Possible reasons to buy superior copper wire. Only one of them is 'realistic':
1. It is shielded against interefernces. (not likely to be a problem)
2. It is sheilded against giving off intereferences (not likely to be a problem)
3. It is shielded against the bites of pets (real problem for many people, my father's birds cut through several extension cords, luckily the birds lived.)
4. You want it shielded against an EMP effect, just in case of nuclear war. (really really really crazy)
You put all of those together, and maybe you got something that will cost 10x normal price. to get to 1,000 times normal price you have to be psycho.
Yeah, you ARE confused.
Verizon often did not lay the coper lines, Ma Bell did. Oh yeah, and Ma Bell (or Verizon later) was granted a MONOPOLY and made a huge amount of cash on it. In exchange they were told, you have to let other people rent those lines.
It was part of the Deal.
Oh, and also don't forget that when they installed the copper in the first place they often charged the home owner to do it. As in, I paid to put this stuff in, I will need it later, so how dare you rip it out
So yeah, they are RIPPING US OFF.
They are in effect paying their employees money to prevent them from having to fulfill their legal obligations to RENT (as in they get PAID for it) the copper.
Totally illegal, totally a waste of cash and totally unethical.
But you go on and and complaing about how what they are doing is 'ok' cause they own the copper.
Public people have better protection against moronic work around like you tried.
But they tend to have LESS protection against real things they did/say.
I.E. If I say something like "That man is homosexual." and it turns out to be false, then chances are he could sue me. If I say the same thing about a public figure, I can get away with it.
This post happens to be from someone in a committed relationship that is getting laid.
I have not yet said what my gender is.
If you think I did, that is just prejudice on your part.
The thrust of the arguement is the SAME, whether I am talking about pretty, fashionista women discriminating against geeky women or those same women discriminating against geeky men.
They do so much, that they have LOST the right to complain about geeky people (men or women) discriminating against them. It is like white people complaining about black people discriminating against them. Yeah, white people do get discriminated against, but they don't have the right to complain considering how much discrimination they put out first.
You might have an argument abouyt women facing more obstacles than pasty male geeks IN THE WORK PLACE.
But I never restricted it to the workplace. Nor did I insist on comparing it to Pasty male geeks. Who said I was a guy? I am saying that EVERYONE, make and female gets discriminated against. The pretty women do NOT have it bad. They get most of the perks in life.
That is like saying, Oh, the poor white man, he can't get into the black school unless he is acdameically better than all the black men.
Just as white men have NO buisness complaining about how difficult it is to get into a majority black college, pretty women have NO business complaining about how dificult it is to get into a geek business. Pretty women have the UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in most of the general envirionment, just as white people have an unfair advantage.
Neither has the right to complain about the rare circumstance when their advantage does not help them.
1. What makes you think I am male?
2. What did you read that was at all sexist, let alone BLATANTLY sexist.
3. What makes you think I am claiming that it is OK to discrimanate agaisnt ANYONE.
Please try to respond to what I wrote, not what your twisted, brain would prefer to think that I wrote.
There are LOTS of women out there that are tired of being forced to wear high heels, and other crap that FASHIONISTA WOMEN (not geek men) pretty much force them to wear. Lets be honest here, geek men will hire and even date a women that has no make up, wearing ugly, comfortable shoes, just because she is smart. But moronic pretty women pretty much make it impossible for a women to get anywhere in life unless she conforms to the FASHIONISTA ideal, wearing the right clothing etc. etc.
I get discriminated against by stupid, pretty female culture a LOT more than women get discriminated against by stupid male geek culture.
I am willing to be that most geeks feel the same way.
You want a cease fire? Fine. start playing fair with us and we might play fair with you.
Dogs are trained to SIT by the bomb stuff, not bark etc.
That combined with the fact that Dogs nose are incredibally sensitive, makes this not work. If they smelled milkbones they would get excited and bark, and bef, but they could tell the difference between it and semetex so they would not sit.
Your comment is not interesting, despite what someone tagged it. It is instead an off topic comment that tries to change the focus from the real wrong to greed.
Price gouging is not illegal except in certain circumstnaces.
I.E. It is price gouging only if there is some kind of emergency
going on.
Same for predatory pricing. To be predatory pricing it must be an attempt to remove a smaller competitor and the bigger company must be taking a LOSS on the price.
Price fixing only occures when an actual agreement occures not to compete on price.
----------------
But all of that is crap, because the lawsuit is NOT about the price
Yeah, the consumers want the lower price, but that is not what the legal action is about at all.
This particular case should really be called false advertising. They advertise one price and then really charge you a higher one.
That is wrong ALL the time. No if's, no and's, no buts.
They are trying to compete with Ninentdo.
This is in effect their answer to the Wii Remote, etc. etc.
It is a poos, sub-standard response.
But they are smarter than you. The library will only increase if they give developers a reason to come to them. Right now, developers are more interested in building for the Wii, which requires more creativity and less pure data.
Well, he could use CD Baby or one of the THOUSAND other ways sell your own music over the internet. They would charge about 1% of the fee a standard label charges.
Then he would have to pay an advertising agency directly to market his stuff. I doubt they would charge more than 5% of what a standard label would charge for a successful album, but he would be taking the risk that the album did not make any money.
Wikipedia is clear that it is AGAINST policy to self-edit. Read the Code of Conduct.
Just because they don't have a very effective police force preventing rude, deceptive bullcrap does mpt mean it is acceptable behavior.
And YES, changing what OTHER people wrote about you without admitting who you are IS an indication of guilt. When I defend myself from something I do NOT do it anonymously.
If you remove the monitor and set the speaker to SUPER HIGH, using a mechanical switch than chances are he can have a computer that can not be used to get to appropriate sites.
The only hard part is wiring the speakers so that at the lowest setting they can still be heard throughout the house.
On a related note, if you want to protect your child so that they will never go anywhere dangerous in the real world, all you need to do is to move to Alaska and rent some infrared satelite time to make sure that if your kid does leave home, your infrared satellite can track him down before he gets anywhere dangerous.
In both the real world and the internet, you need to be able to trust that your kid will not do stupid things.
In both cases, a simple, fair rules, with some checking should be enough to solve your real problems.
For the internet, restrict their access while alone, but I suggest you offer to take them to ANY website they want to go, as long as you can be there with them. Prove it by taking them to some innapropriate sites (let them pick which ones, don't show them your favorites...) Then comment on the nude pictures/lies/bullcrap/etc. If you can't do this with them, then chances are they won't learn your values.
yeah, I agree. TextPad totally crushes notepad and similar software.
I love the ability to save it as unix or pc style txt file.
And the ability to highlight perl commands is great.
And the regex functionality is pretty good as well.
Part of what is going on by the way is a 'redefining' into Service.
What is the difference between cleaning a shirt and sewing a shirt. Both take raw material ("cloth") and turn it into the same product (clean shirt). But because the sewing typically involved purchasing the shirt and reselling it instead of simply 'taking possesion' of it and returning it, it is considered 'industry' while the cleaning is considered 'service'.
Similarly, there are a whole lot of "service" industries related to agriculture that were ORIGINALLY done by the farmer.
For example, trucking the food to the market, counts as a service, but used to be done by the farmer.
Less obvious are things like the commodity markets. When someone buys a pork belly future he is in truth taking on some of the agriculutral risk which USED to be born by the farmer. Yet the entire agricultural commodity business is counted as a "service".
We have changed our definitions far more than we have actually changed the amount of effort we put into supplying us with food.
Then explain why we haven't built the Space Fountain. Cost to create is LESS than the total amount spent on the Space Race (US + Russia) through 2005, we have the technology ALREADY, and once built it pretty much solves the issue you think is blocking space travel, as it drops to cost down to less than one THOUSANDTH of the existing cost.
What you think of as insurmountable is not that hard to do.
You are dismissing the health concerns because they are not 'hard physics' stuff, when in reality they are the real reason why we can't commit to solve the much less dificult hard physics isswues.
Space is in Zero-G/Micro G. When you say "don't live in Zero-G" you are saying don't live in space. Spinning and accelleration are NOT acceptable solutions because they prevent us from actually DOING the businesses we need to pay for the trip in the first place. That is, the mechanics of having a space station spin all the time makes it dificult to enter/leave, generally requires a bigger living space, etc. etc. etc. The issues are NOT trivial. Constant accelleration is just as bad, requiring massive amounts of fuel for a trip of any length.
If you can tell me how to not live in micro-G, then tell me why they haven't already done it on the ISS? You do know that Astronauts typically lose 1.5% bone mass per month? 1 year means 18% of bone lost. They don't spin the ISS, astronauts have to recover before we see them. This is one of the key issues, not a trivial one.
You have misunderstood part of the problem. In fact you have it BACKWARDS. Yeah, the only commercial manned activity plannes is space tourism.
why?
BECAUSE of the micro-G issue
If we solved the micro-G issue, then long term life in space becomes doable and HEY, we can start doing non-tourism type manned missions.
The rest is basically an agreement with me with some slight perspective issues.
You think the cost to bring things down is solved. True for high value cargos, like people. Not so true to bring down something less valuable, like say chunks Iron, Nickel, Platinum from NEA Asteroid 3554 Amun (30 billion tons of precious metals, estimated worth $20 trillion)
You say there is no demand, so they won't build the space fountain. I say there IS a demand, but the issue you consider trivial are preventing the solutions from becoming viable. If people could live in space, we could do a gold rush out to Amun, mine the crap out of it, and if we could CHEAPLY (not the relatively expensive cargo carriar ideas you consider solved) get the stuff back down, the market would exist.
Estimated costs for a space fountain would be in the order of 10-20 times the cost of a single space shuttle. Once built, the cost to get to space drops from $5000/kg to around $5/kg
But to make USE of that thing, we need to send PEOPLE up, not just robots. Otherwise it simply can not justify the cost. Solve the micro-G/Null-G issue and the market and demand for the Space Fountain will suddenly pop into existence, and we can see if we can actually make one work.
I can't believe they rated this post as insightful.
"Serious market among non-government backed customers?"
Have you ever heard of satelites?
Do you know the HUGE industry that has developed for them.
We already have commercicilzed space.
The problem continues to be three fold:
Human body has serious failings for long term space travel (micro G/null G does horrible things to muscles and bones).
Huge cost to travel the first 100 km (A Space fountain can solve this problem, using today's technology, just highly vunerable to terrorism and cost is high, though doable by the US).
Large (but not huge) cost to bring things back to earth is scary. Again, a Space Fountain can solve this issue.
Solve the human living in micro-G/zero G environment and we could probably build a Space fountain and start the eage of exploration.
Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.
Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of hobbyists making almost nothing, along witha small number of superstars making way too much.
But creators of Musical/video art are NOT given reasonable contracts. Instead they get sucked into a system designed to leach off their genius, and only pay them a fair price if they become a HUGE mass market success. This means that musicians, actors, etc. either "make it" and earn millions, or "fail" and can not earn a living doing what they love.
In other words, when you steal software, you are actually affecting the artists yearly pay by a measureable amount.
When you steal music/video, you are NOT affecting his yearly pay by a measureable amount (he/she is either way over payed or way underpaid), instead you are affecting the giant LEACH on him sucking out most of his pay that is also stifling the non-star talent, preventing them from earning a reasonable middle class salary making music and other art.
This is not news. News is when you discuss politics or something similar. Viacom was not even using it as a review/opinion. You can't show the entire thing and all it a review/opinion on it.
What Viacom was doing was using it for ENTERTAINMENT and attempting to CHEAT the copyright rules using a criticsim. Typically Criticism defenses would require that they do NOT show the entire thing, or at the least show it in an educational environment.
His market was EXACTLY the same as their market: Entertainment.
You can NOT copy an ENTIRE thing made for entertainment and then claim the fact that you are commenting on it allow you to use it for entertainment purposes.
For Viacom to not interefere with his market value they would have to have used it in a non-entertainment manner. For example, in a school, or a workshop about how to make a funny video.
Viacom did NOT satisfy the fair use rules. They could have done so any of 2 ways:
1. Not provide the entire thing, but instead only include a small portion(typically 5%).
You Tube itself has the capacity for people to comment about the video. I am betting that at least ONE person commented about it, thereby fullfilling the commentary requirement.
And naturally, everything the president says or talks to is so confidential that no one he talks to is allowed to discuss it without first getting permission from him.
Slashdot Mirror
1. It is shielded against interefernces. (not likely to be a problem)
2. It is sheilded against giving off intereferences (not likely to be a problem)
3. It is shielded against the bites of pets (real problem for many people, my father's birds cut through several extension cords, luckily the birds lived.)
4. You want it shielded against an EMP effect, just in case of nuclear war. (really really really crazy)
You put all of those together, and maybe you got something that will cost 10x normal price. to get to 1,000 times normal price you have to be psycho.
Actually marking around the edges foils certain DRM copyright schemes. Or so I've heard on the internet, so it must be true. :)
Yeah, you ARE confused. Verizon often did not lay the coper lines, Ma Bell did. Oh yeah, and Ma Bell (or Verizon later) was granted a MONOPOLY and made a huge amount of cash on it. In exchange they were told, you have to let other people rent those lines. It was part of the Deal. Oh, and also don't forget that when they installed the copper in the first place they often charged the home owner to do it. As in, I paid to put this stuff in, I will need it later, so how dare you rip it out So yeah, they are RIPPING US OFF. They are in effect paying their employees money to prevent them from having to fulfill their legal obligations to RENT (as in they get PAID for it) the copper. Totally illegal, totally a waste of cash and totally unethical. But you go on and and complaing about how what they are doing is 'ok' cause they own the copper.
But they tend to have LESS protection against real things they did/say.
I.E. If I say something like "That man is homosexual." and it turns out to be false, then chances are he could sue me. If I say the same thing about a public figure, I can get away with it.
If you think I did, that is just prejudice on your part.
The thrust of the arguement is the SAME, whether I am talking about pretty, fashionista women discriminating against geeky women or those same women discriminating against geeky men.
They do so much, that they have LOST the right to complain about geeky people (men or women) discriminating against them. It is like white people complaining about black people discriminating against them. Yeah, white people do get discriminated against, but they don't have the right to complain considering how much discrimination they put out first.
But I never restricted it to the workplace. Nor did I insist on comparing it to Pasty male geeks. Who said I was a guy? I am saying that EVERYONE, make and female gets discriminated against. The pretty women do NOT have it bad. They get most of the perks in life.
That is like saying, Oh, the poor white man, he can't get into the black school unless he is acdameically better than all the black men.
Just as white men have NO buisness complaining about how difficult it is to get into a majority black college, pretty women have NO business complaining about how dificult it is to get into a geek business. Pretty women have the UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in most of the general envirionment, just as white people have an unfair advantage.
Neither has the right to complain about the rare circumstance when their advantage does not help them.
Please try to respond to what I wrote, not what your twisted, brain would prefer to think that I wrote.
There are LOTS of women out there that are tired of being forced to wear high heels, and other crap that FASHIONISTA WOMEN (not geek men) pretty much force them to wear. Lets be honest here, geek men will hire and even date a women that has no make up, wearing ugly, comfortable shoes, just because she is smart. But moronic pretty women pretty much make it impossible for a women to get anywhere in life unless she conforms to the FASHIONISTA ideal, wearing the right clothing etc. etc.
Please explain what silly reasoning you have for claiming I am a. male or b. Stupid.
I will allow the fact that it was on slashdot to constitute proof I am a geek.
Go back and re-read what I wrote and find ANYTHING that says I am male or stupid.
You want a cease fire? Fine. start playing fair with us and we might play fair with you.
That combined with the fact that Dogs nose are incredibally sensitive, makes this not work. If they smelled milkbones they would get excited and bark, and bef, but they could tell the difference between it and semetex so they would not sit.
Price gouging is not illegal except in certain circumstnaces. I.E. It is price gouging only if there is some kind of emergency going on.
Same for predatory pricing. To be predatory pricing it must be an attempt to remove a smaller competitor and the bigger company must be taking a LOSS on the price.
Price fixing only occures when an actual agreement occures not to compete on price. ---------------- But all of that is crap, because the lawsuit is NOT about the price Yeah, the consumers want the lower price, but that is not what the legal action is about at all. This particular case should really be called false advertising. They advertise one price and then really charge you a higher one. That is wrong ALL the time. No if's, no and's, no buts.
They are trying to compete with Ninentdo. This is in effect their answer to the Wii Remote, etc. etc. It is a poos, sub-standard response. But they are smarter than you. The library will only increase if they give developers a reason to come to them. Right now, developers are more interested in building for the Wii, which requires more creativity and less pure data.
Wow, that Moore guy was so smart he outsmarted Moore.
Then he would have to pay an advertising agency directly to market his stuff. I doubt they would charge more than 5% of what a standard label would charge for a successful album, but he would be taking the risk that the album did not make any money.
Wikipedia is clear that it is AGAINST policy to self-edit. Read the Code of Conduct.
Just because they don't have a very effective police force preventing rude, deceptive bullcrap does mpt mean it is acceptable behavior.
And YES, changing what OTHER people wrote about you without admitting who you are IS an indication of guilt. When I defend myself from something I do NOT do it anonymously.
The only hard part is wiring the speakers so that at the lowest setting they can still be heard throughout the house.
On a related note, if you want to protect your child so that they will never go anywhere dangerous in the real world, all you need to do is to move to Alaska and rent some infrared satelite time to make sure that if your kid does leave home, your infrared satellite can track him down before he gets anywhere dangerous.
In both the real world and the internet, you need to be able to trust that your kid will not do stupid things.
In both cases, a simple, fair rules, with some checking should be enough to solve your real problems.
For the internet, restrict their access while alone, but I suggest you offer to take them to ANY website they want to go, as long as you can be there with them. Prove it by taking them to some innapropriate sites (let them pick which ones, don't show them your favorites...) Then comment on the nude pictures/lies/bullcrap/etc. If you can't do this with them, then chances are they won't learn your values.
yeah, I agree. TextPad totally crushes notepad and similar software. I love the ability to save it as unix or pc style txt file. And the ability to highlight perl commands is great. And the regex functionality is pretty good as well.
What is the difference between cleaning a shirt and sewing a shirt. Both take raw material ("cloth") and turn it into the same product (clean shirt). But because the sewing typically involved purchasing the shirt and reselling it instead of simply 'taking possesion' of it and returning it, it is considered 'industry' while the cleaning is considered 'service'.
Similarly, there are a whole lot of "service" industries related to agriculture that were ORIGINALLY done by the farmer.
For example, trucking the food to the market, counts as a service, but used to be done by the farmer.
Less obvious are things like the commodity markets. When someone buys a pork belly future he is in truth taking on some of the agriculutral risk which USED to be born by the farmer. Yet the entire agricultural commodity business is counted as a "service".
We have changed our definitions far more than we have actually changed the amount of effort we put into supplying us with food.
What you think of as insurmountable is not that hard to do.
You are dismissing the health concerns because they are not 'hard physics' stuff, when in reality they are the real reason why we can't commit to solve the much less dificult hard physics isswues.
Space is in Zero-G/Micro G. When you say "don't live in Zero-G" you are saying don't live in space. Spinning and accelleration are NOT acceptable solutions because they prevent us from actually DOING the businesses we need to pay for the trip in the first place. That is, the mechanics of having a space station spin all the time makes it dificult to enter/leave, generally requires a bigger living space, etc. etc. etc. The issues are NOT trivial. Constant accelleration is just as bad, requiring massive amounts of fuel for a trip of any length.
If you can tell me how to not live in micro-G, then tell me why they haven't already done it on the ISS? You do know that Astronauts typically lose 1.5% bone mass per month? 1 year means 18% of bone lost. They don't spin the ISS, astronauts have to recover before we see them. This is one of the key issues, not a trivial one.
why?
BECAUSE of the micro-G issue
If we solved the micro-G issue, then long term life in space becomes doable and HEY, we can start doing non-tourism type manned missions.
The rest is basically an agreement with me with some slight perspective issues.
You think the cost to bring things down is solved. True for high value cargos, like people. Not so true to bring down something less valuable, like say chunks Iron, Nickel, Platinum from NEA Asteroid 3554 Amun (30 billion tons of precious metals, estimated worth $20 trillion)
You say there is no demand, so they won't build the space fountain. I say there IS a demand, but the issue you consider trivial are preventing the solutions from becoming viable. If people could live in space, we could do a gold rush out to Amun, mine the crap out of it, and if we could CHEAPLY (not the relatively expensive cargo carriar ideas you consider solved) get the stuff back down, the market would exist.
Estimated costs for a space fountain would be in the order of 10-20 times the cost of a single space shuttle. Once built, the cost to get to space drops from $5000 /kg to around $5/kg
But to make USE of that thing, we need to send PEOPLE up, not just robots. Otherwise it simply can not justify the cost. Solve the micro-G/Null-G issue and the market and demand for the Space Fountain will suddenly pop into existence, and we can see if we can actually make one work.
"Serious market among non-government backed customers?"
Have you ever heard of satelites?
Do you know the HUGE industry that has developed for them.
We already have commercicilzed space.
The problem continues to be three fold:
Human body has serious failings for long term space travel (micro G/null G does horrible things to muscles and bones).
Huge cost to travel the first 100 km (A Space fountain can solve this problem, using today's technology, just highly vunerable to terrorism and cost is high, though doable by the US).
Large (but not huge) cost to bring things back to earth is scary. Again, a Space Fountain can solve this issue.
Solve the human living in micro-G/zero G environment and we could probably build a Space fountain and start the eage of exploration.
Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.
Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of hobbyists making almost nothing, along witha small number of superstars making way too much.
But creators of Musical/video art are NOT given reasonable contracts. Instead they get sucked into a system designed to leach off their genius, and only pay them a fair price if they become a HUGE mass market success. This means that musicians, actors, etc. either "make it" and earn millions, or "fail" and can not earn a living doing what they love.
In other words, when you steal software, you are actually affecting the artists yearly pay by a measureable amount.
When you steal music/video, you are NOT affecting his yearly pay by a measureable amount (he/she is either way over payed or way underpaid), instead you are affecting the giant LEACH on him sucking out most of his pay that is also stifling the non-star talent, preventing them from earning a reasonable middle class salary making music and other art.
This is not news. News is when you discuss politics or something similar. Viacom was not even using it as a review/opinion. You can't show the entire thing and all it a review/opinion on it.
What Viacom was doing was using it for ENTERTAINMENT and attempting to CHEAT the copyright rules using a criticsim. Typically Criticism defenses would require that they do NOT show the entire thing, or at the least show it in an educational environment.
His market was EXACTLY the same as their market: Entertainment.
You can NOT copy an ENTIRE thing made for entertainment and then claim the fact that you are commenting on it allow you to use it for entertainment purposes.
For Viacom to not interefere with his market value they would have to have used it in a non-entertainment manner. For example, in a school, or a workshop about how to make a funny video.
Viacom did NOT satisfy the fair use rules. They could have done so any of 2 ways:
1. Not provide the entire thing, but instead only include a small portion(typically 5%).
2. Not use it for the same market (Entertainment)
You Tube itself has the capacity for people to comment about the video. I am betting that at least ONE person commented about it, thereby fullfilling the commentary requirement.
And naturally, everything the president says or talks to is so confidential that no one he talks to is allowed to discuss it without first getting permission from him.