Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.
Wait, wait.. There are people, whom you interview, who expect that what they say is likely to appear in print in some form, but they won't agree (demand, even) to audio recording?
I'd assume they're angling for a "misquote" and not even bother with the interview. They want to use you for free publicity, but cast you aside if it doesn't turn out to be the kind of publicity they want?
Explain how pirates aren't a good reason for robotic freighters. It's not like the crew is going to fight them tooth and nail over their cargo. They're going to do what every crew that survives pirate attack does: hide out somewhere, hopefully behind a bulkhead, with a big heavy door that locks from the inside, and hope the pirates don't A) find out where they are and/or B) care enough to find a way in and kill them.
Why do you insist on diluting the term "activist judge?" It has a specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with "judges who do things that are inconvenient for the ruling elite." and more to do with judges who find things in international jurisprudence and "penumbras" to justify rulings which are often popular but are also really unconstitutional.
If you can't think of a reason it might be a bad thing for judges to rule based on popular consensus, you're not thinking hard enough.
Clearly, there are a number of people here and elsewhere that desire for easily duplicatable artistic works to be available for as large a number of people to enjoy as the ease of duplication makes feasable.
At the moment, the regular market is not providing this, leading to black market solutions.
But the problem with the black market solution, and also the "get rid of copyright entirely" solution is that the pendulum swings too far the other way, removing the ability for people to become professional artists would reduce the amount and quality of such works.
CC addresses part of this issue by providing a means for artists to donate all or part of their work to the public domain, but their scope and means are not adequate to the problem at hand.
What we really need is an organiation (or many) charged with the task of buying works into the public domain. It should not be too difficult to estimate the total monetary value of the various works and thus the total remaining monetary value. If a rights-buying organization offered the remaining monetary value, a rights-holder would be irrational not to sell and realize the remaining value *now* rather than letting it trickle in.
Since there is little profit in this area, such organizations would probably have to be funded mostly by donation, and with limited budgets, would have to carefully choose the works purchased. I propose that one method would be to maximize the total monetary value of works purchased. Such an organization would eventually snap up the more popular works, but mostly quite a ways into the tail due to limited budgets. Another organization could buy "good" works, for whatever value of good that they choose, etc.
Such organizations could be established right now under the current copyright framework, so where are they?
Not only that, but you also have the right to inspect the part, even if they're sending it to be re manufactured to save you a bit of money. Now, whether or not you have the ability to usefully determine anything with your inspection, they must let you see any parts removed.
Meh, if they can get the money from leasing the unused bandwidth (They shouldn't ever *sell* spectrum, that misunderstands the nature of the resource) to more useful industry, then it's really a wash tax-money wise. And that actually addresses the "worth it" question as well: if they make money on the deal, then it is a result of increased utility, and was a good idea. If it's a net loser, then they wasted resources on either reduced utility or too small of an increase in utility to justify the move.
The only question that really exists is whether they have the authority to control and lease portions of the spectrum at all.
So.. Are you saying they should just take any old light bulb and just jam it in there, regardless of how well it fits? Or are you saying they should buy all their light bulbs from the socket supplier, thereby implicitly locking them into an indefinite future lighting contract?
Woah there, jump-to-conclusions man, the "rebate vouchers" for digital tuners haven't even been printed yet. Therefore the massive campaign to sell subsidized digital tuners also hasn't begun yet. Expect there to be plenty of warning given once the "rebates" are offered. I would put even money on there being a tuner available before February 17, 2009 priced to be free with "rebate."
There's no reason to get all excited and upset about this issue this far in advance. OTA broadcasters aren't just going to quit broadcasting. They'll fund the advertising for the tuners and "rebates" themselves if they have to.
I have heard it said, though I've never done the math myself, and it might've been a crackpot, that a black hole the size of the universe would have the density of the universe as well. So, maybe we're *already* in a black hole.
Anyone who's experienced at driving on ice and deep snow will tell you that you can't avoid the snow bank, but antilock brakes help by taking your foot OFF the brakes hundreds of times a second during a braking maneuver. But on ice, you're not going to get much stopping power either way.
And what happened to YOU is that your wheels slipped, for whatever reason, probably because you were driving too fast to begin with. The ABS had nothing to do with it, except that it was also incapable of stopping the slide once it occurred. Probably there was a panic brake in there at some point as well. Also, if you panic brake too hard, the antilock bit won't kick in.
If you must drive in ice and snow, some of rules are: 1) don't 2) don't go so fast 3) don't pretend your "all-weather" tires do anything useful. Snow tires are marginally helpful, chains slightly more so, but there's no good solution, really. 4) you're still going too fast. slow down. 5) turn into the slide. 6) accelerate out of the slide (you want your wheels to spin at roughly the samme speed as you're traveling, to get back in that nice _s territory) 7) you're going too fast, again. 8) crawl your way out of the opposing lane, and quit driving so fast, someone else could be in YOUR lane.
I'm sure there's more. No one is "good" at driving in those conditions, though I'm sure there're plenty of people who'll tell you they are.
Yeah, but remember where we're down-thread of. You gonna tell your grandmother to get a spool? What about the rest of your family? Or are you willing to cable them all for them? and at-cost, because if you actually charged what you're worth, your homemade cables would be more expensive than the store-bought ones, unless they had a lot of cabling to install.
You just don't get it, do you. Well, you've got good company. Negroponte himself doesn't seem to understand the significance of the project he started.
I can afford to get the charity version. I still won't, because the nature of the distribution makes me think it's a scam: I don't think they're as cheap as they claim. I don't think you're actually paying for two, one of which goes to a needy person.
But he's completely ignoring two other groups of people. People who would be able to benefit from the cheap laptop because they're poor, but have enough that they could afford the non-charity price, and people that don't give a crap about charity, and would just like it's features.
Even assuming that they're telling the truth about the cost to make them, Do you think they'd get more money for the charity by selling them a 100% markup, or by selling at more conventional tech-marketplace margins to a much higher volume? If he dropped the markup to say, 20% of current cost, I'd bet he'd get far more than 5x more orders.* But he's too concerned about "not getting any capitalism in my charity" to see that option. Keep in mind, also, that a lot of the "pay double" people could still be enticed to pay double, even in an environment where they're not forced to.
*and this is where I suspect scammage, actually. I just don't believe anyone can be so anti-pragmatic in the execution of charity, so that leaves me with the assumption that the current markup is actually closer to ~30% or so, not the claimed 100% and the $199 price is an estimated after future process efficiencies are realized price.
Seriously.. If they really are as cheap as they say they are, why not just sell them? (not at cost obviously, but for a reasonable markup.) Let the efficiencies of scale from selling to whomever can use one drop the price even more.
The problem they're trying to solve is "not enough inexpensive, durable computers for the poor" right? They're not secretly really trying to solve, "not enough fashionable, useless charities to show off how much I care and how trendy I am" instead, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Serenity bedroom would be pretty unique though: The room itself would be on the first floor, but the DOOR is on the second...
Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.
Wait, wait.. There are people, whom you interview, who expect that what they say is likely to appear in print in some form, but they won't agree (demand, even) to audio recording?
I'd assume they're angling for a "misquote" and not even bother with the interview. They want to use you for free publicity, but cast you aside if it doesn't turn out to be the kind of publicity they want?
Explain how pirates aren't a good reason for robotic freighters. It's not like the crew is going to fight them tooth and nail over their cargo. They're going to do what every crew that survives pirate attack does: hide out somewhere, hopefully behind a bulkhead, with a big heavy door that locks from the inside, and hope the pirates don't A) find out where they are and/or B) care enough to find a way in and kill them.
Why do you insist on diluting the term "activist judge?" It has a specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with "judges who do things that are inconvenient for the ruling elite." and more to do with judges who find things in international jurisprudence and "penumbras" to justify rulings which are often popular but are also really unconstitutional.
If you can't think of a reason it might be a bad thing for judges to rule based on popular consensus, you're not thinking hard enough.
So.. it being a joke lets you off the hook for wantonly insulting Linux developers? No come-backs, counter-claims, or parodies allowed?
Clearly, there are a number of people here and elsewhere that desire for easily duplicatable artistic works to be available for as large a number of people to enjoy as the ease of duplication makes feasable.
At the moment, the regular market is not providing this, leading to black market solutions.
But the problem with the black market solution, and also the "get rid of copyright entirely" solution is that the pendulum swings too far the other way, removing the ability for people to become professional artists would reduce the amount and quality of such works.
CC addresses part of this issue by providing a means for artists to donate all or part of their work to the public domain, but their scope and means are not adequate to the problem at hand.
What we really need is an organiation (or many) charged with the task of buying works into the public domain. It should not be too difficult to estimate the total monetary value of the various works and thus the total remaining monetary value. If a rights-buying organization offered the remaining monetary value, a rights-holder would be irrational not to sell and realize the remaining value *now* rather than letting it trickle in.
Since there is little profit in this area, such organizations would probably have to be funded mostly by donation, and with limited budgets, would have to carefully choose the works purchased. I propose that one method would be to maximize the total monetary value of works purchased. Such an organization would eventually snap up the more popular works, but mostly quite a ways into the tail due to limited budgets. Another organization could buy "good" works, for whatever value of good that they choose, etc.
Such organizations could be established right now under the current copyright framework, so where are they?
Not only that, but you also have the right to inspect the part, even if they're sending it to be re manufactured to save you a bit of money. Now, whether or not you have the ability to usefully determine anything with your inspection, they must let you see any parts removed.
Pray tell, Mr. Hey-Soos triple-six, can you still send messages if you run out of birds?
Not only that, but spoofed headers are a critical plot element in a classic work of fiction!
Meh, if they can get the money from leasing the unused bandwidth (They shouldn't ever *sell* spectrum, that misunderstands the nature of the resource) to more useful industry, then it's really a wash tax-money wise. And that actually addresses the "worth it" question as well: if they make money on the deal, then it is a result of increased utility, and was a good idea. If it's a net loser, then they wasted resources on either reduced utility or too small of an increase in utility to justify the move.
The only question that really exists is whether they have the authority to control and lease portions of the spectrum at all.
So.. Are you saying they should just take any old light bulb and just jam it in there, regardless of how well it fits? Or are you saying they should buy all their light bulbs from the socket supplier, thereby implicitly locking them into an indefinite future lighting contract?
Oh wait.. it wasn't. Lemme fix that for you.
If you are in the US, you need an ATSC tuner for OTA digital programming. DVB is useless to you.
Woah there, jump-to-conclusions man, the "rebate vouchers" for digital tuners haven't even been printed yet. Therefore the massive campaign to sell subsidized digital tuners also hasn't begun yet. Expect there to be plenty of warning given once the "rebates" are offered. I would put even money on there being a tuner available before February 17, 2009 priced to be free with "rebate."
There's no reason to get all excited and upset about this issue this far in advance. OTA broadcasters aren't just going to quit broadcasting. They'll fund the advertising for the tuners and "rebates" themselves if they have to.
"eliminate waste" is also a medical term...
"Power output can't be measured in Attack mode."
Sigh.
I have heard it said, though I've never done the math myself, and it might've been a crackpot, that a black hole the size of the universe would have the density of the universe as well. So, maybe we're *already* in a black hole.
Anyone who's experienced at driving on ice and deep snow will tell you that you can't avoid the snow bank, but antilock brakes help by taking your foot OFF the brakes hundreds of times a second during a braking maneuver. But on ice, you're not going to get much stopping power either way.
And what happened to YOU is that your wheels slipped, for whatever reason, probably because you were driving too fast to begin with. The ABS had nothing to do with it, except that it was also incapable of stopping the slide once it occurred. Probably there was a panic brake in there at some point as well. Also, if you panic brake too hard, the antilock bit won't kick in.
If you must drive in ice and snow, some of rules are:
1) don't
2) don't go so fast
3) don't pretend your "all-weather" tires do anything useful. Snow tires are marginally helpful, chains slightly more so, but there's no good solution, really.
4) you're still going too fast. slow down.
5) turn into the slide.
6) accelerate out of the slide (you want your wheels to spin at roughly the samme
speed as you're traveling, to get back in that nice _s territory)
7) you're going too fast, again.
8) crawl your way out of the opposing lane, and quit driving so fast, someone else could be in YOUR lane.
I'm sure there's more. No one is "good" at driving in those conditions, though I'm sure there're plenty of people who'll tell you they are.
Candidate choice for office [4 choices]: 1,1,4,1,4,1,3,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,1...
is generated from real votes and not just from
Yeah, but remember where we're down-thread of. You gonna tell your grandmother to get a spool? What about the rest of your family? Or are you willing to cable them all for them? and at-cost, because if you actually charged what you're worth, your homemade cables would be more expensive than the store-bought ones, unless they had a lot of cabling to install.
You just don't get it, do you. Well, you've got good company. Negroponte himself doesn't seem to understand the significance of the project he started.
I can afford to get the charity version. I still won't, because the nature of the distribution makes me think it's a scam: I don't think they're as cheap as they claim. I don't think you're actually paying for two, one of which goes to a needy person.
But he's completely ignoring two other groups of people. People who would be able to benefit from the cheap laptop because they're poor, but have enough that they could afford the non-charity price, and people that don't give a crap about charity, and would just like it's features.
Even assuming that they're telling the truth about the cost to make them, Do you think they'd get more money for the charity by selling them a 100% markup, or by selling at more conventional tech-marketplace margins to a much higher volume? If he dropped the markup to say, 20% of current cost, I'd bet he'd get far more than 5x more orders.* But he's too concerned about "not getting any capitalism in my charity" to see that option. Keep in mind, also, that a lot of the "pay double" people could still be enticed to pay double, even in an environment where they're not forced to.
*and this is where I suspect scammage, actually. I just don't believe anyone can be so anti-pragmatic in the execution of charity, so that leaves me with the assumption that the current markup is actually closer to ~30% or so, not the claimed 100% and the $199 price is an estimated after future process efficiencies are realized price.
Why? If you started reading only the good, DRM-free books here tomorrow, you'd die before you finished.
OLPCs are like Lays potato chips:
Betcha can't buy just one!
Seriously.. If they really are as cheap as they say they are, why not just sell them? (not at cost obviously, but for a reasonable markup.) Let the efficiencies of scale from selling to whomever can use one drop the price even more.
The problem they're trying to solve is "not enough inexpensive, durable computers for the poor" right? They're not secretly really trying to solve, "not enough fashionable, useless charities to show off how much I care and how trendy I am" instead, right?