Forcing others to have give up functionality because some boneheaded nanny state bureaucrat thinks that everybody else can't adapt to technology is the epitomy of NEOLUDDITE. The "way we have always done it" has been with maps, and everybody else who is no retarded has already pointed out the the bureaucrat preferred method to help us unwashed masses is to return to that paradigm through static displays updating periodically. Government intrusion without hard data to support its mandate is nothing more that meddling by self important assholes who are spending their workdays justifying their existence.
If someone reports to you that I have been in your pool while you are at work, do you really think you can come to my door expecting that I prove to you otherwise? Do you really think you can threaten me with letters from attorneys thinking I will permit you to come in my home so you can ransack my clothes hamper so that you can sniff my laundry for errant chlorine? All of this on the word of an unsworn witness that may just not like me because I have a job and he doesn't?
Good luck with that. Next time bring the police. And a warrant.
Remember marketing and packaging is a cost that is included into the price of your computer. Total cost of any product is composed of fixed and variable costs. Your copy of Windows is a variable cost. It seems backwards, but the totality of costs vary with the number of units sold, hence variable. Fixed costs (overhead) of a small niche product may amortize out higher than the additional variable costs of each Windows copy.
[...]they are shutting down domains on the f'ing internet, not firebombing the Vatican. It sucks for those involved, it's wrong, but nobody is dying as a result of it.
It sounds to me as long as nobody gets killed, you think it's acceptable collateral damage even though you recognize it's wrong. I think it's unequivocally unacceptable anytime the government takes away somebody's property, liberty, livelihood, or reputation unjustly in its zeal to combat the boogeyman du jour.
My ex went on to marry another shortly after we divorced and left him after 13 months. She is still technically married to him since she can't divorce him due to an underwater mortgage, but she is living with another man whom she is presently engaged to. I have full custody of our kids. I don't think the problem was me.
You can never, despite how close you are to another human being, predict how that person will be in the future. I would have never believed anyone who would have suggested my ex would change how she did.
Women marry men thinking they can change them. Men marry women thinking they will never change. They are both wrong.
I guess the key word in my original post was perpetually.
If you wanted to make copyright a sane proposition, I would advocate a few changes to make it more acceptable:
Make copyright a REASONABLE FIXED maximum term, not some multi-generational annuity for the lucky few. Right now, copyright is used as a lottery win for the very lucky few to guarantee an eternal legacy to families and as a cudgel for corporations to stifle competition (essentially) forever. Untold multitudes of works are lost to history forever in the sole endeavor to milk the last remaining cent from the very few works that have value 95 years after publication.
Require clear, public registration identifying the work and the scope of the copyright to enable copyright protection and require periodic renewal. Inclusion of licensed work must be identified and referenced with its own copyright registration. If it isn't valuable enough for you to register and renew, then you shouldn't have any complaint when it drops into the public domain. That will make works available that under the current clusterf*ck can't be used because nobody knows if copyright exists anymore or who owns it if it does. Require copyright notice and registration numbers on subsequent publications of the work like patents.
What about the poor schlub who works for himself. He repairs roofs, cars, computers, or builds homes on spec. He draws no corporate salary and he can't demand the recipient of his labor and their children and their children's children pay him in perpetuity for his effort. If he is unsuccessful in his business acumen, he will end up with nothing. Your "simple stuff" makes the assumption that copyright delivers a inalienable and incontrovertible right to an income (for successful works) forever (for all intents and purposes).
I never advocated that there should be no copyright. My argument is that copyright is unworkable, untenable, and illegitimate in the eyes of the public when extended to such extreme lengths. Life plus seventy years could extend copyright to 130 years or more under the right circumstances. That is unconscionable for a country that has only existed for a little over 200 years..
The copyright compromise is that the public domain and humanity is enriched by offering the author or artist the carrot of a limited monopoly. This compromise has been hijacked by big media and left nothing but crumbs for the rest of us. There is no argument that can ever justify the unbridled robbery that the public domain has suffered at the hands the last three copyright law amendments and the corporate lackeys that voted for it.
The artist working on royalties already has the risk of being a commercial flop, a risk the salaried worker doesn't have.
That's a risk EVERY salaried worker has when he takes a job. And if he is a "commercial flop" and fails, he finds himself looking for work elsewhere doing something else. I don't hear you advocating paying the salaried worker perpetually along with his children and his children's children for work he did during his career, though.
Copyright now violates the premise of promoting the useful arts and sciences. Here is my logic:
Copyright provides framework to generate huge amounts of money
Huge amounts of money provide opportunity for lavish living
Benefactors of copyright spend copious money on drugs legal and illegal
Artists and copyright benefactors die of overdoses and cannot generate new content
Don't believe me? --> Michael Jackson, River Phoenix, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Heath Ledger, Brittany Murphy, Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse, Chris Farley, Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix...
You miss the point. By ignoring customer service, they are insuring customers will shop where customer service is better taking those sales with them. For Best Buy it is arguably Amazon. Best Buy instead obsesses over the sales numbers and squeezing the customer for that extra dollar all the while it circles the drain. As I told a friend recently regarding this issue: When your own customers hate your guts, don't expect to stay in business for long...
That's a big trend right now. Fire your customer if they represent too small of a revenue / margin stream for you. It is even used as a business strategy to get competitors to lose margin and profitability. Lucky for Best Buy's customers, Amazon, NewEgg, and Wal*Mart don't mind.
Sounds to me like it isn't working out too well for Best Buy. They just want to bitch about Amazon taking the customers which they don't apparently want.
Our local Burger King decided to remove their kids play area and replace it with a couple video game machines to cut insurance costs and make a little coin in its place. The result was all the stay at home moms found somewhere else to take their kids for lunch. Business drops and they remove the games leaving a totally empty play room taking up retail space. To cut costs, management hides the condiments under the order counter, followed by the napkins. Now you have to beg for ketchup. That's when I quit eating there.
Contrast that to the Chick-Fil-A across the street. They have a playground and all the moms that used to go to Burger King are now there. At lunch they have three people working outside helping the drive-thru. The line usually wraps all the way around the building, but I have never waited more than 4 or 5 minutes. On rainy days, they have an employee walking out to cars handing customers umbrellas to get in and out of the doors. The place is ALWAYS packed, but I never have trouble finding a seat and never wait more than a couple minutes to order. When someone leaves, their table is cleaned within a minute. The employees are friendly, helpful and polite. I costs me about 20% more than Burger King.
4) there is nobody to accept deliveries at your home during the day, meaning you either accept the high risk of theft (if the package is left by your door) or you have the pleasure spending your evening at a UPS depot on the edges of the ghetto
I do most of my shopping online now and I have never had an issue with theft. I have to admit though that my house sits on 1/2 acre so my neighbors are not sitting right on top of me and the UPS guy usually shows up around 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening. However, I never had an issue with theft when I lived in my condo either and it was quite densely populated there.
the first and second parties to the insurance are you and your insurer while the third party is the car you ran into.
I guess it all depends on your world view. For the purposes of defining the coverage scope I would personally identify parties as those involved in an accident rather than those involved in the financial transaction, but I can see how others may think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a South Park reference. The fictitious WGA (World Canadian Bureau) organized a Canadian strike in one episode.
Forcing others to have give up functionality because some boneheaded nanny state bureaucrat thinks that everybody else can't adapt to technology is the epitomy of NEOLUDDITE. The "way we have always done it" has been with maps, and everybody else who is no retarded has already pointed out the the bureaucrat preferred method to help us unwashed masses is to return to that paradigm through static displays updating periodically. Government intrusion without hard data to support its mandate is nothing more that meddling by self important assholes who are spending their workdays justifying their existence.
If someone reports to you that I have been in your pool while you are at work, do you really think you can come to my door expecting that I prove to you otherwise? Do you really think you can threaten me with letters from attorneys thinking I will permit you to come in my home so you can ransack my clothes hamper so that you can sniff my laundry for errant chlorine? All of this on the word of an unsworn witness that may just not like me because I have a job and he doesn't?
Good luck with that. Next time bring the police. And a warrant.
See Economies of Scale.
Remember marketing and packaging is a cost that is included into the price of your computer. Total cost of any product is composed of fixed and variable costs. Your copy of Windows is a variable cost. It seems backwards, but the totality of costs vary with the number of units sold, hence variable. Fixed costs (overhead) of a small niche product may amortize out higher than the additional variable costs of each Windows copy.
I believe that's Nobel prizes Mr. Spelling Nazi.
It sounds to me as long as nobody gets killed, you think it's acceptable collateral damage even though you recognize it's wrong. I think it's unequivocally unacceptable anytime the government takes away somebody's property, liberty, livelihood, or reputation unjustly in its zeal to combat the boogeyman du jour.
And that makes it okay?
What bus? There is no bus around where I live.
Speculators do not take delivery of oil. They wager on futures and sell before the contracts mature.
Bitter, I am not. Just realistic.
My ex went on to marry another shortly after we divorced and left him after 13 months. She is still technically married to him since she can't divorce him due to an underwater mortgage, but she is living with another man whom she is presently engaged to. I have full custody of our kids. I don't think the problem was me.
You can never, despite how close you are to another human being, predict how that person will be in the future. I would have never believed anyone who would have suggested my ex would change how she did.
Women marry men thinking they can change them. Men marry women thinking they will never change. They are both wrong.
For now...
I guess the key word in my original post was perpetually.
If you wanted to make copyright a sane proposition, I would advocate a few changes to make it more acceptable:
Make copyright a REASONABLE FIXED maximum term, not some multi-generational annuity for the lucky few. Right now, copyright is used as a lottery win for the very lucky few to guarantee an eternal legacy to families and as a cudgel for corporations to stifle competition (essentially) forever. Untold multitudes of works are lost to history forever in the sole endeavor to milk the last remaining cent from the very few works that have value 95 years after publication.
Require clear, public registration identifying the work and the scope of the copyright to enable copyright protection and require periodic renewal. Inclusion of licensed work must be identified and referenced with its own copyright registration. If it isn't valuable enough for you to register and renew, then you shouldn't have any complaint when it drops into the public domain. That will make works available that under the current clusterf*ck can't be used because nobody knows if copyright exists anymore or who owns it if it does. Require copyright notice and registration numbers on subsequent publications of the work like patents.
Very well...
What about the poor schlub who works for himself. He repairs roofs, cars, computers, or builds homes on spec. He draws no corporate salary and he can't demand the recipient of his labor and their children and their children's children pay him in perpetuity for his effort. If he is unsuccessful in his business acumen, he will end up with nothing. Your "simple stuff" makes the assumption that copyright delivers a inalienable and incontrovertible right to an income (for successful works) forever (for all intents and purposes).
I never advocated that there should be no copyright. My argument is that copyright is unworkable, untenable, and illegitimate in the eyes of the public when extended to such extreme lengths. Life plus seventy years could extend copyright to 130 years or more under the right circumstances. That is unconscionable for a country that has only existed for a little over 200 years..
The copyright compromise is that the public domain and humanity is enriched by offering the author or artist the carrot of a limited monopoly. This compromise has been hijacked by big media and left nothing but crumbs for the rest of us. There is no argument that can ever justify the unbridled robbery that the public domain has suffered at the hands the last three copyright law amendments and the corporate lackeys that voted for it.
This is pretty simple stuff, really....
Holy crap! That sounds like my kids. Corporations are just entitled, spoiled children.
That's a risk EVERY salaried worker has when he takes a job. And if he is a "commercial flop" and fails, he finds himself looking for work elsewhere doing something else. I don't hear you advocating paying the salaried worker perpetually along with his children and his children's children for work he did during his career, though.
Copyright now violates the premise of promoting the useful arts and sciences. Here is my logic:
Copyright provides framework to generate huge amounts of money
Huge amounts of money provide opportunity for lavish living
Benefactors of copyright spend copious money on drugs legal and illegal
Artists and copyright benefactors die of overdoses and cannot generate new content
Don't believe me? --> Michael Jackson, River Phoenix, Janis Joplin, Whitney Houston, Heath Ledger, Brittany Murphy, Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse, Chris Farley, Judy Garland, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix...
Let's just all give up our privacy so that your job is a little easier.
You miss the point. By ignoring customer service, they are insuring customers will shop where customer service is better taking those sales with them. For Best Buy it is arguably Amazon. Best Buy instead obsesses over the sales numbers and squeezing the customer for that extra dollar all the while it circles the drain. As I told a friend recently regarding this issue: When your own customers hate your guts, don't expect to stay in business for long...
That's a big trend right now. Fire your customer if they represent too small of a revenue / margin stream for you. It is even used as a business strategy to get competitors to lose margin and profitability. Lucky for Best Buy's customers, Amazon, NewEgg, and Wal*Mart don't mind.
Sounds to me like it isn't working out too well for Best Buy. They just want to bitch about Amazon taking the customers which they don't apparently want.
I realize my anecdote is fast food, but...
Our local Burger King decided to remove their kids play area and replace it with a couple video game machines to cut insurance costs and make a little coin in its place. The result was all the stay at home moms found somewhere else to take their kids for lunch. Business drops and they remove the games leaving a totally empty play room taking up retail space. To cut costs, management hides the condiments under the order counter, followed by the napkins. Now you have to beg for ketchup. That's when I quit eating there.
Contrast that to the Chick-Fil-A across the street. They have a playground and all the moms that used to go to Burger King are now there. At lunch they have three people working outside helping the drive-thru. The line usually wraps all the way around the building, but I have never waited more than 4 or 5 minutes. On rainy days, they have an employee walking out to cars handing customers umbrellas to get in and out of the doors. The place is ALWAYS packed, but I never have trouble finding a seat and never wait more than a couple minutes to order. When someone leaves, their table is cleaned within a minute. The employees are friendly, helpful and polite. I costs me about 20% more than Burger King.
Guess where I take my kids...
I do most of my shopping online now and I have never had an issue with theft. I have to admit though that my house sits on 1/2 acre so my neighbors are not sitting right on top of me and the UPS guy usually shows up around 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening. However, I never had an issue with theft when I lived in my condo either and it was quite densely populated there.
I guess it all depends on your world view. For the purposes of defining the coverage scope I would personally identify parties as those involved in an accident rather than those involved in the financial transaction, but I can see how others may think otherwise.
Shouldn't that be 2nd party or are you insuring collateral damage to bystanders? Maybe it's just a UK thing.
What I think you are describing, we call liability insurance here. To cover your own car, we call that collision insurance.
You have my permission. Take all the GPL code you can find and bit torrent the hell out of it. Make sure you seed it at least to a ratio of 2.0.
Qualifications?
Rape, arson, murder, and rape.