OP: "This is especially true with its major Telnet interface, which seems dangerous to me."
P: "Dangerous? No it ain't,"
Telnet is inherently dangerous because it requires sending passwords in clear text across the wire. If you want to argue that this telnet based interface is not dangerous, you need to explain why it doesn't require sending passwords in clear text. I.e. why authentication is not important or how it encrypts the authentication (which would have to run on top of the telnet connection).
This can certainly be true in some cases. For example, the common day timer application does not require authentication to return the system time. However, if you are talking about making edits over telnet, that does in fact require authentication. How do you verify identity? You can't use the options telnet gives you, as they are not secure; you have to build your own.
There is also the question of whether or not the data needs to be encrypted. I can think of a number of situations where I would not want my email/scheduling info available in clear text.
"Doesn't take long for it to become apparent that so many people who claim to know the platform are inexperienced fools. Once that happens, salaries drop."
No. Once that happens, salaries *increase* but hirings decrease.
Most employers try to *avoid* hiring the inexperienced fools. As a result, they offer high salaries to the rare qualified coder.
Salaries don't drop until the demand actually drops, e.g. by the bubble bursting. A large supply of non-qualified coders doesn't affect qualified salaries. It just affects the cost of hiring. While in theory that cost could come out of salaries, in practice this only occurs in markets where demand greatly outstrips supply. Making it harder to find qualified coders makes them a more valuable resource.
Think about it. Who is more likely to get the job done. Five inexperienced coders? Or one experienced coder? Therefore, which would you rather hire?
It depends what you want. Do you want to sit down with someone and talk over needs? Call some local ISPs and ask them for recommendations.
Do you want to find a big company on the internet to help you? Google has plenty. Hint: pick a few tasks you need to perform and search Google for how to do them. Contact the authors who give the best examples.
Are you willing to risk a little? ScriptLance has a large number of people who are qualified to do the work. You will have to wade through the sludge though.
If you are really brave, you could post your contact info here. There are certainly qualified web designers who post on slashdot. Heck, a year ago, I would have bid on this. Sounds fun.
I'm not sure that the problem is even the "smartness" of the people doing the reviews. The problem is that they have about four hours to find a reason to deny a patent.
It's easy enough to sit around/. and say "This patent sucks." It's much harder to encapsulate said suckage into a reason to deny a patent.
In the modern world, I think that it is impractical to expect anyone, no matter how smart, to be able to find the weak spot in a patent in a mere four hours.
IMO, we would be better off going the other way. Make the initial patent application just a listing. Instead of writing Patent Pending, write Patent Requested. Then, when they try to use the patent, the challenge comes from the recipient. Also, patent infringement notices should all be sent *through* the patent office (for another fee). I.e. the workflow would be
File patent application. Notify others that you feel that they are infringing. The defendant (who is presumably in the field; otherwise how are they infringing) researches prior art and challenges the patent. Both sides present their evidence to each other. If neither has admitted the other is correct, they can then go to a review at the patent office. The loser of the review pays the review fees.
The fundamental problem with the current system is that it is not possible for a single person to perform such a review at the proper level of importance. Some of these patents are requesting multi-million dollar fees. Some would be happy with $10,000. How do you support both uses with a one size fits all fee?
If you are really committed to the idea of an up front application review, perhaps we should reconsider how patents can be used. E.g. what if a patent application also had to include the licensing fees? I.e. I might file a patent and say that users could pay either $10,000 for an unlimited license or $1 per use (with a cap of $10,000; i.e. the 10,001st use would be free). The applicant needs to set
1. The max fee per user ($10,000 in this example). 2. The fee per use ($1). 3. The max to be collected.
Every purchaser of the unlimited license would become a part owner of the remainder of the patent. Once the original patenter gets the max amount to be collected, all the licensers (to that point) now own the patent and may license it to others *up to* the amount that they themselves paid. Once they all have licensed the amount they have paid (or 14 years, whichever comes first), the patent expires.
Now, here's the kicker: base the patent application fee on the max to be collected amount. E.g. 5%. That will determine how much effort the patent office puts into researching the patent. As a result, people who can realistically expect their patent to be the next big thing will pay huge fees up front, will get lots of patent review, and will presumably make back the money in licensing. People who put in $5000 worth of work and are hoping for $10,000 in fees will pay much smaller application fees, get little patent review, but will not cost that much.
I would still prefer the delayed review. I think that it is fairer to all concerned and puts much less burden on the patent office. This is an example of an alternative.
I'm wondering if it would be sensible to sell shares rather than focus on selling (streamed) episodes or DVDs. I.e. set a target of $50 million (enough to produce either a movie or a TV show with some left over for marketing and the share selling). Offer 50 million shares for sale at a $1 per share. If they don't sell all 50 million shares, everyone gets their money back minus some transactional amount (e.g. 10 cents per share). If they do sell all the shares, then they produce the show.
Now, once the show is produced, they sell episodes, DVDs, etc. The profits from that get sent back to the shareholders. Now, maybe that means that each shareholder only gets forty cents on the dollar. However, that's all right, because we also get a new season of the show.
Some people won't buy any shares. They just buy the episodes/DVDs when they come out. They pay around $40 (going from previous shows' DVD set prices). Other people (who really want the show) buy $160 in shares and pay $40 for the season. Other people pay for $10,000 in shares.
The keys:
1. Finding a way to minimize the transaction cost in case they can't hit the target for shares. The ideal would be to return 100% of the sales.
2. Allowing people who have more money and interest to subsidize those who have less. Finding a way to make people want to do that. Maybe a monthly lottery where those who win get to have dinner with the cast and crew? The more shares you have, the better your chance of winning?
The fundamental problem is that Firefly/Serenity is a cult favorite. It has a bunch of really big fans but not enough decent fans. Having fans willing to pay $200 doesn't matter unless you can actually collect it from them while at the same time still collecting $40 from those willing to pay that.
"Ticket sales account for less than half of movie revenues. DVD sales represent the majority of studio profits nowadays."
DVD sales of their *entire* catalog. The other dirty little secret is that the majority of DVD sales are of *old* movies, not new releases. Further, what's the largest profit center for movies? TV. The problems are that TV leases are heavily biased towards blockbusters and also that they are far out. I.e. most of the TV revenue would be years from now.
Worldwide, the movie's box office was almost equal to its production budget. The problem is that the studio spends more than the production budget and gets less than the box office.
They made about $20 million from the movie (half the worldwide gross). They spent $55 million (include $15 million for marketing). They can expect $10-20 million in DVD sales, or $5-10 million in margin. That leaves them $25-30 million short. Some of that could be made up by the surge in Season 1 sales, except different people get that. Even if Universal had obtained the Season 1 sales, it's unlikely that there was more than $5 million in margin from them.
Bottom line, even with the most optimistic interpretation of the numbers, they are still $20 million short.
This proposal is interesting in that it suggests going outside traditional channels to pick up the money needed for an additional season. I'm not sure that it's possible, but I filled out the survey in case it is.
I would point out that there aren't a million Serenity fans. There's more like 400,000. Also, a season doesn't cost $20 million. It costs more like $40 million. You should expect to pay more like a $100 rather than $20. Note that that neglects distribution costs. Presumably those would need to be paid by tie ins (e.g. toys), upgrades (e.g. HDTV), and secondary sales (TV syndication, DVD sales, etc.).
"I think the newly minted founders would rather live in a nice(?) area than some backwater where the only hangout is some spit-and-saw-dust joint."
Newly minted founder Jeff Bezos splits time between Seattle (where Amazon is) and Texas (where his ranch is).
You may like urban living, but don't push it out on the rest of us. To me, the best hangouts have always been the ones where friends and family are. I'd much rather visit a friend with a nice game room than hang out at a noisy night club. Perhaps you'd prefer the excitement of a night club to a boring game room. That's fine...for you.
I much preferred living in a small town. My apartment then was twice the size of my apartment now...and half the rent. Free parking. Light traffic. Quiet.
People have been leaving cities for suburbs for decades. Telecommuting means that people can now leave the suburbs for more rural areas.
"areas where techies are, that means mostly (good) university towns."
"If you want to compete now you'll have to solve the problem a different way."
The problem is that most software patents try to claim solving the problem as under their purview. If all they were protecting was a particular solution, they'd get much more protection from copyright, which has a longer term. Instead, they claim all solutions.
One of the primary confusions about patents is that they are designed to protect innovative *ideas*. They are not. Patents are designed to protect the *process* of innovation. In particular, patents protect experimentation about wrong ways to do things. As Edison noted, it's easy to find the one right way to do something; it's the 9999 wrong ways that take the time. Software doesn't require this protection, as one doesn't have to try 9999 wrong things to find one correct.
What's especially odious about software patents is that they don't contribute anything. At the end of the patent, there is no new disclosure from the patent. All you know is what's obvious from external use (Hey, I can click on a single button and it can figure out my shipping address from just the information passed in the request).
There is some middle grouping of patents that's merely questionable, but there are two groups that are clear: software and pharmaceuticals. Software does not need patent protection, as it is already protected by the stronger copyright law. Pharmaceuticals do require patent protection. Not to protect the innovation of designing a pharmaceutical. The patent protection is actually to protect the *testing* that needs to be done to verify that the pharmaceutical works without unbearable side effects.
The big question about pharmaceuticals is if patents are the best protection, or if we should come up with some new notion that puts less pressure on time to market (testing take about twelve years, leaving only five to sell the product; pharmaceutical companies literally cannot afford to send something back for more tests -- they lose their window of opportunity to sell profitably).
"It's a shame that most US citizens can't comprehend the benefits to society of having a good solid public transit system"
In most of the US, a public transportation system would be more expensive than cars. Buses are great and all, but if they always run less than a quarter full, they're actually less efficient than cars (because they are so much bigger). Further, there are only six cities in the US with the population density to support light rail (in the rest, buses would actually be more efficient).
The only way public transit would work in the US would be if people stopped moving out of cities and started moving back. Good public transit requires that kind of clumpiness. The subway systems in New York, Boston, and DC are incredible. However, they simply wouldn't work in other cities. Who wants to wait an hour for a train? Heck, I don't like waiting fifteen minutes for a bus!
No, it would still be way in the red. $39 million isn't how much Universal got (the net). It's how much the theatres collected (the gross). Even using 60% as Universal's share (which is probably a little high), that's still only (about) $25 million. Those numbers also leave off the marketing budget of $15 million. Going into DVD, it is still way in the red, something like $30 million.
DVD sales in the hundred thousand range are very good (giving about $2 million). "Killing" could mean the million range, but more likely means three or four hundred thousand. To make money, they would need DVD sales in the range of three million or so. Only about five million people saw it in theatres. It's not going to break even.
It tanked. It needed to make about twice what it did in the theatres and *then* have DVD sales like it is now. The strong DVD sales were already built into those profitability projections.
Studios always need big tax write offs, but they want them to pay off eventually. Studios get most of their revenue from movies made years ago. Unfortunately, Sci Fi is not the best genre for that, as the special effects quickly become dated. Dramas work best, as movies like Casablanca are timeless in message. The historical context actually adds to the ambience of the movie.
"you can't steal a license plate if it has an RFID device in it"
It would force them to steal both plates (because RFID isn't limited by camera angles). Apparently Britain regularly uses two but thieves usually only steal the back plate (where the cameras are aimed). Since people look at the front of their cars more often than the backs...there is actually some slight advantage to RFID from that perspective.
Of course, I suspect that the primary reason that police like it is fewer restrictions on where they put the detectors. Cameras require a good angle. RFID just requires proximity.
First question says, "Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks?"
Answer: "The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where vehicles are having to slow down anyway..."
Yes, this is obviously a bad idea in the open road where drivers don't want to slow down and would have to counter with increased gas. Depending on cost/benefit analysis, it may or may not make sense in situations where drivers do want to slow their vehicles. The ideal situation for it would of course be a ramp coming from a road that slopes down.
Properly used this would actually help most motorists, as it would reduce braking. The only negative would be with regenerative braking vehicles which also use the same kinetic energy to generate electricity. Not sure how big an effect it would have though. Also, while slightly bad for regenerative vehicles, it might still be a net benefit overall.
$38 million to produce $15 million to market $25 million in box office
Let's assume that Universal (as opposed to movie theatres) netted $15 million from that $25 million. That still leaves them about, oh, $38 million in the hole. I.e. they have yet to make back any of their production budget. If that's not tanking, I don't know what is.
"But the fans already know there won't be a sequel without strong DVD sales."
Anyone with any acceptance of reality knows that there won't be a sequel, no matter how strong the DVD sales are. Huge DVD sales, on the order of $20 million (twice as much as they could expect) would only elevate the film to "lost money" from "lost gobs of money." The film barely made back its *marketing* costs. To pay for production costs, they would have to sell at least $50 million worth of DVDs. It's *NOT* happening.
If the film had had a domestic box office of $50 million, strong DVD sales could have pushed it into sequel land. At $25 million, they're just something to reduce Universal's loss.
Perhaps Whedon should have avoided passing on this bit of reality, but at this stage, he would have either needed to lie or stop taking interviews altogether. It's an obvious question.
I think that you misunderstood the question. Serenity is the movie. The series is Firefly. To rephrase the GP's question: "Is Sci-Fi going to show the movie? And if so, will it be soon?"
I have no idea. If I had to guess, I would say that they wouldn't play the movie until the DVD sales die down.
Of course, NBC owns both Universal and Sci-Fi, so it's quite possible that they will show the movie. However, I strongly suspect that the point of playing the show was to promote the movie rather than to garner ratings from the show itself. It may also have been part of their deal with Fox. When the movie came out, Fox made a lot of money from sales of the show's DVD set.
It's also worth noting that Fox benefits more from the movie being shown than does NBC/Universal. The movie promotes sales of the TV show DVDs. Maybe Fox will buy the movie broadcast rights and show the movie on one of its channels. Of course, that could take a while. Maybe the next time that Whedon has a hit?
"unless you disclose you don't get the financial incentive."
M&Ms have never been patented but they make money every year. Thousands of other things have been patented but have never made a dime.
Someone else already posted the legalese allowing patents in the US, the *primary* purpose of a US patent (not trying to describe those in other countries) is to encourage investment (not innovation nor disclosure). Encouraging innovation (with that investment) and promoting sharing of ideas are helpful side effects.
Patents work by *preserving* the financial incentive. They allow people to develop ideas that are easy to duplicate. Without patents, the pharmaceutical industry would collapse. They couldn't afford the massive upfront costs of testing if they couldn't recoup the costs afterwards.
It is not as obvious that other areas are as affected by patents. In software in particular, patents mostly serve as a distraction.
"The threshold for making something public isn't all that high. It just has to have reasonable access to those skilled in the art."
That may be legally true. However, it is effectively false. While it is possible to invalidate a patent after it is granted, it is very difficult. The quotes that I have seen put it in the millions of dollars to invalidate a patent. As a result, it will usually be cheaper to pay the patent licensing fee than to fight the patent. Thus, the bar for being publicly distributed is essentially "be in the patent office's database."
The simplest way to be in the database is to file a patent. The next simplest way is to appear in a trade publication that the patent office indexes. After that, you're pretty much hosed.
The FBI might be willing to wade through the volume at the Google level. However, if they did, why wouldn't they just get it from the *ISP* which has *all* of your internet traffic?
" And as soon as public teaching jobs pay as well as sysadmin and developer positions, they will be."
You're forgetting the licensing requirements. Of the three, teaching is the only one that actually requires a degree (increasingly, a master's). Further, the education portion of the degree will be completely useless in getting any other kind of job.
I would also point out that English teachers can *only* teach. There are very few other jobs available to them (e.g. there aren't that many magazine editors). Good computer people have many jobs open. Even now (post tech boom), companies like Amazon are hiring weekly.
"Just a follow up, after this happened my wife and I started buying anti bacterial soap."
Yep, so now you are breeding bacteria that are immune to anti-bacterial agents. Eventually, you will have just as much bacteria as when you started, but you will no longer have the option of applying an anti-bacterial agent when you need it. E.g. when you have an open sore that needs to heal.
"Great! The casino's are marking my decks for me now. Well, if a tv camera can see it, then there will be a way for me to see it too. It's not an invisible ink if they can read it."
I think that you missed the point. They are not marking the identity of the cards in the deck. They are marking the cards as members of a particular deck. I.e. they are making sure that the cards you are using are part of the current deck in play. You being able to also tell that the cards are part of a particular deck does not help you unless they mix decks--which would defeat the point.
This is just to make it harder to slip other cards into the game. I.e. swap the useless two for the seven that makes a full house.
"card counting is not illegal."
Isn't it? Then why don't casinos count cards? You are correct in saying that unassisted card counting by individuals is not illegal. It is illegal to do so with mechanical assistance or if you are a casino.
If card counting is fair, then you should play against casinos that do it. Let's see how you feel about card counting when Ken Upton is the dealer.
"Is it cheating (according to Nevada Gaming Commission) to use anything besides your wits and senses (like a counter, a computer, a wire from a friend offering odds and advice)? Are those distinctions in the rules?"
Yes.
Btw, a side point that a lot of people are missing is that it is to the average player's benefit to have these rules. What if the *casino* started counting cards? They could easily up their margin and win consistently. Especially if they only did this on hands where the player bet large. I.e. lose small bets consistently and win large bets.
Casinos can afford better hardware and software than could any individual gambler.
"I'm wondering if they'll honor a chip if say, the RFID is broken, or disabled? Say you were a card counter...took all your chips with you home...microwaved them, and then brought them in to play with. They couldn't track your variance in bets with those chips could they? Could they refuse to pay a chip that was valid, but, the RFID wasn't working?"
They don't need to refuse to pay it, just refuse to let you *play* with it. "I'm sorry, your chip is defective. Let me exchange it for one that works."
Any refusal to pay would be to prevent counterfeiting. It's not needed for the gaming analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
OP: "This is especially true with its major Telnet interface, which seems dangerous to me."
P: "Dangerous? No it ain't,"
Telnet is inherently dangerous because it requires sending passwords in clear text across the wire. If you want to argue that this telnet based interface is not dangerous, you need to explain why it doesn't require sending passwords in clear text. I.e. why authentication is not important or how it encrypts the authentication (which would have to run on top of the telnet connection).
This can certainly be true in some cases. For example, the common day timer application does not require authentication to return the system time. However, if you are talking about making edits over telnet, that does in fact require authentication. How do you verify identity? You can't use the options telnet gives you, as they are not secure; you have to build your own.
There is also the question of whether or not the data needs to be encrypted. I can think of a number of situations where I would not want my email/scheduling info available in clear text.
"Doesn't take long for it to become apparent that so many people who claim to know the platform are inexperienced fools. Once that happens, salaries drop."
No. Once that happens, salaries *increase* but hirings decrease.
Most employers try to *avoid* hiring the inexperienced fools. As a result, they offer high salaries to the rare qualified coder.
Salaries don't drop until the demand actually drops, e.g. by the bubble bursting. A large supply of non-qualified coders doesn't affect qualified salaries. It just affects the cost of hiring. While in theory that cost could come out of salaries, in practice this only occurs in markets where demand greatly outstrips supply. Making it harder to find qualified coders makes them a more valuable resource.
Think about it. Who is more likely to get the job done. Five inexperienced coders? Or one experienced coder? Therefore, which would you rather hire?
The AC said:
1: phonebook
2: google
I would add:
3. http://scriptlance.com/
It depends what you want. Do you want to sit down with someone and talk over needs? Call some local ISPs and ask them for recommendations.
Do you want to find a big company on the internet to help you? Google has plenty. Hint: pick a few tasks you need to perform and search Google for how to do them. Contact the authors who give the best examples.
Are you willing to risk a little? ScriptLance has a large number of people who are qualified to do the work. You will have to wade through the sludge though.
If you are really brave, you could post your contact info here. There are certainly qualified web designers who post on slashdot. Heck, a year ago, I would have bid on this. Sounds fun.
I'm not sure that the problem is even the "smartness" of the people doing the reviews. The problem is that they have about four hours to find a reason to deny a patent.
/. and say "This patent sucks." It's much harder to encapsulate said suckage into a reason to deny a patent.
It's easy enough to sit around
In the modern world, I think that it is impractical to expect anyone, no matter how smart, to be able to find the weak spot in a patent in a mere four hours.
IMO, we would be better off going the other way. Make the initial patent application just a listing. Instead of writing Patent Pending, write Patent Requested. Then, when they try to use the patent, the challenge comes from the recipient. Also, patent infringement notices should all be sent *through* the patent office (for another fee). I.e. the workflow would be
File patent application.
Notify others that you feel that they are infringing.
The defendant (who is presumably in the field; otherwise how are they infringing) researches prior art and challenges the patent.
Both sides present their evidence to each other.
If neither has admitted the other is correct, they can then go to a review at the patent office. The loser of the review pays the review fees.
The fundamental problem with the current system is that it is not possible for a single person to perform such a review at the proper level of importance. Some of these patents are requesting multi-million dollar fees. Some would be happy with $10,000. How do you support both uses with a one size fits all fee?
If you are really committed to the idea of an up front application review, perhaps we should reconsider how patents can be used. E.g. what if a patent application also had to include the licensing fees? I.e. I might file a patent and say that users could pay either $10,000 for an unlimited license or $1 per use (with a cap of $10,000; i.e. the 10,001st use would be free). The applicant needs to set
1. The max fee per user ($10,000 in this example).
2. The fee per use ($1).
3. The max to be collected.
Every purchaser of the unlimited license would become a part owner of the remainder of the patent. Once the original patenter gets the max amount to be collected, all the licensers (to that point) now own the patent and may license it to others *up to* the amount that they themselves paid. Once they all have licensed the amount they have paid (or 14 years, whichever comes first), the patent expires.
Now, here's the kicker: base the patent application fee on the max to be collected amount. E.g. 5%. That will determine how much effort the patent office puts into researching the patent. As a result, people who can realistically expect their patent to be the next big thing will pay huge fees up front, will get lots of patent review, and will presumably make back the money in licensing. People who put in $5000 worth of work and are hoping for $10,000 in fees will pay much smaller application fees, get little patent review, but will not cost that much.
I would still prefer the delayed review. I think that it is fairer to all concerned and puts much less burden on the patent office. This is an example of an alternative.
I'm wondering if it would be sensible to sell shares rather than focus on selling (streamed) episodes or DVDs. I.e. set a target of $50 million (enough to produce either a movie or a TV show with some left over for marketing and the share selling). Offer 50 million shares for sale at a $1 per share. If they don't sell all 50 million shares, everyone gets their money back minus some transactional amount (e.g. 10 cents per share). If they do sell all the shares, then they produce the show.
Now, once the show is produced, they sell episodes, DVDs, etc. The profits from that get sent back to the shareholders. Now, maybe that means that each shareholder only gets forty cents on the dollar. However, that's all right, because we also get a new season of the show.
Some people won't buy any shares. They just buy the episodes/DVDs when they come out. They pay around $40 (going from previous shows' DVD set prices). Other people (who really want the show) buy $160 in shares and pay $40 for the season. Other people pay for $10,000 in shares.
The keys:
1. Finding a way to minimize the transaction cost in case they can't hit the target for shares. The ideal would be to return 100% of the sales.
2. Allowing people who have more money and interest to subsidize those who have less. Finding a way to make people want to do that. Maybe a monthly lottery where those who win get to have dinner with the cast and crew? The more shares you have, the better your chance of winning?
The fundamental problem is that Firefly/Serenity is a cult favorite. It has a bunch of really big fans but not enough decent fans. Having fans willing to pay $200 doesn't matter unless you can actually collect it from them while at the same time still collecting $40 from those willing to pay that.
"Ticket sales account for less than half of movie revenues. DVD sales represent the majority of studio profits nowadays."
DVD sales of their *entire* catalog. The other dirty little secret is that the majority of DVD sales are of *old* movies, not new releases. Further, what's the largest profit center for movies? TV. The problems are that TV leases are heavily biased towards blockbusters and also that they are far out. I.e. most of the TV revenue would be years from now.
Worldwide, the movie's box office was almost equal to its production budget. The problem is that the studio spends more than the production budget and gets less than the box office.
They made about $20 million from the movie (half the worldwide gross). They spent $55 million (include $15 million for marketing). They can expect $10-20 million in DVD sales, or $5-10 million in margin. That leaves them $25-30 million short. Some of that could be made up by the surge in Season 1 sales, except different people get that. Even if Universal had obtained the Season 1 sales, it's unlikely that there was more than $5 million in margin from them.
Bottom line, even with the most optimistic interpretation of the numbers, they are still $20 million short.
This proposal is interesting in that it suggests going outside traditional channels to pick up the money needed for an additional season. I'm not sure that it's possible, but I filled out the survey in case it is.
I would point out that there aren't a million Serenity fans. There's more like 400,000. Also, a season doesn't cost $20 million. It costs more like $40 million. You should expect to pay more like a $100 rather than $20. Note that that neglects distribution costs. Presumably those would need to be paid by tie ins (e.g. toys), upgrades (e.g. HDTV), and secondary sales (TV syndication, DVD sales, etc.).
"I think the newly minted founders would rather live in a nice(?) area than some backwater where the only hangout is some spit-and-saw-dust joint."
Newly minted founder Jeff Bezos splits time between Seattle (where Amazon is) and Texas (where his ranch is).
You may like urban living, but don't push it out on the rest of us. To me, the best hangouts have always been the ones where friends and family are. I'd much rather visit a friend with a nice game room than hang out at a noisy night club. Perhaps you'd prefer the excitement of a night club to a boring game room. That's fine...for you.
I much preferred living in a small town. My apartment then was twice the size of my apartment now...and half the rent. Free parking. Light traffic. Quiet.
People have been leaving cities for suburbs for decades. Telecommuting means that people can now leave the suburbs for more rural areas.
"areas where techies are, that means mostly (good) university towns."
Or wherever their parents live.
"If you want to compete now you'll have to solve the problem a different way."
The problem is that most software patents try to claim solving the problem as under their purview. If all they were protecting was a particular solution, they'd get much more protection from copyright, which has a longer term. Instead, they claim all solutions.
One of the primary confusions about patents is that they are designed to protect innovative *ideas*. They are not. Patents are designed to protect the *process* of innovation. In particular, patents protect experimentation about wrong ways to do things. As Edison noted, it's easy to find the one right way to do something; it's the 9999 wrong ways that take the time. Software doesn't require this protection, as one doesn't have to try 9999 wrong things to find one correct.
What's especially odious about software patents is that they don't contribute anything. At the end of the patent, there is no new disclosure from the patent. All you know is what's obvious from external use (Hey, I can click on a single button and it can figure out my shipping address from just the information passed in the request).
There is some middle grouping of patents that's merely questionable, but there are two groups that are clear: software and pharmaceuticals. Software does not need patent protection, as it is already protected by the stronger copyright law. Pharmaceuticals do require patent protection. Not to protect the innovation of designing a pharmaceutical. The patent protection is actually to protect the *testing* that needs to be done to verify that the pharmaceutical works without unbearable side effects.
The big question about pharmaceuticals is if patents are the best protection, or if we should come up with some new notion that puts less pressure on time to market (testing take about twelve years, leaving only five to sell the product; pharmaceutical companies literally cannot afford to send something back for more tests -- they lose their window of opportunity to sell profitably).
"It's a shame that most US citizens can't comprehend the benefits to society of having a good solid public transit system"
In most of the US, a public transportation system would be more expensive than cars. Buses are great and all, but if they always run less than a quarter full, they're actually less efficient than cars (because they are so much bigger). Further, there are only six cities in the US with the population density to support light rail (in the rest, buses would actually be more efficient).
The only way public transit would work in the US would be if people stopped moving out of cities and started moving back. Good public transit requires that kind of clumpiness. The subway systems in New York, Boston, and DC are incredible. However, they simply wouldn't work in other cities. Who wants to wait an hour for a train? Heck, I don't like waiting fifteen minutes for a bus!
No, it would still be way in the red. $39 million isn't how much Universal got (the net). It's how much the theatres collected (the gross). Even using 60% as Universal's share (which is probably a little high), that's still only (about) $25 million. Those numbers also leave off the marketing budget of $15 million. Going into DVD, it is still way in the red, something like $30 million.
DVD sales in the hundred thousand range are very good (giving about $2 million). "Killing" could mean the million range, but more likely means three or four hundred thousand. To make money, they would need DVD sales in the range of three million or so. Only about five million people saw it in theatres. It's not going to break even.
It tanked. It needed to make about twice what it did in the theatres and *then* have DVD sales like it is now. The strong DVD sales were already built into those profitability projections.
Studios always need big tax write offs, but they want them to pay off eventually. Studios get most of their revenue from movies made years ago. Unfortunately, Sci Fi is not the best genre for that, as the special effects quickly become dated. Dramas work best, as movies like Casablanca are timeless in message. The historical context actually adds to the ambience of the movie.
"you can't steal a license plate if it has an RFID device in it"
It would force them to steal both plates (because RFID isn't limited by camera angles). Apparently Britain regularly uses two but thieves usually only steal the back plate (where the cameras are aimed). Since people look at the front of their cars more often than the backs...there is actually some slight advantage to RFID from that perspective.
Of course, I suspect that the primary reason that police like it is fewer restrictions on where they put the detectors. Cameras require a good angle. RFID just requires proximity.
http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Web_Pages/FAQs.htm
First question says, "Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks?"
Answer: "The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where vehicles are having to slow down anyway..."
Yes, this is obviously a bad idea in the open road where drivers don't want to slow down and would have to counter with increased gas. Depending on cost/benefit analysis, it may or may not make sense in situations where drivers do want to slow their vehicles. The ideal situation for it would of course be a ramp coming from a road that slopes down.
Properly used this would actually help most motorists, as it would reduce braking. The only negative would be with regenerative braking vehicles which also use the same kinetic energy to generate electricity. Not sure how big an effect it would have though. Also, while slightly bad for regenerative vehicles, it might still be a net benefit overall.
"Serenity didn't tank financially."
$38 million to produce
$15 million to market
$25 million in box office
Let's assume that Universal (as opposed to movie theatres) netted $15 million from that $25 million. That still leaves them about, oh, $38 million in the hole. I.e. they have yet to make back any of their production budget. If that's not tanking, I don't know what is.
"But the fans already know there won't be a sequel without strong DVD sales."
Anyone with any acceptance of reality knows that there won't be a sequel, no matter how strong the DVD sales are. Huge DVD sales, on the order of $20 million (twice as much as they could expect) would only elevate the film to "lost money" from "lost gobs of money." The film barely made back its *marketing* costs. To pay for production costs, they would have to sell at least $50 million worth of DVDs. It's *NOT* happening.
If the film had had a domestic box office of $50 million, strong DVD sales could have pushed it into sequel land. At $25 million, they're just something to reduce Universal's loss.
Perhaps Whedon should have avoided passing on this bit of reality, but at this stage, he would have either needed to lie or stop taking interviews altogether. It's an obvious question.
I think that you misunderstood the question. Serenity is the movie. The series is Firefly. To rephrase the GP's question: "Is Sci-Fi going to show the movie? And if so, will it be soon?"
I have no idea. If I had to guess, I would say that they wouldn't play the movie until the DVD sales die down.
Of course, NBC owns both Universal and Sci-Fi, so it's quite possible that they will show the movie. However, I strongly suspect that the point of playing the show was to promote the movie rather than to garner ratings from the show itself. It may also have been part of their deal with Fox. When the movie came out, Fox made a lot of money from sales of the show's DVD set.
It's also worth noting that Fox benefits more from the movie being shown than does NBC/Universal. The movie promotes sales of the TV show DVDs. Maybe Fox will buy the movie broadcast rights and show the movie on one of its channels. Of course, that could take a while. Maybe the next time that Whedon has a hit?
"unless you disclose you don't get the financial incentive."
M&Ms have never been patented but they make money every year. Thousands of other things have been patented but have never made a dime.
Someone else already posted the legalese allowing patents in the US, the *primary* purpose of a US patent (not trying to describe those in other countries) is to encourage investment (not innovation nor disclosure). Encouraging innovation (with that investment) and promoting sharing of ideas are helpful side effects.
Patents work by *preserving* the financial incentive. They allow people to develop ideas that are easy to duplicate. Without patents, the pharmaceutical industry would collapse. They couldn't afford the massive upfront costs of testing if they couldn't recoup the costs afterwards.
It is not as obvious that other areas are as affected by patents. In software in particular, patents mostly serve as a distraction.
"The threshold for making something public isn't all that high. It just has to have reasonable access to those skilled in the art."
That may be legally true. However, it is effectively false. While it is possible to invalidate a patent after it is granted, it is very difficult. The quotes that I have seen put it in the millions of dollars to invalidate a patent. As a result, it will usually be cheaper to pay the patent licensing fee than to fight the patent. Thus, the bar for being publicly distributed is essentially "be in the patent office's database."
The simplest way to be in the database is to file a patent. The next simplest way is to appear in a trade publication that the patent office indexes. After that, you're pretty much hosed.
The FBI might be willing to wade through the volume at the Google level. However, if they did, why wouldn't they just get it from the *ISP* which has *all* of your internet traffic?
This also appears in the story about how Intel fired Randall Schwartz, IIRC.
" And as soon as public teaching jobs pay as well as sysadmin and developer positions, they will be."
You're forgetting the licensing requirements. Of the three, teaching is the only one that actually requires a degree (increasingly, a master's). Further, the education portion of the degree will be completely useless in getting any other kind of job.
I would also point out that English teachers can *only* teach. There are very few other jobs available to them (e.g. there aren't that many magazine editors). Good computer people have many jobs open. Even now (post tech boom), companies like Amazon are hiring weekly.
"Just a follow up, after this happened my wife and I started buying anti bacterial soap."
Yep, so now you are breeding bacteria that are immune to anti-bacterial agents. Eventually, you will have just as much bacteria as when you started, but you will no longer have the option of applying an anti-bacterial agent when you need it. E.g. when you have an open sore that needs to heal.
"Great! The casino's are marking my decks for me now. Well, if a tv camera can see it, then there will be a way for me to see it too. It's not an invisible ink if they can read it."
I think that you missed the point. They are not marking the identity of the cards in the deck. They are marking the cards as members of a particular deck. I.e. they are making sure that the cards you are using are part of the current deck in play. You being able to also tell that the cards are part of a particular deck does not help you unless they mix decks--which would defeat the point.
This is just to make it harder to slip other cards into the game. I.e. swap the useless two for the seven that makes a full house.
"card counting is not illegal."
Isn't it? Then why don't casinos count cards? You are correct in saying that unassisted card counting by individuals is not illegal. It is illegal to do so with mechanical assistance or if you are a casino.
If card counting is fair, then you should play against casinos that do it. Let's see how you feel about card counting when Ken Upton is the dealer.
"Is it cheating (according to Nevada Gaming Commission) to use anything besides your wits and senses (like a counter, a computer, a wire from a friend offering odds and advice)? Are those distinctions in the rules?"
Yes.
Btw, a side point that a lot of people are missing is that it is to the average player's benefit to have these rules. What if the *casino* started counting cards? They could easily up their margin and win consistently. Especially if they only did this on hands where the player bet large. I.e. lose small bets consistently and win large bets.
Casinos can afford better hardware and software than could any individual gambler.
"I'm wondering if they'll honor a chip if say, the RFID is broken, or disabled? Say you were a card counter...took all your chips with you home...microwaved them, and then brought them in to play with. They couldn't track your variance in bets with those chips could they? Could they refuse to pay a chip that was valid, but, the RFID wasn't working?"
They don't need to refuse to pay it, just refuse to let you *play* with it. "I'm sorry, your chip is defective. Let me exchange it for one that works."
Any refusal to pay would be to prevent counterfeiting. It's not needed for the gaming analysis.
Netscape made money by selling *servers* that supported their reader. Apache was what really destroyed the Netscape business model.