MS will remain neutral because its codec is being used by *both* Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. MS doesn't care which format wins, because it will profit regardless. There is your evidence.
In this case, though, the two competing standards (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD... think back to DVD vs. DivX) are *both* using Microsoft's VC-1 compression. So as it stands now, next-generation DVDs will use Microsoft software regardless -- unless other manufacturers want to come up with a THIRD competing format. What are the odds of that?
Breathing, eating, sleeping, walking, driving, and working have never been proven harmless. Does that mean we should reconsider doing these things until they have been? Proving something to be harmless is like proving a negative -- it can't be done.
If health groups have concerns about the ill effects of city-wide wireless access, let them prove that it causes ill effects. Otherwise, let innovation occur.
"Free" = taxpayer-funded. Nothing the government provides without direct cost is actually free. So, to answer your question: you and every other taxpayer pays for pr0n downloaders' bandwidth.
RTFA, you and everyone else who said this... the drive also comes with a mini-CD that contains a bootloader and a recovery program. If your computer can boot off CD (much more than 5%) it can boot the to the LaCie drive.
The drive comes with a mini-CD containing a bootloader and a recovery program. So if your hardware can at least boot off CD, it can use the LaCie drive.
"ACNS is an open-source, royalty-free system that universities, ISPs, or anyone that handles large volumes of copyright notices can implement on their network to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of responding to the notices," according to a technical summary.
Oh, I also highly doubt society's (read: the majority of individuals') ability to act in "everybody's best interest" -- I'd much rather have them act in their own best interest, while respecting the rights of everyone else.
I think, honestly, that these rulings by the WTO are a great thing. If other countries are as hypoctritical as the US (which they are), and if we abide by the rulings handed down by the WTO (which we have, somewhat), we can use the WTO against those other countries in the future. How great would that be?
Don't like the European Union's farming subsidies? Call the WTO! Don't like China's high import tariffs? Call the WTO!
See, the US alone could not do this in a million years... it took an international treaty organization with signing members looking out for their own interests to finally enforce some real free trade. Let's just hope rational, fair (by the treaty standards) judgments are followed and respected in the future.
Speaking of beginning and ending replies with insults...
Anyway, you may call yourself a libertarian, but you haven't shown any more grasp of the concept of capitalism than you accuse me of lacking. Supply and demand does work into my analysis, namely in that consumers demand a certain quantity of products for the lowest cost possible while (your) consumer-oriented company should (in your view) supply all those consumers' demand at the lowest price.
I know you said you were not going to reply further, but please consider answering this: do you have any analysis of your own to refute anything I said in my previous post, or do you concede -- now that I've explained the supply and demand connection -- that I was correct?
You can get an american-made tshirt for $20 or so.
Yes, because of foreign competition in the textiles industry. If only American workers were allowed to be used for the production of textiles sold in this country, you can bet that clothing would see a dramatic increase in price, approaching even the parent post's numbers.
Now apply that same logic (I know you're following along) to the IT industry... if only American workers were allowed to be used in the coding/support of software sold in this country, imagine what that would do to prices.
The consumer is not the end-all-be-all under a capitalist system.
Imagine if a company considered its responsibility to the consumer above all else. Consumers, of course, want the most benefit for the least cost. The company, therefore, provides its products at a fraction of what it could charge because doing so benefits the consumer. In the meantime, the owners/shareholders of the company lose profits and divest. The company now has no capital, no money to reinvest in R&D, and basically becomes a non-profit ran by society.
This is your definition of capitalism? Your website is "iamblue.net" but I'd say you were more green than anything else.
They don't... Microsoft can get away with it because consumers value the company's products more than the level of Spanish-speaking service it provides. For other companies, where service is a large part of their product package, providing Spanish-language operators could make a huge difference in their bottom line.
It's not really an issue of *having* to accomodate... rather, it's an issue of providing your customers with the level of service they expect.
While there may be a shortage of working nurses *right now*, there certainly isn't in the schools. I have several friends who are trying (unsuccessfully) to get into nursing schools around the country that are simply overloaded. One school, Idaho State University (not the most famous college), had some 700 applications for around 100 spots in their program (paraphrased from a conversation with a friend).
So, by the time IT professionals apply, are accepted, and attend nursing school, the market should already be saturated with qualified nurses.
The reason the WTO is handing out rulings against us is that we are hypocrites. Steel tariffs, export tax incentives, farm subsidies, etc., are all against WTO regulations and against the image of free trade that we project to the world.
I happily accept the WTO rulings against the United States government as a sign that the rest of the world actually *wants* free trade. It's not about getting screwed or "doing ourselves favors"... it's about the very concept of free trade being fair, which it undoubtedly is.
Programming isn't exactly the easiest thing to do and I believe that we should not sell ourselves for less than we are worth.
But unfortunately it isn't you who determines what your effort is worth... just as it is not any producer who determines what his products are worth to the consumer. The consumer (in this case, your employer) determines what your product (your labor) is worth to him.
You are perfectly free to demand high wages (what you think you're worth) -- and employers are perfectly free to not hire you. If you do not wish to work for the going wages, don't work... just don't complain about being worth more than you were offered, because you're not.
[Note: Nothing in here is meant as a personal attack. I could just as easily have said "If I do not wish to work for the going wages, I won't work... I just won't complain about being worth more than I'm being paid, because I'm not." And no, it has nothing to do with having low self esteem.]
There is absolutely no corn in Budweiser. There are only five ingredients: water, barley malt, rice, hops, and yeast.
Off comment, I know, but I can't let false information like "there's corn in Budweiser" go around unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
Try 6-8 miles up (~35-40,000 feet). Also, how quickly would the picocell have to change ground towers to maintain a connection?
MS will remain neutral because its codec is being used by *both* Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. MS doesn't care which format wins, because it will profit regardless. There is your evidence.
In this case, though, the two competing standards (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD ... think back to DVD vs. DivX) are *both* using Microsoft's VC-1 compression. So as it stands now, next-generation DVDs will use Microsoft software regardless -- unless other manufacturers want to come up with a THIRD competing format. What are the odds of that?
If health groups have concerns about the ill effects of city-wide wireless access, let them prove that it causes ill effects. Otherwise, let innovation occur.
"Free" = taxpayer-funded. Nothing the government provides without direct cost is actually free. So, to answer your question: you and every other taxpayer pays for pr0n downloaders' bandwidth.
Are you going to make an extension or are we going to have to beg?
RTFA, you and everyone else who said this ... the drive also comes with a mini-CD that contains a bootloader and a recovery program. If your computer can boot off CD (much more than 5%) it can boot the to the LaCie drive.
The drive comes with a mini-CD containing a bootloader and a recovery program. So if your hardware can at least boot off CD, it can use the LaCie drive.
Or a space ship, a la The Thing .
There are better things to do with booze and hookers than burn them ...
... or Windows Media codecs.
Well, if you can read that random 128-bit number and copy it onto a bootlegged RFID chip, it's not so random anymore.
So now you'd install it on your network?
I think, honestly, that these rulings by the WTO are a great thing. If other countries are as hypoctritical as the US (which they are), and if we abide by the rulings handed down by the WTO (which we have, somewhat), we can use the WTO against those other countries in the future. How great would that be?
Don't like the European Union's farming subsidies? Call the WTO! Don't like China's high import tariffs? Call the WTO!
See, the US alone could not do this in a million years ... it took an international treaty organization with signing members looking out for their own interests to finally enforce some real free trade. Let's just hope rational, fair (by the treaty standards) judgments are followed and respected in the future.
Anyway, you may call yourself a libertarian, but you haven't shown any more grasp of the concept of capitalism than you accuse me of lacking. Supply and demand does work into my analysis, namely in that consumers demand a certain quantity of products for the lowest cost possible while (your) consumer-oriented company should (in your view) supply all those consumers' demand at the lowest price.
I know you said you were not going to reply further, but please consider answering this: do you have any analysis of your own to refute anything I said in my previous post, or do you concede -- now that I've explained the supply and demand connection -- that I was correct?
Yes, because of foreign competition in the textiles industry. If only American workers were allowed to be used for the production of textiles sold in this country, you can bet that clothing would see a dramatic increase in price, approaching even the parent post's numbers.
Now apply that same logic (I know you're following along) to the IT industry ... if only American workers were allowed to be used in the coding/support of software sold in this country, imagine what that would do to prices.
Imagine if a company considered its responsibility to the consumer above all else. Consumers, of course, want the most benefit for the least cost. The company, therefore, provides its products at a fraction of what it could charge because doing so benefits the consumer. In the meantime, the owners/shareholders of the company lose profits and divest. The company now has no capital, no money to reinvest in R&D, and basically becomes a non-profit ran by society.
This is your definition of capitalism? Your website is "iamblue.net" but I'd say you were more green than anything else.
That sounds a little like a thinly-veiled threat -- "Taxpayers of the world, unite!" right?
They don't ... Microsoft can get away with it because consumers value the company's products more than the level of Spanish-speaking service it provides. For other companies, where service is a large part of their product package, providing Spanish-language operators could make a huge difference in their bottom line.
It's not really an issue of *having* to accomodate ... rather, it's an issue of providing your customers with the level of service they expect.
So, by the time IT professionals apply, are accepted, and attend nursing school, the market should already be saturated with qualified nurses.
I happily accept the WTO rulings against the United States government as a sign that the rest of the world actually *wants* free trade. It's not about getting screwed or "doing ourselves favors" ... it's about the very concept of free trade being fair, which it undoubtedly is.
But unfortunately it isn't you who determines what your effort is worth ... just as it is not any producer who determines what his products are worth to the consumer. The consumer (in this case, your employer) determines what your product (your labor) is worth to him.
You are perfectly free to demand high wages (what you think you're worth) -- and employers are perfectly free to not hire you. If you do not wish to work for the going wages, don't work ... just don't complain about being worth more than you were offered, because you're not.
[Note: Nothing in here is meant as a personal attack. I could just as easily have said "If I do not wish to work for the going wages, I won't work ... I just won't complain about being worth more than I'm being paid, because I'm not." And no, it has nothing to do with having low self esteem.]
How many more buildings than every bilding on campus need to have wireless access to score better than 33rd? I sense bias in the report.
There is absolutely no corn in Budweiser. There are only five ingredients: water, barley malt, rice, hops, and yeast. Off comment, I know, but I can't let false information like "there's corn in Budweiser" go around unchecked.