THEN DON'T USE IT. I wish I could get a Core i7 for $15. Just because I want things to be that way doesn't mean they should be, or I have the right to be taken seriously when I bitch about it.
It's called "slippery slope". All things like this start out relatively innocuous. You know there was a time that you didn't get ads on cable because you were paying for it? All of a sudden they realized they could double-dip. Same thing will happen if these cameras get installed. "Hey, you know, we can charge MORE for pay per view flicks if there are more people watching! And we can verify it!"
Those 2% are the types that pay the obscene amounts of money for the top-bin overclocked black edition hardware, which subsidizes development for the rest of us. I say go for it;)
Oh, and I'm gonna do Crossfire soon... why throw out a perfectly good card when getting another matching one will speed it up almost linearly? Got one 4670 that's a little slow on some games at 1680x1050, I figure a second one (given the benchmarks) will blow my socks off at that res.
"In England, 100 miles is a long ways. In the US, 100 years is a long time"
You get dropped calls because things are simply bigger here. You switch between more towers faster, there need to be more towers to support the same number of callers, and so on. I don't think that that's an excuse for the higher prices, but it is reasonable if you start looking at how radio waves propagate and such.
No, their opinions are NOT valid. Just because you have an opinion does not automatically validate it. Say that it's my opinion that the grass is chartreuse. Does that make it valid? The problem is that they simply ignore the facts that they don't like. And they're setting up the students to be pariahs, and thus harden themselves even more against learning.
What annoys me more are the signs on the backs of dump trucks that say that they're not responsible for broken windshields. Especially considering that there are multiple laws requiring that cargo be properly secured.
And you will get every site to sign onto this? Do you think there won't be competing companies doing this single sign-on thing? To get to everything, you'll have to have a "single" sign-on with 15 different companies, different balances with each one, and so on. It will never work.
Depends on the cat. Ours won't win any intelligence contests (slams into walls randomly when running around corners. Never learns.), but he is exceptionally sweet. He'll let our 7 month old yank on his hair and tail, and he'll just meow and leave when he's had enough. Anyone that comes over and pays attention to him is his best friend.
Ok. Tell me how you're going to get every site that has content to sign on to this mythical service, then charge fair amounts, allow people to dispute this FAIRLY to both the merchant AND the consumer, set a reasonable price, get people to install this toolbar... especially when there's someone waiting to fill in the gap for free content. It's not that I can't imagine how someone would try to make it work. It's just that I know enough about people and how they and think to realize why it wouldn't work. People don't want the mental transaction cost of "Well, I've spent $10 today reading the news... I guess I better stop before I start spending too much."
So? The AP is a business. They set their own rules. Would you condemn Linux developers for not following the development procedures that Microsoft programmers do? Seriously.
"The mistake everyone is making is thinking that journalism from newspapers is somehow special. It isn't. In fact, bloggers and many other people who are actually close to the action do a better job of reporting what is actually going on, instead of it being skewed through the lens of a reporter that may or may not give a shit about the subject matter being reported."
Please, read my whole post. Besides... advertising is what has supported most reporting until now. Subscriptions are a new phenomenon, and now that the delivery cost is nearly nothing, advertising can EASILY pay for a few good reporters. If you make a good enough product to draw readers.
Aye. And it happens in children who are still not coordinated enough to figure out HOW to blow their nose. I'd love to get some grant money to study that...
So when you buy a paper from the corner newsstand, you're a customer of the WSJ, and not the newsstand? That's news to me, and probably the guy who runs the stand...
That's stupid. Cable television got popular because it provided more content than you could get for free, and because (at least initially) it didn't have advertising that the OTA channels did.
The problem is that Murdoch thinks that someone owns the news. That is seriously different than the television situation. You CANNOT copyright facts. It would be perfectly legal for someone to read the WSJ, rewrite the stories, and give them away for free with small ads nearby. And I suspect that is exactly what will happen if paywalls are erected.
Microtransactions DO NOT WORK. They never will work... the cost to do the transaction will always be higher than the value transferred. I am not going to put payment details into every random site I want to look at. Nor is anyone else. Some very specialist sites can do that, but for everyone as a whole? It'll never happen.
Things will remain free because that's what the marginal cost drives them to. Hell, look at your comment... should I have paid a microtransaction fee to look at it? Should you get reimbursed for writing it? How about my response here... should I charge you for being able to read it?
The mistake everyone is making is thinking that journalism from newspapers is somehow special. It isn't. In fact, bloggers and many other people who are actually close to the action do a better job of reporting what is actually going on, instead of it being skewed through the lens of a reporter that may or may not give a shit about the subject matter being reported.
My point is that the world is changing. Newspapers are no longer the gateway to information. And if they insist on trying to do things like charging micropayments, all they will do is accelerate their demise. Unless they do something like the RIAA/MPAA and essentially buy off some senators and judges and so on. I know that's what the AP is trying to do.
Still, price controls that change the market are the hallmark of monopolies. If you can coerce other companies to make inferior products with your prices, the market you are operating in is not free.
Give him a reason to think you're not identifying yourself right. Give an officer probable cause to think something's not right, and he can arrest you. But he cannot arrest you for not providing an ID card.
Either way, there are two outcomes if you're breaking into my house: you are breaking into my house and I'm not there, and I pay insurance for that. Or, you are breaking into my house and I AM there. And in that case, I really wouldn't want to be you. The police are only there to solve crimes and write tickets.
If it seemed like you could reasonably live there, then yes, the officer should leave you be. If you're carrying a lockpick or crowbar, the cops would arrest you. Just as it should be. You should not be compelled to show identification unless the officer can reasonably think you're committing a crime. Remember, he can ask you to identify yourself, and misidentifying yourself IS a crime.
No, you don't. You have to identify yourself if asked, but you DO NOT HAVE TO PRODUCE ID. If the cop says "Show me some ID" it's perfectly legal and appropriate to say "I'm Pitabred. I don't need to show you any ID."
The grandparent poster was correct, and your correction scares the hell out of me. Learn your rights. Use them. Or you lose them.
If it's a model that was road-legal, no you cannot. That is you can't sell your old beater Honda Civic if the seatbelts are broken, even if I want to use it as a bird house.
Umm... no. You can't sell it without slightly more paperwork than a normal car sale, but you can sure as hell sell it with a junk/salvage title. And if the new owner makes it road legal again, they can get the vehicle re-titled.
You can't sell rotten apples as "non-food-substance" no matter how many disclaimers you put on it.
So what do you do with rotten apples? You mean you can't sell them to someone who wants to make compost with them? I'd love to see you call the police on that sale. It's perfectly legal to sell things like that as long as you don't represent them as a food item.
Where do you get your information? And why were you modded up?
Slashdot Mirror
THEN DON'T USE IT. I wish I could get a Core i7 for $15. Just because I want things to be that way doesn't mean they should be, or I have the right to be taken seriously when I bitch about it.
It's called "slippery slope". All things like this start out relatively innocuous. You know there was a time that you didn't get ads on cable because you were paying for it? All of a sudden they realized they could double-dip. Same thing will happen if these cameras get installed. "Hey, you know, we can charge MORE for pay per view flicks if there are more people watching! And we can verify it!"
It's most likely an infrared camera. It detects body heat. You think they wouldn't catch on?
Those 2% are the types that pay the obscene amounts of money for the top-bin overclocked black edition hardware, which subsidizes development for the rest of us. I say go for it ;)
Oh, and I'm gonna do Crossfire soon... why throw out a perfectly good card when getting another matching one will speed it up almost linearly? Got one 4670 that's a little slow on some games at 1680x1050, I figure a second one (given the benchmarks) will blow my socks off at that res.
"In England, 100 miles is a long ways. In the US, 100 years is a long time"
You get dropped calls because things are simply bigger here. You switch between more towers faster, there need to be more towers to support the same number of callers, and so on. I don't think that that's an excuse for the higher prices, but it is reasonable if you start looking at how radio waves propagate and such.
Oh, I know. I just hate how they try to abdicate responsibility.
On the other hand, you could play with 4 people and a single N64. Can you easily do that on the PC? Especially those of that time?
No, their opinions are NOT valid. Just because you have an opinion does not automatically validate it. Say that it's my opinion that the grass is chartreuse. Does that make it valid? The problem is that they simply ignore the facts that they don't like. And they're setting up the students to be pariahs, and thus harden themselves even more against learning.
So... if I only watch TV via my DVR, never live, that would mean I'm seeking entertainment the same way, right?
What annoys me more are the signs on the backs of dump trucks that say that they're not responsible for broken windshields. Especially considering that there are multiple laws requiring that cargo be properly secured.
And you will get every site to sign onto this? Do you think there won't be competing companies doing this single sign-on thing? To get to everything, you'll have to have a "single" sign-on with 15 different companies, different balances with each one, and so on. It will never work.
Depends on the cat. Ours won't win any intelligence contests (slams into walls randomly when running around corners. Never learns.), but he is exceptionally sweet. He'll let our 7 month old yank on his hair and tail, and he'll just meow and leave when he's had enough. Anyone that comes over and pays attention to him is his best friend.
Ok. Tell me how you're going to get every site that has content to sign on to this mythical service, then charge fair amounts, allow people to dispute this FAIRLY to both the merchant AND the consumer, set a reasonable price, get people to install this toolbar... especially when there's someone waiting to fill in the gap for free content. It's not that I can't imagine how someone would try to make it work. It's just that I know enough about people and how they and think to realize why it wouldn't work. People don't want the mental transaction cost of "Well, I've spent $10 today reading the news... I guess I better stop before I start spending too much."
So? The AP is a business. They set their own rules. Would you condemn Linux developers for not following the development procedures that Microsoft programmers do? Seriously.
"The mistake everyone is making is thinking that journalism from newspapers is somehow special. It isn't. In fact, bloggers and many other people who are actually close to the action do a better job of reporting what is actually going on, instead of it being skewed through the lens of a reporter that may or may not give a shit about the subject matter being reported."
Please, read my whole post. Besides... advertising is what has supported most reporting until now. Subscriptions are a new phenomenon, and now that the delivery cost is nearly nothing, advertising can EASILY pay for a few good reporters. If you make a good enough product to draw readers.
Aye. And it happens in children who are still not coordinated enough to figure out HOW to blow their nose. I'd love to get some grant money to study that...
So when you buy a paper from the corner newsstand, you're a customer of the WSJ, and not the newsstand? That's news to me, and probably the guy who runs the stand...
That's stupid. Cable television got popular because it provided more content than you could get for free, and because (at least initially) it didn't have advertising that the OTA channels did.
The problem is that Murdoch thinks that someone owns the news. That is seriously different than the television situation. You CANNOT copyright facts. It would be perfectly legal for someone to read the WSJ, rewrite the stories, and give them away for free with small ads nearby. And I suspect that is exactly what will happen if paywalls are erected.
Microtransactions DO NOT WORK. They never will work... the cost to do the transaction will always be higher than the value transferred. I am not going to put payment details into every random site I want to look at. Nor is anyone else. Some very specialist sites can do that, but for everyone as a whole? It'll never happen.
Things will remain free because that's what the marginal cost drives them to. Hell, look at your comment... should I have paid a microtransaction fee to look at it? Should you get reimbursed for writing it? How about my response here... should I charge you for being able to read it?
The mistake everyone is making is thinking that journalism from newspapers is somehow special. It isn't. In fact, bloggers and many other people who are actually close to the action do a better job of reporting what is actually going on, instead of it being skewed through the lens of a reporter that may or may not give a shit about the subject matter being reported.
My point is that the world is changing. Newspapers are no longer the gateway to information. And if they insist on trying to do things like charging micropayments, all they will do is accelerate their demise. Unless they do something like the RIAA/MPAA and essentially buy off some senators and judges and so on. I know that's what the AP is trying to do.
Still, price controls that change the market are the hallmark of monopolies. If you can coerce other companies to make inferior products with your prices, the market you are operating in is not free.
Give him a reason to think you're not identifying yourself right. Give an officer probable cause to think something's not right, and he can arrest you. But he cannot arrest you for not providing an ID card.
Either way, there are two outcomes if you're breaking into my house: you are breaking into my house and I'm not there, and I pay insurance for that. Or, you are breaking into my house and I AM there. And in that case, I really wouldn't want to be you. The police are only there to solve crimes and write tickets.
If it seemed like you could reasonably live there, then yes, the officer should leave you be. If you're carrying a lockpick or crowbar, the cops would arrest you. Just as it should be. You should not be compelled to show identification unless the officer can reasonably think you're committing a crime. Remember, he can ask you to identify yourself, and misidentifying yourself IS a crime.
No, you don't. You have to identify yourself if asked, but you DO NOT HAVE TO PRODUCE ID. If the cop says "Show me some ID" it's perfectly legal and appropriate to say "I'm Pitabred. I don't need to show you any ID."
The grandparent poster was correct, and your correction scares the hell out of me. Learn your rights. Use them. Or you lose them.
Last time I checked, "hub" is not an acronym. Why in the hell does everyone keep capitalizing it?
Umm... no. You can't sell it without slightly more paperwork than a normal car sale, but you can sure as hell sell it with a junk/salvage title. And if the new owner makes it road legal again, they can get the vehicle re-titled.
So what do you do with rotten apples? You mean you can't sell them to someone who wants to make compost with them? I'd love to see you call the police on that sale. It's perfectly legal to sell things like that as long as you don't represent them as a food item.
Where do you get your information? And why were you modded up?
If that's not monopoly control, I don't know what is. A single company essentially telling another one what it can or can't develop or release?