I've always wanted a portable desktop computer. Desktops costs less, but they're a pain to take too/from work. I don't think 16lb is any more than the books a high school student has in their bags (well mine weighed that much). Sure there's lots of people out there who want a laptop that's the size of a PDA, but there _is_ a middle ground =)
This company researched and designed compatible ink cartridges, and even considering that R&D cost can sell them fo US$0.99 for a profit.
Mmm... these pricing structures are not new. So the major industries haved turned "Free Market" into "Free to Exploit Market". Who would have thought =)
Congradulations of identifying the legal loop that these business use to keep prices artificially high.
All they have to do is make products that have essential components that can't be produced by 3rd parties. It doesn't matter that all ink cartridges contain ink, and have only minor differences between them, so long as they are different products then the industry can fix the prices without running afoul of the law
We all know why patent laws are there... this is just abuse of those laws to get around industry regulations, nothing more.
The printer manufactures are (most likely) getting to gether and saying something like
"If we all produce different cartridges that only work with our printers, then we can charge whatever we want, and nobody can accuse us of price fixing. So nobody make a printer that takes generic (3rd party) cartridges"
This might not be price fixing in the eyes of the law, but it's price fixing.
The only proof is to look at the ridiculous profits that HP and the like make out of their printer divisions (compared to the rest of their business). If the major manufactors were competing against each other, then those margins would be quite slim
So you're right that it's not price fixing, but the industry is agreeing to keep prices artifically high. So what's the difference to the consumer?
We all understand why patents are necessary... so you're 100% correect but there's a big problem with the law
If you don't believe me, then look at the profits HP makes on selling printer refills compared to _all_ of it's other business wings combined. (over half the total revenue). The fact that all printer manufactors engage in the same policy can be regarded as a new way around the price fixing problem.
Lets face it, the industry is deliberately vendor locking their customers and then charging ridiculous prices. Mum and Dad get sold on a wonderful printer that costs only $150, but then sigh in resignation when the salesman tells them that _all_ the ink cartridges are very expensive.
So they get around price fixing charges by all producing different (but functionally identical) components and over charging for them. Seems like the price fixing laws need to be fixed.
Maybe the real workings of the universe can't be explained with everyday experiences. After all, quantum stuff and relativity has little bering on hunting, communicating and making little ones, and that's what our brains were designed to do.
Can I say you mother is a #@!&$# ?? Is that free speach, well I guess you can't stop kids in the playground. That's how SCO's behaving, like kids competing in the (changeable) social order.
Thus most adults with "ethics", don't go around saying false or misleading statements because they get an untrustworthy reputation, and in the end they weaken their own position.
Now lets mix the schoolyard with lots of $$$ and political power, and a sprinkle of media manipulation and you've got a receipe for disaster. You must have rules and regulations over free speech, there's no way around it.
"Computer... what is the effect of watching TV on children's attention span?"
and Majel Barrett anwers.
Seriously though, it would be nice to have a techno house with an all knowing computer that will answer all your questions. This technology could be part of the future house.
There's precious little choice in the 100+ TV channels, but that's because of the way it's delivered. If organizations made TV programming, and it was databased and made available on demand (thus getting rid of the TV channels, which would be about as redundent in function as record labels), then you'll be able to see what you want, when you want, and whereever the party happens to be (in your house).
It's not philips job that the cable companies try to ram so much #$@! and advertising through our boxes.
When the screen is switched on, anyone standing in front of it sees only the picture. With the television switched off, the surface behaves like an ordinary mirror.
What about annoying background light reflecting off your screen while watching TV. Many enjoy watching TV in the dark because even the piece of glass on ordinary TVs is too reflective, and you can see a lightbulb on Darth Vader
Lets make it as complex as possible for everyone
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's apparent that IP laws are more and more important to people who job is to write software.
The pontoons will be multiple layers of Kevlar and epoxy, which weigh as little as 1 lb/ft2, around a rigid carbon-fiber airframe
I've heard that there's a really bad problem from lightning strikes if you plane isn't made from an excellent conductor like metal. Various attempts have been made to make non-metal composites that don't get badly damaged by a strike. If this plan goes really high then this will be a problem.
Can some engineer tell me, have they solved this problem or is this idea just hot air?
where there is collection of data the uses of it are necessarily evil
Do you really mean this? How about surveying people for what they think about a war, or public policy? Doesn't that place pressure on politicians? Is that evil?
Collecting data is an essential part of many important activities in our society. For example, town planners need to collect data so that they can work out the best possible way to spend $$$ to improve our road systems. A business is always interested in what customers think of their products, and this is not evil if they do so to improve their goods and services, and plan their delivery.
An example of a bad use would be... M$ going on a huge advertising campaign because users feel their products aren't trusted. So now they have the perfect platform to sell 'trusted computing', which, in reality, is very Orwellian (1984). This is evil, but is only one example.
Perhaps stricter marketing laws are the answer, I think that'd be a good place to start. Saying that collection data is evil will only alienate you from those who need to collect data to do their job. And that includes politicians.
Gee, why don't we just not ever release another Linux kernel until it's absolutely flawless? Because even with its flaws (albeit few and far between) people want it NOW!
There are still problems with stable releases, and in some projects are moved to 'stable' when the developers think they're ready for mass bug testing. All true.
In general, OS projects aren't released until they're ready, however. This has to do with the authors confidence in the code, not the marketing teams confidence in make a quick buck of it.
If software freedom starts to encomposs hardware design (but not manufactor), then we may have such a future. We'll also (probably) receive better quality products which are more focus on being sufficient for the purpose, and not a gold plated brick.
Perhaps the mobil device market is suffering the same problems that the early software market struggled with.
In the not-too-distant future the only way to ensure your purchasing privacy will be to pay cash for everything. When the government succeeds in getting cash transactions banned we'll all look back at these debates and laugh at how easily we were suckered!
Perhaps you are right, because it's like that now. It's naive to think that an economically advantageous possition won't be exploited, and it's also naive to think that people will not be unethical.
We must change the rules if, if we want to have any privacy at all (more so in the future). This is the solution to the problem, not attacking legitmate uses of information gathering.
For example, a business generally won't sell you something that's broken. Once upon a time they did, the rules were effectively buyer beware. For example, if you bought a rotten carrot, it was your fault for not noticing that it was rotten, not the shops fault. With the introduction of more and more wiz bang technology, it became obvious that consumers were rarely qualified to know if their 'VCR was rotten'. So the laws were changed, and if you buy a defective VCR you can usually get it replaced without too much fuss.
And a new era has come. We're starting to realize that businesses can collect a lot of information about us, and we don't have any good structures to make sure that consumers interests are protected.
Consumer law has (at least in Australia) protected consumers well to date, and may prove to be an effective tool to protect consumers with this new problem.
If this culture develops in this industry, then it will be easy for big business to force customers to accept 'improvements' that they would rather be without.
the idea of gathering information on my web viewing habits WITHOUT informing me, and without my consent, really does bother me
We should be bothered by this behaviour, but to stop it we must consider the cause.
A shop wants a cheap way to develop a marketing strategy. Collecting information on consumers is an efficient way of doing this, but they are afraid to ask because people are scared that the information will be abused.
And people should be justified in that fear and should continue to fear until we put laws and regulations in place that will hold people to an ethical standard when using this information.
You can't wish the problem away, we have to work out what those laws and enforce them.
In some ways this is the ultamate offshoring of a service job
This is not offshoring jobs, it's technology making certain jobs redundent. Since this technology will be cheaper than labour it will win. Jobs are great and all, but people need to be "net productive", at least in theory
Marketing people especially are going to love this kind of stuff
Is there anything wrong with that so long as somewhere in our future we make sure that information isn't accessed 'inappropriately'?
An example of such abuse it as marketer looking up information an a prospective date, or a baristor using racel profiling digs up information about you that would prejedice a jury.
That's what we all fear...
But if this leads to cheaper and more acurate (and less bothersome) appraisal of market fashions, then that's as appropriate as asking surveying people.
RFID's provide that ability to collect data never before possible. This won't go away because it's just simple too useful.
We of the tinfoil hats must use our energies to combat inappropriate use of information.
The answer to the question is that the author gets a reprieve as mandated by law. This is a planned, deliberate economic incentive (without which, btw, George could not have exploited economies of scale to create such a grand, opulent visual orgy. star wars would be a dime novel or nothing without the visuals).
Star Wars was expensive in it's day (the first movie), and 'new and risky', and it made bake enormous sums of money very quickly. Many would say that the quality of Star Wars has declined over time, society (through George Lucas) is now investing hundreds of millions into making substandard new movies. If Star Wars was open to competition, then an inspired fan could have written something... inspired, and we could have fed the starving millions in the mean time.
Not everyone rests on their laurels an manipulates laws. Also, not everyone is dead-set against non-profit fan art (Lucas, for example). They are just against coat-tailers, which is their right since that is how the law is designed. In 2050 you can sell all the fan art you want, but until then its George's party and that much at least is fair IMHO.
I agree that not everybody rests on the laurels, I'd say that most don't, because they like creating art. (Creating art is more important than profit sometimes). But "not resting on your laurels" is not required by law, and often not required by market pressures.
But truth is, theres only so much culture out there. When you've seen it all, whats new is only variations on the old that you could expect.
Most artists would agree with you in part. If you get really wierd and really really think about what creating art is (and what's considered art), you'll see that there is always a variation and something known... even if it's as simple as the shape of a smile.
So, you're really saying that there's no artist out there who's been able to surprise you with the way in which they've composed things from their environment.
For example, assume you're art is C++. We all spend a lot of time using other peoples code (using system libraries for example), can copying other peoples ideas of solving problems (design patterns). Sometimes we come up with something original, most of us do at some point. That is art, and if it's recognized, it is culture.
I'm saying that your statement is an extension of the I've never seen an original idea
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wanted a portable desktop computer. Desktops costs less, but they're a pain to take too/from work. I don't think 16lb is any more than the books a high school student has in their bags (well mine weighed that much). Sure there's lots of people out there who want a laptop that's the size of a PDA, but there _is_ a middle ground =)
Thank god there's a little bit of competition, maybe Epson is breaking the ranks by offering alterntive DIY refill kits.
I dug up this link to illustrate what they should cost
www.monsterinkjets.com
This company researched and designed compatible ink cartridges, and even considering that R&D cost can sell them fo US$0.99 for a profit.
Mmm... these pricing structures are not new. So the major industries haved turned "Free Market" into "Free to Exploit Market". Who would have thought =)
But all the printer manufactures are charging super high prices for their catridges! Check out this...
www.monsterinkjets.com
This company researched and designed compatible ink cartridges, and even considering that R&D cost can sell them fo US$0.99 for a profit.
QED
Congradulations of identifying the legal loop that these business use to keep prices artificially high.
All they have to do is make products that have essential components that can't be produced by 3rd parties. It doesn't matter that all ink cartridges contain ink, and have only minor differences between them, so long as they are different products then the industry can fix the prices without running afoul of the law
We all know why patent laws are there... this is just abuse of those laws to get around industry regulations, nothing more.
I think that you're both right and wrong.
The printer manufactures are (most likely) getting to gether and saying something like
"If we all produce different cartridges that only work with our printers, then we can charge whatever we want, and nobody can accuse us of price fixing. So nobody make a printer that takes generic (3rd party) cartridges"
This might not be price fixing in the eyes of the law, but it's price fixing.
The only proof is to look at the ridiculous profits that HP and the like make out of their printer divisions (compared to the rest of their business). If the major manufactors were competing against each other, then those margins would be quite slim
So you're right that it's not price fixing, but the industry is agreeing to keep prices artifically high. So what's the difference to the consumer?
We all understand why patents are necessary... so you're 100% correect but there's a big problem with the law
If you don't believe me, then look at the profits HP makes on selling printer refills compared to _all_ of it's other business wings combined. (over half the total revenue). The fact that all printer manufactors engage in the same policy can be regarded as a new way around the price fixing problem.
Lets face it, the industry is deliberately vendor locking their customers and then charging ridiculous prices. Mum and Dad get sold on a wonderful printer that costs only $150, but then sigh in resignation when the salesman tells them that _all_ the ink cartridges are very expensive.
So they get around price fixing charges by all producing different (but functionally identical) components and over charging for them. Seems like the price fixing laws need to be fixed.
Maybe the real workings of the universe can't be explained with everyday experiences. After all, quantum stuff and relativity has little bering on hunting, communicating and making little ones, and that's what our brains were designed to do.
Is there any hard evidence that string theory is correct?
I'd be holding onto my bet a little longer I think=)
Can I say you mother is a #@!&$# ?? Is that free speach, well I guess you can't stop kids in the playground. That's how SCO's behaving, like kids competing in the (changeable) social order.
Thus most adults with "ethics", don't go around saying false or misleading statements because they get an untrustworthy reputation, and in the end they weaken their own position.
Now lets mix the schoolyard with lots of $$$ and political power, and a sprinkle of media manipulation and you've got a receipe for disaster. You must have rules and regulations over free speech, there's no way around it.
I look forward to the day when you can say...
"Computer... what is the effect of watching TV on children's attention span?"
and Majel Barrett anwers.
Seriously though, it would be nice to have a techno house with an all knowing computer that will answer all your questions. This technology could be part of the future house.
There's precious little choice in the 100+ TV channels, but that's because of the way it's delivered. If organizations made TV programming, and it was databased and made available on demand (thus getting rid of the TV channels, which would be about as redundent in function as record labels), then you'll be able to see what you want, when you want, and whereever the party happens to be (in your house).
It's not philips job that the cable companies try to ram so much #$@! and advertising through our boxes.
When the screen is switched on, anyone standing in front of it sees only the picture. With the television switched off, the surface behaves like an ordinary mirror.
What about annoying background light reflecting off your screen while watching TV. Many enjoy watching TV in the dark because even the piece of glass on ordinary TVs is too reflective, and you can see a lightbulb on Darth Vader
It's apparent that IP laws are more and more important to people who job is to write software.
Wouldn't something in the air be a Supermarine?
No, it's superman
The pontoons will be multiple layers of Kevlar and epoxy, which weigh as little as 1 lb/ft2, around a rigid carbon-fiber airframe
I've heard that there's a really bad problem from lightning strikes if you plane isn't made from an excellent conductor like metal. Various attempts have been made to make non-metal composites that don't get badly damaged by a strike. If this plan goes really high then this will be a problem.
Can some engineer tell me, have they solved this problem or is this idea just hot air?
where there is collection of data the uses of it are necessarily evil
Do you really mean this? How about surveying people for what they think about a war, or public policy? Doesn't that place pressure on politicians? Is that evil?
Collecting data is an essential part of many important activities in our society. For example, town planners need to collect data so that they can work out the best possible way to spend $$$ to improve our road systems. A business is always interested in what customers think of their products, and this is not evil if they do so to improve their goods and services, and plan their delivery.
An example of a bad use would be... M$ going on a huge advertising campaign because users feel their products aren't trusted. So now they have the perfect platform to sell 'trusted computing', which, in reality, is very Orwellian (1984). This is evil, but is only one example.
Perhaps stricter marketing laws are the answer, I think that'd be a good place to start. Saying that collection data is evil will only alienate you from those who need to collect data to do their job. And that includes politicians.
Gee, why don't we just not ever release another Linux kernel until it's absolutely flawless? Because even with its flaws (albeit few and far between) people want it NOW!
There are still problems with stable releases, and in some projects are moved to 'stable' when the developers think they're ready for mass bug testing. All true.
In general, OS projects aren't released until they're ready, however. This has to do with the authors confidence in the code, not the marketing teams confidence in make a quick buck of it.
If software freedom starts to encomposs hardware design (but not manufactor), then we may have such a future. We'll also (probably) receive better quality products which are more focus on being sufficient for the purpose, and not a gold plated brick.
Perhaps the mobil device market is suffering the same problems that the early software market struggled with.
In the not-too-distant future the only way to ensure your purchasing privacy will be to pay cash for everything. When the government succeeds in getting cash transactions banned we'll all look back at these debates and laugh at how easily we were suckered!
Perhaps you are right, because it's like that now. It's naive to think that an economically advantageous possition won't be exploited, and it's also naive to think that people will not be unethical.
We must change the rules if, if we want to have any privacy at all (more so in the future). This is the solution to the problem, not attacking legitmate uses of information gathering.
For example, a business generally won't sell you something that's broken. Once upon a time they did, the rules were effectively buyer beware. For example, if you bought a rotten carrot, it was your fault for not noticing that it was rotten, not the shops fault. With the introduction of more and more wiz bang technology, it became obvious that consumers were rarely qualified to know if their 'VCR was rotten'. So the laws were changed, and if you buy a defective VCR you can usually get it replaced without too much fuss.
And a new era has come. We're starting to realize that businesses can collect a lot of information about us, and we don't have any good structures to make sure that consumers interests are protected.
Consumer law has (at least in Australia) protected consumers well to date, and may prove to be an effective tool to protect consumers with this new problem.
If this culture develops in this industry, then it will be easy for big business to force customers to accept 'improvements' that they would rather be without.
the idea of gathering information on my web viewing habits WITHOUT informing me, and without my consent, really does bother me
We should be bothered by this behaviour, but to stop it we must consider the cause.
A shop wants a cheap way to develop a marketing strategy. Collecting information on consumers is an efficient way of doing this, but they are afraid to ask because people are scared that the information will be abused.
And people should be justified in that fear and should continue to fear until we put laws and regulations in place that will hold people to an ethical standard when using this information.
You can't wish the problem away, we have to work out what those laws and enforce them.
I agree with you up until you say
In some ways this is the ultamate offshoring of a service job
This is not offshoring jobs, it's technology making certain jobs redundent. Since this technology will be cheaper than labour it will win. Jobs are great and all, but people need to be "net productive", at least in theory
Marketing people especially are going to love this kind of stuff
Is there anything wrong with that so long as somewhere in our future we make sure that information isn't accessed 'inappropriately'?
An example of such abuse it as marketer looking up information an a prospective date, or a baristor using racel profiling digs up information about you that would prejedice a jury.
That's what we all fear...
But if this leads to cheaper and more acurate (and less bothersome) appraisal of market fashions, then that's as appropriate as asking surveying people.
RFID's provide that ability to collect data never before possible. This won't go away because it's just simple too useful.
We of the tinfoil hats must use our energies to combat inappropriate use of information.
and often not required by market pressures
I should say industry lobbiest attempt to subvert the law so that market pressures don't prevent them from "resting on their laurels"
I like your ideas, but I have to disagree...
The answer to the question is that the author gets a reprieve as mandated by law. This is a planned, deliberate economic incentive (without which, btw, George could not have exploited economies of scale to create such a grand, opulent visual orgy. star wars would be a dime novel or nothing without the visuals).
Star Wars was expensive in it's day (the first movie), and 'new and risky', and it made bake enormous sums of money very quickly. Many would say that the quality of Star Wars has declined over time, society (through George Lucas) is now investing hundreds of millions into making substandard new movies. If Star Wars was open to competition, then an inspired fan could have written something... inspired , and we could have fed the starving millions in the mean time.
Not everyone rests on their laurels an manipulates laws. Also, not everyone is dead-set against non-profit fan art (Lucas, for example). They are just against coat-tailers, which is their right since that is how the law is designed. In 2050 you can sell all the fan art you want, but until then its George's party and that much at least is fair IMHO.
I agree that not everybody rests on the laurels, I'd say that most don't, because they like creating art. (Creating art is more important than profit sometimes). But "not resting on your laurels" is not required by law, and often not required by market pressures.
But truth is, theres only so much culture out there. When you've seen it all, whats new is only variations on the old that you could expect.
Most artists would agree with you in part. If you get really wierd and really really think about what creating art is (and what's considered art), you'll see that there is always a variation and something known... even if it's as simple as the shape of a smile.
So, you're really saying that there's no artist out there who's been able to surprise you with the way in which they've composed things from their environment.
For example, assume you're art is C++. We all spend a lot of time using other peoples code (using system libraries for example), can copying other peoples ideas of solving problems (design patterns). Sometimes we come up with something original, most of us do at some point. That is art, and if it's recognized, it is culture.
I'm saying that your statement is an extension of the I've never seen an original idea