This should never have left style. Integrated graphics chips, even if they are three-four generations behind the latest and greatest should be incorporated. There are many people (especially businesses) who prefer the default onboard chip...no hassle of trying to install a card - it just comes on there and it works. Now if someone wants to upgrade, great, if not they have the default. With the exception of some professions (i.e. designers) and gamers - most people are just happy and fine with the onboard chip. At the very least it should be updated.
I think a dedicated T-1 for a conference room is overkill. We have four T-1's in our company (just under 60 people in the office, with another 40 supported outside the office). We do web conferencing, voice over ip, heavy document transfers (via VPN), etc. To put a T-1 just in a conference room is a waste.
2 - A conference table that is network cable friendly (you will also want a switch that can accomodate each possible computer, and a wireless hub)
3 - Clearly labeled instructions for those who want to get onto the wireless or the wired network (so you do not have to run in EVERY two seconds, which you will anyhow.
5 - A high quality conference camera
6 - A high quality conference room phone
7 - A nice projecter or plasma TV for presentations
8 - Wetboard so he can write on (a laser pointer also)
9 - If he gives high quality audio/video presentation - a good stereo system with the wires hidden behind the walls
10 - A good phone conference provider
All in all, you could easily spend around 10,000$ US for this setup (mainly a good projector or plasma screen, high quality conference table, phones, etc)
I was like you, and would get the best trackballs (for me) it was the logitechs. Then I started playing games like Counterstrike, and as one person online said when he found out I used a trackball for gaming "Dude, your hard core".
Now I have two logitech MX-1000's (got my second one free):D
It also applies to personal use. If I, a consumer, can d/l it for free, why would I buy it? Many people feel this way - not all, but enough to effect the bottom line.
This is the same argument that the RIAA uses against filesharing, that allowing people to download for free directly correlates to a lost sale. I download songs, if I like them, I tend to buy albums by the artist. If I don't like it enough to shell out $15, downloading the song isn't what kept me from buying the album in the first place. If I read 20 books that I downloaded from Google, and don't buy any of them, I didn't cause publishers from loosing out on 20 sales, 10 sales, or even 1 sale. No more than reading the book at the libary, sure, I can keep forever the digital copy, but my guess is that most people won't.
I can understand downloading a song, evne in full, to see if you like it enough to buy it. But if you do not like it enough to buy it, will you delete it from your computer? Many people still keep a copy that they listen to and then give it around. That is the real problem. You may not agree with the pricing - but you don't have a say in the pricing.
That is because, usually, the author is selling his/her license to the publishers who provide the upfront money to produce the books/pay the author. If the author produced the books on his own, he would have more of a say, but since he is essentially a paid contractor he has less of a say. It is a trade off...and one made willingly. Authors do not have the same excuse as some people give to musicians - authors I would expect are a bit smarter and can read their contracts.
Go ask a knowledgable librarian. Ask them if you are allowed to take a book and make a copy of it cover to cover...they will tell you no because of copyrights. Just because you "can" do it, does not mean you are allowed to do it.
You are denying the author, publisher, and all of the people who create/distribute/market the books money for their hard-earned work/investment. In addition, Google is making a profit (advertising) from this service.
Just because you are not denying the next person from using the resource does not make it right.
If they are free you will see how popular they become.
I buy hardbound copies of D&D books. I will not buy the digital copies because they are the same price. If they were 25% of the price i would buy them. If they were free I would go buck wild and never buy a hardbound version of the D&D books again.
So it is all a matter of pricing - and it is very hard to compete with free.
With the exception of text-books for school, i have never paid more then $20 for a book in my entire life - and i read a lot and have a lot of NICE hardbound books.
What are you reading?
Also, where does it say an author only receives (on average) less then $1 per book sale?
Also you need to realize, there are more then just authors who need to get paid: editors, publishers, printing presses, marketing, book tour costs, etc. So your $20/book needs to be spread out.
For you it might be unpleasant, for many people (myself included) it is fine. I do it all day, so to do it with my laptop in bed is not a problem.
Also, not all books are $5-8...many many books are 20+.
But this is all argumentative...I am saying the author/publisher should have an Opt-in choice. There are PLENTY of authors/publishers who would be OK with this...and there are many more publications that are public domain.
The library: You are borrowing the book and must return it
If you really liked the work you had to buy your own version.
Digital Copy: You have a free digital copy. Now the only incentive into buying the work is so you have a physical book in your house - which, in and of itself is not enough reason for many people.
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Google, in the end, is making a profit from offering this service. So there plans to scan these copies (at no direct monetary benefit to the author/publisher), make them available *for free*, and they make a profit... That is a bit unfair...and even if they didn't make a profit - the author should still have a say. A lot of people put time and effort and it is their right to choose - not some third parties right.
Remember, that libraries generally have one copy of a book (sometimes more, but rare) and that a person is borrowing it. So if you read a book at the library and wanted to have your own - you had to buy it. By having all of these publications online, people will have a digital copy of them for free. This *will* hinder book sales. While some people might want the nice hardbound copy - most people will just settle for the digital copy which is just as good.
FOr example, in my life, there are very few books that I have read in digital format that I have bought to have as a hard copy.
That would imply that Wal mart is paying netflix. They are doing cross-advertising. Wal mart recommends netflix, for rentals and netflix recommends wal mart to purchase the dvd's.
So yes, wal mart is shutting down their rental service entirely...they are giving their customer base to netflix for a promise of advertisement. Businesses do it all the time "we not only sell you our physical store which is worth 100k, but we are selling you client-base which is worth 1 million."
I'll ignore your confusion over "Santa Clara" vs. "Santa Cruz"
Too late;)
Because there is not enough mod redudants around. When you get five e-mails all regarding the same thing, you have got to wonder which mod is not using their points wisely:D
and if they make it cheaper more and more people will buy the programs instead of pirating. There are some programs people are willing to shell out money for and some that are not worth the cost. If it is worth the cost, people will pay for it. There will always be the aberrant users - but even at a price of 1 cent people will still steal.
In other words - next time you think that your software is worth $200 and it does crap - don't be surprised when someone hacks it.
SCO is a software firm out in CA. The old, Santa Clara Operations. They, a while ago, bought some Unix stuff, if I am not mistaken. They are now sueing any company that uses the Linux and its kernal saying that code in there came from code that they had purchased years ago.
Normally this would be fine (if you stole my code, and started selling it, why shouldn't i sue you) except they have not been able to pony up any rock hard evidence. As such they are sueing just to threaten people. There have been companies who decided to pay instead of going into a legal battle (understandable from a bottom line perspective)...other companies, such as IBM have been giving SCO the big FU and went to court.
In general, assuming you are new to/., call SCO evil and immoral and say nasty things about them and you are safe...defend them...well I won't be held responsible for the blood bath as the piranah's (aka/. posters) ravage you in many unholy ways.
P.s. if some of my data is a bit wrong, be gentle with your anal probes of death.
have initiated or in the future may initiate legal actions against us, all of which may negatively impact our operations and future operating performance
Yea so what? Like you haven't cost other companies millions of dollars, hundreds if not thousands of man-hours, and that is not even to mention all the lost work hours from us/. posters.
Corporations should not only provide income to itself and shareholders, but should also be responsible for any employees. Going further, corporations should be responsible for legal aspects of products & services produced and the local, national, & international environments it is affecting.
Corporations do this. I work for a corporation and I get paid, i get benefits, etc. My corporation also donates to local organizations - many corporatons do this. Corporations are legally responsible for their products and services as well as the environment they affect. This is really nothing new so far.
At this moment and for the foreseeable future, yes. I would greatly like to see the copyright system changed as stated in the previous message.
As would many others, but there has to be a proposal that is equally suited for the corporations and private consumers. Corporations deserve laws that protect their interests just as much as private citizens. Why? Because corporations employee people, and corporations pay taxes - the taxes corporations pay is more then that of all the non-corp businesses. Again the laws swing both ways.
I have noticed that I have wandered off-topic a bit here. My apologies.
Thats alright:) I do that sometimes myself
I think we have both made our cases for penalty here, and I think we both understand each others position. Let me know if the case is otherwise.
We both want things to be fair. Hopefully better laws will come about...i think many laws are made poorly - but I see other countries and realize ours is doing a better job, not perfect, but better.
Slashdot Mirror
This should never have left style. Integrated graphics chips, even if they are three-four generations behind the latest and greatest should be incorporated. There are many people (especially businesses) who prefer the default onboard chip...no hassle of trying to install a card - it just comes on there and it works. Now if someone wants to upgrade, great, if not they have the default. With the exception of some professions (i.e. designers) and gamers - most people are just happy and fine with the onboard chip. At the very least it should be updated.
I think a dedicated T-1 for a conference room is overkill. We have four T-1's in our company (just under 60 people in the office, with another 40 supported outside the office). We do web conferencing, voice over ip, heavy document transfers (via VPN), etc. To put a T-1 just in a conference room is a waste.
1 - a big budget approval.
2 - A conference table that is network cable friendly (you will also want a switch that can accomodate each possible computer, and a wireless hub)
3 - Clearly labeled instructions for those who want to get onto the wireless or the wired network (so you do not have to run in EVERY two seconds, which you will anyhow.
5 - A high quality conference camera
6 - A high quality conference room phone
7 - A nice projecter or plasma TV for presentations
8 - Wetboard so he can write on (a laser pointer also)
9 - If he gives high quality audio/video presentation - a good stereo system with the wires hidden behind the walls
10 - A good phone conference provider
All in all, you could easily spend around 10,000$ US for this setup (mainly a good projector or plasma screen, high quality conference table, phones, etc)
I was like you, and would get the best trackballs (for me) it was the logitechs. Then I started playing games like Counterstrike, and as one person online said when he found out I used a trackball for gaming "Dude, your hard core".
:D
Now I have two logitech MX-1000's (got my second one free)
It also applies to personal use. If I, a consumer, can d/l it for free, why would I buy it? Many people feel this way - not all, but enough to effect the bottom line.
Google undercuts this financial strategy.
And they make a profit on it...
Expanding on what i said, there is nothing really contradictory here...
This is the same argument that the RIAA uses against filesharing, that allowing people to download for free directly correlates to a lost sale. I download songs, if I like them, I tend to buy albums by the artist. If I don't like it enough to shell out $15, downloading the song isn't what kept me from buying the album in the first place. If I read 20 books that I downloaded from Google, and don't buy any of them, I didn't cause publishers from loosing out on 20 sales, 10 sales, or even 1 sale. No more than reading the book at the libary, sure, I can keep forever the digital copy, but my guess is that most people won't.
I can understand downloading a song, evne in full, to see if you like it enough to buy it. But if you do not like it enough to buy it, will you delete it from your computer? Many people still keep a copy that they listen to and then give it around. That is the real problem. You may not agree with the pricing - but you don't have a say in the pricing.
That is because, usually, the author is selling his/her license to the publishers who provide the upfront money to produce the books/pay the author. If the author produced the books on his own, he would have more of a say, but since he is essentially a paid contractor he has less of a say. It is a trade off...and one made willingly. Authors do not have the same excuse as some people give to musicians - authors I would expect are a bit smarter and can read their contracts.
Go ask a knowledgable librarian. Ask them if you are allowed to take a book and make a copy of it cover to cover...they will tell you no because of copyrights. Just because you "can" do it, does not mean you are allowed to do it.
You are denying the author, publisher, and all of the people who create/distribute/market the books money for their hard-earned work/investment. In addition, Google is making a profit (advertising) from this service.
Just because you are not denying the next person from using the resource does not make it right.
If they are free you will see how popular they become.
I buy hardbound copies of D&D books. I will not buy the digital copies because they are the same price. If they were 25% of the price i would buy them. If they were free I would go buck wild and never buy a hardbound version of the D&D books again.
So it is all a matter of pricing - and it is very hard to compete with free.
With the exception of text-books for school, i have never paid more then $20 for a book in my entire life - and i read a lot and have a lot of NICE hardbound books.
What are you reading?
Also, where does it say an author only receives (on average) less then $1 per book sale?
Also you need to realize, there are more then just authors who need to get paid: editors, publishers, printing presses, marketing, book tour costs, etc. So your $20/book needs to be spread out.
You are not keeping what you get at the library. However, you are keeping this digital copy. Two different scenarios.
Everyone together now: Google For-profit.
Once again: For-profit.
So why should a for-profit company (Google) do so without paying the people who they are copying from?
For you it might be unpleasant, for many people (myself included) it is fine. I do it all day, so to do it with my laptop in bed is not a problem.
Also, not all books are $5-8...many many books are 20+.
But this is all argumentative...I am saying the author/publisher should have an Opt-in choice. There are PLENTY of authors/publishers who would be OK with this...and there are many more publications that are public domain.
The library: You are borrowing the book and must return it
If you really liked the work you had to buy your own version.
Digital Copy: You have a free digital copy. Now the only incentive into buying the work is so you have a physical book in your house - which, in and of itself is not enough reason for many people.
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Google, in the end, is making a profit from offering this service. So there plans to scan these copies (at no direct monetary benefit to the author/publisher), make them available *for free*, and they make a profit... That is a bit unfair...and even if they didn't make a profit - the author should still have a say. A lot of people put time and effort and it is their right to choose - not some third parties right.
Remember, that libraries generally have one copy of a book (sometimes more, but rare) and that a person is borrowing it. So if you read a book at the library and wanted to have your own - you had to buy it. By having all of these publications online, people will have a digital copy of them for free. This *will* hinder book sales. While some people might want the nice hardbound copy - most people will just settle for the digital copy which is just as good.
FOr example, in my life, there are very few books that I have read in digital format that I have bought to have as a hard copy.
Alright John Nash...go make a design out of a couple stars or something.
That would imply that Wal mart is paying netflix. They are doing cross-advertising. Wal mart recommends netflix, for rentals and netflix recommends wal mart to purchase the dvd's.
So yes, wal mart is shutting down their rental service entirely...they are giving their customer base to netflix for a promise of advertisement. Businesses do it all the time "we not only sell you our physical store which is worth 100k, but we are selling you client-base which is worth 1 million."
I'll ignore your confusion over "Santa Clara" vs. "Santa Cruz"
;)
Because there is not enough mod redudants around. When you get five e-mails all regarding the same thing, you have got to wonder which mod is not using their points wisely :D
Too late
and if they make it cheaper more and more people will buy the programs instead of pirating. There are some programs people are willing to shell out money for and some that are not worth the cost. If it is worth the cost, people will pay for it. There will always be the aberrant users - but even at a price of 1 cent people will still steal.
In other words - next time you think that your software is worth $200 and it does crap - don't be surprised when someone hacks it.
SCO is a software firm out in CA. The old, Santa Clara Operations. They, a while ago, bought some Unix stuff, if I am not mistaken. They are now sueing any company that uses the Linux and its kernal saying that code in there came from code that they had purchased years ago.
/., call SCO evil and immoral and say nasty things about them and you are safe...defend them...well I won't be held responsible for the blood bath as the piranah's (aka /. posters) ravage you in many unholy ways.
Normally this would be fine (if you stole my code, and started selling it, why shouldn't i sue you) except they have not been able to pony up any rock hard evidence. As such they are sueing just to threaten people. There have been companies who decided to pay instead of going into a legal battle (understandable from a bottom line perspective)...other companies, such as IBM have been giving SCO the big FU and went to court.
In general, assuming you are new to
P.s. if some of my data is a bit wrong, be gentle with your anal probes of death.
have initiated or in the future may initiate legal actions against us, all of which may negatively impact our operations and future operating performance
/. posters.
Yea so what? Like you haven't cost other companies millions of dollars, hundreds if not thousands of man-hours, and that is not even to mention all the lost work hours from us
I hope you get sued into the ground.
Corporations should not only provide income to itself and shareholders, but should also be responsible for any employees. Going further, corporations should be responsible for legal aspects of products & services produced and the local, national, & international environments it is affecting.
:) I do that sometimes myself
Corporations do this. I work for a corporation and I get paid, i get benefits, etc. My corporation also donates to local organizations - many corporatons do this. Corporations are legally responsible for their products and services as well as the environment they affect. This is really nothing new so far.
At this moment and for the foreseeable future, yes. I would greatly like to see the copyright system changed as stated in the previous message.
As would many others, but there has to be a proposal that is equally suited for the corporations and private consumers. Corporations deserve laws that protect their interests just as much as private citizens. Why? Because corporations employee people, and corporations pay taxes - the taxes corporations pay is more then that of all the non-corp businesses. Again the laws swing both ways.
I have noticed that I have wandered off-topic a bit here. My apologies.
Thats alright
I think we have both made our cases for penalty here, and I think we both understand each others position. Let me know if the case is otherwise.
We both want things to be fair. Hopefully better laws will come about...i think many laws are made poorly - but I see other countries and realize ours is doing a better job, not perfect, but better.