UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS? That's news to me. I forget where I read what i had originally, but if you check out these two pages, they seem to contradict that idea:
From this second link: "But picking up and delivering package is not all that UPS does. It carries mail and packages for one customer that most people would think of as a competitor - the United States Postal Service. In addition, UPS Supply Chain Solutions oversees some surprising jobs for other companies. Basically, UPS takes care of warehousing, shipping, delivery, logistics, repair and customs brokerage for businesses. It also offers consulting services to businesses to help them refine their warehousing, shipping and logistics practices."
I agree with all but one point -- if spam were to disappear completely (or even mostly), the cost of operating the networks would drop. You assume (I believe falsely) that this savings would be passed on in the form of lower bills to the customers. I have no reason to believe that rates would be reduced -- they've already got their foot in the door, as far as pricing goes, and while it might conceivably cost you marginally less, they would certainly keep a significant portion of these operating costs to pad their accounts.
very bad experiences with augustustech -- should have trusted resellerratings. this was almost 10 years ago, so things may have changed. i'm honestly not sure if they are still in business.
had nothing but the very best experience with ecspc.biz, but they are kind of pricey and the product line is limited. the price i paid was well worth it though. don't know if they still do (this was in 2000), i built a new system and got the ram from there. something with the system was not quite right, and having just replaced all the parts, i was not sure what was failing. i emailed them to let them know what was going on, and they said that if i found the ram to be faulty, to let them know asap so they could ship it out (hopefully on the same day they were informed), and to return the defective unit "whenever." don't know if they still operate that way, but i've never regretted a purchase from them.
(i cannot remember what the problem was, but the ram was fine.)
The timing of this could not be more perfect. I work in a grocery store, which (unsurprisingly) is where I do all of my grocery shopping. I've been there for 5 years, but just yesterday, for the very first time ever, I got a ride to work (I normally walk).
Who gave me a ride? The guy driving the truck with all the stuff that I was going to unload and stock. He saw me on the sidewalk and pulled over.
Technically, I did not use an 18 wheeler for grocery shopping, but I *did* use one to go to the store once.
you both seem to have missed the point. the government sees it as a matter of aiding or abetting a perversion that ultimately does hurt children. the prevailing logic at this time is that by eliminating child pornography, we can reduce or eliminate child molestation or outright sexual assault. whether that is true or not, i could not begin to tell you (though i have my suspicions -- gay people may enter heterosexual marriages and have kids, but they're still gay inside).
everybody dies. EVERYBODY. no exceptions. i will die, and so will you. what practical difference does it make if you, me, and a few thousand other people all die within a few years of each other? how about within the same month? the same day? the same hour? the same second?
are you so naive that you really believe that any god that exists should have a reason to let people die that justifies their deaths to you?
only posting ac because i know this would absolutely kill (haw) my karma.
it teaches them no such thing. microsoft has pitched one substandard or blatantly deficient product after another, and have been doing so for many years. people still buy microsoft. people still look for the windows logo when buying a new pc, because as crappy as it might be, it is "home" for them. some of them have learned not to buy vista, but i would bet against the idea that "most people know that the older xp is better."
at this point, the only reason more people run xp is because they do not want to pay to "upgrade" to vista, not because they think it is actually an inferior product. when the magic smoke comes out of their computers in a few months, though, they will buy all new machines, landfill the ones they have, and the new machines will run... vista.
Indeed, I complained to eBay about this retaliation problem years ago, and suggested that it should not be possible for a buyer to leave feedback on a seller until AFTER the seller has rated the buyer.
This provides protection both ways, because once the seller has completed his obligation (timely payment in full) he has no other responsibilities and deserves a positive mark for that. The sellers, however, refuse to rate the buyers first which is the source of the problem.
The buyers are the ones getting screwed by this "retaliation" in the end. If I order a product and pay for it, then I should not be given a negative mark for that -- but if it turns out the item is broken, not what was described, etc., then I am largely at the mercy of the seller, because I cannot trust that he will rate me positively even though I did everything I was supposed to.
Not that the other solutions are any better. I love how intelligent people think subscription-based music services are the way to go. All you can eat for $15 a month. Talk about devaluing your product. People can download enough songs to fill 100 albums and pay under $20. How does anyone make money this way?
Worse yet, if you sign up for a subscription, you're saying that it's okay for the music service to wipe out your music collection if you cancel. Imagine walking into your living room as all your books disappear because you changed libraries, or your DVD collection disappears because you switched from Blockbuster to Netflix.
Both giving away content free of charge and taking everything away from consumers if they cancel fly in the face of everything we know about a functioning economy. People will become dissatisfied. Artists will stop making content because they're not getting paid. When there is no content, people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content. In short order, one part of our digital economy will collapse, and it could be followed by countless others.
Of course, if you buy the DRM music, then this problem goes away! Nobody has ever had their media collection "voided" by DRM, right? Oh, wait... Yeah they have.
To say that people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content is shortsighted and even stupid. People haven't even caught on to what DRM will really mean for them in the future, and those who have only have made the connection because of what it did not mean for them in the past. My parents, for example, would consider hd-dvd an upgrade.
Giving away content can be a bad business model, sure. But it can also be an excellent business model. Just ask the guys at Google.
And before I forget to say it, it's worth mentioning that the costs of music are continually falling (to the point where independant musicians can produce records of similar quality to big labels, but in their basements). If the label really needs $650,000 to sign that new artist, then I think something in the money chain is missing. The means to increase production exponentially at virtually zero cost are there. The RIAA simply refuses to take advantage of it. Their approach is to throw huge sacks of money at promoting a small number of "artists" and largely ignore the rest of the crowd.
Creative works are cheaper than ever to produce. Unless you ask any company that makes its money on artificial scarcity.
I previewed this a couple of times before i noticed the biggest problem with this guy's argument: "what if you found your books vanishing because you switched libraries, or your dvds vanishing because you switched from blockbuster to netflix?"
Uh... with either service, you don't own anything. the media belongs to the library (or blockbuster) and the content belongs to the creator or publisher. Wait, that sounds EXACTLY like the sort of thing DRM was designed to do.
He is right on one count, though. If you piss your customers off enough, then they will *evntually* stop paying for your products. But to suppose that people actually *like* or *want* DRM? That's a stretch. Yes, one part of the digital economy will collapse. And I welcome that collapse. Just because it's there today does not mean it's not a malignant tumor. Go away, DRM. I never wanted you. I never will. I never woke up thinking "I wish there were fewer ways I could use the music I paid for."
"You collect and control little monsters that fight and stuff. You don't actually see them fight, you just kind of read what they did." That sounds suspiciously like Pokemon, which we all know is a gateway game to harder games which will ruin our children's minds forever. It may start with Pokemon, but where does it go from there? Nintendogs? Animal Crossing? From there, it is indeed a short hop, skip and jump to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City or Doom, and we all know what comes after that...
Well, if so, then it should come as some consolation to her that no matter how long the job takes her, it can still always be done on time. They should have set the deadline even earlier!
It is worth mentioning, however, that while "Blizzard" (the company) may already have your credit card information that some guy in accounting could pull up on a whim, that does not mean that I want some guy I don't know from Bob's uncle being able to dig it up off my own computer because he can't access that information where he works.
Yes, the company already has that information. But the system is designed to prevent that information from being available to just anybody in the company. You see the disconnect here?
I am sure it is not Blizzard's intention to misuse the system, but you have clearly forgotten that if the system is going to be abused, it won't be by Blizzard, but somebody who works there. Rest assured, it WILL be abused.
If you RTA, you may notice that comcast users' downloads are not being cut off deliberately -- only the uploads on various P2P services are (such as bittorrent). You can still download the stuff without interference, but if you wanted to actually share anything, then that is where you hit the snags.
To a regular joe, this meddling is already invisible, because virtually nobody cares whether their uploads to some random jane are being randomly cut off.
Still, it is a bad business practice, even though it is their network. One more reason that I will be looking to leave them in the near future.
I'm not sure how it's OT, but thanks anyway. Having located (and read) TFM, I got a label filter set up to do the same thing lickety-split. Also, IMO, posting without the karma bonus is the *only* way to post. =)
It's not quite what I was hoping for, but it is very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS? That's news to me. I forget where I read what i had originally, but if you check out these two pages, they seem to contradict that idea:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/usps5.htm
and
http://money.howstuffworks.com/ups3.htm
From this second link: "But picking up and delivering package is not all that UPS does. It carries mail and packages for one customer that most people would think of as a competitor - the United States Postal Service. In addition, UPS Supply Chain Solutions oversees some surprising jobs for other companies. Basically, UPS takes care of warehousing, shipping, delivery, logistics, repair and customs brokerage for businesses. It also offers consulting services to businesses to help them refine their warehousing, shipping and logistics practices."
I agree with all but one point -- if spam were to disappear completely (or even mostly), the cost of operating the networks would drop. You assume (I believe falsely) that this savings would be passed on in the form of lower bills to the customers. I have no reason to believe that rates would be reduced -- they've already got their foot in the door, as far as pricing goes, and while it might conceivably cost you marginally less, they would certainly keep a significant portion of these operating costs to pad their accounts.
Say what you will, but I am definitely looking forward to our rubber band powered refrigeration units!
very bad experiences with augustustech -- should have trusted resellerratings. this was almost 10 years ago, so things may have changed. i'm honestly not sure if they are still in business.
had nothing but the very best experience with ecspc.biz, but they are kind of pricey and the product line is limited. the price i paid was well worth it though. don't know if they still do (this was in 2000), i built a new system and got the ram from there. something with the system was not quite right, and having just replaced all the parts, i was not sure what was failing. i emailed them to let them know what was going on, and they said that if i found the ram to be faulty, to let them know asap so they could ship it out (hopefully on the same day they were informed), and to return the defective unit "whenever." don't know if they still operate that way, but i've never regretted a purchase from them.
(i cannot remember what the problem was, but the ram was fine.)
Dude, seriously -- you can do better than lynx! Check out links2. It's like lynx, but uh, actually usable. ;)
The timing of this could not be more perfect. I work in a grocery store, which (unsurprisingly) is where I do all of my grocery shopping. I've been there for 5 years, but just yesterday, for the very first time ever, I got a ride to work (I normally walk).
Who gave me a ride? The guy driving the truck with all the stuff that I was going to unload and stock. He saw me on the sidewalk and pulled over.
Technically, I did not use an 18 wheeler for grocery shopping, but I *did* use one to go to the store once.
I'll bet if you had posted every item you listed as a seperate followup, that you would have got +5 funny moderations seven times straight.
you both seem to have missed the point. the government sees it as a matter of aiding or abetting a perversion that ultimately does hurt children. the prevailing logic at this time is that by eliminating child pornography, we can reduce or eliminate child molestation or outright sexual assault. whether that is true or not, i could not begin to tell you (though i have my suspicions -- gay people may enter heterosexual marriages and have kids, but they're still gay inside).
haha, then i go on to forget to actually mark that little checkbox. how fitting that it should come back to bite me in the ass anyway.
everybody dies. EVERYBODY. no exceptions. i will die, and so will you. what practical difference does it make if you, me, and a few thousand other people all die within a few years of each other? how about within the same month? the same day? the same hour? the same second?
are you so naive that you really believe that any god that exists should have a reason to let people die that justifies their deaths to you?
only posting ac because i know this would absolutely kill (haw) my karma.
it teaches them no such thing. microsoft has pitched one substandard or blatantly deficient product after another, and have been doing so for many years. people still buy microsoft. people still look for the windows logo when buying a new pc, because as crappy as it might be, it is "home" for them. some of them have learned not to buy vista, but i would bet against the idea that "most people know that the older xp is better."
at this point, the only reason more people run xp is because they do not want to pay to "upgrade" to vista, not because they think it is actually an inferior product. when the magic smoke comes out of their computers in a few months, though, they will buy all new machines, landfill the ones they have, and the new machines will run... vista.
Yes, but they are lawyers. By definition, they not only deserve it, they have *earned* it. ;)
You wouldn't mind being called a superstar if you had a robot brain...
Indeed, I complained to eBay about this retaliation problem years ago, and suggested that it should not be possible for a buyer to leave feedback on a seller until AFTER the seller has rated the buyer.
This provides protection both ways, because once the seller has completed his obligation (timely payment in full) he has no other responsibilities and deserves a positive mark for that. The sellers, however, refuse to rate the buyers first which is the source of the problem.
The buyers are the ones getting screwed by this "retaliation" in the end. If I order a product and pay for it, then I should not be given a negative mark for that -- but if it turns out the item is broken, not what was described, etc., then I am largely at the mercy of the seller, because I cannot trust that he will rate me positively even though I did everything I was supposed to.
Not that the other solutions are any better. I love how intelligent people think subscription-based music services are the way to go. All you can eat for $15 a month. Talk about devaluing your product. People can download enough songs to fill 100 albums and pay under $20. How does anyone make money this way?
Worse yet, if you sign up for a subscription, you're saying that it's okay for the music service to wipe out your music collection if you cancel. Imagine walking into your living room as all your books disappear because you changed libraries, or your DVD collection disappears because you switched from Blockbuster to Netflix.
Both giving away content free of charge and taking everything away from consumers if they cancel fly in the face of everything we know about a functioning economy. People will become dissatisfied. Artists will stop making content because they're not getting paid. When there is no content, people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content. In short order, one part of our digital economy will collapse, and it could be followed by countless others.
Of course, if you buy the DRM music, then this problem goes away! Nobody has ever had their media collection "voided" by DRM, right? Oh, wait... Yeah they have.
To say that people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content is shortsighted and even stupid. People haven't even caught on to what DRM will really mean for them in the future, and those who have only have made the connection because of what it did not mean for them in the past. My parents, for example, would consider hd-dvd an upgrade.
Giving away content can be a bad business model, sure. But it can also be an excellent business model. Just ask the guys at Google.
And before I forget to say it, it's worth mentioning that the costs of music are continually falling (to the point where independant musicians can produce records of similar quality to big labels, but in their basements). If the label really needs $650,000 to sign that new artist, then I think something in the money chain is missing. The means to increase production exponentially at virtually zero cost are there. The RIAA simply refuses to take advantage of it. Their approach is to throw huge sacks of money at promoting a small number of "artists" and largely ignore the rest of the crowd.
Creative works are cheaper than ever to produce. Unless you ask any company that makes its money on artificial scarcity.
I previewed this a couple of times before i noticed the biggest problem with this guy's argument: "what if you found your books vanishing because you switched libraries, or your dvds vanishing because you switched from blockbuster to netflix?"
Uh... with either service, you don't own anything. the media belongs to the library (or blockbuster) and the content belongs to the creator or publisher. Wait, that sounds EXACTLY like the sort of thing DRM was designed to do.
He is right on one count, though. If you piss your customers off enough, then they will *evntually* stop paying for your products. But to suppose that people actually *like* or *want* DRM? That's a stretch. Yes, one part of the digital economy will collapse. And I welcome that collapse. Just because it's there today does not mean it's not a malignant tumor. Go away, DRM. I never wanted you. I never will. I never woke up thinking "I wish there were fewer ways I could use the music I paid for."
"I expect that Microsoft will shortly figure this out."
;)
You must be new...
Well, if so, then it should come as some consolation to her that no matter how long the job takes her, it can still always be done on time. They should have set the deadline even earlier!
Hey now, that makes sense. All this time, I've been doing it wrong: ... (you see where this is going?)
1. Sell 50 cents for $1
2.
You can count on anything you sell on eBay finding its way to a landfill.
Your desire to recycle tech is not passed on to your buyer, who is merely looking for cheap stuff.
That is not recycling.
There has to be SOMETHING better than eBay for this.
It is worth mentioning, however, that while "Blizzard" (the company) may already have your credit card information that some guy in accounting could pull up on a whim, that does not mean that I want some guy I don't know from Bob's uncle being able to dig it up off my own computer because he can't access that information where he works.
Yes, the company already has that information. But the system is designed to prevent that information from being available to just anybody in the company. You see the disconnect here?
I am sure it is not Blizzard's intention to misuse the system, but you have clearly forgotten that if the system is going to be abused, it won't be by Blizzard, but somebody who works there. Rest assured, it WILL be abused.
One? ;)
If you RTA, you may notice that comcast users' downloads are not being cut off deliberately -- only the uploads on various P2P services are (such as bittorrent). You can still download the stuff without interference, but if you wanted to actually share anything, then that is where you hit the snags.
To a regular joe, this meddling is already invisible, because virtually nobody cares whether their uploads to some random jane are being randomly cut off.
Still, it is a bad business practice, even though it is their network. One more reason that I will be looking to leave them in the near future.
As one AC observed in [ http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=333521&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=21042495 ], "You're not supposed to actually use the bandwidth you buy."
Where are the google text ads in this "revised" google? There is so much unused page space in the final version!
I'm not sure how it's OT, but thanks anyway. Having located (and read) TFM, I got a label filter set up to do the same thing lickety-split. Also, IMO, posting without the karma bonus is the *only* way to post. =)
It's not quite what I was hoping for, but it is very useful.