It's because of number 4 that the companies do numbers 1-3. There is a risk (steps 1 and 2), and that is weighed against the reward (step 3). If the company doesn't make it to step 3, they've lost a lot of money. It's true in any industry.
Where this differs slightly is if they are granted monopolistic rights (like the telephone companies were).
Ah, if only this were true. If you look at Wal-mart's practices with their suppliers, you would see abuses that are anything but free market.
Wal-mart bullies suppliers into selling to them at a price much less than the market would allow, threatening to go with the large orders to an alternate supplier. If wal-mart changes to supplier B, then supplier A goes out of business. But if Wal-mart stays with supplier A, then supplier A only loses money and can hopefully make it up with sales to other retail outlets.
Don't be naive. Wal-mart is one of the worst companies out there. In addition to how they treat the suppliers, Wal-mart takes huge advantages of tax breaks by small localities to move in, then if the tax breaks go away, they'll move to a new location, which offers them the same breaks.
You can like Wal-mart for the prices (hell, it's a free country, you can like them for whatever reason you want). But to say they are a positive example of a competitive market is a stretch.
My point was to clear up the parent's post implication that the colonists were upset at taxes in general. In addition, your post is the reason why I said "Among other reasons."
RTPTUWYART (Read the parent to understand what you are replying to)
Plus, of course, digital channels don't suffer from noise
Not true. While a digital signal may not be as susceptible to noise as an analog signal, the digital cable is sent using a 64-QAM (or similar) modulation scheme. This can most definately suffer from noise, which is why the modulation scheme is chosen based on the channel's SNR (as well as other reasons too).
-dave
They are less common because fewer people use those formats for document transfer. If I want to write a little virus am I going to write it for a program that 90% of computer uses use, or the program that 1% of people use.
If HTML and PDF were used as often to transmit personal correspondance, you'd see just as many exploits for them.
They aren't publicly held, the SEC can't do anything to them. FTC on the other hard could potentially, but they would have to prove the intention to commit fraud, since google isn't charging anybody for this yet (or ever), no fraud.
-dave
If they use illegal means to force you to buy Ford factory radios even in Dodge or Chevrolets, then yeah.
This isn't the case at all. They aren't making you install WMP on other OS's, they are just including it in their own.
What laws, and specifically, what section of the laws did they violate? None of this "they were a monopoly crap" let's get specific. Fact of the matter is, they didn't violate the laws as much as the laws were distorted to make it look like MS violated them.
What's next? Is Ford going to be sued because I can only order the car with the sound systems they approve from the factory? It's the same thing. If you don't like windows media player, install something else. If I don't like the stereo in my car, I can install something else. This is crap. This is the EU trying to show the world that they can be stronger than the US.
Even if you believe that MS is a monopoly (I don't, but that's another discussion for another day), they got to be as big as they are because, drum roll please, the market chose them. In the early years of DOS and windows, consumers used these operating systems and not competitors. Sun, Linux and Apple aren't held down by Microsoft, they lost early on in the OS wars.
It's akin to me starting up a company that builds computers, then complaining that Dell is holding me down. Dell isn't, Dell won out long ago, capitalized on the position, and that's the way it is.
Government control, that's what we need, because surely it's worked in the past. Anybody who thinks that the EU taking on MS is any better than the US gov't taking them on will soon see, it doesn't matter, it's not going to change anything, it's just another set of politicians trying to mark their territory.
If you want your OS to succeed, then build a better one. Build one that is as user-friendly for somebody who doesn't know computers, build one that works with the majority of hardware on the market in an easy way, build one that looks pretty, because, as much as you hate to admit it, that's something that the market looks for.
This ruling should not stand. And only by overturning this on appeal will the EU really show that they are not a bunch of greedy politicians.
That million dollars will be gone. The court will require him to forfeit it as "proceeds of a crime."
Personally, this guy got was he deserved, I don't feel bad, and I sure as hell won't lose sleep. He preyed upon innocent kids, in order to make a quick buck.
For all of you stating "well, they would have seen it anyway" get some common sense. The reason minors aren't allowed to see porn is that they can't react the same way most adults do. They don't know it is made-up, a fantasy. They are more likely to mimic what they see and think it's ok.
The only people who aren't upset by this, don't have any kids (which isn't to say that everyone without kids is not upset). This guy broke the law and was sentenced accordingly.
My comment was sarcastic (something too often lost on slashdot). My point is that we have had economic sanctions against Cuba for 40 or so years, and they haven't expelled Castro from power. So it's obvious that they aren't having their originally desired effect (or affect, I can never remember). Personally, I think we should get rid of the travel ban and trade sanctions against cuba, especially since we don't treat other communist countries the same way.
Presumably you are opposed to this because you believe that the US should use blunt economic instruments to force everybody else in the world to follow it's philosophy?
I'm not against this, well, I don't think any country should have "most favored nation" status. I believe trade should be free, but I also recognize that there are many factors other than tarrifs to consider (such as working conitions, labor laws, etc.). I was pointing out the hypocracy in foreign relations.
Do you know what would happen if you called 911 and didn't say anything, just left the phone going?
The dispatcher will send emergency help, generally in the form of police and first responder. Sure, you wouldn't be able to tell them the problem, but you will get help.
How about standing up for what you believe in, instead of just coming to a consensus where everybody loses. Convince people, engage in debate. Consensus making is a lose-lose. If you can promote thinking and action, it can turn into a win-win.
Want a case in point? Look at the philosophy's of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Wellstone felt that it is extremely important to be the one vote in a 99-1 decision, as long as you are voting your conscience. Whereas Coleman is more of a "do whatever required to get 51 votes" kind of guy.
Achieving consensus is hard. Really hard. It is what good leaders do well.
That's one school of thought. Another school is that it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and not give in to a consensus view that doesn't accomplish what it needs to do. There are some good leaders who do this too.
By your school of thought, if there are two senators, and one wants $1M additional for a project, and the other wants to cut $1M from the budget. They can come to a consensus at leaving the budget alone. In which case neither side is happy, and nothing has changed, nothing has improved, nothing has been hurt.
I thought the article was interesting, but I have a couple of questions that the writer completely ignored.
First, as someone above mentioned, if the FCC were to regulate this in any way, would that mean that they could impose decency standards to the content delivered? I would hope not, but I can see the FCC trying to do it.
Second, would the services coming over the physical medium be purchased from the group that maintains the physical structure? Or would you be free to shop around? Would we have cable providers or would you order your channels directly (e.g. directly order HBO, comedy central, etc. seperately - a la carte)?
Third, what about tying in cellular phones? Basically like using VOIP and wireless access points. If you have the fiber everywhere, just add the access points to act as cell towers.
Ultimately it's your decision and you will probably hear just as many "just do it's" as "don't touch it with a ten foot pole."
Personally though, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Why? Because I know I can do it. I am two years out of my undergrad, been taking classes at night and almost have my grad degree (both in engineering). I have a lot of leadership experience and fully expect (granted, part of this is ego) to be CEO of a company or President of this country one day.
I know I can succeed, I just need to prove it to others, and this is the perfect chance.
Successful people didn't become successful by taking the safe road, they took chances, took a risk and succeeded. If you aren't up for a challenge like this, you probably won't get as far as you hope. Take the risk, that's what I would do.
So a teacher may start out at $25k-$30k (an ok amount of money for the great lakes region) but with twenty years teaching experience (and a masters) could be making $75k.
I won't argue about the oddness of teaching unions. But I don't think that quite as many teachers qualify for $75k (especially in the midwest) as you imagine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the 90th percentile of teachers earn $65,480 and that's across the country, including areas with very high costs of living (and those with very low).
In Columbus, OH specifically, the 90th percentile of teachers earns $64,580 according to the data here. And to be in that high of a percentile, not only do you need 20+ years experience, but that will be with a PhD, not just a masters.
Except that a teacher will spend around 50-60 hours/week either teaching or developing coursework/grading, etc. (if they are good and commited) plus will have to spend time in the summer training and obtaining more "continueing education credits."
Add to this the fact that not only do they make less money, they tend to have to spend a certain amount on the classroom, buying books, tools, etc. that the school can't/won't pay for. Ever fill out a 1040? You'll see that educators get to deduct up to $250 in expenses, why, because they generally spend much more than that in a year.
Furthermore, the teachers have to deal with the kids of people like you who don't have respect for what they have to do and only think "gee, it must be easy to only work 9 months a year."
My fiancee has a bachelors and masters degree in education, I have a bachelors in EE/CompE (a real engineering degree, not this bullshit lets rename CS as CE crap) and am working on my MSEE currently, and she earns 1/4th my salary.
It isn't right, but it won't be. Teachers salaries won't be increased much in our lifetimes (we have wacky priorities) and it doesn't matter. A good teacher teaches because that's what she loves to do. My fiancee wouldn't change professions for anything.
All I ask is that you please have more respect for people like teachers instead of ragging on them because you are ignorant of how hard they really work.
Since school of any note is going to put me into debt, I am unwilling to take any risks about it - it's an investment
Those who are successful in life generally take risks. They are calculated risks, but risks none the less. Besides the fact that most people I know who are in graduate school aren't paying for it. Either they are part time (like myself) with their employer paying, or are full-time and have a scholarship/teaching assistanship/research assistanship that pays for it. And if all the CS profs wanted you to continue in grad school, they would have made sure that money wasn't the reason you said no. A professor of mine once said "If you are paying for grad school, you're doing something wrong." In some fields it's (mostly) true, while in others it's completely false.
Also, it's one thing to say you have skills and another to demonstrate them. I have very good people skills, and proof of it in my past. Volunteer somewhere, work on a radio station, something to prove that you are a good communicator (I think that might be spelled right). When I was in a hiring position, it was for a job that was 100% communication oriented where you are always interacting with people. Every resume and application I saw said "Good Communicator." I'd interview the applicants and find out that about 80% couldn't talk without a script. Not saying you are one of these people, just that you should find a way to prove your the perfect match for the job.
Good luck in trying to find a job. I know how bad this economy is, I graduated less than 2 years ago with a BS in EE, and was lucky enough to find a job in my field. It was a lot of work, but it paid off.
It's not the exact same as renting. The nice thing about a system like this is that you could buy a bunch of them in advance of a party for your kids. You buy 4 of them, but the kids only watch two. Well, now you have two that you can watch at another time. So it's not a direct comparison to a standard DVD rental. You could also buy a bunch of them and everytime the babysitter is over, she can grab another one for your kid to watch.
Of course, the kids that watch Disney videos tend to watch them over, and over, and over, and....well, you get the idea, so I would think that for that market the parents would just buy them.
Why is it that a lot of people here don't know how to do a nice thing for somebody.
If my in-laws computer needs some work, next time I am over there, I'll take a look at it, or try to help over the phone, it takes all of what, maybe 20 minutes.
My uncle owns a small business, if I can save him some money by making recommendations for him or giving him some free tech-support, great.
If you're nice to somebody, they are going to be nice to you, believe me, in the end, it's a wash.
Plus, life is too short to be an asshole all of the time.
Here we go again with the ever so popular:
Hey %insert insult here%, take %insert subject% here argument.
Here's an idea. Don't just take the class, learn it and apply some logical thinking to it. Yes, economics 101 (well, probably not, it'll probably be an international economics class) will teach you that free trade is best for all and that it isn't in a country's/economy's best interest to employ someone just for the sake of employing someone. But, what you fail to realize is that only works when everyone else is playing on a level playing field. As soon as other countries don't enforce fair trade or labor laws, that idea is no longer correct.
And as much as your economics 101 prof might not like to admit it, the role of an elected government is to serve in the best interest of its' constituents, which may be to not participate in totally free trade.
Economic laws are great, as long as everybody plays fair. Just like gravity, sure, it's constant in a vaccuum, do you live in a vaccuum?
Slashdot Mirror
The reward should be step 4, teaches me not to preview.
It's because of number 4 that the companies do numbers 1-3. There is a risk (steps 1 and 2), and that is weighed against the reward (step 3). If the company doesn't make it to step 3, they've lost a lot of money. It's true in any industry.
Where this differs slightly is if they are granted monopolistic rights (like the telephone companies were).
-dave
Ah, if only this were true. If you look at Wal-mart's practices with their suppliers, you would see abuses that are anything but free market.
Wal-mart bullies suppliers into selling to them at a price much less than the market would allow, threatening to go with the large orders to an alternate supplier. If wal-mart changes to supplier B, then supplier A goes out of business. But if Wal-mart stays with supplier A, then supplier A only loses money and can hopefully make it up with sales to other retail outlets.
Don't be naive. Wal-mart is one of the worst companies out there. In addition to how they treat the suppliers, Wal-mart takes huge advantages of tax breaks by small localities to move in, then if the tax breaks go away, they'll move to a new location, which offers them the same breaks.
You can like Wal-mart for the prices (hell, it's a free country, you can like them for whatever reason you want). But to say they are a positive example of a competitive market is a stretch.
-dave
Did you even read my post?
My point was to clear up the parent's post implication that the colonists were upset at taxes in general. In addition, your post is the reason why I said "Among other reasons."
RTPTUWYART (Read the parent to understand what you are replying to)
Nope.
The US fought to be free from taxation without representation. Among other reasons.
Plus, of course, digital channels don't suffer from noise
Not true. While a digital signal may not be as susceptible to noise as an analog signal, the digital cable is sent using a 64-QAM (or similar) modulation scheme. This can most definately suffer from noise, which is why the modulation scheme is chosen based on the channel's SNR (as well as other reasons too). -dave
They are less common because fewer people use those formats for document transfer. If I want to write a little virus am I going to write it for a program that 90% of computer uses use, or the program that 1% of people use.
If HTML and PDF were used as often to transmit personal correspondance, you'd see just as many exploits for them.
-dave
They aren't publicly held, the SEC can't do anything to them. FTC on the other hard could potentially, but they would have to prove the intention to commit fraud, since google isn't charging anybody for this yet (or ever), no fraud. -dave
If they use illegal means to force you to buy Ford factory radios even in Dodge or Chevrolets, then yeah.
This isn't the case at all. They aren't making you install WMP on other OS's, they are just including it in their own.
What laws, and specifically, what section of the laws did they violate? None of this "they were a monopoly crap" let's get specific. Fact of the matter is, they didn't violate the laws as much as the laws were distorted to make it look like MS violated them.
-dave
What's next? Is Ford going to be sued because I can only order the car with the sound systems they approve from the factory? It's the same thing. If you don't like windows media player, install something else. If I don't like the stereo in my car, I can install something else. This is crap. This is the EU trying to show the world that they can be stronger than the US.
Even if you believe that MS is a monopoly (I don't, but that's another discussion for another day), they got to be as big as they are because, drum roll please, the market chose them. In the early years of DOS and windows, consumers used these operating systems and not competitors. Sun, Linux and Apple aren't held down by Microsoft, they lost early on in the OS wars.
It's akin to me starting up a company that builds computers, then complaining that Dell is holding me down. Dell isn't, Dell won out long ago, capitalized on the position, and that's the way it is.
Government control, that's what we need, because surely it's worked in the past. Anybody who thinks that the EU taking on MS is any better than the US gov't taking them on will soon see, it doesn't matter, it's not going to change anything, it's just another set of politicians trying to mark their territory.
If you want your OS to succeed, then build a better one. Build one that is as user-friendly for somebody who doesn't know computers, build one that works with the majority of hardware on the market in an easy way, build one that looks pretty, because, as much as you hate to admit it, that's something that the market looks for.
This ruling should not stand. And only by overturning this on appeal will the EU really show that they are not a bunch of greedy politicians.
-dave
That million dollars will be gone. The court will require him to forfeit it as "proceeds of a crime."
Personally, this guy got was he deserved, I don't feel bad, and I sure as hell won't lose sleep. He preyed upon innocent kids, in order to make a quick buck.
For all of you stating "well, they would have seen it anyway" get some common sense. The reason minors aren't allowed to see porn is that they can't react the same way most adults do. They don't know it is made-up, a fantasy. They are more likely to mimic what they see and think it's ok.
The only people who aren't upset by this, don't have any kids (which isn't to say that everyone without kids is not upset). This guy broke the law and was sentenced accordingly.
-dave
My comment was sarcastic (something too often lost on slashdot). My point is that we have had economic sanctions against Cuba for 40 or so years, and they haven't expelled Castro from power. So it's obvious that they aren't having their originally desired effect (or affect, I can never remember). Personally, I think we should get rid of the travel ban and trade sanctions against cuba, especially since we don't treat other communist countries the same way.
Presumably you are opposed to this because you believe that the US should use blunt economic instruments to force everybody else in the world to follow it's philosophy?
I'm not against this, well, I don't think any country should have "most favored nation" status. I believe trade should be free, but I also recognize that there are many factors other than tarrifs to consider (such as working conitions, labor laws, etc.). I was pointing out the hypocracy in foreign relations.
-dave
No wonder congress has to keep bickering about wether we should maintain travel bans and trade sanctions against Cuba.
Because clearly the 40 or so years of sanctions have worked.
Meanwhile, we give most favored nation trading status to China.
-dave
Do you know what would happen if you called 911 and didn't say anything, just left the phone going?
The dispatcher will send emergency help, generally in the form of police and first responder. Sure, you wouldn't be able to tell them the problem, but you will get help.
-dave
How about standing up for what you believe in, instead of just coming to a consensus where everybody loses. Convince people, engage in debate. Consensus making is a lose-lose. If you can promote thinking and action, it can turn into a win-win.
Want a case in point? Look at the philosophy's of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Wellstone felt that it is extremely important to be the one vote in a 99-1 decision, as long as you are voting your conscience. Whereas Coleman is more of a "do whatever required to get 51 votes" kind of guy.
-dave
Achieving consensus is hard. Really hard. It is what good leaders do well.
That's one school of thought. Another school is that it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and not give in to a consensus view that doesn't accomplish what it needs to do. There are some good leaders who do this too.
By your school of thought, if there are two senators, and one wants $1M additional for a project, and the other wants to cut $1M from the budget. They can come to a consensus at leaving the budget alone. In which case neither side is happy, and nothing has changed, nothing has improved, nothing has been hurt.
-dave
I thought the article was interesting, but I have a couple of questions that the writer completely ignored.
First, as someone above mentioned, if the FCC were to regulate this in any way, would that mean that they could impose decency standards to the content delivered? I would hope not, but I can see the FCC trying to do it.
Second, would the services coming over the physical medium be purchased from the group that maintains the physical structure? Or would you be free to shop around? Would we have cable providers or would you order your channels directly (e.g. directly order HBO, comedy central, etc. seperately - a la carte)?
Third, what about tying in cellular phones? Basically like using VOIP and wireless access points. If you have the fiber everywhere, just add the access points to act as cell towers.
-dave
Ultimately it's your decision and you will probably hear just as many "just do it's" as "don't touch it with a ten foot pole."
Personally though, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Why? Because I know I can do it. I am two years out of my undergrad, been taking classes at night and almost have my grad degree (both in engineering). I have a lot of leadership experience and fully expect (granted, part of this is ego) to be CEO of a company or President of this country one day.
I know I can succeed, I just need to prove it to others, and this is the perfect chance.
Successful people didn't become successful by taking the safe road, they took chances, took a risk and succeeded. If you aren't up for a challenge like this, you probably won't get as far as you hope. Take the risk, that's what I would do.
-dave
So a teacher may start out at $25k-$30k (an ok amount of money for the great lakes region) but with twenty years teaching experience (and a masters) could be making $75k.
I won't argue about the oddness of teaching unions. But I don't think that quite as many teachers qualify for $75k (especially in the midwest) as you imagine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the 90th percentile of teachers earn $65,480 and that's across the country, including areas with very high costs of living (and those with very low).
In Columbus, OH specifically, the 90th percentile of teachers earns $64,580 according to the data here. And to be in that high of a percentile, not only do you need 20+ years experience, but that will be with a PhD, not just a masters.
-dave
Except that a teacher will spend around 50-60 hours/week either teaching or developing coursework/grading, etc. (if they are good and commited) plus will have to spend time in the summer training and obtaining more "continueing education credits."
Add to this the fact that not only do they make less money, they tend to have to spend a certain amount on the classroom, buying books, tools, etc. that the school can't/won't pay for. Ever fill out a 1040? You'll see that educators get to deduct up to $250 in expenses, why, because they generally spend much more than that in a year.
Furthermore, the teachers have to deal with the kids of people like you who don't have respect for what they have to do and only think "gee, it must be easy to only work 9 months a year."
My fiancee has a bachelors and masters degree in education, I have a bachelors in EE/CompE (a real engineering degree, not this bullshit lets rename CS as CE crap) and am working on my MSEE currently, and she earns 1/4th my salary.
It isn't right, but it won't be. Teachers salaries won't be increased much in our lifetimes (we have wacky priorities) and it doesn't matter. A good teacher teaches because that's what she loves to do. My fiancee wouldn't change professions for anything.
All I ask is that you please have more respect for people like teachers instead of ragging on them because you are ignorant of how hard they really work.
-dave
Keep it simple stupid. I don't want a camera, I don't want a PDA, I just want a phone so I can make and receive calls. -dave
Since school of any note is going to put me into debt, I am unwilling to take any risks about it - it's an investment
Those who are successful in life generally take risks. They are calculated risks, but risks none the less. Besides the fact that most people I know who are in graduate school aren't paying for it. Either they are part time (like myself) with their employer paying, or are full-time and have a scholarship/teaching assistanship/research assistanship that pays for it. And if all the CS profs wanted you to continue in grad school, they would have made sure that money wasn't the reason you said no. A professor of mine once said "If you are paying for grad school, you're doing something wrong." In some fields it's (mostly) true, while in others it's completely false.
Also, it's one thing to say you have skills and another to demonstrate them. I have very good people skills, and proof of it in my past. Volunteer somewhere, work on a radio station, something to prove that you are a good communicator (I think that might be spelled right). When I was in a hiring position, it was for a job that was 100% communication oriented where you are always interacting with people. Every resume and application I saw said "Good Communicator." I'd interview the applicants and find out that about 80% couldn't talk without a script. Not saying you are one of these people, just that you should find a way to prove your the perfect match for the job.
Good luck in trying to find a job. I know how bad this economy is, I graduated less than 2 years ago with a BS in EE, and was lucky enough to find a job in my field. It was a lot of work, but it paid off.
-dave
It's not the exact same as renting. The nice thing about a system like this is that you could buy a bunch of them in advance of a party for your kids. You buy 4 of them, but the kids only watch two. Well, now you have two that you can watch at another time. So it's not a direct comparison to a standard DVD rental. You could also buy a bunch of them and everytime the babysitter is over, she can grab another one for your kid to watch.
Of course, the kids that watch Disney videos tend to watch them over, and over, and over, and....well, you get the idea, so I would think that for that market the parents would just buy them.
-dave
Why is it that a lot of people here don't know how to do a nice thing for somebody.
If my in-laws computer needs some work, next time I am over there, I'll take a look at it, or try to help over the phone, it takes all of what, maybe 20 minutes.
My uncle owns a small business, if I can save him some money by making recommendations for him or giving him some free tech-support, great.
If you're nice to somebody, they are going to be nice to you, believe me, in the end, it's a wash.
Plus, life is too short to be an asshole all of the time.
-dave
Here we go again with the ever so popular:
Hey %insert insult here%, take %insert subject% here argument.
Here's an idea. Don't just take the class, learn it and apply some logical thinking to it. Yes, economics 101 (well, probably not, it'll probably be an international economics class) will teach you that free trade is best for all and that it isn't in a country's/economy's best interest to employ someone just for the sake of employing someone. But, what you fail to realize is that only works when everyone else is playing on a level playing field. As soon as other countries don't enforce fair trade or labor laws, that idea is no longer correct.
And as much as your economics 101 prof might not like to admit it, the role of an elected government is to serve in the best interest of its' constituents, which may be to not participate in totally free trade.
Economic laws are great, as long as everybody plays fair. Just like gravity, sure, it's constant in a vaccuum, do you live in a vaccuum?
-dave