If you think about it, it's unlikely that iTMS is losing money.
If you really think about it, you'll realize you have no idea what the costs are for iTMS. Let's say they are still selling 100,000 songs a day. (I couldn't find anything more recent then a year ago with numbers.) Most average estimates peg them getting 10 cents a song, so that's $10,000 a day. That's their income.
Their daily costs will include server farms (at cost, but a loss from sales), system administrators (fewer then Windows/Linux, but not 0), internet bandwidth for streaming music AND videos, and an administration staff for obtaining new music, installing new music, handling complaints, accounting issues, developers of both Mac and Windows clients,...
Now there is iTMS Europe. Multiply that by some factor between 1 and 3 {however much it takes to run the store in additional languages and tax/import accounting}, and keep in mind that for at least the past 6 months they had no money coming in to offset it.
It's most likely that iTMS varies wildly from a loss to a gain from month to month. Any corporate endeavor can easily be described as losing money when compared with an expected average return on investment, even if it happens to make more than $0 in the absolute over a short term.
(quoting part:)
Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.
For what it's worth, this is exactly the kind of case that could get back to the S.C. to force this issue, as one could also argue 'Fine, you have free speech rights but this is trespassing and you should be jailed'. I wouldn't have much hope with a consumer-favorable result with the current administration though.
The distinction I was trying to make was between a company collecting and reusing its own bottles vs. the costs/savings of completely recycling bottles to be made into other bottles.
Don't get me wrong; for those of us that know the Rapture isn't coming anytime soon recycling is pretty much an obvious destiny. And it will eventually be cheaper/more efficient in all applications. However, it is not yet there in most cases. This isn't necessarily a reason to abandon it, but its current incarnation is more of a stepping stone to a solution than the best solution.
I'm confused on two fronts. Firstly, how this is funny. Secondly, what have you got against whales? I not a whale nut or anything, but I just think an animal that developed a global positioning and communication system before man could talk deserves a little respect. Throw in their average size, and they're the nerds of the oceans.
I think you're thinking of "reusing" not "recycling". If a company gets their own bottles back they just wash them out and reuse them. Recycling a bottle by breaking the bottle up and putting it back together as a new bottle is more expensive because it involves a separate collection (your milk example would pick up bottles on a normal run - $0), it requires sorting from paper, cardboard, and whatever else people throw in the recycling bin (again, $0 for the milk company), and then the glass is shattered and reformed (I'm sure if you've followed me so far you'll see that this is again $0 for your milk company).
A company reusing its own bottles is a money saver. Society trying to recycle all glass currently is not.
Perhaps the "smart" behavior could be created by using a distributed bayesian filter against the contents of a file.
If you read this line quickly, it sounds like something Geordi or Data would throw out to fix the computer overload that is preventing the Enterprise from escaping Some Devastating Explosion.
...when I click or right-click, or mouse over something in Gnome, I seem to get a lot more choices that I want to pick than in other desktops -- *generally speaking*
Mac's design has long had a standard menu bar intended for most actions that would always be available. They were 'late' in adding a right button and contextual menu options mainly because there was a standard venue for supplying menus for any object that might be selected. Once contextual menus became ubiquitous in other windowed operating systems (MS, Sun, X-Windows, whatever) they had to add them to help with cross over users and appearances.
As far as I can tell, the general direction of Mac's design for contextual menus is to have the most useful/used options, and everything on the standard menus. FWIW, there is a Contextual menu Plugin. I've never used it, but here is more info.
Reminds me of a hospital that had to restore from a three tape backup. It turned out that the night tech either wasn't properly trained, or was lazy, but really had no concept of the point of it all. When the system prompted "Hit return when next tape is ready>", they would just rewind the tape on the drive and hit return.
How is this any different than mega supermarkets that give shelf space preference to various brands with respect to location and quantity?
Because you aren't paying a single supermarket to act as a go-between for all of your direct product requests. Any time you want something from a store you go to whatever one you feel like and pay for exactly what you want. A better (but still warped) comparison would be a music subscription service that put it's highest-margin songs on the front page and served from 20 servers, but something that is low margin you spend 12 minutes hunting down and it takes forever to get because it shares a server with all the other low-margin content.
You imply that being "anti-corporate" is being "anti-progress".
This is both true and misleading. In the context of the Bullshit episode, many of the anti-corporate groups could be referred to as anti-progress as well based on their blanket objections to genetic engineering and other areas. Of course, in reality they were more groups of upper-middle-class 20-30-somethings that wanted to feel they were making the world a better place, but had no clear-cut idea on how to go about it.
Of course, it also comes down to that there just aren't that many truly 'reasonable people', statistically speaking. Groups of people are even less reasonable, especially if they just listen to the leaders' slogans without either thinking about them or researching the issues themselves.
Most level-headed environmentalists would accept nuclear power as a mostly clean power source. What riles those up (so to speak) is when governments relax protections and don't watch themselves or the corporations they higher to ensure it is disposed of properly.
As one of last season's Penn & Teller's Bullshit pointed out, the environmental movement is being highjacked by anti-corporate groups. Honest environmentalists only want to be sure we think about how what we do will affect the future world; they don't want to prevent all progress indiscriminately.
The number one reason ported games do not have compatible networking is the original maker used MS's proprietary networking code instead of open standards or their own code. MS has not ported these to the Mac. While a development team could probably reverse engineer it, you can bet MS would lay the smackdown on them.
SPAM filters are tricked all the time depending on the text of an email.
I'm pretty sure misspelling words or using letters for numbers in an essay, or even tacking a hundred unrelated words to the end of the essay, would all properly lower your grade.
While it might be easy to beat the system grammar-wise by constructing well formed sentences, if it has been close to person grading for two years it problem has a method of ensuring the statements relate to each other. Ironically, anyone spending a lot of time to beat this will probably learn how to write better essays anyway.
Your feedback was actual words!? In my day all we got was a scratch-n-sniff sticker and had to guess the meaning of getting a "watermelon" on our essay.
You had scratch-n-sniff stickers? All we had were:
- Gold Stars or Unhappy Faces
- Check, Check Plus, or Check Minus
- Letter grades
Interesting. I haven't seen the film in a while, but the part about HAL's psychosis (or whatever) over his conflicting orders is in the first book - Heywood (I think) reports that one of their 'control' HALs also developed similar idiosyncrasies, though of course it wasn't in a position to act upon them. I think I recall it being in the film, but I'm not certain. The film and book were written concurrently, though the film was obviously made with the cinema in mind while the book could go into further exposition and detail.
FWIW, you may want to read the other two books. I'm not going to say you'll like them; I'm not even sure I did (especially the "Vault" at the end of the last book). But one of the themes addressed in the 4th book is whether the aliens had to make people so inherently mean, or if they were truly experimenting and it was a mistake.
I'll believe it when it shows up on Super Shadow. It's some guy who supposedly knows Lucas. I've checked it off and on since Ep. 1; and it isn't confirmed here it's pretty much a rumor.
Not that everything here is factual - most of the front page is him answering fanboy questions. However, in past history if it's confirmed their then it is 96% certain.
WARNING! The site does have supposed spoiler/working/draft scripts. If they tempt you, don't go there.
You would do better to compare 2001 with Metropolis since they both cover similar ground of dehumanization in subservience to machines and the cycle of birth and death.
Do you mean 2001, A Space Odyssey? I've read all four Odyssey's and Arthur Clarke's notes in each, and I'm pretty sure 2001 had a lot more going on than man vs. machine. I'd view it more of a "Great Moments in Human Evolution" type story; having HAL malfunction was as much a criticism of the human paranoia* as it was on human-machine relations. It's almost arguable that it simply served to make certain that Bowman arrived at the monolith alone, and any social commentary was incidental.
(*Spoiler-type information: the book makes clear the fact that HAL was given information that the astronauts were not, for reasons of 'National Security'. It/He became obsessed with the repercussions that would inevitably result when this became revealed, so his actions were those of someone determined to not face the consequences of their secrecy, at all costs. It can almost be argued that HAL's character acted in such a human manner that he could have been written as a human without much of the plot being altered, other than how his brain would be picked apart of course.)
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company,
As much as Apple gains from others' cross-platform applications, they don't generally gain much from making theirs cross-platform. The goal here is to tackle reasons to not use iTunes - you will probably still require an iPod to play this music on a personal player easily. (Other than using the CD-to-whatever route, of course.)
Slashdot Mirror
KHAAAAAN!!!!!
If you think about it, it's unlikely that iTMS is losing money.
...
If you really think about it, you'll realize you have no idea what the costs are for iTMS. Let's say they are still selling 100,000 songs a day. (I couldn't find anything more recent then a year ago with numbers.) Most average estimates peg them getting 10 cents a song, so that's $10,000 a day. That's their income.
Their daily costs will include server farms (at cost, but a loss from sales), system administrators (fewer then Windows/Linux, but not 0), internet bandwidth for streaming music AND videos, and an administration staff for obtaining new music, installing new music, handling complaints, accounting issues, developers of both Mac and Windows clients,
Now there is iTMS Europe. Multiply that by some factor between 1 and 3 {however much it takes to run the store in additional languages and tax/import accounting}, and keep in mind that for at least the past 6 months they had no money coming in to offset it.
It's most likely that iTMS varies wildly from a loss to a gain from month to month. Any corporate endeavor can easily be described as losing money when compared with an expected average return on investment, even if it happens to make more than $0 in the absolute over a short term.
Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent word that embiggens his point.
View the full scoop here.
(quoting part:)
Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.
For what it's worth, this is exactly the kind of case that could get back to the S.C. to force this issue, as one could also argue 'Fine, you have free speech rights but this is trespassing and you should be jailed'. I wouldn't have much hope with a consumer-favorable result with the current administration though.
This "distinction" amounts to symantics.
The distinction I was trying to make was between a company collecting and reusing its own bottles vs. the costs/savings of completely recycling bottles to be made into other bottles.
Don't get me wrong; for those of us that know the Rapture isn't coming anytime soon recycling is pretty much an obvious destiny. And it will eventually be cheaper/more efficient in all applications. However, it is not yet there in most cases. This isn't necessarily a reason to abandon it, but its current incarnation is more of a stepping stone to a solution than the best solution.
...May be to stop movie/award screeners...
...it wouldn't take a genious to copy the film first...
So, you're saying to would be pretty effective against the screeners, aren't you?
I'm confused on two fronts. Firstly, how this is funny. Secondly, what have you got against whales? I not a whale nut or anything, but I just think an animal that developed a global positioning and communication system before man could talk deserves a little respect. Throw in their average size, and they're the nerds of the oceans.
I think you're thinking of "reusing" not "recycling". If a company gets their own bottles back they just wash them out and reuse them. Recycling a bottle by breaking the bottle up and putting it back together as a new bottle is more expensive because it involves a separate collection (your milk example would pick up bottles on a normal run - $0), it requires sorting from paper, cardboard, and whatever else people throw in the recycling bin (again, $0 for the milk company), and then the glass is shattered and reformed (I'm sure if you've followed me so far you'll see that this is again $0 for your milk company).
A company reusing its own bottles is a money saver. Society trying to recycle all glass currently is not.
Perhaps the "smart" behavior could be created by using a distributed bayesian filter against the contents of a file.
If you read this line quickly, it sounds like something Geordi or Data would throw out to fix the computer overload that is preventing the Enterprise from escaping Some Devastating Explosion.
...when I click or right-click, or mouse over something in Gnome, I seem to get a lot more choices that I want to pick than in other desktops -- *generally speaking*
Mac's design has long had a standard menu bar intended for most actions that would always be available. They were 'late' in adding a right button and contextual menu options mainly because there was a standard venue for supplying menus for any object that might be selected. Once contextual menus became ubiquitous in other windowed operating systems (MS, Sun, X-Windows, whatever) they had to add them to help with cross over users and appearances.
As far as I can tell, the general direction of Mac's design for contextual menus is to have the most useful/used options, and everything on the standard menus. FWIW, there is a Contextual menu Plugin. I've never used it, but here is more info.
That's it. I'm sick of this post.
Damn, that was close. I was worried it was just me.
Reminds me of a hospital that had to restore from a three tape backup. It turned out that the night tech either wasn't properly trained, or was lazy, but really had no concept of the point of it all. When the system prompted "Hit return when next tape is ready>", they would just rewind the tape on the drive and hit return.
From that site:
{Some math facts about 1729}
Bizarre tacked-on fact:
The number of consecutive plays of the rock musical Hair on Broadway.
From "The Honking":
[Bender gasps and points at some blood-red numbers appearing on a wall. Leela and Amy turn around.]
Leela: (reading) 0101100101. (talking) What does it mean?
Bender: It's just gibberish. [He turns and gasps as he sees the numbers reflected in a mirror à la The Shining.] (reading) 1010011010?!
[He screams and runs out of the room.]
How is this any different than mega supermarkets that give shelf space preference to various brands with respect to location and quantity?
Because you aren't paying a single supermarket to act as a go-between for all of your direct product requests. Any time you want something from a store you go to whatever one you feel like and pay for exactly what you want. A better (but still warped) comparison would be a music subscription service that put it's highest-margin songs on the front page and served from 20 servers, but something that is low margin you spend 12 minutes hunting down and it takes forever to get because it shares a server with all the other low-margin content.
You imply that being "anti-corporate" is being "anti-progress".
This is both true and misleading. In the context of the Bullshit episode, many of the anti-corporate groups could be referred to as anti-progress as well based on their blanket objections to genetic engineering and other areas. Of course, in reality they were more groups of upper-middle-class 20-30-somethings that wanted to feel they were making the world a better place, but had no clear-cut idea on how to go about it.
Of course, it also comes down to that there just aren't that many truly 'reasonable people', statistically speaking. Groups of people are even less reasonable, especially if they just listen to the leaders' slogans without either thinking about them or researching the issues themselves.
Most level-headed environmentalists would accept nuclear power as a mostly clean power source. What riles those up (so to speak) is when governments relax protections and don't watch themselves or the corporations they higher to ensure it is disposed of properly.
As one of last season's Penn & Teller's Bullshit pointed out, the environmental movement is being highjacked by anti-corporate groups. Honest environmentalists only want to be sure we think about how what we do will affect the future world; they don't want to prevent all progress indiscriminately.
The number one reason ported games do not have compatible networking is the original maker used MS's proprietary networking code instead of open standards or their own code. MS has not ported these to the Mac. While a development team could probably reverse engineer it, you can bet MS would lay the smackdown on them.
Flimblarm nif goondatakun, jut sekfar bel shon duc. Seempkin dar goolnac flar tefnek voz toulian; elmpar gef sogquel.
F-. The only word in that sentence recognized by my spell checker was 'dar', which is apparently an acronym.
SPAM filters are tricked all the time depending on the text of an email.
I'm pretty sure misspelling words or using letters for numbers in an essay, or even tacking a hundred unrelated words to the end of the essay, would all properly lower your grade.
While it might be easy to beat the system grammar-wise by constructing well formed sentences, if it has been close to person grading for two years it problem has a method of ensuring the statements relate to each other. Ironically, anyone spending a lot of time to beat this will probably learn how to write better essays anyway.
Your feedback was actual words!? In my day all we got was a scratch-n-sniff sticker and had to guess the meaning of getting a "watermelon" on our essay.
You had scratch-n-sniff stickers? All we had were:
- Gold Stars or Unhappy Faces
- Check, Check Plus, or Check Minus
- Letter grades
Interesting. I haven't seen the film in a while, but the part about HAL's psychosis (or whatever) over his conflicting orders is in the first book - Heywood (I think) reports that one of their 'control' HALs also developed similar idiosyncrasies, though of course it wasn't in a position to act upon them. I think I recall it being in the film, but I'm not certain. The film and book were written concurrently, though the film was obviously made with the cinema in mind while the book could go into further exposition and detail.
FWIW, you may want to read the other two books. I'm not going to say you'll like them; I'm not even sure I did (especially the "Vault" at the end of the last book). But one of the themes addressed in the 4th book is whether the aliens had to make people so inherently mean, or if they were truly experimenting and it was a mistake.
I'll believe it when it shows up on Super Shadow. It's some guy who supposedly knows Lucas. I've checked it off and on since Ep. 1; and it isn't confirmed here it's pretty much a rumor.
Not that everything here is factual - most of the front page is him answering fanboy questions. However, in past history if it's confirmed their then it is 96% certain.
WARNING! The site does have supposed spoiler/working/draft scripts. If they tempt you, don't go there.
You would do better to compare 2001 with Metropolis since they both cover similar ground of dehumanization in subservience to machines and the cycle of birth and death.
Do you mean 2001, A Space Odyssey? I've read all four Odyssey's and Arthur Clarke's notes in each, and I'm pretty sure 2001 had a lot more going on than man vs. machine. I'd view it more of a "Great Moments in Human Evolution" type story; having HAL malfunction was as much a criticism of the human paranoia* as it was on human-machine relations. It's almost arguable that it simply served to make certain that Bowman arrived at the monolith alone, and any social commentary was incidental.
(*Spoiler-type information: the book makes clear the fact that HAL was given information that the astronauts were not, for reasons of 'National Security'. It/He became obsessed with the repercussions that would inevitably result when this became revealed, so his actions were those of someone determined to not face the consequences of their secrecy, at all costs. It can almost be argued that HAL's character acted in such a human manner that he could have been written as a human without much of the plot being altered, other than how his brain would be picked apart of course.)
OK, Bart, to the blackboard:
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
Apple is a hardware company,
As much as Apple gains from others' cross-platform applications, they don't generally gain much from making theirs cross-platform. The goal here is to tackle reasons to not use iTunes - you will probably still require an iPod to play this music on a personal player easily. (Other than using the CD-to-whatever route, of course.)