...the small guy who doesn't have tons of cash in the bank will accept this (otherwise) unfair bet as protection against him being destroyed by a single disaster.
The answer for the small guys is to pool their money and buy a group policy, or better yet, start their own insurance company (one that actually pays claims). Everyone accepts a small part of the risk, and gets a good measure of protection for a reasonable cost.
Sure you can buy them. But if you want the cool one in black with "RIAA" in yellow letters, you also have to buy 12 others that are three sizes too small and say "I SUCK" in neon green letters on a shocking pink background.
On the other hand, the shirts do come in a nice plastic jewel box.
This reminds me of the fairy tale where a boy is given a magic ball with a pull-cord, and is told to pull out the cord whenever he wants to skip forward in time past some unpleasant event. He does this over and over, skipping his school years, his service in wartime, etc., until he ends up an old man, having lived only a few years.
So of course there's a moral to the story. You can't really live your life without living through the hard times. Somehow, as much as the TV networks might want it, I don't think this implies that you will gain crucial life lessons by watching TV commercials.
Now as for myself, I'd like a magic life remote control with a REWIND button. Or perhaps a PAUSE...
Don't be surprised if some investor with deep pockets steps up to plug the hole with more cash. There seem to be plenty of folks willing to buy SCO shares on the (however remote) possibility that they will win their case. It's a long shot, but investing is gambling, after all.
I can see it now...relaxing in front of a roaring fire with your significant other. You look deep into her eyes and say "Merry Christmas, darling" as you hand her your gift.
"Oh! A subscription to Slashdot! Isn't that the website where you spend hours and hours reading about technobabble instead of spending time with your partner? Why how very... thoughtful... of you." She smiles at you sweetly as she says, "I hope you enjoy doing the nasty with CmdrTaco, because you won't be doing it with me!!!"
Man I hope this gets built. Such an improvement over the wimpy space probes we've put up so far.
Here's a nice drawing of the design. Anyone know why the reactor is all the way at the front and the thrusters are at the back??
They also mention on the JPL site that the propulsion system (and I guess much of the rest of the proposed design) was vetted on the Deep Space 1 mission. Some interesting reports on the technology here.
No doubt the law is intended to allow theater owners and employees to make the arrests. They would not want their patrons arresting each other. Though for anyone left in the theater, that would probably be more interesting than whatever trash is being shown on the screen.
I don't see the "citizens arrest" feature mentioned in the text of the bill - perhaps some other law enables this? I suppose this is meant to give the theater owner the legal authority to hold the nefarious pirate until the cops arrive. But in practice you'd think anyone with the balls to sneak in a recording device would also have enough stones to walk away from the pock-faced teenager trying to "arrest" him...
It's hard to see how any law enforcement agency is going to get excited over the idea of booking some guy with a camcorder. Like the RIAA lawsuits, this will only work to deter casual infringers, not the ones with strong stomachs.
The foundation for current copy protection in technology products is grounded in the 1976 Copyright Act. The 1976 Act grew out of Congressional recognition that the United States was rapidly lagging behind Japan and other countries in technology innovation. In order to protect our ability to innovate and regain global leadership in technology, Congress extended copyright protection to technology innovations, including software. The 1976 Act had the desired effect. The U.S. economy responded rapidly, and within 10 years had regained global technology leadership.
Ah I see. So the 1976 Copyright Act was responsible for the economic boom of the 1980's. I'd always assumed the end of the oil crisis and lower taxes got the credit. Silly me.
Clearly it also must have ended the Cold War and led to whiter and brighter teeth. What would we have done without the 1976 Copyright Act, I wonder? Why, we'd probably still be driving around in AMC Gremlins, listening to 8-track tapes and wearing platform shoes!
Non commercial software = less profits for businesses = worse economy = worse for the people.
Profit is not the only way to measure a successful economy, or a successful society.
Open source is a little like a community garden. If enough people pitch in to plant the garden, they can all enjoy
the fruits of their labor.
Now imagine that instead of planting the garden themselves, the town council decides to bring in a capitalist to do
the job. The capitalist buys the land, hires local people to plant the garden, and when it is finished he erects a gate
at the front, and charges admission to anyone who wants to enjoy it. He makes back his investment and collects a profit
on the fees. So under which scenario is the community better off? Either way they end up with a garden, the difference
is that they only own it if they plant it themselves.
What has really happened is this: in the private investment model, the town does not want to assume the risk of the
investment. They hand the risk off to a capitalist, who is happy to take it along with the promise of future profits.
In the public investment model, the risk is spread out over a wider base. Each person who takes the time to plant a
tree in the garden risks wasting his time if the garden fails. But he also gets the possibility of enjoying the garden
if it flowers.
So far, private investment has worked better because it is more efficient (some would argue though that much of the
efficiency comes from externalizing costs). Open source provides a vehicle for public investment that is just as
efficient and effective as the private model, if not more so.
To the extent that open source development exposes and removes inefficiencies in current software practices, it is
good for the economy. The "profits" are enjoyed by everyone who uses open source software, and who leverages that
software to create new products and services at a lower cost.
Can the economy function without profits? Surely it can. However, in order for investment to work without
capitalists, public institutions must become risk takers, and the owners of those institutions (i.e. taxpayers) must
decide that it is better for them to assume risk themselves than to hand it off to a capitalist middleman.
Will this ever happen? Probably not, because most people see risk as a negative, and would rather have someone else
deal with it. Of course, in the end we all have to deal with risk whether we like it or not.
While I normally don't like to criticize one's choice of words, here I have to agree. A better choice would have been 'inducing' or maybe 'encouraging'.
However this is nowhere near as bad as another word I saw recently in the same vein: 'incent'. As in I incent, you incent, etc. So now we have:
incent
incentivize (incentivise for our British friends)
incentivate
and all their related plural forms, tenses and conjugations.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer for the small guys is to pool their money and buy a group policy, or better yet, start their own insurance company (one that actually pays claims). Everyone accepts a small part of the risk, and gets a good measure of protection for a reasonable cost.
On the other hand, the shirts do come in a nice plastic jewel box.
You mean the chance to defend themselves against their accusers.
Did we get rid of the presumption of innocence along with giving up the rest of our civil rights? ( I wouldn't be surprised...)
Then she asked how he did it, and he showed her.
At least she admits that she has something to learn from her 8th grade student :)
She can suck the life out of me any day!
Take some Wine and open it up
Let it develop for a while and go bad
After a while it will be sour and smell awful. Now you can do Windows! And if you do it right, they will be transparent.
So of course there's a moral to the story. You can't really live your life without living through the hard times. Somehow, as much as the TV networks might want it, I don't think this implies that you will gain crucial life lessons by watching TV commercials.
Now as for myself, I'd like a magic life remote control with a REWIND button. Or perhaps a PAUSE...
Don't be surprised if some investor with deep pockets steps up to plug the hole with more cash. There seem to be plenty of folks willing to buy SCO shares on the (however remote) possibility that they will win their case. It's a long shot, but investing is gambling, after all.
"Oh! A subscription to Slashdot! Isn't that the website where you spend hours and hours reading about technobabble instead of spending time with your partner? Why how very ... thoughtful... of you." She smiles at you sweetly as she says, "I hope you enjoy doing the nasty with CmdrTaco, because you won't be doing it with me!!!"
No more bills or coins.
..and when change is outlawed, only outlaws will have change :)
This reads so much better without the final word:
The real threat will be obvious when hundreds of men from China gather on the lawn 100 feet away from the Pentagon and pull out their ...
Here's a nice drawing of the design. Anyone know why the reactor is all the way at the front and the thrusters are at the back??
They also mention on the JPL site that the propulsion system (and I guess much of the rest of the proposed design) was vetted on the Deep Space 1 mission. Some interesting reports on the technology here.
Run for your lives! It's.... E. Colizilla!!!!
I don't see the "citizens arrest" feature mentioned in the text of the bill - perhaps some other law enables this? I suppose this is meant to give the theater owner the legal authority to hold the nefarious pirate until the cops arrive. But in practice you'd think anyone with the balls to sneak in a recording device would also have enough stones to walk away from the pock-faced teenager trying to "arrest" him...
It's hard to see how any law enforcement agency is going to get excited over the idea of booking some guy with a camcorder. Like the RIAA lawsuits, this will only work to deter casual infringers, not the ones with strong stomachs.
Ah I see. So the 1976 Copyright Act was responsible for the economic boom of the 1980's. I'd always assumed the end of the oil crisis and lower taxes got the credit. Silly me.
Clearly it also must have ended the Cold War and led to whiter and brighter teeth. What would we have done without the 1976 Copyright Act, I wonder? Why, we'd probably still be driving around in AMC Gremlins, listening to 8-track tapes and wearing platform shoes!
Profit is not the only way to measure a successful economy, or a successful society.
Open source is a little like a community garden. If enough people pitch in to plant the garden, they can all enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Now imagine that instead of planting the garden themselves, the town council decides to bring in a capitalist to do the job. The capitalist buys the land, hires local people to plant the garden, and when it is finished he erects a gate at the front, and charges admission to anyone who wants to enjoy it. He makes back his investment and collects a profit on the fees. So under which scenario is the community better off? Either way they end up with a garden, the difference is that they only own it if they plant it themselves.
What has really happened is this: in the private investment model, the town does not want to assume the risk of the investment. They hand the risk off to a capitalist, who is happy to take it along with the promise of future profits.
In the public investment model, the risk is spread out over a wider base. Each person who takes the time to plant a tree in the garden risks wasting his time if the garden fails. But he also gets the possibility of enjoying the garden if it flowers.
So far, private investment has worked better because it is more efficient (some would argue though that much of the efficiency comes from externalizing costs). Open source provides a vehicle for public investment that is just as efficient and effective as the private model, if not more so.
To the extent that open source development exposes and removes inefficiencies in current software practices, it is good for the economy. The "profits" are enjoyed by everyone who uses open source software, and who leverages that software to create new products and services at a lower cost.
Can the economy function without profits? Surely it can. However, in order for investment to work without capitalists, public institutions must become risk takers, and the owners of those institutions (i.e. taxpayers) must decide that it is better for them to assume risk themselves than to hand it off to a capitalist middleman.
Will this ever happen? Probably not, because most people see risk as a negative, and would rather have someone else deal with it. Of course, in the end we all have to deal with risk whether we like it or not.
Stop forking English!
>> In other words: They didn't outlaw crossing the road. They made touching the ground with your feet while crossing the road a crime.
One word: stilts!