If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
Who said it was the vendor going after him?
And it says in TFA that the Agilent product in question was a "product intended to speed the design process for electronic equipment". And it was $45,000, not $500,000. Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
Never said I consider them prone to be violent. I said from the statements made that it looks like schizophrenics are more prone to be violent than the general population.
2. 90%+ of GMO food is either herbicide resistant or produces its own insecticide. It's focus is not producing more or better food. Yes, this could change some day, but that's how it is and has been for a long time.
Wouldn't it follow, then, that a crop that produces its own insecticide would have more left at harvest time than one that didn't?
That's because generally these merchants have a "card-present" contract with the card company. This is cheaper than a "card-not-present" scheme, which requires a CVV. This is mostly just a wind and nod agreement, though.
I think the point of TFA is not that Virtuix invented something radical, it's that they're planning on commercializing something that previously only existed in DoD facilities and research labs. That is great. Whether it gains any traction (pun intended) is another story.
It sounds like Edweek is complaining that the Gates Foundation channels its money through private enterprises to achieve its goals instead of corrupt African dictatorships?
Why do people think they have a voice in how a private not-for-profit spends their money? The Gates Foundation does a lot of good. This seems like a lot of knocking down the guy on top.
Sony used to have a TV stand that had a built-in entertainment system (speakers, subwoofer, receiever, DVD player - this was before BluRay) back when I sold electronics in the mid 2000s. No one bought the thing because it was overpriced and what happens when something breaks? You have to take the whole damn thing in to get something fixed.
But, this is IKEA, so it probably comes in 1500 pieces and uses cartoon drawings of people putting it together that you'll want to slash in the throat before you get done putting it together.
About five years ago, in an airport in Virginia, returning from a weekend in Williamsburg, I was pulled aside because there were bricks of opaque material in my bag. I was questioned for about 10 minutes about the contents, then a dog was brought over to sniff my bag. The agent then took my bag around the corner, and when he came back with it, said I was good to go.
The bricks? Three pounds of fudge for my family.:|
I'm not even sure if Walden read the amendment, because I can not in any way see how he derived his criticisms from this text.
Well, it's an amendment to a bill that's supposed to make the FCC more transparent, then you basically throw in a clause that says, "but, hey, if it's for online privacy, they just ignore all this shit we've been working on. Fuck transparency when comes to online privacy."
So, basically, the FCC can craft some corporate-friendly bullshit, call it "to protect online privacy," and not have to tell anyone until after they've made the rule.
The reason the manhole covers had locks installed had nothing to do with security. It was because Indianapolis Power & Light substations, which are underground in downtown Indy, kept exploding and blowing manhole covers 20 ft in the air.
Also, I wonder how they're going to calculate the gross financial loss to the victim (unless the real victim here is the middleman between the government and the individual doing the work, not the government itself). It's not like the government was planning to sell that software. So even if it paid 9 million dollars to get that code written, it doesn't sound like they lost anything by his actions (unless they can prove they have to do additional work trying to make it more secure because of him).
Financial loss isn't just lost revenues, it could be the cost of re-engineering parts of the system in which the private, proprietary algorithms are no longer private and proprietary.
It could also be the cost of extra security measures needed to combat any holes that were exposed by the source being "in the wild."
The exception is low-income earners, who pay more in the US than in other countries (many countries have a 0% tax bracket for the first $x of income per year, but US income taxes kick in from the first dollar).
That's kind of disingenuous. Low-income people have lots of deductions and credits. When I was a poor broke college student earning $15,000 a year in a part-time job, I actually had negative tax liabilities, one year to the tune of about $350.
Not saying I'd rather be poor again, just saying, it's not as extreme as you make it out to be.
You seem to be confusing federal sales tax with state and locality taxes.
The US has no sales tax. At all.
Individual states and localities do.
Here in Indiana, the sales tax is 7% (except on food items), then in my county there's an additional 1% food-and-drink tax for restaurants. Thanks Colts!
Slashdot Mirror
If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
Who said it was the vendor going after him?
And it says in TFA that the Agilent product in question was a "product intended to speed the design process for electronic equipment". And it was $45,000, not $500,000. Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
Never said I consider them prone to be violent. I said from the statements made that it looks like schizophrenics are more prone to be violent than the general population.
I still read that as saying that schizophrenics are more prone to be violent than the general population.
2. 90%+ of GMO food is either herbicide resistant or produces its own insecticide. It's focus is not producing more or better food. Yes, this could change some day, but that's how it is and has been for a long time.
Wouldn't it follow, then, that a crop that produces its own insecticide would have more left at harvest time than one that didn't?
That's because generally these merchants have a "card-present" contract with the card company. This is cheaper than a "card-not-present" scheme, which requires a CVV. This is mostly just a wind and nod agreement, though.
I think the point of TFA is not that Virtuix invented something radical, it's that they're planning on commercializing something that previously only existed in DoD facilities and research labs. That is great. Whether it gains any traction (pun intended) is another story.
Your son's story reminds me a lot of myself as a kid. Very similar, except we didn't have charter schools back when I was a kid.
Good luck to your son!
fucking Catalina Sky Survey!
Unlike PC games, which may require finicky custom settings, consoles 'just work,' fans have long pointed out. Well, so does the iPad.
Yeah, well, so does my toaster. But I'm not gonna play Borderlands 2 on it.
Well, and don't forget that it started out as a part-time congress as well.
It sounds like Edweek is complaining that the Gates Foundation channels its money through private enterprises to achieve its goals instead of corrupt African dictatorships?
Why do people think they have a voice in how a private not-for-profit spends their money? The Gates Foundation does a lot of good. This seems like a lot of knocking down the guy on top.
Maybe AOL can become relevant again by being a start-up hotel?
FTFY.
As someone else said, this is a bug in the ASN.1 parser, and OpenSSH uses it's own specialized ASN.1 parser. So it's not.
We're talking about a Sony product. Everything was proprietary.
Sony used to have a TV stand that had a built-in entertainment system (speakers, subwoofer, receiever, DVD player - this was before BluRay) back when I sold electronics in the mid 2000s. No one bought the thing because it was overpriced and what happens when something breaks? You have to take the whole damn thing in to get something fixed.
But, this is IKEA, so it probably comes in 1500 pieces and uses cartoon drawings of people putting it together that you'll want to slash in the throat before you get done putting it together.
About five years ago, in an airport in Virginia, returning from a weekend in Williamsburg, I was pulled aside because there were bricks of opaque material in my bag. I was questioned for about 10 minutes about the contents, then a dog was brought over to sniff my bag. The agent then took my bag around the corner, and when he came back with it, said I was good to go.
The bricks? Three pounds of fudge for my family. :|
I'm not even sure if Walden read the amendment, because I can not in any way see how he derived his criticisms from this text.
Well, it's an amendment to a bill that's supposed to make the FCC more transparent, then you basically throw in a clause that says, "but, hey, if it's for online privacy, they just ignore all this shit we've been working on. Fuck transparency when comes to online privacy."
So, basically, the FCC can craft some corporate-friendly bullshit, call it "to protect online privacy," and not have to tell anyone until after they've made the rule.
Except, they're not open sourcing .NET, just MVC4. .NET will never be open sourced, because it ties too much into the OS.
Why do you find it odious?
If you want privacy, don't subscribe to a social network. Simple as that.
How does that make them ethically bankrupt? Is there some sort of forced sign-up that I'm not aware of?
I am actually glad they require that, so I don't have to endure stupid screen names like "KOOLDUDE" or "@yourmom" or even "Pionar".
Quit with the hyperbole, Chicken Little.
From reading your post, it seems that the biggest cause is people trying to run web servers who don't know how to and probably shouldn't be.
And what makes you think free access to books is a right?
Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to free (as in beer) access to someone's writings.
The reason the manhole covers had locks installed had nothing to do with security. It was because Indianapolis Power & Light substations, which are underground in downtown Indy, kept exploding and blowing manhole covers 20 ft in the air.
There were 4 such explosions last year.
Also, I wonder how they're going to calculate the gross financial loss to the victim (unless the real victim here is the middleman between the government and the individual doing the work, not the government itself). It's not like the government was planning to sell that software. So even if it paid 9 million dollars to get that code written, it doesn't sound like they lost anything by his actions (unless they can prove they have to do additional work trying to make it more secure because of him).
Financial loss isn't just lost revenues, it could be the cost of re-engineering parts of the system in which the private, proprietary algorithms are no longer private and proprietary.
It could also be the cost of extra security measures needed to combat any holes that were exposed by the source being "in the wild."
The exception is low-income earners, who pay more in the US than in other countries (many countries have a 0% tax bracket for the first $x of income per year, but US income taxes kick in from the first dollar).
That's kind of disingenuous. Low-income people have lots of deductions and credits. When I was a poor broke college student earning $15,000 a year in a part-time job, I actually had negative tax liabilities, one year to the tune of about $350.
Not saying I'd rather be poor again, just saying, it's not as extreme as you make it out to be.
You seem to be confusing federal sales tax with state and locality taxes.
The US has no sales tax. At all.
Individual states and localities do.
Here in Indiana, the sales tax is 7% (except on food items), then in my county there's an additional 1% food-and-drink tax for restaurants. Thanks Colts!