The moderator disagreed with your opinion, which pretty much defines "flamebait", at least according to most Slashdot moderators. This is why I meta-mod just about all flamebaits as unfair.
Considering how everything AT&T touches turns to shit (cable TV, wireless phones, long distance), they shouldn't get their hopes up. The AT&T name will not build credibility, in fact I think it will do the opposite.
When a company outsources work to a company in another country, a check for credibility is an absolute must. If the foreign company screws them, their only recourse would be to go to court in another country and pray that the court isn't biased against foreigners (not very likely). How the executives responsible for outsourcing didn't see this from the beginning really blows my mind.
Modern marketing dictates that whenever you're about to screw the customer in the ass, you've got to make it sound like a benefit to them. For example, your cable company makes your annual 12% rate hike sound like a benefit (Comcast is excited to bring you new channel packages with more home shopping networks). As opposed to: we're raising prices because we're a monopoly and your only alternative is to get a dish. Which approach is more likely to fool the stupid people?
Their main fear is not illegal copying; their main fear is films becoming too easy to produce and distribute. Then the expensive studios wouldn't be needed, since any amateur could produce a film just as good as theirs for a fraction of the price. The loss of their money trees is what they fear.
Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.
Actually, that describes a good portion of the American Left. You know, the ones that are so open minded that they shout down any conservative voice at a war protest. The Troll rating that this post is sure to get will just prove my point.
I'm guessing the patent holder's primary argument will be that the situation is unique because it involves music "on a computer". Even better, they could say "music on the internet". Those seem to be the buzzwords behind many ridiculous patents covering obvious things. This patent seems designed to be an all-purpose digital music patent to be used against anyone creating an electronic UI for anything music related at all.
If that's the case, nobody would ever take you to court for patent infringement. Why spend $1 million to try a case that could only award $1 million max? And getting attorney's fees when the infringement is not willfull is quite difficult when the defendant fights and stalls it.
God, that site is so fake it's funny. Anyone putting their shit into it deserves to lose their PayPal account. I've been filling it up with bogus data for the last few minutes.
It can't really be done. One of the big responsibilities of paid industry lobbyists is looking through the details of laws to insert terms that are favorable to them and try to remove those that aren't. As soon as some music customer rights are inserted into an appropriations bill, the RIAA lobbyists will notice and make a big stink out of it, ensuring that the reps who are on their payroll will immediately remove the offending items. It is a nice thought, however.
Actually, the thought of more Americans voting frightens me. Remember that Slashdot article from last week about most Americans supporting more government effors to make the internet "safe"? If you did a survey to see who thought that "dangerous" speech should be outlawed, you would be surprised at the number of people who would say yes. I'm not talking about the average young internet user, but the average housewife. If more people across the country start voting, Jeb Bush will be the next president and anything naughty won't be allowed on the internet.
I've been saying this for years. Credit card companies act as if your card is secure just because you (usually) have to sign the slip when you use it. A signature does not make a card secure, especially when the users' signature is on the back of it so anyone can practice forging it. Why did they not start assigning PINs to credit cards years ago?
Another important Best Buy commodity: human stupidity. They make most of their money by convincing lusers that their "home theater" equipment is professional grade. For someone who doesn't know any better, Bose and JBL make the best speakers, Sony makes the best receivers and Philips makes the best TVs. And monster cable is required to hook it all up. Oh, and E-machines are the best computers. And let's increase the price of everything by 50% with an extended warranty which covers everything at the time of sale but nothing when you actually need it. But they will stay in business as long as idiots come in there just because they're selling computers for $100 (after 6 rebates).
I've actually been in an office where people use their CD-ROM trays as cup holders. They know it's a CD-ROM drive, but they think it makes an excellent cup holder and have somehow never managed to break one off.
The way you add value is to fully understand what your employer really does, what they want to do in the future, what their competitors do. You'll be able to apply that knowledge to make their operations more efficient and provide more value than the low bidder outsourcing shops. Luckily more corporate management is beginning to realize this, especially when someone can document how much of an advantage a company can gain over their competitors by having a competent in-house IT shop.
I'd say the grandparent poster is aware of this, but just wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to bitch about his privacy since it got him a guaranteed +5 Insightful on Slashdot.
Especially when the software doesn't even work. I really feel sorry for people who think Norton Internet Security will keep them safe. So many times I have had to clean up a machine that has been hosed by Norton (which is a virus in itself) or that has been infected with something especially nasty despite Norton being installed. If Symantec would just hurry up and go out of business, the computing world would be a better place.
This is very sad but true. I know of companies that use all things Microsoft just because management feels "safe" with them, even stuff that is totally useless (like Microsoft MOM, whatever that stands for).
The biggest hurdle for Monad will be peoples' inability to say the name with a straight face. Seriously, who the hell came up with that name? I can only imagine what it would be like to try to tell my boss about this exciting new technology from Microsoft called Monad.
Actually that's pretty much how Afghanistan was, until their leaders were no longer content only abusing their own people and decided to give protection and support to terrorists who coordinated attacks on other countries. For the most part, tyrants get away with stuff in their own countries and only get stomped when they piss off a more powerful nation.
More like a waiver from legal liability, as in: you certify that you have permission to duplicate the photos and if it turns out that you don't, it's your ass and not ours. Walmart could have the equivalent of common carrier status, meaning that they just copy what you tell them and if someone else owns the copyright that's the customer's problem, not theirs.
Someone here posted that they work on commission and have pushy sales-reps.
If this is the case, ask them for a discount, which they are usually willing to give in order to get the sale. This usually works in clothing stores anyway. If they can't or won't, just say you can get a cheaper price elsewhere and that's the end of the sales pitch, unless the person is a total moron and then you can just have fun confusing them with random technical questions.
Unfortunately, the theater's "better sound" is often drowned out by cell phones, crying kids, and obnoxious idiots. For $25,000, your sound should be pretty damn good, at least to the point where the average person's ears could be fooled.
And at the same time, theater profit margins have not exactly been growing. The higher prices and ads are a response to the bankruptcies of several large theater chains. The real cause for all of this is the ever increasing fees that the movie producers are charging. Basically your entire theater ticket price goes to them, and the theater itself makes money on ads and concessions, if they can.
This is now the only advantage to theaters, getting to see movies that haven't been made available on TV or rental yet. Theaters used to have the advantage of better sound and picture, but even low-end home theater systems are quickly catching up. It doesn't take a lot of money to provide yourself a setup that gives you sound and picture as good as, if not better than, your local theater. If it weren't for the artificial scarcity of new releases, theaters would probably be out of business already.
Slashdot Mirror
The moderator disagreed with your opinion, which pretty much defines "flamebait", at least according to most Slashdot moderators. This is why I meta-mod just about all flamebaits as unfair.
Considering how everything AT&T touches turns to shit (cable TV, wireless phones, long distance), they shouldn't get their hopes up. The AT&T name will not build credibility, in fact I think it will do the opposite.
When a company outsources work to a company in another country, a check for credibility is an absolute must. If the foreign company screws them, their only recourse would be to go to court in another country and pray that the court isn't biased against foreigners (not very likely). How the executives responsible for outsourcing didn't see this from the beginning really blows my mind.
Modern marketing dictates that whenever you're about to screw the customer in the ass, you've got to make it sound like a benefit to them. For example, your cable company makes your annual 12% rate hike sound like a benefit (Comcast is excited to bring you new channel packages with more home shopping networks). As opposed to: we're raising prices because we're a monopoly and your only alternative is to get a dish. Which approach is more likely to fool the stupid people?
Their main fear is not illegal copying; their main fear is films becoming too easy to produce and distribute. Then the expensive studios wouldn't be needed, since any amateur could produce a film just as good as theirs for a fraction of the price. The loss of their money trees is what they fear.
Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.
Actually, that describes a good portion of the American Left. You know, the ones that are so open minded that they shout down any conservative voice at a war protest. The Troll rating that this post is sure to get will just prove my point.
I'm guessing the patent holder's primary argument will be that the situation is unique because it involves music "on a computer". Even better, they could say "music on the internet". Those seem to be the buzzwords behind many ridiculous patents covering obvious things. This patent seems designed to be an all-purpose digital music patent to be used against anyone creating an electronic UI for anything music related at all.
If that's the case, nobody would ever take you to court for patent infringement. Why spend $1 million to try a case that could only award $1 million max? And getting attorney's fees when the infringement is not willfull is quite difficult when the defendant fights and stalls it.
God, that site is so fake it's funny. Anyone putting their shit into it deserves to lose their PayPal account. I've been filling it up with bogus data for the last few minutes.
It can't really be done. One of the big responsibilities of paid industry lobbyists is looking through the details of laws to insert terms that are favorable to them and try to remove those that aren't. As soon as some music customer rights are inserted into an appropriations bill, the RIAA lobbyists will notice and make a big stink out of it, ensuring that the reps who are on their payroll will immediately remove the offending items. It is a nice thought, however.
Actually, the thought of more Americans voting frightens me. Remember that Slashdot article from last week about most Americans supporting more government effors to make the internet "safe"? If you did a survey to see who thought that "dangerous" speech should be outlawed, you would be surprised at the number of people who would say yes. I'm not talking about the average young internet user, but the average housewife. If more people across the country start voting, Jeb Bush will be the next president and anything naughty won't be allowed on the internet.
I've been saying this for years. Credit card companies act as if your card is secure just because you (usually) have to sign the slip when you use it. A signature does not make a card secure, especially when the users' signature is on the back of it so anyone can practice forging it. Why did they not start assigning PINs to credit cards years ago?
Another important Best Buy commodity: human stupidity. They make most of their money by convincing lusers that their "home theater" equipment is professional grade. For someone who doesn't know any better, Bose and JBL make the best speakers, Sony makes the best receivers and Philips makes the best TVs. And monster cable is required to hook it all up. Oh, and E-machines are the best computers. And let's increase the price of everything by 50% with an extended warranty which covers everything at the time of sale but nothing when you actually need it. But they will stay in business as long as idiots come in there just because they're selling computers for $100 (after 6 rebates).
I've actually been in an office where people use their CD-ROM trays as cup holders. They know it's a CD-ROM drive, but they think it makes an excellent cup holder and have somehow never managed to break one off.
The way you add value is to fully understand what your employer really does, what they want to do in the future, what their competitors do. You'll be able to apply that knowledge to make their operations more efficient and provide more value than the low bidder outsourcing shops. Luckily more corporate management is beginning to realize this, especially when someone can document how much of an advantage a company can gain over their competitors by having a competent in-house IT shop.
I'd say the grandparent poster is aware of this, but just wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to bitch about his privacy since it got him a guaranteed +5 Insightful on Slashdot.
Especially when the software doesn't even work. I really feel sorry for people who think Norton Internet Security will keep them safe. So many times I have had to clean up a machine that has been hosed by Norton (which is a virus in itself) or that has been infected with something especially nasty despite Norton being installed. If Symantec would just hurry up and go out of business, the computing world would be a better place.
This is very sad but true. I know of companies that use all things Microsoft just because management feels "safe" with them, even stuff that is totally useless (like Microsoft MOM, whatever that stands for).
The biggest hurdle for Monad will be peoples' inability to say the name with a straight face. Seriously, who the hell came up with that name? I can only imagine what it would be like to try to tell my boss about this exciting new technology from Microsoft called Monad.
Actually that's pretty much how Afghanistan was, until their leaders were no longer content only abusing their own people and decided to give protection and support to terrorists who coordinated attacks on other countries. For the most part, tyrants get away with stuff in their own countries and only get stomped when they piss off a more powerful nation.
More like a waiver from legal liability, as in: you certify that you have permission to duplicate the photos and if it turns out that you don't, it's your ass and not ours. Walmart could have the equivalent of common carrier status, meaning that they just copy what you tell them and if someone else owns the copyright that's the customer's problem, not theirs.
Someone here posted that they work on commission and have pushy sales-reps.
If this is the case, ask them for a discount, which they are usually willing to give in order to get the sale. This usually works in clothing stores anyway. If they can't or won't, just say you can get a cheaper price elsewhere and that's the end of the sales pitch, unless the person is a total moron and then you can just have fun confusing them with random technical questions.
Unfortunately, the theater's "better sound" is often drowned out by cell phones, crying kids, and obnoxious idiots. For $25,000, your sound should be pretty damn good, at least to the point where the average person's ears could be fooled.
And at the same time, theater profit margins have not exactly been growing. The higher prices and ads are a response to the bankruptcies of several large theater chains. The real cause for all of this is the ever increasing fees that the movie producers are charging. Basically your entire theater ticket price goes to them, and the theater itself makes money on ads and concessions, if they can.
This is now the only advantage to theaters, getting to see movies that haven't been made available on TV or rental yet. Theaters used to have the advantage of better sound and picture, but even low-end home theater systems are quickly catching up. It doesn't take a lot of money to provide yourself a setup that gives you sound and picture as good as, if not better than, your local theater. If it weren't for the artificial scarcity of new releases, theaters would probably be out of business already.