically starts at around 4 GPH. Cruise speed for an engine like this depends largely on the aircraft, but varies between about 65 mph to about 120 mph. Obviously, higher amounts of fuel will allow for higher speeds. Most planes with piston engines that travel at around 200 MPH get between 8 and 12 GPH.
The difference between 'stealing' or 'theft' and 'copywrite infringement' is only about the same as the difference between 'manslaughter' and 'murder.' You tell me which you would rather be accused of, all things being equal.
Oh, and for the record, at no point did I advocate stealing anything. I don't need to use peer to peer networks in order to care about these things. When you start throwing around loaded terms like 'theft' and 'stealing' for actions that clearly are not that, you do not help your position as one opposed to file sharing. Perhaps a better approach would be to share your views on why copywrite infringement is not a Good Thing, and how it negatively impacts the owners of the copywrites. At least THAT would be a somewhat productive discussion.
Not in Canada, it's not. Up here we call it 'Fair Use'.
Besides, no matter how you slice it, you can't really call it theft or stealing. The best you can get is (as pointed out by another respondant) copywrite infringement, which isn't nearly as catchy or loaded a phrase.
The question people should be asking is "when a business model breaks, do you blame your customers, or your business strategy?"
Devil's advocate...hmmm...okay let me get this straight - Joe user installs linux and OSS apps...for free. This is good. IBM installs same OS and APPS - and even has a number of full time staff working on enhancements, that Joe user gets to benefit from - and somehow this is bad? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I applaud ANY company that is able to enhance Linux and the associated OSS apps, even when we are talking about proprietary apps written for linux. If they are contributing the code changes and enhancements to the GPL-protected software back to the community as agreed, then I say bravo. That IS the agreement, after all. Let business charge for services - services are a valuable product to most companies. Let them write proprietary software for linux (games are a prime example of this) - I applaud companies that release versions of their products for linux, windows and MacOS.
In short, I like the way business works within the GPL. There is nothing wrong with making money, and companies like Red Hat are already doing their part by hiring full time, full rate employees. Nowhere in the GPL does it state that companies like IBM should offer profit sharing to volunteer coders. Volunteer is just that: gratis labour. The GPL sets out rules for how a business can dip into this labour pool, and these companies are following those rules. All the GPL asked for in return were code changes - is it a surprise that is all we get?
I'm not sure - perhaps you could ask employees of Novell, Red Hat, IBM, etc. Each of those companies have staff that contribute to OSS, and every one of these developers, testers, analysts, etc gets paid for their efforts. Damn straight that big business takes from OSS, but if they play the game right, they give back too.
Here is a sampling of large corps and some of the other stuff they also think about:
SUN: How to crush Microso...er, enemies. Microsoft:..market share...market share... Diebold: Who do we want to win the next election?
As you can see, there are plenty of other motiv^H^H..er, objectives for corporations to ponder over. You could compare profits with gas for a car - you don't go far without it.
Truth is they want to sell more IPods, and having a consistent licensing scheme makes using an IPod just that much nicer. Now Real is threatening their revenue stream, and their "It's about the music" seems to take a back seat to "It's about the profit."
Perhaps you can explain to me how Real's plan is going to be detrimental to Apple selling more iPods. For the users who want the consistent licensing scheme (and Lord knows consumers have been clamoring for this - it's the single-most-requested-feature-ever - eyeroll) they can do this by simply ignoring Real and going with the out of the box solution. Big deal. If Real's plan goes off like they hope, it will INCREASE iPod sales, not decrease them. Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
No, the real issue here isn't about sales money - it's about percieved quality and development money. Apple doesn't want the burden of having to test both their solution AND Real's before each update to the iPod, iTunes or OSX.
Well, that and a healthy dose of 'screw you, Real!' thrown in by Jobs.
What you described is a classic target audience of the ebook. Even the asshat professors of the world should embrace this technology, as it would allow for them to release updates to their books as often as they liked. The implied reduced cost of the ebook would be reflected in the reduced cost of production, and not author royalties.
My wife has this fantastic collection of cook books. The trouble is, they are fantastically heavy, and we are moving next month. From my POV, ebooks are fantastic. I don't mind reading on a screen and generally, I read a book once, straight through, and am done. However, from my wife's POV, the tangible cook books are better, because she can leave it open to the recipie she needs all day, if need be, without worrying about battery life of her reader.
Slashdot Mirror
heh... or how many linux users have a dedicated windows box just for gaming purposes. (or a console)
For me, it was about the same cost as getting a Dell. On the plus side, I didn't have to pay for Windows, and I got a form factor I am very happy with.
How can you say this is Disney's last chance? They can afford to churn out non-revenue generating crap for years without the worry about going under. So what if they blow Toy Story 3? They could turn around and make some other 3D movie at a later date that people absolutely love. Sure, Disney's new animated division will be unproven, but that doesn't mean they get one kick at the can in a 'make-or-break' scenario. They simply have too much money in the bank for that to be a concern. Disney probably doesn't even care about critical acclaim, so long as parents take kids to see it, and then follow up with a trip to McDonald's or Burger King to get the product tie-ins.
Put simply, the 800 lb Disney gorrilla can afford to take this risk.
I was going to mod you down, but felt a response was in order. In case you hadn't noticed, there is the typical volume of 'registration required' complaints. This isn't unique to NYT, and in this regard Slashdot is depressingly consistent.
So your post is (-1) Uninformed. Sentiment is 100% correct though.
Then maybe what Apple needs to do is bankroll some indie game makers, helping to reduce that 'incredible amount of money' part of what is needed to produce a quality game. That way they can boost that sector without cannibalizing the ISVs.
Sun settled the case - you don't normally appeal after a settlement.
Yes they do, but while you can freely modify the code, and contribute your changes back to the project for Open Office Org, you cannot do the same for Star Office. And this is precisely why the two companies excluded OOo from their agreement.
You are right - I worded that poorly. Sun is only able to take responsibility for it's in-house code. Sun isn't about to take responsibility for code written by unknown (by Sun) code contributors for the Open Office project. And the agreement doesn't open the door for MS to go after Sun, it opens the door for MS to go after those same unknown contributors to the OO project.
no, MS can sue END USERS for using versions of OO with patented code in it, and Sun has to help them in this, but MS will reimburse Sun for their troubles.
Please notice that items like Star Office ARE included in the agreement, so I don't think this belies any patent cases against end-users. The biggest difference between Star Office and Open Office is that one is under the control of Sun, and one is not (or at least less-so). Therefore, Sun would obviously not want to be held responsible for things beyond it's control, such as outside coders blatantly putting in patented/copywrited material into Open Office.
Good luck on that - Quebec border guards are striking this weekend. I agree that Canada's solutions to the 'problem' are weak. But at least they aren't as heavy handed as 'solutions' that allow the RIAA to sue end users. I am relieved (and a little surprised) that Canada hasn't just adopted US policy on the whole matter already. Maybe there is some hope for us yet.
Our government isn't 'fucking insane' as you bluntly suggest - it's just inept. There is a difference. Fucking insane would be to pass bills like the Patriot Act, INDUCE, DMCA, Homeland Security measures, etc.
Oh, and as for Sheila Copps, the only reason you know her name is because she pulled the 'badmouth Americans' publicity stunt in a lame-assed effort to show her constituents that she is working for them. Please consider this one of the many examples of ineptitude displayed by our government.
Actually, there is another benefit. As more people start flying instead of commuting on roads, less work will need to be done on expanding the current infrastructure further.
That is usually true for jets and turbine aircraft. However with piston engines, the fuel burn rate is often in GPH. See www.zenithair.com as an example.
With airplanes, fuel burn is usually measured in gallons per hour. And for small (ie. 2 seat) planes, fuel consumption typically starts at around 4 GPH. Cruise speed for an engine like this depends largely on the aircraft, but varies between about 65 mph to about 120 mph. Obviously, higher amounts of fuel will allow for higher speeds. Most planes with piston engines that travel at around 200 MPH get between 8 and 12 GPH.
Thanks for the baseless accusation - real classy.
The difference between 'stealing' or 'theft' and 'copywrite infringement' is only about the same as the difference between 'manslaughter' and 'murder.' You tell me which you would rather be accused of, all things being equal.
Oh, and for the record, at no point did I advocate stealing anything. I don't need to use peer to peer networks in order to care about these things. When you start throwing around loaded terms like 'theft' and 'stealing' for actions that clearly are not that, you do not help your position as one opposed to file sharing. Perhaps a better approach would be to share your views on why copywrite infringement is not a Good Thing, and how it negatively impacts the owners of the copywrites. At least THAT would be a somewhat productive discussion.
Not in Canada, it's not. Up here we call it 'Fair Use'.
Besides, no matter how you slice it, you can't really call it theft or stealing. The best you can get is (as pointed out by another respondant) copywrite infringement, which isn't nearly as catchy or loaded a phrase.
The question people should be asking is "when a business model breaks, do you blame your customers, or your business strategy?"
BTW - great post. So many people have forgotten how to be an effective advocate.
Devil's advocate...hmmm...okay let me get this straight - Joe user installs linux and OSS apps...for free. This is good. IBM installs same OS and APPS - and even has a number of full time staff working on enhancements, that Joe user gets to benefit from - and somehow this is bad? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I applaud ANY company that is able to enhance Linux and the associated OSS apps, even when we are talking about proprietary apps written for linux. If they are contributing the code changes and enhancements to the GPL-protected software back to the community as agreed, then I say bravo. That IS the agreement, after all. Let business charge for services - services are a valuable product to most companies. Let them write proprietary software for linux (games are a prime example of this) - I applaud companies that release versions of their products for linux, windows and MacOS.
In short, I like the way business works within the GPL. There is nothing wrong with making money, and companies like Red Hat are already doing their part by hiring full time, full rate employees. Nowhere in the GPL does it state that companies like IBM should offer profit sharing to volunteer coders. Volunteer is just that: gratis labour. The GPL sets out rules for how a business can dip into this labour pool, and these companies are following those rules. All the GPL asked for in return were code changes - is it a surprise that is all we get?
I'm not sure - perhaps you could ask employees of Novell, Red Hat, IBM, etc. Each of those companies have staff that contribute to OSS, and every one of these developers, testers, analysts, etc gets paid for their efforts. Damn straight that big business takes from OSS, but if they play the game right, they give back too.
Here is a sampling of large corps and some of the other stuff they also think about:
..market share...market share...
SUN: How to crush Microso...er, enemies.
Microsoft:
Diebold: Who do we want to win the next election?
As you can see, there are plenty of other motiv^H^H..er, objectives for corporations to ponder over. You could compare profits with gas for a car - you don't go far without it.
Truth is they want to sell more IPods, and having a consistent licensing scheme makes using an IPod just that much nicer. Now Real is threatening their revenue stream, and their "It's about the music" seems to take a back seat to "It's about the profit."
Perhaps you can explain to me how Real's plan is going to be detrimental to Apple selling more iPods. For the users who want the consistent licensing scheme (and Lord knows consumers have been clamoring for this - it's the single-most-requested-feature-ever - eyeroll) they can do this by simply ignoring Real and going with the out of the box solution. Big deal. If Real's plan goes off like they hope, it will INCREASE iPod sales, not decrease them. Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
No, the real issue here isn't about sales money - it's about percieved quality and development money. Apple doesn't want the burden of having to test both their solution AND Real's before each update to the iPod, iTunes or OSX.
Well, that and a healthy dose of 'screw you, Real!' thrown in by Jobs.
What you described is a classic target audience of the ebook. Even the asshat professors of the world should embrace this technology, as it would allow for them to release updates to their books as often as they liked. The implied reduced cost of the ebook would be reflected in the reduced cost of production, and not author royalties.
My wife has this fantastic collection of cook books. The trouble is, they are fantastically heavy, and we are moving next month. From my POV, ebooks are fantastic. I don't mind reading on a screen and generally, I read a book once, straight through, and am done. However, from my wife's POV, the tangible cook books are better, because she can leave it open to the recipie she needs all day, if need be, without worrying about battery life of her reader.
Maybe you should take a look at this:
http://www.garmin.com/products/iQue3200/