Added value for having your name in there? I see two possibilities (given the assumption that Jessica hasn't pre-recorded every variation of every name out there)
a) The dubbing/generation is so bad that you can spot it a mile away and thus removes value, not adding anything.
b) The dubbing/generation is so good that you can't hear a difference. This in turns makes me wonder, why the hell don't they just generate the entire song and just get rid of her and sell the stuff for 40 cents. Oooh, that's right. Boooobies!
Think? People are stupid. In fact, it should be ranked up there with the 'law of gravity'. You have quite an important point though. One that people should take note of. Balance in everything, even in 'democracy'.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner"
Now there is a good idea. Something for HL3 with their adventure puzzle style. Do some stuff, jump in to a time portal, interact with the things you did (are doing) a minute ago in order to solve the puzzle.
I doubt the reasoning was so much "Americans are stupid" as it was a view on the attention span and willingness to spend hour after hour on finally getting that jump right to finish the level, correct or not.
I must confess, I've never been able to quite understand how companies are willing to show those adds on their space. Seemingly serious sites can be littered with them and in regard to professionalism it just seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Who can take a company/site serious when they are (through their ads) trying to outright scam their customers?
Oh, come on! This is what? Like 1/20th or 1/40th of what a tiny country like Sweden transfers to the EU budget ANNUALLY. Sure, this will put the budget out of the red if they are in a pinch. Suuuure.
Joke number? Will I agree with some of your points, it's worth to remember that the people holding the non-traded stocks actually think Microsoft is worth MORE then their market capitalisation, hence they are not selling their stocks and they are thus not traded. The day an investor thinks the company he is holding stock in is overvalued is the day he sells. Of course, this might not be true to Bill, but in general it gets pretty close to the truth.
I used to think so as well, but then something occurred to me. I (almost) never see the comments with low scores (unless they are in an interesting thread) and thus will miss all the "This wll get me modded down" comments that actually was modded down. Worth considering. =)
How about the not so novel idea of mounting warning sirens around the most likely areas. No need to get a 10 page article from The Times about an oncoming wave. Just a loud "beeeep" that people know means "don't stop to ask questions, just get to high ground or you won't be around for much longer".
Of course a lot of good came from the cold war, as has come from rather a many wars. If you wanted to you could run around starting wars just for that reason. [Of course, not all wars give birth to good things.] Still, the question one has to ask though is; is it alright for the people of now to ask the people of then to pay the price for benefits we receive. It's almost like compulsory military service; sucks while you do it but after it's over you have some pretty useful skills and some good stories.
And yes, I know I just described war in a rather whimsical way. The point, however, stands.
While I totally agree with you (and would hope more people would simply get this point) there is really no need to "suspen the copyright". A far easier route to go would simply be to do what ever you do with companies when they go belly up. Sell of the lot to the highest bidder (simplistically speaking). The problem that the EU sees is not the software, it is the practices of the company behind the software.
Yeah, that's what I love about books. You can have one copy in your car, one in your study, one at work and, oh wait! Ebooks are worth their weight in gold for the search features alone. I can't remember how many times I've lost my place in a book because of falling asleep. This baby should keep the page open no matter how many times you roll over it in your sleep.
Also, I hate being in bed, resting on my left side and being at the begining of a book (or right side and at the end of a book), having to hold up a lump of book in to the air. Fine, call it the "developed country problem of the day" just up there with "don't you have to move your eyes a lot while watching that big screen TV of yours". Still, a problem is a problem and a sollution is a sollution.
It's rather interesting to see all the economic geniuses get together here on Slashdot and tell the world just how good their plans are. Integrate this, expand or die, etc. Is this new thinking? No. Has it been tried before? Yes. Most successfull as a whole is perhaps the Japanese Keiratsus (or how ever you spell that). Conglomerates in other words. How many of those do you see these days in the western world? How many are profitable? GE could be held as an example of success until lately. Don't quote me on it, but I seem to remember them strugling with losses as well now. What about the Japanes then? Well, they are slowly getting around to it as well. Not by choice I'd say, but dragged to the conclution by economic reality.
If you read nothing else in this post, at least read this. The thing that most people don't get is the fact that you can integrate vertically until you are blue in the face, you still have the exact (more or less) same demands for ROC. The logical error goes something like this: If google owns the CPU manufactoring part as well then they can buy the CPUs at cost. NOT TRUE. I'll say that again in case anyone missed it. NOT TRUE. You see, the investors, whos money google would use to build this business, will have the same demands on interest as the investors that let AMD play with their money. You can pretend that you can buy "at cost" but it is never possible. In the end it always catches up with you. Now you can stop reading.
Sure, there are economies of scale and such. Those are much better put to use by integrating horizontally though. And that has a nasty tendency to hurt consumers down the road.
The same goes for "expand to new areas or die". Sure, that is true. The thing is though, do we want a company to survive if they are not profitable? Why not have two companies that each do A and B respectively instead of one that does both A and B. As can be seen with Microsoft (since it's a good topic to bring up at Slashdot) there is little point in having one area subcidizing another area. Let the investors put half their money in company A and half in company B instead of having it all in the same company. Worst case scenario is that you do AS WELL as a combined company. Again, that is worst case scenario. There can only be better. Stop getting so attached to company names, because that is all they are. Names! The people in them come and go, the name remains. Who here has started to hate certain parts of Google because they now have MS execs? I'd bet none. Why? No reason!
Like I said though, Swedish law generaly takes a different viewpoint. Again, I'm not even close to a lawer and the classes I've taken has been more about general law and finanse related law. Still, it DOES make a different from the laws viewpoint if the nature was intentional or unintentional. Now, if you do things wrecklessly (or under the influence of some substance for that matter) yet unintentional then we are talking about an entirely different thing.
How about work produces value for society whereas play produces joy for the individual. I'm not saying they are right, I'm just pointing out the probable reasons for the discrepancies in a society (or at least a government) that values the hole over the individual (workers).
I highly doubt it. It is sort of these contracts that contain every disclaimer under the sky for one side and only demands on the other. You can sign every paper on earth stating that you give up the rights granted to you by Swedish law as a consumer (while dealing with a company) yet you still retain those rights and the other party of the contract simply can't enforce them. No jail, just not enforceable. Of course, it is a bit more complex then that, but in essence, this is how it is.
Like I said in another reply, this is from SWEDEN. Best of luck trying to convince your local judge to apply the same rules to you in case you live in some other place. Unlike the impression I get of the American legal system where the law is there to set down strict rules so that you can know what happens if you do this or that or this, Swedish law asks the question "Who should we protect in case of a problem". You see, there are most always two sides to every coin and not everything can be solved in the pure sense of "justice".
Slashdot Mirror
Added value for having your name in there? I see two possibilities (given the assumption that Jessica hasn't pre-recorded every variation of every name out there)
a) The dubbing/generation is so bad that you can spot it a mile away and thus removes value, not adding anything.
b) The dubbing/generation is so good that you can't hear a difference. This in turns makes me wonder, why the hell don't they just generate the entire song and just get rid of her and sell the stuff for 40 cents. Oooh, that's right. Boooobies!
Think? People are stupid. In fact, it should be ranked up there with the 'law of gravity'. You have quite an important point though. One that people should take note of. Balance in everything, even in 'democracy'.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner"
Now there is a good idea. Something for HL3 with their adventure puzzle style. Do some stuff, jump in to a time portal, interact with the things you did (are doing) a minute ago in order to solve the puzzle.
I think we can safely assume that they went with the numbers that were the most inflated. I know I would have.
If anything, I might overestimate the value of a returning customer. Or they might underestimate it. Who knows.
I never doubted that it works, I doubted the rationale of selling out so easily.
I doubt the reasoning was so much "Americans are stupid" as it was a view on the attention span and willingness to spend hour after hour on finally getting that jump right to finish the level, correct or not.
I must confess, I've never been able to quite understand how companies are willing to show those adds on their space. Seemingly serious sites can be littered with them and in regard to professionalism it just seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Who can take a company/site serious when they are (through their ads) trying to outright scam their customers?
I think you are missing the point. A CEO was arrested. I'll say that again, a frickin' CEO was arrested!
Fine, I'm just being silly. But not entirely.
But, I thought the balls from the lottery cleared those right out.
Clearly you haven't been to my computer store.
Oh, come on! This is what? Like 1/20th or 1/40th of what a tiny country like Sweden transfers to the EU budget ANNUALLY. Sure, this will put the budget out of the red if they are in a pinch. Suuuure.
Joke number? Will I agree with some of your points, it's worth to remember that the people holding the non-traded stocks actually think Microsoft is worth MORE then their market capitalisation, hence they are not selling their stocks and they are thus not traded. The day an investor thinks the company he is holding stock in is overvalued is the day he sells. Of course, this might not be true to Bill, but in general it gets pretty close to the truth.
I used to think so as well, but then something occurred to me. I (almost) never see the comments with low scores (unless they are in an interesting thread) and thus will miss all the "This wll get me modded down" comments that actually was modded down. Worth considering. =)
Not so. After the copyright runs out you are free to mount your hand held cam in front of the TV and film away.
How about the not so novel idea of mounting warning sirens around the most likely areas. No need to get a 10 page article from The Times about an oncoming wave. Just a loud "beeeep" that people know means "don't stop to ask questions, just get to high ground or you won't be around for much longer".
Of course a lot of good came from the cold war, as has come from rather a many wars. If you wanted to you could run around starting wars just for that reason. [Of course, not all wars give birth to good things.] Still, the question one has to ask though is; is it alright for the people of now to ask the people of then to pay the price for benefits we receive. It's almost like compulsory military service; sucks while you do it but after it's over you have some pretty useful skills and some good stories.
And yes, I know I just described war in a rather whimsical way. The point, however, stands.
MATLAB? You poor soul! I'd need a nice 30" monitor for free just to go near that program again.
Responsi-what?
While I totally agree with you (and would hope more people would simply get this point) there is really no need to "suspen the copyright". A far easier route to go would simply be to do what ever you do with companies when they go belly up. Sell of the lot to the highest bidder (simplistically speaking). The problem that the EU sees is not the software, it is the practices of the company behind the software.
Yeah, that's what I love about books. You can have one copy in your car, one in your study, one at work and, oh wait! Ebooks are worth their weight in gold for the search features alone. I can't remember how many times I've lost my place in a book because of falling asleep. This baby should keep the page open no matter how many times you roll over it in your sleep.
Also, I hate being in bed, resting on my left side and being at the begining of a book (or right side and at the end of a book), having to hold up a lump of book in to the air. Fine, call it the "developed country problem of the day" just up there with "don't you have to move your eyes a lot while watching that big screen TV of yours". Still, a problem is a problem and a sollution is a sollution.
It's rather interesting to see all the economic geniuses get together here on Slashdot and tell the world just how good their plans are. Integrate this, expand or die, etc. Is this new thinking? No. Has it been tried before? Yes. Most successfull as a whole is perhaps the Japanese Keiratsus (or how ever you spell that). Conglomerates in other words. How many of those do you see these days in the western world? How many are profitable? GE could be held as an example of success until lately. Don't quote me on it, but I seem to remember them strugling with losses as well now. What about the Japanes then? Well, they are slowly getting around to it as well. Not by choice I'd say, but dragged to the conclution by economic reality.
If you read nothing else in this post, at least read this.
The thing that most people don't get is the fact that you can integrate vertically until you are blue in the face, you still have the exact (more or less) same demands for ROC. The logical error goes something like this: If google owns the CPU manufactoring part as well then they can buy the CPUs at cost. NOT TRUE. I'll say that again in case anyone missed it. NOT TRUE. You see, the investors, whos money google would use to build this business, will have the same demands on interest as the investors that let AMD play with their money. You can pretend that you can buy "at cost" but it is never possible. In the end it always catches up with you.
Now you can stop reading.
Sure, there are economies of scale and such. Those are much better put to use by integrating horizontally though. And that has a nasty tendency to hurt consumers down the road.
The same goes for "expand to new areas or die". Sure, that is true. The thing is though, do we want a company to survive if they are not profitable? Why not have two companies that each do A and B respectively instead of one that does both A and B. As can be seen with Microsoft (since it's a good topic to bring up at Slashdot) there is little point in having one area subcidizing another area. Let the investors put half their money in company A and half in company B instead of having it all in the same company. Worst case scenario is that you do AS WELL as a combined company. Again, that is worst case scenario. There can only be better. Stop getting so attached to company names, because that is all they are. Names! The people in them come and go, the name remains. Who here has started to hate certain parts of Google because they now have MS execs? I'd bet none. Why? No reason!
It would seem I did. I take it all back. =)
Like I said though, Swedish law generaly takes a different viewpoint. Again, I'm not even close to a lawer and the classes I've taken has been more about general law and finanse related law. Still, it DOES make a different from the laws viewpoint if the nature was intentional or unintentional. Now, if you do things wrecklessly (or under the influence of some substance for that matter) yet unintentional then we are talking about an entirely different thing.
How about work produces value for society whereas play produces joy for the individual. I'm not saying they are right, I'm just pointing out the probable reasons for the discrepancies in a society (or at least a government) that values the hole over the individual (workers).
I highly doubt it. It is sort of these contracts that contain every disclaimer under the sky for one side and only demands on the other. You can sign every paper on earth stating that you give up the rights granted to you by Swedish law as a consumer (while dealing with a company) yet you still retain those rights and the other party of the contract simply can't enforce them. No jail, just not enforceable. Of course, it is a bit more complex then that, but in essence, this is how it is.
Like I said in another reply, this is from SWEDEN. Best of luck trying to convince your local judge to apply the same rules to you in case you live in some other place. Unlike the impression I get of the American legal system where the law is there to set down strict rules so that you can know what happens if you do this or that or this, Swedish law asks the question "Who should we protect in case of a problem". You see, there are most always two sides to every coin and not everything can be solved in the pure sense of "justice".