I completely agree with you, and what proves your point is how locked down the iPod Touch is. If Apple and AT&T were truly concerned with gumming up the cell network, then Apple would have allowed development on the iPod Touch. But they've actually locked it down more. You cannot enter calendar appointments (you can only see them after a sync with iTunes), and Apple has removed various features like Google Maps, which still would have been incredibly useful through Wifi.
For the record, I bought an iPod Touch. I feel that it was worth the purchase despite being so locked down because it is, hands down, the best iPod there is (except for the lack of hard drive space, but that doesn't concern me yet). I really wanted an iPhone, but my employer provides me with a Blackberry, so I couldn't justify another cell phone plan.
Now that I have the iPod Touch, I hope that some day Apple opens it up for development. After surfing the web on this thing, I think it is the best pocket computer I've ever seen. I've used some small Fujitsu Lifebooks and other tablet computers, but this blows all of those away. The potential of this device is amazing, and it confuses me that Apple wouldn't want to give people every excuse to buy one. I'm not complaining about mine, it does everything I wanted it to perfectly and I'm extremely happy with it. But I also think that Apple is passing up on an amazing revenue stream because they're so obsessed with control.
I would support a proposal like this with a couple of stipulations:
1. I would want it to lower my (a "healthy" person) premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses. I'm not trying to sound selfish, but the reason mine were so high to begin with is because of all the unhealthy people. If they're just going to use this to help their own bottom line without helping those that make the health insurance system work (the healthy people, again), then they can shove that plan where the sun don't shine.
2. Don't use BMI. It's a crappy measure. Anyone who lifts weights regularly can easily be considered obese by BMI (even if they're not a "body builder"). I've been over that line my whole life and I'm not fat.
One of the things that I really like about it is that it provides extra incentive for someone to be healthy. Want to save $50 / month? Get in shape, and that will help lower the expenses & burdens of the insurance system for everyone else. It's like taxing a congested road to help clear it up, or taxing emissions to clean up the environment. Sometimes money talks louder than anything.
There are two things at play here that make your analysis wrong:
1. What you're arguing for is that file sharers only pay compensatory damages. So if there were only 10 songs in play, then the defendant should only have to pay $10 because that's the RIAA's actual loss. The problem is that there is a good case to be made for punitive damages too, and I believe that's what the law speaks to. The FBI warning at the beginning of your DVD says that you can be fined $100,000 not because that's how much the MPAA loses, but because that's your punishment for breaking the law. If you steal a box of twinkies, not only do you have to give the box back to the store (or pay them for it), but you're going to find your ass in jail as part of your punishment.
2. These cases are for distribution, so even at your $1 per infringement, on a filesharing network you might be liable for thousands of dollars for one song.
Now that I've cleared that up, I want to say that I still don't agree with these lawsuits. The evidence the RIAA presents is really crappy (I have a screenshot of the files you're allegedly sharing). While I don't think the $750 / song is unconstitutional, I still don't think it's right (and now that you can get jail time for 'casual' infringement--well that's definitely wrong). The RIAA isn't proving that you have actually distributed the files (just that you're in a position that you could have) or that the files you're supposedly distributing are even protected/copywrited files (the text file in my public share called HarryPotter.txt is not your material).
Perhaps lack of visibility was part of their problem...?
I have Sunrocket service, and it's actually thanks to Slashdot--this was the first place I had heard of them (someone here got a referral bonus from me). Now that I've had the service for a year and half, I've seen them advertising on various websites, but they've never done TV advertising like Vonage. I'm not sure that Vonage has the best plan either though, because they're spending so much money on advertising that they lost $77M last quarter despite gaining almost as many customers as Sunrocket has.
I had already filed with the Dispute Center with my credit card, so hopefully I'll get some of my money back. I think I'll try to unlock my "gizmo" (that's what Sunrocket called their SIP device) and get it to work with Skype (only $90/year for SkypeIn + SkypeOut). It looks like I'll be losing my home phone number, and I'll have to use my cell phone in the interim.
I have this strange thing happen to me where street lights will turn off when I walk by them. Not 100% (or even close to that), but it is an alarmingly large percentage...I'd guess around 5%.
I have the opposite happen to me with computers vs your friend. When other people have problems with computers, the problems will mysteriously disappear when I sit in front of the computer.
I think discussion 2 is great, but there is one thing about it that I either don't understand or doesn't seem to work correctly. Instead of trying to explain exactly what it is, I'll give an example of what I mean. In the old system, if I browsed at +3, I would see every post that was +3 or higher, no matter where it was in the thread. Now it seems that if I browse at +3, all of those are displayed if they're the top level in the discussion thread. Any +3 posts underneath a top level post gets abbreviated, but all of the +4 and +5 posts are still full text. If I browse at +3 "Full", I would like all of the +3 posts to be full text, not just the top level posts. So now the number of posts over my threshold (as displayed on the main page) doesn't match the number of "Full" posts when I read the discussion. Hopefully I'm just using it incorrectly, and if so, please correct me.
I'm not specifically endorsing this book, but it is very thought provoking (especially because, if you're a product of the forced-schooling system, there's a 30% chance you can't read this book).
The ironic thing here is that a common sentiment around here is that the record companies should take a cue (and/or clue) from allofmp3 and sell tracks for around $0.10 a song. Yet the current law, which dictates $0.08 for mechanicals, would not allow that to happen. And when a few weeks ago it made the news that the record companies were trying to lower mechanicals, the news was not well received by the Slashbots.
This is where most of the money for a track should be going--to the creative talent. If you look at the breakdown for the $1 that gets spent on an iTunes track, about $0.70 goes to the RIAA member [cite: Fox]. They have to give $0.08 - $0.16 out for mechanicals (by law you say). That means, at worst they get to keep $0.54 per track for producing nothing (especially true in the case of digital distribution). They want to lower mechanicals so that they can increase their profit margin, not so that consumers get reduced prices. That is why Slashdot readers (nice Ad Hominem with the 'Slashbots' by the way) did not receive the news well.
If they did manage to get mechanicals reduced to $0.001, they still wouldn't offer a service like AllOfMp3; they still wouldn't accept payment from AllOfMp3. I agree with your argument that they can't under the current conditions, but my argument is that they never would under any circumstances.
I feel like a compromise can still be reached. I think the labels--at least the major labels--are looking at this the wrong way. The true creative talent can still receive their "high" mechanicals, the label can take their fair share of profits, and the final distributor can make a nice profit too. What if you offered songs at $0.55, with a breakdown of $0.16 for mechanicals, $0.14 for the label and $0.25 for distribution (I made this last number up because it seems to be the amount needs for Apple to break even)? Especially if you offered non-DRM, variable bit-rate files (like eMusic)--I have to imagine a service like this would crush Apple and be highly profitable for the recording industry. I also imagine that if the RIAA itself was the digital distributor that they could offer distribution at much less than $0.25 / track, and could make even more profit there.
I firmly believe that the reason this doesn't happen is because all of the labels are run by old-time executives that fear change and want to maximize their profits while minimizing their efforts. They don't even see that with a little bit of effort they could double their profits.
This is a very funny attack. All of the important network connections, those that allow the NYSE and other exchanges to operate, and connections between them and brokers are not on the Internet. There are connections from the NYSE to the Internet, but they are not needed for trading (it's for when the traders are bored, they can look at porn). This group would definitely need somebody working on the inside to do any real damage.
The best these groups could do are take down the websites of discount brokerages (E*Trade, Ameritrade, etc.), but that won't have one bit of impact on the financial markets. Even if those websites go down, the brokerages will still have their direct connections to the exchanges, so if you can call your broker, you'll still get your trade through.
I wish them the best of luck, because their attack is an exercise in futility.
I doubt there are (m)any algorithms that trade like this. This behavior you recognize is actually a function of the way investing is set up. The fundamental problem is that most investments occur while leveraged (so you're trading on borrowed money). If you lose money past a certain point, every broker will demand that you fund your account to the proper level, usually back to the original ratio. Just about everybody trading with leveraged money does not have this extra capital lying around (they ought to be investing it), so they have to liquidate a percentage of their holdings to cover the margin call. This can lead to a negative feedback loop to where everybody is losing money, and liquidating their portfolio probably does not happen by choice for most people.
As another poster has already mentioned...read the story of LTCM. The notable quotes from the article are
In the end, LTCM's basic idea was correct... but only after the firm was wiped out. Nonetheless, the incident confirms an insight often (though perhaps apocryphally) attributed to the economist John Maynard Keynes, who is said to have warned investors that although markets do tend toward rational positions in the long run, "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
However, while it's fun to play around with a system like this, I must warn you that the realities of trading make it very hard to profit even if it looks good on paper. You probably know this, since you "got burned" before. Make sure you consult a professional before investing, or I can pretty much guarantee that you'll get burned again.
They've got a list of qualifications on their site, and the important one is that:
* Whether the payment service has a substantial historical track record of providing safe and reliable financial and/or banking related services (new services without such a track record generally cannot be promoted on eBay)
That's been eBay's policy since way before Google came up with this brand new system of theirs. And the fact remains that Google has absolutely no past track record in financial transactions.
Bzzz...Wrong!
Google Checkout has been around for years; it's what they use to transfer money around for AdSense/AdWords. What's new is that they're finally opening it up to be used for any and all services.
Here is an article with an interesting quote from Google, "Google Checkout is not a beta product. Google has a long history in billing and payments for AdWords and for premium services, such as Google Video."
I would wager my entire net worth that eBay knows that Google Checkout is well established. I'm guessing they crapped their pants and reacted with this changed policy. I also heard that they changed their payment policy name from "Safe Payment Policy" to "Accepted Payment Policy" with the addition of Google Checkout to their list of unacceptable payment policies.
As others have said, this is clearly a case where eBay is using their monopoly to control another market, and I sincerely hope that there is restitution. You can bet that I will be using Google Checkout for my auctions on eBay, and if eBay tries to suspend my account, they will be getting a letter from my lawyer (as I'm sure they've already received a few from Google's lawyers).
Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."
Obviously this means that his civil liberties can be trampled on.
I would consider myself to be a libertarian, and here is my perspective on the issue. First, I feel that for the libertarian philosophy to work properly, you need a true Adam Smith competitive market. The "free" market does not behave properly with a monopoly or colluding oligopoly. Pure libertarian seems to say that the market will always work it out, and I'm not sure I agree with that.
Specific to this issue, I would say that in most cases, internet access is definitely a matter of monopoly control It's pretty much a natural monopoly--I cannot start my own ISP and string wire/cable to your house and (maybe) sell you service--the government would stop me, forcefully if they had to. The only possible way the market can become competitive is if wireless access becomes ubiquitous.
There is one way I think that non-network neutrality can be good. I would love it if my streaming content had higher QoS than my email or web browsing. I would even be willing to pay more for that (in a sense I have because I have upgraded my service for $10/month more to double my upstream bandwidth). Being able to pay for guaranteed QoS seems fair and good, and I have a feeling Net Neutrality (especially how Congress would word it), would destroy that possibility.
There is a sense in which I feel like enforcing it would be good as well. It seems like the way the ISPs have been talking is that they would want to charge content providers to ensure their streams wouldn't become crippled flowing to the customer. This would have a huge impact on video and VOIP services. It really sounds like a mafia-style protection racket to me, and I'm not sure the market can correct itself naturally. I know it doesn't sound very libertarian (I know I'm not pure libertarian), but I think that sometimes you need government regulation.
The point I guess I'm trying to make is that we need to think about it carefully. I think it's a valid argument to say that people or companies would try to "game" the regulation. I also think that we need to look at the laws on the books in relation to this. ISPs are protected by common carrier status. Should they get to keep that benefit if they break net-neutrality in a way that harms consumers (my guess is that they wouldn't). It almost feels like we might get screwed either way, so perhaps it's better to keep regulation out of the picture.
From TFA: "The idea being that they can create a much larger volume of content if they only have to write a small portion of it. Users will simply visit the gray blogs since they are able to provide so much more information and, due to the use of liberal quoting, the user will then have no reason to visit the original source. After all, they already have most of the critical information." (wait, was that okay?)
First off, if they're attributing their source, it is not plagarism.
It seems like the media might get pissed off that bloggers will extract the most important information from articles and post that with some (maybe-not-so-) insightful commentary, rendering the rest of their article impotent. For instance, when I read the newspaper in the morning, I've noticed that I can get most of the details I want without ever having to turn the newspaper page--it's always in front (and they designed it this way). Sure, occasionally there are some details I want further in the article, and if it's a good article on a good subject, I'll keep reading. Anyway, in a sense, these bloggers are becoming competition for journalists using the journalist's material. I feel that if this is the case, journalists need to improve so that most or all of their articles are relevant instead of puffing up their word count.
But, I personally don't see bloggers as competition, even if journalists do. In general, journalists provide fact, and the blogger provides opinion based around the fact. Sure, there are many OpEd pieces in newspapers, but the blogger is merely presenting their point of view on the original text (even if they can't assemble enough coherent thought to "outquote" the original article).
I have always held the same skepticism with regard to studies like these as reported by the media for this very reason. What I always wonder about is how many things we miss because mice (or rabbits, or monkeys, etc.) don't respond to them but humans would. I don't know if there is any good answer to this, because we don't want to start testing random crap all willy-nilly on humans, but sometimes I just wonder if we've already passed up that miracle cure.
Perhaps someday we'll have powerful enough computers that we can simulate everything, including synthesis of a new drug for your specific form of cancer that your body will respond to. Of course, 'perhaps someday' will probably be long after I die of whatever cancer I'm going to get.
Re:I just can't get the hang of vim
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
I didn't start learning vi(m) until about 2001 when I started a programming job in college. It was the editor of choice there, and I only started because everybody there made fun of me for using something else.
It was very slow going. I learned first about insert mode, and enough to save and exit my document. Other than that, I used it exactly like I would have used notepad (in insert mode with the arrow keys).
Over the years, I have picked up little tips here and there from friends, co-workers and the Internet (heck, even some from Slashdot). Now that I've had about 5 years practice with it, I feel like I can really fly around my document. I know I can't control it perfectly yet, I'm always catching myself doing something "inefficiently" in vim, and there are still a ton of things I don't know, but I really like it much better than any other editor I've tried.
I believe the key is to force yourself to use it. If I had only been using it on and off for the last 5 years, I'd probably still be using the arrow keys to move around the document. I'm sure this would be true for either emacs or vim, but if you use it every day, and go through the pain of figuring things out little by little, after just a little bit of time you'll be fast enough, and after a while (probably years), you'll really start to master it.
Also, if you use Windows at all, I highly recommend downloading/installing gVim. Not only can you use the standard vim keybindings, you can also use traditional Windows key combos. So if you're in insert mode and you want to save your document, you can hit Ctrl-S if you want (and stay in insert mode), instead of Esc,:w, Enter, i. Also, if you install it right, you can edit anything in vim with from the right-click context menu.
Another tip I would give is to switch your Caps Lock key to Esc (who really uses Caps Lock anyway, besides shouting trolls). It makes editing in Vim so much faster (or at least it feels that way). The biggest disadvantage to this is trying to edit on a machine that isn't set up like this (I habitually hit Caps Lock instead of Esc). To do this in Windows (XP at least), you have to add a registry value. So fire up your favorite registry editor, go to "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layout" and add a Binary Value named 'Scancode Map' with the hex value '00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 01 00 3a 00 00 00 00 00'. As usual with Windows, you'll have to reboot for the changes to take effect (but you're never more than a Tuesday away from a reboot). In X I execute 'xmodmap ~/.swapcaps', and.swapcaps contains the following: remove Lock = Caps_Lock remove Lock = Escape keysym Escape = Caps_Lock keysym Caps_Lock = Escape add Lock = Caps_Lock
My last vim tip of the day is going to be the equal sign (=). You can use it to auto-indent your document (assuming you're programming). If you want to autoindent everything, when in normal mode, type 'gg=G' (without the quotes). If you want to indent one particular line, hit equals twice (==), and like everything else if you type a number before the double equal sign, it will indent that many lines.
An easy way of checking whether your browser is standards compliant is to check whether the installation files for your browser were smaller than 50MB, or the run-time memory usage is less than 300MB. If this is the case, you should download a more recent browser to get the full Web 2.1 experience.
Installation files smaller than 50MB indicates a browers that is not modern?! Both my Firefox and Opera installation files (compressed, obviously) are under 5MB. Where do I download this beast of a browser that's 10x more modern? (Uncompressed, fully installed, Firefox is 18.6MB and Opera is 16.6MB)
Also, with 15 tabs open currently, it looks like Firefox is using about 150MB of memory. I guess I should look for that browser that is 30x more modern in that arena.
I guess according to this website, the only bloatware that comes close to their standards of modern is IE. I had better go download IE7 right now.
Also, does anyone else think that this is the most bass-ackward way of determining how 'modern' a browser is? I mean, you can't possibly list major browsers and versions in less text, could you? (IE 6+, Firefox 1.0+, Opera 8+, Safari, Konqueror) Nope, you can't.
Matsushita, owner of the Panasonic brand, has stated 'the market will decide the winner.' "The two sides held talks last year in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged format battle... knowing that it could discourage consumers from shifting to the advanced discs and stifle the industry's growth."
That's okay, both sides know they can just blame any of their failures on piracy.
Prior art is proof against later patents, and a lot cheaper - and less evil than even the threat to monopolize an idea.
If prior art really is cheaper, then why didn't RIM use that against NTP? The problem is that once this thing gets to court, the courts automatically assume the patent is valid. It appears that you cannot present evidence in an infringement case to nullify the patent, you have to get the USPTO to do that, and we've all seen how long that can take (even longer than a court trial).
I would say that the Patent system is evil, and that the way a company uses it makes them good or evil. Imagine that...morality based on intent (intent shown by action).
Put an end to the IRS gathering this information on every single person on the country. Support the FairTax.
I think that this plan and Forbes' flat tax idea are both excellent ideas. I think some of the benefits are (or at least can be): smaller tax burden on the poor, simpler tax code for citizens, no more tax preparation industry, which would be of great benefit to the economy since all of those people are freed up to do something more economically productive.
Here is the one bad thing I have say about this or any new tax idea. They all are wonderful when they begin: clear, concise, fair, etc. However, I guarantee that it would be less than a year before it got screwed up. A regular income tax would be added again, or some lobbying organization would seek to reduce the tax on their item and increase it on another. It would get mucked up before too long; how do you think our current tax code got to be the way it is?
Now, don't mistake me for an apologist for our current tax laws. I hate them. I think we need reform, and I really like both the flat tax and fair tax ideas. But there has to be a way to set these things in stone (perhaps codify it in the constitution so that it's a real PITA to change), and then force the government to stay within that budget.
Anyone got any ideas? Maybe start our own country somewhere?
And patent squatting, or whatever you care to call it when a company sits on a patent without utilizing it, simply to stifle competition, should be illegal.
I would tend to agree, especially based on our current patent climate, but here is my concern:
I, personally, have several ideas that I think are "patent-worthy". I cannot afford a patent let alone the costs of (pre-)production. So let's say I scrape together enough cash to make a patent ($400-$5000 depending on the route you go), now what do I do with it? My options are to produce the product (I have already established that this is out of question financially), wait for someone to infringe on my patent and sue them (expensive and risky, especially for an individual trying to feed a family), or sell my patent to someone else.
If I sell the patent to someone else, I have a couple of options. One, I can try to sell/license it to a company that is in business related to the patent. So for most of my ideas, I could try to sell it to IBM, MS, Sandisk, etc., but the chances of them buying the patent are pretty slim. The other option I have is to sell the patent to a company that holds patents, like Invention Submission Corporation or perhaps a company like NTP. So I have an agreement with them that they either pay me a lump sum (far less than the value they see in the patent), or a percentage of profits from the patent. So they take on the risk and the financial burden, and I as a small player am pretty happy with my payout (perhaps I have enough now for one of my other ideas, to patent and then even start small-scale production).
I'm not saying that we have to protect the likes of NTP because of what I've just said, but I think there is some validity in these kind of companies that help out an individual. I don't know what that balance is or what kind of rules you would create to make sure that the system doesn't eventually kill innovation (especially from the small-time guy).
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO
on
Vonage IPO
·
· Score: 1
I've been looking for service like this at this price for a while. I am probably going to sign up for this. I noticed on their website that they have a referral program. Since your post is what got me interested, I think it would only be fair if you got the referral credit. If you are willing to send me what is necessary to get you credit (email me), then I'll do that. It says on their website to log into the member area and click Rewards for details.
But here's a question: something only exists as a DRM protected file. Its copyright expires. The DMCA is still as it is today. Is it still illegal to crack the DRM on this file?
It is my understanding that the DMCA makes circumventing digital restrictions unlawful when it relates to copyright material. So if the copyright has expired, cracking the DRM does not violate the DMCA.
Of course, as other posters have mentioned, those of us in the US will probably be blessed with perpetual copyright (a la Micky Mouse).
Slashdot Mirror
For the record, I bought an iPod Touch. I feel that it was worth the purchase despite being so locked down because it is, hands down, the best iPod there is (except for the lack of hard drive space, but that doesn't concern me yet). I really wanted an iPhone, but my employer provides me with a Blackberry, so I couldn't justify another cell phone plan.
Now that I have the iPod Touch, I hope that some day Apple opens it up for development. After surfing the web on this thing, I think it is the best pocket computer I've ever seen. I've used some small Fujitsu Lifebooks and other tablet computers, but this blows all of those away. The potential of this device is amazing, and it confuses me that Apple wouldn't want to give people every excuse to buy one. I'm not complaining about mine, it does everything I wanted it to perfectly and I'm extremely happy with it. But I also think that Apple is passing up on an amazing revenue stream because they're so obsessed with control.
I would support a proposal like this with a couple of stipulations:
1. I would want it to lower my (a "healthy" person) premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses. I'm not trying to sound selfish, but the reason mine were so high to begin with is because of all the unhealthy people. If they're just going to use this to help their own bottom line without helping those that make the health insurance system work (the healthy people, again), then they can shove that plan where the sun don't shine.
2. Don't use BMI. It's a crappy measure. Anyone who lifts weights regularly can easily be considered obese by BMI (even if they're not a "body builder"). I've been over that line my whole life and I'm not fat.
One of the things that I really like about it is that it provides extra incentive for someone to be healthy. Want to save $50 / month? Get in shape, and that will help lower the expenses & burdens of the insurance system for everyone else. It's like taxing a congested road to help clear it up, or taxing emissions to clean up the environment. Sometimes money talks louder than anything.
1. What you're arguing for is that file sharers only pay compensatory damages. So if there were only 10 songs in play, then the defendant should only have to pay $10 because that's the RIAA's actual loss. The problem is that there is a good case to be made for punitive damages too, and I believe that's what the law speaks to. The FBI warning at the beginning of your DVD says that you can be fined $100,000 not because that's how much the MPAA loses, but because that's your punishment for breaking the law. If you steal a box of twinkies, not only do you have to give the box back to the store (or pay them for it), but you're going to find your ass in jail as part of your punishment.
2. These cases are for distribution, so even at your $1 per infringement, on a filesharing network you might be liable for thousands of dollars for one song.
Now that I've cleared that up, I want to say that I still don't agree with these lawsuits. The evidence the RIAA presents is really crappy (I have a screenshot of the files you're allegedly sharing). While I don't think the $750 / song is unconstitutional, I still don't think it's right (and now that you can get jail time for 'casual' infringement--well that's definitely wrong). The RIAA isn't proving that you have actually distributed the files (just that you're in a position that you could have) or that the files you're supposedly distributing are even protected/copywrited files (the text file in my public share called HarryPotter.txt is not your material).
I have Sunrocket service, and it's actually thanks to Slashdot--this was the first place I had heard of them (someone here got a referral bonus from me). Now that I've had the service for a year and half, I've seen them advertising on various websites, but they've never done TV advertising like Vonage. I'm not sure that Vonage has the best plan either though, because they're spending so much money on advertising that they lost $77M last quarter despite gaining almost as many customers as Sunrocket has.
I had already filed with the Dispute Center with my credit card, so hopefully I'll get some of my money back. I think I'll try to unlock my "gizmo" (that's what Sunrocket called their SIP device) and get it to work with Skype (only $90/year for SkypeIn + SkypeOut). It looks like I'll be losing my home phone number, and I'll have to use my cell phone in the interim.
I have this strange thing happen to me where street lights will turn off when I walk by them. Not 100% (or even close to that), but it is an alarmingly large percentage...I'd guess around 5%.
I have the opposite happen to me with computers vs your friend. When other people have problems with computers, the problems will mysteriously disappear when I sit in front of the computer.
I think discussion 2 is great, but there is one thing about it that I either don't understand or doesn't seem to work correctly. Instead of trying to explain exactly what it is, I'll give an example of what I mean. In the old system, if I browsed at +3, I would see every post that was +3 or higher, no matter where it was in the thread. Now it seems that if I browse at +3, all of those are displayed if they're the top level in the discussion thread. Any +3 posts underneath a top level post gets abbreviated, but all of the +4 and +5 posts are still full text. If I browse at +3 "Full", I would like all of the +3 posts to be full text, not just the top level posts. So now the number of posts over my threshold (as displayed on the main page) doesn't match the number of "Full" posts when I read the discussion. Hopefully I'm just using it incorrectly, and if so, please correct me.
You bring up some good points, but how about taking it even further. Why do we even need the state-run education system?
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
I'm not specifically endorsing this book, but it is very thought provoking (especially because, if you're a product of the forced-schooling system, there's a 30% chance you can't read this book).
This is where most of the money for a track should be going--to the creative talent. If you look at the breakdown for the $1 that gets spent on an iTunes track, about $0.70 goes to the RIAA member [cite: Fox]. They have to give $0.08 - $0.16 out for mechanicals (by law you say). That means, at worst they get to keep $0.54 per track for producing nothing (especially true in the case of digital distribution). They want to lower mechanicals so that they can increase their profit margin, not so that consumers get reduced prices. That is why Slashdot readers (nice Ad Hominem with the 'Slashbots' by the way) did not receive the news well.
If they did manage to get mechanicals reduced to $0.001, they still wouldn't offer a service like AllOfMp3; they still wouldn't accept payment from AllOfMp3. I agree with your argument that they can't under the current conditions, but my argument is that they never would under any circumstances.
I feel like a compromise can still be reached. I think the labels--at least the major labels--are looking at this the wrong way. The true creative talent can still receive their "high" mechanicals, the label can take their fair share of profits, and the final distributor can make a nice profit too. What if you offered songs at $0.55, with a breakdown of $0.16 for mechanicals, $0.14 for the label and $0.25 for distribution (I made this last number up because it seems to be the amount needs for Apple to break even)? Especially if you offered non-DRM, variable bit-rate files (like eMusic)--I have to imagine a service like this would crush Apple and be highly profitable for the recording industry. I also imagine that if the RIAA itself was the digital distributor that they could offer distribution at much less than $0.25 / track, and could make even more profit there.
I firmly believe that the reason this doesn't happen is because all of the labels are run by old-time executives that fear change and want to maximize their profits while minimizing their efforts. They don't even see that with a little bit of effort they could double their profits.
The best these groups could do are take down the websites of discount brokerages (E*Trade, Ameritrade, etc.), but that won't have one bit of impact on the financial markets. Even if those websites go down, the brokerages will still have their direct connections to the exchanges, so if you can call your broker, you'll still get your trade through.
I wish them the best of luck, because their attack is an exercise in futility.
As another poster has already mentioned...read the story of LTCM. The notable quotes from the article are
However, while it's fun to play around with a system like this, I must warn you that the realities of trading make it very hard to profit even if it looks good on paper. You probably know this, since you "got burned" before. Make sure you consult a professional before investing, or I can pretty much guarantee that you'll get burned again.
HA HA HA HA HA HA ... .... ... phew
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
hahahaha
Oh...that was a good one.
I guess it depends on how you use 'expect' here, but everyone I know expects Windows to crash and become infected with spyware after enough time.
Bzzz...Wrong!
Google Checkout has been around for years; it's what they use to transfer money around for AdSense/AdWords. What's new is that they're finally opening it up to be used for any and all services.
Here is an article with an interesting quote from Google, "Google Checkout is not a beta product. Google has a long history in billing and payments for AdWords and for premium services, such as Google Video."
I would wager my entire net worth that eBay knows that Google Checkout is well established. I'm guessing they crapped their pants and reacted with this changed policy. I also heard that they changed their payment policy name from "Safe Payment Policy" to "Accepted Payment Policy" with the addition of Google Checkout to their list of unacceptable payment policies.
As others have said, this is clearly a case where eBay is using their monopoly to control another market, and I sincerely hope that there is restitution. You can bet that I will be using Google Checkout for my auctions on eBay, and if eBay tries to suspend my account, they will be getting a letter from my lawyer (as I'm sure they've already received a few from Google's lawyers).
Obviously this means that his civil liberties can be trampled on.
Specific to this issue, I would say that in most cases, internet access is definitely a matter of monopoly control It's pretty much a natural monopoly--I cannot start my own ISP and string wire/cable to your house and (maybe) sell you service--the government would stop me, forcefully if they had to. The only possible way the market can become competitive is if wireless access becomes ubiquitous.
There is one way I think that non-network neutrality can be good. I would love it if my streaming content had higher QoS than my email or web browsing. I would even be willing to pay more for that (in a sense I have because I have upgraded my service for $10/month more to double my upstream bandwidth). Being able to pay for guaranteed QoS seems fair and good, and I have a feeling Net Neutrality (especially how Congress would word it), would destroy that possibility.
There is a sense in which I feel like enforcing it would be good as well. It seems like the way the ISPs have been talking is that they would want to charge content providers to ensure their streams wouldn't become crippled flowing to the customer. This would have a huge impact on video and VOIP services. It really sounds like a mafia-style protection racket to me, and I'm not sure the market can correct itself naturally. I know it doesn't sound very libertarian (I know I'm not pure libertarian), but I think that sometimes you need government regulation.
The point I guess I'm trying to make is that we need to think about it carefully. I think it's a valid argument to say that people or companies would try to "game" the regulation. I also think that we need to look at the laws on the books in relation to this. ISPs are protected by common carrier status. Should they get to keep that benefit if they break net-neutrality in a way that harms consumers (my guess is that they wouldn't). It almost feels like we might get screwed either way, so perhaps it's better to keep regulation out of the picture.
First off, if they're attributing their source, it is not plagarism.
It seems like the media might get pissed off that bloggers will extract the most important information from articles and post that with some (maybe-not-so-) insightful commentary, rendering the rest of their article impotent. For instance, when I read the newspaper in the morning, I've noticed that I can get most of the details I want without ever having to turn the newspaper page--it's always in front (and they designed it this way). Sure, occasionally there are some details I want further in the article, and if it's a good article on a good subject, I'll keep reading. Anyway, in a sense, these bloggers are becoming competition for journalists using the journalist's material. I feel that if this is the case, journalists need to improve so that most or all of their articles are relevant instead of puffing up their word count.
But, I personally don't see bloggers as competition, even if journalists do. In general, journalists provide fact, and the blogger provides opinion based around the fact. Sure, there are many OpEd pieces in newspapers, but the blogger is merely presenting their point of view on the original text (even if they can't assemble enough coherent thought to "outquote" the original article).
I have always held the same skepticism with regard to studies like these as reported by the media for this very reason. What I always wonder about is how many things we miss because mice (or rabbits, or monkeys, etc.) don't respond to them but humans would. I don't know if there is any good answer to this, because we don't want to start testing random crap all willy-nilly on humans, but sometimes I just wonder if we've already passed up that miracle cure.
Perhaps someday we'll have powerful enough computers that we can simulate everything, including synthesis of a new drug for your specific form of cancer that your body will respond to. Of course, 'perhaps someday' will probably be long after I die of whatever cancer I'm going to get.
I didn't start learning vi(m) until about 2001 when I started a programming job in college. It was the editor of choice there, and I only started because everybody there made fun of me for using something else.
:w, Enter, i. Also, if you install it right, you can edit anything in vim with from the right-click context menu.
.swapcaps contains the following:
It was very slow going. I learned first about insert mode, and enough to save and exit my document. Other than that, I used it exactly like I would have used notepad (in insert mode with the arrow keys).
Over the years, I have picked up little tips here and there from friends, co-workers and the Internet (heck, even some from Slashdot). Now that I've had about 5 years practice with it, I feel like I can really fly around my document. I know I can't control it perfectly yet, I'm always catching myself doing something "inefficiently" in vim, and there are still a ton of things I don't know, but I really like it much better than any other editor I've tried.
I believe the key is to force yourself to use it. If I had only been using it on and off for the last 5 years, I'd probably still be using the arrow keys to move around the document. I'm sure this would be true for either emacs or vim, but if you use it every day, and go through the pain of figuring things out little by little, after just a little bit of time you'll be fast enough, and after a while (probably years), you'll really start to master it.
Also, if you use Windows at all, I highly recommend downloading/installing gVim. Not only can you use the standard vim keybindings, you can also use traditional Windows key combos. So if you're in insert mode and you want to save your document, you can hit Ctrl-S if you want (and stay in insert mode), instead of Esc,
Another tip I would give is to switch your Caps Lock key to Esc (who really uses Caps Lock anyway, besides shouting trolls). It makes editing in Vim so much faster (or at least it feels that way). The biggest disadvantage to this is trying to edit on a machine that isn't set up like this (I habitually hit Caps Lock instead of Esc). To do this in Windows (XP at least), you have to add a registry value. So fire up your favorite registry editor, go to "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layout" and add a Binary Value named 'Scancode Map' with the hex value '00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 01 00 3a 00 00 00 00 00'. As usual with Windows, you'll have to reboot for the changes to take effect (but you're never more than a Tuesday away from a reboot).
In X I execute 'xmodmap ~/.swapcaps', and
remove Lock = Caps_Lock
remove Lock = Escape
keysym Escape = Caps_Lock
keysym Caps_Lock = Escape
add Lock = Caps_Lock
My last vim tip of the day is going to be the equal sign (=). You can use it to auto-indent your document (assuming you're programming). If you want to autoindent everything, when in normal mode, type 'gg=G' (without the quotes). If you want to indent one particular line, hit equals twice (==), and like everything else if you type a number before the double equal sign, it will indent that many lines.
Also, with 15 tabs open currently, it looks like Firefox is using about 150MB of memory. I guess I should look for that browser that is 30x more modern in that arena.
I guess according to this website, the only bloatware that comes close to their standards of modern is IE. I had better go download IE7 right now.
Also, does anyone else think that this is the most bass-ackward way of determining how 'modern' a browser is? I mean, you can't possibly list major browsers and versions in less text, could you? (IE 6+, Firefox 1.0+, Opera 8+, Safari, Konqueror) Nope, you can't.
Relax, it's supposed to be funny
That's okay, both sides know they can just blame any of their failures on piracy.
If prior art really is cheaper, then why didn't RIM use that against NTP? The problem is that once this thing gets to court, the courts automatically assume the patent is valid. It appears that you cannot present evidence in an infringement case to nullify the patent, you have to get the USPTO to do that, and we've all seen how long that can take (even longer than a court trial).
I would say that the Patent system is evil, and that the way a company uses it makes them good or evil. Imagine that...morality based on intent (intent shown by action).
I think that this plan and Forbes' flat tax idea are both excellent ideas. I think some of the benefits are (or at least can be): smaller tax burden on the poor, simpler tax code for citizens, no more tax preparation industry, which would be of great benefit to the economy since all of those people are freed up to do something more economically productive.
Here is the one bad thing I have say about this or any new tax idea. They all are wonderful when they begin: clear, concise, fair, etc. However, I guarantee that it would be less than a year before it got screwed up. A regular income tax would be added again, or some lobbying organization would seek to reduce the tax on their item and increase it on another. It would get mucked up before too long; how do you think our current tax code got to be the way it is?
Now, don't mistake me for an apologist for our current tax laws. I hate them. I think we need reform, and I really like both the flat tax and fair tax ideas. But there has to be a way to set these things in stone (perhaps codify it in the constitution so that it's a real PITA to change), and then force the government to stay within that budget.
Anyone got any ideas? Maybe start our own country somewhere?
I would tend to agree, especially based on our current patent climate, but here is my concern:
I, personally, have several ideas that I think are "patent-worthy". I cannot afford a patent let alone the costs of (pre-)production. So let's say I scrape together enough cash to make a patent ($400-$5000 depending on the route you go), now what do I do with it? My options are to produce the product (I have already established that this is out of question financially), wait for someone to infringe on my patent and sue them (expensive and risky, especially for an individual trying to feed a family), or sell my patent to someone else.
If I sell the patent to someone else, I have a couple of options. One, I can try to sell/license it to a company that is in business related to the patent. So for most of my ideas, I could try to sell it to IBM, MS, Sandisk, etc., but the chances of them buying the patent are pretty slim. The other option I have is to sell the patent to a company that holds patents, like Invention Submission Corporation or perhaps a company like NTP. So I have an agreement with them that they either pay me a lump sum (far less than the value they see in the patent), or a percentage of profits from the patent. So they take on the risk and the financial burden, and I as a small player am pretty happy with my payout (perhaps I have enough now for one of my other ideas, to patent and then even start small-scale production).
I'm not saying that we have to protect the likes of NTP because of what I've just said, but I think there is some validity in these kind of companies that help out an individual. I don't know what that balance is or what kind of rules you would create to make sure that the system doesn't eventually kill innovation (especially from the small-time guy).
I've been looking for service like this at this price for a while. I am probably going to sign up for this. I noticed on their website that they have a referral program. Since your post is what got me interested, I think it would only be fair if you got the referral credit. If you are willing to send me what is necessary to get you credit (email me), then I'll do that. It says on their website to log into the member area and click Rewards for details.
It is my understanding that the DMCA makes circumventing digital restrictions unlawful when it relates to copyright material. So if the copyright has expired, cracking the DRM does not violate the DMCA.
Of course, as other posters have mentioned, those of us in the US will probably be blessed with perpetual copyright (a la Micky Mouse).