Note that I was speaking hypothetically. I in fact drive a car, have three children, and love taking them to the park, and while I thankfully have never had immediate need of police protection I'm certainly happy to have it there. Can you explain to me how stating that I am happy to pay taxes for projects that benefit the public is an "egocentric" or "narrow-minded" mindset, while saying "I will pay taxes only for those things which will benefit me!" is not?
Are the RIAA and MPAA ever going to realize that technology is here to stay, and that they are not going to make it go away by sending people to jail, or suing them, or by any other means? Millions of people use filesharing, and like it or not, it's here to stay. You cannot legislate out of existence something that this many people do. Just look at the shining success of the United States' "War on Drugs."
The "IP" industries have fought everything from the radio to the Betamax. In every case, when they have been slapped on the hand by the courts and told to play nicely, they have ended up making a killing off of these technologies. No one, anymore, would seriously argue that radio is the imminent death of the music industry, or that VCR's will kill moviemaking, yet that is precisely what they argued at the time.
In twenty years' time, we will be looking back and chuckling at the fact that at one point, the IP industries thought the Internet was the death of all of them. Let's just make sure that we don't still have people finishing up prison sentences left over from the hysteria.
Fallacious. I pay for roads even if I don't drive a car, schools even if I don't have children, police officers even if I never need to be protected from a crime, and parks and open space even if I choose never to visit them. Government's job is to do things which benefit a large number of people, and yes, they do that through taxation. Because not every single person to whom a government service is available chooses to use it does not mean that that service should not be offered. This seems, however, to be a shining example of how a large-scale, citywide project could benefit a large number of people, including areas in which it might be unprofitable for a corporation to offer that service.
As if we needed another example of how corporations like innovation only when they are profiting from it, and will not stand in its way only if it does not interfere with their business model. It is especially a shame to see that this is Verizon, who I almost had some respect for after they stood up for their subscribers' privacy against the RIAA.
I've seen claims that the government-offered service would be inferior and too costly. If that's the case, Verizon has nothing to worry about-people will flock to them, and the government will kill off the project for lack of interest.
On the other hand, if it is possible to set up an inexpensive, or free, wireless network, across a whole city, publicly funded or otherwise, this is an interesting idea which needs to be explored, not stifled to grant a favor to a massive corporation. If it's a bad idea, it'll die off quite nicely on its own.
Given Linux's penetration of business-level computing, and its influential role on software development as a whole, this is not really as surprising to hear as some might think. Still, it is excellent to see someone recognize this.
...because I will not be supporting Blizzard in any manner whatsoever so long as they continue the bnetd case. However, I did check out the open beta (couldn't resist!) and was greatly relieved to find out the game isn't that good anyway.
Wouldn't it seem, that rather than telling Google "You may not index this content", shouldn't they be going after the sites themselves? This makes very little sense to me. How is a site whose automated system catalogues and indexes the content a more legitimate target then the sites who deliberately put up and host the content?
First off, it looks like the FBI, -in this case-, was acting legitimately, with authority from a judge. The fact that they had only a search warrant, rather than a wiretap order, is a technicality, they could have gotten either one with probable cause (which I presume they had, since nothing has been presented to the contrary.)
However, I am concerned about the broader scope of this precedent. The earlier post and article already mentioned keylogging by everyone from jealous spouses to bosses. Do we not need to draw a line (and demand that our state legislatures do so) by enacting privacy protection for this type of scenario?
While we decry "activist judges", the fact remains that technology is quickly outpacing the laws made to cover it. Under the current strict interpretations that seem to be in vogue by the courts, laws are obsolete before they get out of their Senate committee. Someone will figure out a new way to do something that flaunts the spirit of a law without -technically- violating its letter.
Given that, it would seem that judges need to look at the intent of laws as well as their specific, strict letter. It certainly applies that "freedom of speech" applies to email and websites as well as the spoken and written word, even though such things are (obviously) not mentioned, as they didn't exist. Similarly, it would seem to me that the wiretap law is being construed quite narrowly here. The obvious intent of the law is that communication is private and protected from snooping except from legitimate law-enforcement authorities under strict court scrutiny. Bosses and spouses should, quite simply, not be allowed to monitor your communications without your explicit knowledge, consent, and full understanding of what is being snooped and when. Law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to do it except with probable cause and under court scrutiny.
It seems to me that changing the location or type of monitoring (a hardware or software keylogger rather than a traditional wiretap) still is doing exactly what this law is intended to prevent. I hope, given the judge's very narrow decision, that similar laws will be passed that protect us against similar types of snooping, from law enforcement or anyone else.
This is true, and it is true that there are probably some flaws in Linux. I would be amazed if there is one piece of software out there anywhere that cannot be improved by some means or another. However, Linux has one advantage that Micros**t does not: Anyone can look for the problem in Linux and patch it, whereas if a MS security flaw is found, we get to sit around and wait until they decide it's a problem, and then get around to writing a patch.
I have seen several arguments here that this is a perfectly harmless technology, and some of those arguments have been logical and valid. However, it still begs one question: If it is such a useful, valuable technology, why are the manufacturers not informing the customers of this "feature" in their instruction manuals or on their packaging? I checked the websites of Canon, HP, and Xerox, including the specifications of several laser printers. In none of the feature or specification listings is it said "Prints unique serial number to easily identify printer of every document!"
If this technology is so useful, wonderful, and defensible, please feel free to inform those who pay money for your products. They might have a different view to give you. There are legitimate reasons to remain anonymous. (Even if that's just that you want to.) A desire for anonymity doesn't mean that you're doing something illegal, and that mindset is extremely dangerous, getting into the "Well if you don't want cameras in your living room, what do you have to hide?" territory.
Of course it does, I don't recall saying that he should be censored either...but the fact that he objects doesn't mean that this should be pulled off the net or some similar.
I live in a free country. Namely, America. (Yes, I realize a significant number of/. readers do not, sometimes I wish I was among that number...) We have freedom of speech and expression the last I heard. If you think the game is in poor taste, by all means, do not buy or play it. To me, it just doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, but I could care less about the subject matter.
Why is there not this outcry against Call of Duty, when it recreates the tragic deaths of millions during WWII? Is a historical simulation only wrong if someone FAMOUS gets hurt?
Factory rebuilding of batteries costs near as much or more with most types of batteries than replacing them in most cases. However, if lead-acid batteries are used, they can be quickly tested by several means (load test or conductive current) to easily determine battery health. If each battery was tested after charging prior to exchange, this would minimize this issue. It's a very interesting thought. This would not work as well with Ni-MH, Li-Ion, or Li-Polymer unless a similar quick testing method were devised. With the lithium chemistries, you also have the separate issue that they are highly flammable if the "guts" are exposed to oxygen. The worst a conventional lead-acid battery will do in this event is leak some acid, so this could raise an issue with serious fire risk in the event of an accident.
I work in the field of electric storage, including batteries, and there is absolutely no reason they cannot come out with a vehicle that can't use batteries that can be rapid-charged, nor set up the charger to do them. (Granted, you would still be looking at a charge time of roughly an half-hour to an hour, little longer than it takes to get gas.) The standard deep-cycle batteries used for applications like RV's and boats cannot be charged like this, but those like the Optima and Odyssey do have this capability.
This begs the question, then, why is there not a workable electric car out there? 200 miles is plenty for the average person's daily driving, and it would be a simple matter to charge the vehicle every night. (In fact, this is better for the health of deep cycle batteries than full discharge.)
Further, a half hour recharge would only be a slight inconvenience on cross-country trips, especially since recharging stations could be set up right along the interstate, or set up in rest stops, not requiring the underground tanks and the like that a gas station does. Generally, after driving 200 miles, I for one am ready to get out of the car for a little while anyway.
The biggest downside that I see is that the cost of replacing the batteries (especially premium batteries like the Odyssey or Optima) would be considerable, given that these cars would have to use banks of 10-15 batteries, at a current cost of about $160 per battery. Of course, the massive boost to production of these would probably create competition and an economy of scale, driving the price down, as more and more migrated to electric cars. The savings on gas (which will only get more expensive) would also be considerable, although a high volume of these cars would create additional demand on the electrical grid.
Some of the comments I've seen here, to put it quite bluntly, are disgusting. I have seen it said several times now that companies "owe nothing" to those who work for them.
May I have someone's logic on this? These people are working literally every waking hour, in some cases, so that the CEO of the company can be a millionaire or billionaire. Do you mean to say that that CEO owes nothing more to those people who put him where he is then to flip them the finger, pay them the minimum possible, and take his private jet out to his yacht to reap his rewards? Do the stockholders of the company not owe it to these people to insist that they are compensated fairly for making their stock profitable?
Human beings live in a community, NOT in a vacuum. There are some rules to living in a community. It is not my belief that making one of those rules "Take as much as you can get away with and give back as little as you possibly can" is a guideline for a healthy community of any type, small or large. These workers do owe the company they work for to work hard and well, and they have done so, EA has come out with some excellent games. Now EA has a responsibility to make sure that they pay these people back for their hard work.
The concept that a company owes its employees no more than the smallest paycheck they can give them, coupled with a boot out the door as soon as they aren't useful anymore, is sad, and a serious problem. A company (and a country) owes its workers a living wage, the security that their job will not be outsourced or eliminated unless the company is in dire financial peril, and some personal time to enjoy it. We are not talking about some type of freeloaders here, we are talking about people who went through college, have sought out jobs, and are now being told to devote every waking hour to that job or they will be replaced.
I am not talking about "skilled" or "unskilled" workers, I am talking about those who work for a living, period. They are owed a decent existence. Construction workers and waiters are every bit as necessary as CEO's and accountants. Everyone who goes out every day and works deserves not to be in poverty, yet currently a 40-hour a week job at the minimum wage would place a person well below the poverty level. Something is very, very wrong.
Most of the restrictions of living in a community are moral, rather than legal, obligations. If your friend, who has helped you move five times, asks you for help with the same, he cannot take you to court to force you to help him when he asks. But he shouldn't have to. You are under a moral obligation to help.
I have no problem, however, tightening the legal restrictions and requirements on companies, since it seems evident that many will ignore their moral ones.
Re:And this surprises us because...
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
I'm happy for you. (I'm not saying that to be sarcastic or a smartass, I really am glad that such companies are still around.) However, I have still seen, witnessed, and experienced enough horror stories firsthand to know that this is a widespread problem (and not just in the IT industry), that needs to be addressed.
And this surprises us because...
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
With the -rare- exception, companies will squeeze their employees for the most they will give for the least pay they will take. We wonder why unions are still necessary? Because companies don't look out for employees' interests, they look out for their own.
If a single employee demands better working hours or more pay, he or she is replaceable. If five hundred of them do so, the employer will take notice. If five thousand do, the employer is facing a crisis, especially if these employees raise a large, public, well-founded stink. If you are being mistreated by an employer (tech or otherwise), chances are you aren't the only one. (If you are, perhaps re-examine your definition of "mistreated?") If this is common practice for the employer, your co-workers are probably just as pissed off, and sitting around waiting around for someone to tell them what to do about it.
...because these people have some sort of massive guilt complex. These are probably the same people who're off to cheat on their wives/husbands as soon as they're out of there.
Sex is a natural, healthy urge. Without it, the morons wouldn't be there. So, I propose that the far-righters lead by example and immediately and totally abstain from sex. If they stop breeding, maybe the rest of us, who will keep right at this horrific, immoral activity, can have a decent world.
Sex is nothing like crack. It is actually good for the body in many ways, as proven by medical studies. It certainly does not destroy the body and mind the way crack does. Ever met a crackhead? Ever met a person who routinely has sex? Or, for that matter, routinely watches porn? You tell me which one was in worse shape.
"With access to high-speed Internet access increasing, and the movie industry already losing $3.5 billion annually to piracy, Glickman asserted that legal action is necessary to protect the future of moviemaking."
Must be terrible...the industry is losing $3.5 BILLION a year in revenue? They must just be drowning in the losses!
"The movie industry's share of the American economy is growing--faster than the rest of the economy. And the copyright industries are creating jobs at twice the rate of the rest of the economy."
Wait a moment. This industry, suffering these massive, crippling losses from piracy, is doing BETTER than most sectors of the economy?
Here's the problem, and that is that the MPAA's figure is grossly inflated. Effectively, the MPAA figures EVERY download as a lost sale. (The MPAA's figures on downloading are also inflated, but that's pretty technical and better left to someone who can explain it comprehensively.) However, even provided that they're correct, they presume that EVERYONE who downloads a movie would have, instead, gone to a theater or bought a DVD in place of every download. (They also assume that these people don't do that anyway, and look at a lower-quality download to decide if the movie is WORTH seeing or purchasing on DVD.) This is, quite simply, not true.
It's time for the **AA's to quit whining. DESPITE widespread downloading, and bad business practices that turn customers away in large numbers, their revenues and market shares grow daily. Given that, it's hard for them to claim that downloads, whether on Internet1 or 2, are threatening to put them out of business.
Think about it a moment. The Internet, as it is designed, is specifically intended to allow the free flow of information to anyone who wants to post or send it. No one who produces IP, be it a software company, music or movie producer, or anyone else, can stop -anything- that can be made into data from being distributed in this manner. What they can do is make it more difficult to do so, while making it easy and convenient to use their software. People will pay for convenience, as has been demonstrated time and again, even if a cheaper or free option is available but more of a pain.
So, the smart company doesn't say "Pirating is theft!" (Most don't see it as such and/or don't care.) Or say "Software piracy is hurting us, we won't be able to develop further games!" (Awwww, you only made $299 million instead of $300 million on it. Don't I wish I had your problem.) What they should say is "Cracked copies may be a pain and may not work. Our version will work straight out of the box." (Maybe even throw in something about how pirated copies may contain worms/Trojans. While that's not too often true, most people wouldn't know that.)
So, what's the problem here? Valve's software WON'T work out of the box, and a cracked copy WILL! They have removed the last incentive there is to purchase a "real" copy for those with any type of computer know-how. Quite simply put, the major misunderstanding that most IP companies operate under is the assumption that computer technology and the Internet are simply going to go away, or will be put under their full and absolute control. The first is unrealistic and the second unthinkable.
Just as they have had to adapt to VCR's, tape decks, CD burners, radio, and every other type of technology invented, they are going to have to figure out how to work WITH the net rather than against it. That may involve some sort of collective licensing scheme (the best solution, to my way of thinking.) It may be to stop licensing each individual copy and instead concentrate on providing value-added support for a fee, such as tech support and customization. It may be to offer copies in an easier and more convenient manner than scouring newsgroups and getting cracks to work. It may be offering webbased services available only to registered users. It may be some combination of all of the above. But one thing's for sure: The solution lies in changing their business model to adapt to technology, not in trying to change technology to adapt to their business model.
If I understand the objections, people feel they have the right to watch commercially produced material and ignore the advertising that funds the production of the material.
-If technology allows it, sure. The providers of the material have already been paid to put the ad there. If you don't happen to -watch- it, that doesn't harm them. If you don't pay attention to the billboard you passed on the highway, does that billboard cost the advertiser less?
Can someone explain to me where that right comes from? If you object to watching the commercials in order to see the material, then by all means DO NOT WATCH IT! If you would rather pay directly for the material to be watched, then feel free to do so (HBO etc..) But stop thinking you have some right to watch material that costs money to produce without giving the producers a chance to recoup the investment - you DO NOT.
-That right comes from my ability to control my computer, television set, or anything else I have bought and paid for. If the content providers wish to put advertising in anything, paid-for or not, that is their right. If I wish to devise a means to skip them, that is my right.
And what right is the objection based on to stopping people from blatantly stealing copyrighted material?
-You equate copyright infringement with theft, a tiresome analogy and an incorrect one. If you break into my car and steal it, that is theft. You now have use of my car, which you did not pay for, and I no longer have use of it.
-What you equate is far more tenuous. If I let a friend borrow my car once a week, saving him from having to purchase a second car, have I "stolen" from Ford or Chevy? Sharing != theft. I fully agree that COMMERCIAL piracy should be considered a crime. However, non-commercial sharing, in which the sharer does not make a profit, is not an act of theft.
-The RIAA/MPAA do not belong in my living room. Once I purchase content, they can't tell me how many people may be at my house party and listen to/watch it. They cannot come around and assess me some sort of "exhibition fee" for using the material in this way. Why? Because the exhibition is noncommercial. An author cannot prosecute me for loaning a book to a friend, preventing them needing to buy a copy. Why? Because this, again, is noncommercial. (In fact, libraries are allowed to do this on a wide scale.) So why should RIAA/MPAA be allowed to tell me that I cannot, noncommercially, share those things I purchased with someone, whether that person is across the room or across the globe? This is most certainly a double standard.
I think 3 years is way too short of a prison sentence. If you are criminal enough to walk into a movie theater with a video camera, record a movie and then post it on the internet you deserve to be hung by your balls (or tits) in public for 5 years.
-This is a far harsher sentence then that inflicted on even a child rapist. Is this truly a more serious crime?
You are a drag on society. You probably will steal food from the poor as well since you have no moral judgment. We do not need you in modern society and there are plenty of third world countries where you are still welcome - I would support deportation.
-See above on equating copyright with theft, as well as harshness of penalty for a nonviolent crime (if you consider it a crime at all).
Thank you for bringing this bill to my attention, I plan on supporting it
-And remember kids, downloading is theft, but charging $50 for a 10-cent CD because of what's on it is capitalism!
Uhhhh...riiight. And of course, the fact that they have proof of this is why they're so reluctant to put them on trial?
Maybe they're not "telling what they know" because they DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, and should be given the same right to be charged and answer those charges in a fair and public trial as anyone else? And just maybe then it'd appear that they're telling the truth, rather then doing "disappearances" just like Saddam?
(Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?)
Slashdot Mirror
Note that I was speaking hypothetically. I in fact drive a car, have three children, and love taking them to the park, and while I thankfully have never had immediate need of police protection I'm certainly happy to have it there. Can you explain to me how stating that I am happy to pay taxes for projects that benefit the public is an "egocentric" or "narrow-minded" mindset, while saying "I will pay taxes only for those things which will benefit me!" is not?
Are the RIAA and MPAA ever going to realize that technology is here to stay, and that they are not going to make it go away by sending people to jail, or suing them, or by any other means? Millions of people use filesharing, and like it or not, it's here to stay. You cannot legislate out of existence something that this many people do. Just look at the shining success of the United States' "War on Drugs."
The "IP" industries have fought everything from the radio to the Betamax. In every case, when they have been slapped on the hand by the courts and told to play nicely, they have ended up making a killing off of these technologies. No one, anymore, would seriously argue that radio is the imminent death of the music industry, or that VCR's will kill moviemaking, yet that is precisely what they argued at the time.
In twenty years' time, we will be looking back and chuckling at the fact that at one point, the IP industries thought the Internet was the death of all of them. Let's just make sure that we don't still have people finishing up prison sentences left over from the hysteria.
Can you quote me one spot in the article where someone is suggesting nationalizing Verizon?
...NOW.
Fallacious. I pay for roads even if I don't drive a car, schools even if I don't have children, police officers even if I never need to be protected from a crime, and parks and open space even if I choose never to visit them. Government's job is to do things which benefit a large number of people, and yes, they do that through taxation. Because not every single person to whom a government service is available chooses to use it does not mean that that service should not be offered. This seems, however, to be a shining example of how a large-scale, citywide project could benefit a large number of people, including areas in which it might be unprofitable for a corporation to offer that service.
As if we needed another example of how corporations like innovation only when they are profiting from it, and will not stand in its way only if it does not interfere with their business model. It is especially a shame to see that this is Verizon, who I almost had some respect for after they stood up for their subscribers' privacy against the RIAA.
I've seen claims that the government-offered service would be inferior and too costly. If that's the case, Verizon has nothing to worry about-people will flock to them, and the government will kill off the project for lack of interest.
On the other hand, if it is possible to set up an inexpensive, or free, wireless network, across a whole city, publicly funded or otherwise, this is an interesting idea which needs to be explored, not stifled to grant a favor to a massive corporation. If it's a bad idea, it'll die off quite nicely on its own.
Given Linux's penetration of business-level computing, and its influential role on software development as a whole, this is not really as surprising to hear as some might think. Still, it is excellent to see someone recognize this.
...because I will not be supporting Blizzard in any manner whatsoever so long as they continue the bnetd case. However, I did check out the open beta (couldn't resist!) and was greatly relieved to find out the game isn't that good anyway.
Wouldn't it seem, that rather than telling Google "You may not index this content", shouldn't they be going after the sites themselves? This makes very little sense to me. How is a site whose automated system catalogues and indexes the content a more legitimate target then the sites who deliberately put up and host the content?
First off, it looks like the FBI, -in this case-, was acting legitimately, with authority from a judge. The fact that they had only a search warrant, rather than a wiretap order, is a technicality, they could have gotten either one with probable cause (which I presume they had, since nothing has been presented to the contrary.)
However, I am concerned about the broader scope of this precedent. The earlier post and article already mentioned keylogging by everyone from jealous spouses to bosses. Do we not need to draw a line (and demand that our state legislatures do so) by enacting privacy protection for this type of scenario?
While we decry "activist judges", the fact remains that technology is quickly outpacing the laws made to cover it. Under the current strict interpretations that seem to be in vogue by the courts, laws are obsolete before they get out of their Senate committee. Someone will figure out a new way to do something that flaunts the spirit of a law without -technically- violating its letter.
Given that, it would seem that judges need to look at the intent of laws as well as their specific, strict letter. It certainly applies that "freedom of speech" applies to email and websites as well as the spoken and written word, even though such things are (obviously) not mentioned, as they didn't exist. Similarly, it would seem to me that the wiretap law is being construed quite narrowly here. The obvious intent of the law is that communication is private and protected from snooping except from legitimate law-enforcement authorities under strict court scrutiny. Bosses and spouses should, quite simply, not be allowed to monitor your communications without your explicit knowledge, consent, and full understanding of what is being snooped and when. Law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to do it except with probable cause and under court scrutiny.
It seems to me that changing the location or type of monitoring (a hardware or software keylogger rather than a traditional wiretap) still is doing exactly what this law is intended to prevent. I hope, given the judge's very narrow decision, that similar laws will be passed that protect us against similar types of snooping, from law enforcement or anyone else.
This is true, and it is true that there are probably some flaws in Linux. I would be amazed if there is one piece of software out there anywhere that cannot be improved by some means or another. However, Linux has one advantage that Micros**t does not: Anyone can look for the problem in Linux and patch it, whereas if a MS security flaw is found, we get to sit around and wait until they decide it's a problem, and then get around to writing a patch.
I have seen several arguments here that this is a perfectly harmless technology, and some of those arguments have been logical and valid. However, it still begs one question: If it is such a useful, valuable technology, why are the manufacturers not informing the customers of this "feature" in their instruction manuals or on their packaging? I checked the websites of Canon, HP, and Xerox, including the specifications of several laser printers. In none of the feature or specification listings is it said "Prints unique serial number to easily identify printer of every document!"
If this technology is so useful, wonderful, and defensible, please feel free to inform those who pay money for your products. They might have a different view to give you. There are legitimate reasons to remain anonymous. (Even if that's just that you want to.) A desire for anonymity doesn't mean that you're doing something illegal, and that mindset is extremely dangerous, getting into the "Well if you don't want cameras in your living room, what do you have to hide?" territory.
Of course it does, I don't recall saying that he should be censored either...but the fact that he objects doesn't mean that this should be pulled off the net or some similar.
I live in a free country. Namely, America. (Yes, I realize a significant number of /. readers do not, sometimes I wish I was among that number...) We have freedom of speech and expression the last I heard. If you think the game is in poor taste, by all means, do not buy or play it. To me, it just doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, but I could care less about the subject matter.
Why is there not this outcry against Call of Duty, when it recreates the tragic deaths of millions during WWII? Is a historical simulation only wrong if someone FAMOUS gets hurt?
Factory rebuilding of batteries costs near as much or more with most types of batteries than replacing them in most cases. However, if lead-acid batteries are used, they can be quickly tested by several means (load test or conductive current) to easily determine battery health. If each battery was tested after charging prior to exchange, this would minimize this issue. It's a very interesting thought. This would not work as well with Ni-MH, Li-Ion, or Li-Polymer unless a similar quick testing method were devised. With the lithium chemistries, you also have the separate issue that they are highly flammable if the "guts" are exposed to oxygen. The worst a conventional lead-acid battery will do in this event is leak some acid, so this could raise an issue with serious fire risk in the event of an accident.
I work in the field of electric storage, including batteries, and there is absolutely no reason they cannot come out with a vehicle that can't use batteries that can be rapid-charged, nor set up the charger to do them. (Granted, you would still be looking at a charge time of roughly an half-hour to an hour, little longer than it takes to get gas.) The standard deep-cycle batteries used for applications like RV's and boats cannot be charged like this, but those like the Optima and Odyssey do have this capability.
This begs the question, then, why is there not a workable electric car out there? 200 miles is plenty for the average person's daily driving, and it would be a simple matter to charge the vehicle every night. (In fact, this is better for the health of deep cycle batteries than full discharge.)
Further, a half hour recharge would only be a slight inconvenience on cross-country trips, especially since recharging stations could be set up right along the interstate, or set up in rest stops, not requiring the underground tanks and the like that a gas station does. Generally, after driving 200 miles, I for one am ready to get out of the car for a little while anyway.
The biggest downside that I see is that the cost of replacing the batteries (especially premium batteries like the Odyssey or Optima) would be considerable, given that these cars would have to use banks of 10-15 batteries, at a current cost of about $160 per battery. Of course, the massive boost to production of these would probably create competition and an economy of scale, driving the price down, as more and more migrated to electric cars. The savings on gas (which will only get more expensive) would also be considerable, although a high volume of these cars would create additional demand on the electrical grid.
Some of the comments I've seen here, to put it quite bluntly, are disgusting. I have seen it said several times now that companies "owe nothing" to those who work for them.
May I have someone's logic on this? These people are working literally every waking hour, in some cases, so that the CEO of the company can be a millionaire or billionaire. Do you mean to say that that CEO owes nothing more to those people who put him where he is then to flip them the finger, pay them the minimum possible, and take his private jet out to his yacht to reap his rewards? Do the stockholders of the company not owe it to these people to insist that they are compensated fairly for making their stock profitable?
Human beings live in a community, NOT in a vacuum. There are some rules to living in a community. It is not my belief that making one of those rules "Take as much as you can get away with and give back as little as you possibly can" is a guideline for a healthy community of any type, small or large. These workers do owe the company they work for to work hard and well, and they have done so, EA has come out with some excellent games. Now EA has a responsibility to make sure that they pay these people back for their hard work.
The concept that a company owes its employees no more than the smallest paycheck they can give them, coupled with a boot out the door as soon as they aren't useful anymore, is sad, and a serious problem. A company (and a country) owes its workers a living wage, the security that their job will not be outsourced or eliminated unless the company is in dire financial peril, and some personal time to enjoy it. We are not talking about some type of freeloaders here, we are talking about people who went through college, have sought out jobs, and are now being told to devote every waking hour to that job or they will be replaced.
I am not talking about "skilled" or "unskilled" workers, I am talking about those who work for a living, period. They are owed a decent existence. Construction workers and waiters are every bit as necessary as CEO's and accountants. Everyone who goes out every day and works deserves not to be in poverty, yet currently a 40-hour a week job at the minimum wage would place a person well below the poverty level. Something is very, very wrong.
Most of the restrictions of living in a community are moral, rather than legal, obligations. If your friend, who has helped you move five times, asks you for help with the same, he cannot take you to court to force you to help him when he asks. But he shouldn't have to. You are under a moral obligation to help.
I have no problem, however, tightening the legal restrictions and requirements on companies, since it seems evident that many will ignore their moral ones.
I'm happy for you. (I'm not saying that to be sarcastic or a smartass, I really am glad that such companies are still around.) However, I have still seen, witnessed, and experienced enough horror stories firsthand to know that this is a widespread problem (and not just in the IT industry), that needs to be addressed.
With the -rare- exception, companies will squeeze their employees for the most they will give for the least pay they will take. We wonder why unions are still necessary? Because companies don't look out for employees' interests, they look out for their own.
If a single employee demands better working hours or more pay, he or she is replaceable. If five hundred of them do so, the employer will take notice. If five thousand do, the employer is facing a crisis, especially if these employees raise a large, public, well-founded stink. If you are being mistreated by an employer (tech or otherwise), chances are you aren't the only one. (If you are, perhaps re-examine your definition of "mistreated?") If this is common practice for the employer, your co-workers are probably just as pissed off, and sitting around waiting around for someone to tell them what to do about it.
Maybe you should consider telling them!
...because these people have some sort of massive guilt complex. These are probably the same people who're off to cheat on their wives/husbands as soon as they're out of there.
Sex is a natural, healthy urge. Without it, the morons wouldn't be there. So, I propose that the far-righters lead by example and immediately and totally abstain from sex. If they stop breeding, maybe the rest of us, who will keep right at this horrific, immoral activity, can have a decent world.
Sex is nothing like crack. It is actually good for the body in many ways, as proven by medical studies. It certainly does not destroy the body and mind the way crack does. Ever met a crackhead? Ever met a person who routinely has sex? Or, for that matter, routinely watches porn? You tell me which one was in worse shape.
Now, if they'd only kill off those copyright/anti-privacy bills, I might develop some flicker of respect for the bastards.
The following two quotes are from the MPAA's own 11/11/04 press release:
Must be terrible...the industry is losing $3.5 BILLION a year in revenue? They must just be drowning in the losses!
Wait a moment. This industry, suffering these massive, crippling losses from piracy, is doing BETTER than most sectors of the economy?
Here's the problem, and that is that the MPAA's figure is grossly inflated. Effectively, the MPAA figures EVERY download as a lost sale. (The MPAA's figures on downloading are also inflated, but that's pretty technical and better left to someone who can explain it comprehensively.) However, even provided that they're correct, they presume that EVERYONE who downloads a movie would have, instead, gone to a theater or bought a DVD in place of every download. (They also assume that these people don't do that anyway, and look at a lower-quality download to decide if the movie is WORTH seeing or purchasing on DVD.) This is, quite simply, not true.
It's time for the **AA's to quit whining. DESPITE widespread downloading, and bad business practices that turn customers away in large numbers, their revenues and market shares grow daily. Given that, it's hard for them to claim that downloads, whether on Internet1 or 2, are threatening to put them out of business.
Think about it a moment. The Internet, as it is designed, is specifically intended to allow the free flow of information to anyone who wants to post or send it. No one who produces IP, be it a software company, music or movie producer, or anyone else, can stop -anything- that can be made into data from being distributed in this manner. What they can do is make it more difficult to do so, while making it easy and convenient to use their software. People will pay for convenience, as has been demonstrated time and again, even if a cheaper or free option is available but more of a pain.
So, the smart company doesn't say "Pirating is theft!" (Most don't see it as such and/or don't care.) Or say "Software piracy is hurting us, we won't be able to develop further games!" (Awwww, you only made $299 million instead of $300 million on it. Don't I wish I had your problem.) What they should say is "Cracked copies may be a pain and may not work. Our version will work straight out of the box." (Maybe even throw in something about how pirated copies may contain worms/Trojans. While that's not too often true, most people wouldn't know that.)
So, what's the problem here? Valve's software WON'T work out of the box, and a cracked copy WILL! They have removed the last incentive there is to purchase a "real" copy for those with any type of computer know-how. Quite simply put, the major misunderstanding that most IP companies operate under is the assumption that computer technology and the Internet are simply going to go away, or will be put under their full and absolute control. The first is unrealistic and the second unthinkable.
Just as they have had to adapt to VCR's, tape decks, CD burners, radio, and every other type of technology invented, they are going to have to figure out how to work WITH the net rather than against it. That may involve some sort of collective licensing scheme (the best solution, to my way of thinking.) It may be to stop licensing each individual copy and instead concentrate on providing value-added support for a fee, such as tech support and customization. It may be to offer copies in an easier and more convenient manner than scouring newsgroups and getting cracks to work. It may be offering webbased services available only to registered users. It may be some combination of all of the above. But one thing's for sure: The solution lies in changing their business model to adapt to technology, not in trying to change technology to adapt to their business model.
If I understand the objections, people feel they have the right to watch commercially produced material and ignore the advertising that funds the production of the material.
-If technology allows it, sure. The providers of the material have already been paid to put the ad there. If you don't happen to -watch- it, that doesn't harm them. If you don't pay attention to the billboard you passed on the highway, does that billboard cost the advertiser less?
-That right comes from my ability to control my computer, television set, or anything else I have bought and paid for. If the content providers wish to put advertising in anything, paid-for or not, that is their right. If I wish to devise a means to skip them, that is my right.
And what right is the objection based on to stopping people from blatantly stealing copyrighted material?
-You equate copyright infringement with theft, a tiresome analogy and an incorrect one. If you break into my car and steal it, that is theft. You now have use of my car, which you did not pay for, and I no longer have use of it.
-What you equate is far more tenuous. If I let a friend borrow my car once a week, saving him from having to purchase a second car, have I "stolen" from Ford or Chevy? Sharing != theft. I fully agree that COMMERCIAL piracy should be considered a crime. However, non-commercial sharing, in which the sharer does not make a profit, is not an act of theft.
-The RIAA/MPAA do not belong in my living room. Once I purchase content, they can't tell me how many people may be at my house party and listen to/watch it. They cannot come around and assess me some sort of "exhibition fee" for using the material in this way. Why? Because the exhibition is noncommercial. An author cannot prosecute me for loaning a book to a friend, preventing them needing to buy a copy. Why? Because this, again, is noncommercial. (In fact, libraries are allowed to do this on a wide scale.) So why should RIAA/MPAA be allowed to tell me that I cannot, noncommercially, share those things I purchased with someone, whether that person is across the room or across the globe? This is most certainly a double standard.
I think 3 years is way too short of a prison sentence. If you are criminal enough to walk into a movie theater with a video camera, record a movie and then post it on the internet you deserve to be hung by your balls (or tits) in public for 5 years. -This is a far harsher sentence then that inflicted on even a child rapist. Is this truly a more serious crime? You are a drag on society. You probably will steal food from the poor as well since you have no moral judgment. We do not need you in modern society and there are plenty of third world countries where you are still welcome - I would support deportation. -See above on equating copyright with theft, as well as harshness of penalty for a nonviolent crime (if you consider it a crime at all). Thank you for bringing this bill to my attention, I plan on supporting it -And remember kids, downloading is theft, but charging $50 for a 10-cent CD because of what's on it is capitalism!Uhhhh...riiight. And of course, the fact that they have proof of this is why they're so reluctant to put them on trial? Maybe they're not "telling what they know" because they DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, and should be given the same right to be charged and answer those charges in a fair and public trial as anyone else? And just maybe then it'd appear that they're telling the truth, rather then doing "disappearances" just like Saddam? (Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?)