Think of it this way, if the terrorist watch list had a whole lot of John Smiths on it, then every John Smith in the world would have the same problem. It's a problem with repetative names, not necessarily racism. Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?
Lode Runner: The Legend Returns
on
Five That Fell
·
· Score: 1
This game was my favorite Sierra title, although they merely published it.
Well that "spimes" thing intends to track every object everywhere it goes for the entire lifetime of the object. Just wait for them to come and put a barcode on your forehead, and you'll know that the evil plot is coming to fruition.
After playing around with a web translator, I've determined that the pedia suffix does in fact end up translating roughly the same to a number of other languages, although it sometimes ends up as padie or pedie.
Fact: nobody's using it because they still have to pay for material if they want to keep it, so they're still stealing it, and nothing short of just making all music free is ever going to satisfy these crooks.
I might agree, except iTMS is very popular. It's very easy to use, flexible enough for most people, and it has the market share to prove that people really will pay for music. More than a billion songs have been legally downloaded from iTMS. The RIAA should take a closer look at how Apple's doing things.
I use iTMS purely for the convenience factor. Legality has nothing to do with it at all. I know there are programs that could strip the DRM from the songs I buy there, or the old burning a CD then ripping it trick, but iTMS is flexable enough that I haven't had the need. Sure, it's nice knowing that I actually paid for something I enjoy, but the important thing is that I can listen to it on all my computers, my two iPods, and if I wanted to I could burn some CDs.
Steve Jobs actually said at the last WWDC that Leopard would be out one year later (after Tiger). I don't think anybody that saw the keynote webstream last year is at all surprised.
They have CTrax at my school. It's horrible. Everyone has an iPod and uses iTMS or gets their music illegally on the school's DC++ hub. Nobody really seems to know why we have CTrax.
I'd argue against a national frachise because the federal government has enough issues to deal with already. I think this entire net neutrality thing in congress is a waste of time compared to the rest of the world's problems. But that's not the point.
My logic is really quite simple, I don't see where the confusion is. One company has no competition at all. The government effectively has a very large tax (millions of dollars, and who knows how many thousands of man-hours) on any company that wants to compete with them. Not only that, there's less motiviation to set up shop in small population areas, since the company would have to spend a large amount of money and energy to negotiate the franchise before they can even start putting down fiber. With a state franchise, the small population areas of a state don't have that extra obstacle, the only cost to the company at that point is to put out the fiber.
You define competition as a "rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market". I agree with that definition. But when I look around and see only one cable company in my area, I don't see that as competition. Anything that makes it easier for another company to get into the TV market in my area would open up competition, by your own definition.
Here's a thought, let's get rid of this whole franchising nonsense altogether. If you want to pass a local ordinance that requires a certain amount of local programming, then so be it. Why have so many initial roadblocks to competition?
People say that the local municipalities are looking out for my interests when they negotiate these franchise deals. But when it comes down to it, I trust companies that have to earn my money over a government that takes it by force in taxes. Why does the government decide what company can earn my dollar?
But if a company doesn't listen to the needs of a particular community, what's to stop the consumer from going to a company that does? That's what competition gives us, choice. Right now it's a long and slow process to get the right to give people television service. There are a lot of monopolies as a result- that's not choice. Let additional companies move into all areas, and the market will decide what the actual needs of a consumer are.
Know thy customer. This is where differentiation comes into play in the market. Some people may not want any local channels, and will be able to pay less. Some may be willing to pay more for more local channels than the local franchises currently require. Perhaps due to competition they'll pay less than they are now, and get more after all. If you let more companies into the market, market forces will determine the actual services available. Each company has to grab market share. A new service has to fight hard to differentiate themselves from an existing product, or nobody will sign up. And that forces the existing providers to lower their prices or improve their service, or everyone will leave their service.
There's nothing to stop a state from requiring the same number of local channels or low-income pricing. Local municipalities are represented in state government after all. I haven't seen many complaints from Texas after they passed state-wide franchising legislation. Obviously there are complaints from cable companies already established, but they have the most to lose.
How exactly are they hijacking the internet? What AT&T or Verizon does is no different than Comcast's DOCSIS channel. The internet and the TV are on seperate bandwidth, exclusive to their users. It doesn't slow up Google searches or how fast you download a file off the internet.
I do not understand how your arrived at that assumption. How is state level franchising going to increase competition?
It's simple. To negotiate a cable franchise takes 6 months to a year. And the existing cable companies can lobby against them at every stage. There are thousands of municipalities but only 50 states. If you only have to send people to 50 states to get a franchise, it's possible to set up a competing TV service far quicker. Rather than negotiating a new franchise every time you want to expand your network at the city or county level, just get one for the state and you can expand as quickly as you want.
As for innovation, it's either that or lowered prices. No company makes loads of money only offering a me-too service. People don't switch to another company unless there's a reason to. These concepts are the basis of a free market. Current franchising laws discourage that free market.
The only thing I can figure is that these advancements were made possible by the increase in size- due to excessive food- and that since there's certainly nothing disadvantageous about them, they've been passed on to subsequent generations.
Well right now set-top boxes are a problem when it comes to competition. But supposedly the FCC has already mandated that third party hardware is able to take care of that functionality. CableCARD 1.0 has not really done this yet, but eventually we'll have a better solution.
The important thing about all this is the changes in cable franchising law. If other companies can get a single franchise from a state, rather than each and every municipality, it becomes far easier to start providing alternative television services. This is what we call competition. Competition breeds lower prices, better service, and technological innovation in order to differentiate competing services and win more customers.
Right now Adelphia is going bankrupt and being gobbled up by Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Before that, I've seen merger after merger just in my area. There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.
The cable companies have had almost no competition for a long time now. Making it easier for telcos to get into TV and bring us IPTV is a good thing for consumers.
Net neutrality will work itself out on its own without regulation. It has been for years now. Let it be.
Well here in the States, we had computers of all sorts. In early elementary school we used DOS, and then switched to Mac for a while. Then in Middle School it was fairly even between Windows and Mac. In High School it was mostly Windows, but had a lab full of eMacs that science classes tended to use.
I got a similar email, sounds like we go to the same place. Reason cited was also the very high cost of the program (which as you said, was wasted since nobody used it).
I believe the discount prices are supposed to be below the normal academic rate (still overpriced if you ask me).
Learning is easy, it's just that people have been taught that learning is hard from an early age. It might be tempting to point to some of the less well-designed operating systems out there as a cause, but I think it's widespread outside of computing and technology as well.
1. Educational software isn't written for linux. Too true, but most educational software I have seen is crap anyway, seemingly bought just to have it rather than providing any tangible benefit to the students. Usually the areas are covered by good web applications anyway in the meantime so there are alternatives.
I have to agree. The best educational software we used in middle school and high school were Java programs running in a web browser. Many were even developed by teachers in the school.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but we had mac labs as well as windows labs, and there were mac educational programs used just as often as windows programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it this way, if the terrorist watch list had a whole lot of John Smiths on it, then every John Smith in the world would have the same problem. It's a problem with repetative names, not necessarily racism. Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?
This game was my favorite Sierra title, although they merely published it.
Well that "spimes" thing intends to track every object everywhere it goes for the entire lifetime of the object. Just wait for them to come and put a barcode on your forehead, and you'll know that the evil plot is coming to fruition.
After playing around with a web translator, I've determined that the pedia suffix does in fact end up translating roughly the same to a number of other languages, although it sometimes ends up as padie or pedie.
But yeah, it's pretty silly.
I might agree, except iTMS is very popular. It's very easy to use, flexible enough for most people, and it has the market share to prove that people really will pay for music. More than a billion songs have been legally downloaded from iTMS. The RIAA should take a closer look at how Apple's doing things.
I use iTMS purely for the convenience factor. Legality has nothing to do with it at all. I know there are programs that could strip the DRM from the songs I buy there, or the old burning a CD then ripping it trick, but iTMS is flexable enough that I haven't had the need. Sure, it's nice knowing that I actually paid for something I enjoy, but the important thing is that I can listen to it on all my computers, my two iPods, and if I wanted to I could burn some CDs.
Steve Jobs actually said at the last WWDC that Leopard would be out one year later (after Tiger). I don't think anybody that saw the keynote webstream last year is at all surprised.
They have CTrax at my school. It's horrible. Everyone has an iPod and uses iTMS or gets their music illegally on the school's DC++ hub. Nobody really seems to know why we have CTrax.
I'd argue against a national frachise because the federal government has enough issues to deal with already. I think this entire net neutrality thing in congress is a waste of time compared to the rest of the world's problems. But that's not the point.
My logic is really quite simple, I don't see where the confusion is. One company has no competition at all. The government effectively has a very large tax (millions of dollars, and who knows how many thousands of man-hours) on any company that wants to compete with them. Not only that, there's less motiviation to set up shop in small population areas, since the company would have to spend a large amount of money and energy to negotiate the franchise before they can even start putting down fiber. With a state franchise, the small population areas of a state don't have that extra obstacle, the only cost to the company at that point is to put out the fiber.
You define competition as a "rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market". I agree with that definition. But when I look around and see only one cable company in my area, I don't see that as competition. Anything that makes it easier for another company to get into the TV market in my area would open up competition, by your own definition.
Here's a thought, let's get rid of this whole franchising nonsense altogether. If you want to pass a local ordinance that requires a certain amount of local programming, then so be it. Why have so many initial roadblocks to competition?
People say that the local municipalities are looking out for my interests when they negotiate these franchise deals. But when it comes down to it, I trust companies that have to earn my money over a government that takes it by force in taxes. Why does the government decide what company can earn my dollar?
But if a company doesn't listen to the needs of a particular community, what's to stop the consumer from going to a company that does? That's what competition gives us, choice. Right now it's a long and slow process to get the right to give people television service. There are a lot of monopolies as a result- that's not choice. Let additional companies move into all areas, and the market will decide what the actual needs of a consumer are.
Know thy customer. This is where differentiation comes into play in the market. Some people may not want any local channels, and will be able to pay less. Some may be willing to pay more for more local channels than the local franchises currently require. Perhaps due to competition they'll pay less than they are now, and get more after all. If you let more companies into the market, market forces will determine the actual services available. Each company has to grab market share. A new service has to fight hard to differentiate themselves from an existing product, or nobody will sign up. And that forces the existing providers to lower their prices or improve their service, or everyone will leave their service.
There's nothing to stop a state from requiring the same number of local channels or low-income pricing. Local municipalities are represented in state government after all. I haven't seen many complaints from Texas after they passed state-wide franchising legislation. Obviously there are complaints from cable companies already established, but they have the most to lose.
How exactly are they hijacking the internet? What AT&T or Verizon does is no different than Comcast's DOCSIS channel. The internet and the TV are on seperate bandwidth, exclusive to their users. It doesn't slow up Google searches or how fast you download a file off the internet.
As for innovation, it's either that or lowered prices. No company makes loads of money only offering a me-too service. People don't switch to another company unless there's a reason to. These concepts are the basis of a free market. Current franchising laws discourage that free market.
The only thing I can figure is that these advancements were made possible by the increase in size- due to excessive food- and that since there's certainly nothing disadvantageous about them, they've been passed on to subsequent generations.
Well right now set-top boxes are a problem when it comes to competition. But supposedly the FCC has already mandated that third party hardware is able to take care of that functionality. CableCARD 1.0 has not really done this yet, but eventually we'll have a better solution.
The important thing about all this is the changes in cable franchising law. If other companies can get a single franchise from a state, rather than each and every municipality, it becomes far easier to start providing alternative television services. This is what we call competition. Competition breeds lower prices, better service, and technological innovation in order to differentiate competing services and win more customers.
Right now Adelphia is going bankrupt and being gobbled up by Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Before that, I've seen merger after merger just in my area. There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.
The cable companies have had almost no competition for a long time now. Making it easier for telcos to get into TV and bring us IPTV is a good thing for consumers.
Net neutrality will work itself out on its own without regulation. It has been for years now. Let it be.
Well here in the States, we had computers of all sorts. In early elementary school we used DOS, and then switched to Mac for a while. Then in Middle School it was fairly even between Windows and Mac. In High School it was mostly Windows, but had a lab full of eMacs that science classes tended to use.
I thought the argument for Firefox was that it is a faster browser with good standards support and less bloat...
I got a similar email, sounds like we go to the same place. Reason cited was also the very high cost of the program (which as you said, was wasted since nobody used it).
I believe the discount prices are supposed to be below the normal academic rate (still overpriced if you ask me).
Learning is easy, it's just that people have been taught that learning is hard from an early age. It might be tempting to point to some of the less well-designed operating systems out there as a cause, but I think it's widespread outside of computing and technology as well.
Verizon FiOS has been rolling out fiber for a couple years now, and will be expanding their networks pretty much as quickly as they can.