i feel that people were willing to put up with a certain amount of advertising on their tv at one point. the networks and cable operators realized how much money was to be made and started to place too much emphasis on the advertising [eg shows that are actually commercials, annoying animated logos and ads disrupting portions of the screen, fast forwarding of credits and split screens, ad nauseum]. eventually people staretd to fight back.
the networks abused their position and people are voting with their wallets. they are buying technology that allows them to express their disgust in the only way they really can.
the situation is similar on the internet, but without the legacy of corporate control. should we hate pop-up blockers? no? good.
so, they like the additional traffic and sales that result from the FREE ADVERTISING provided for them by google in the form of search results, but they don't like competition...
industry business indexes have been doing something similar to this in print for years. i know, i used to buy ad space in these publications.
it also appears, as others have suggested, that the majority of the cost is shuttle flight-prep work, and not hubble itself. shouldn't that be part of the shuttle re-prep budget instead of hubble's?
some quick results [not guaranteed to reflect the whole picture]:
looks like the white house lowered the priority of and cut the funding for the fixing of hubble from the budget in january and are just now spinning it out to the pleebs.
why the large increase in costs for this mission? the delay? they don't say at all. it doesn't even really sound like they're sure it will cost that much...
the article asserts that ibm is failing to live up to a strategic shift to linux. the shift is still under way. ibm is a large and complex operation. it will take a few years. no story there.
the timeframe the article is using to suggest that they are late is misleading. sam p's challenge was exactly that, a challenge. not an order or threat. it was not the deadline.
further, the issues plaguing ibm in escaping ie highlight the dangers in using non-open/non-standards compliant software quite nicely. ibm should learn from this.
finally, the article is long on innuendo, but short on fact. that is telling in an article on a subject as technical as this one.
call me a troll if you like, but i stand by my intuition.
the/. article mention that evans will be going to china, but doesn't mention that his comments are addressed to the chinese or that they concern chinese law as opposed to us law. a quick review of the posts in response to the/. article seems to confirm my suspicion that many were confused on this issue.
"ip" is a very broad term [too broad, imho]. it covers many things, including copyright, patents, and trade secrets.
if you look at your quote you will notice the mention of brake pads and birth control pills? i have never been aware that these were available via p2p or were items commonly shared between friends. these are things that are counterfeited, whether completely bogus or copies based on theft of "ip," and sold for-profit.
imho, the reuter's aricle is clearly primarily about "ip" from the point of view of a company/industry thinking about investing in new factories/development and looking to expand their markets in china. i mean, you can't outsource all your development to china if your competitors just steal your code/processes/trade secrets/etc and face limited penalties for doing so [and no, i am not a proponent of outsourcing]. the us, and many other countries, are currently investing serious amounts of money [and their futures, but that is another discussion...] in china. i think it natural that they would have concerns about the protection of "ip" in a country with such a long history of disrespect for the concept.
your definition of counterfeiting is also limited. counterfeiting involves the fradulent reproduction of any good to which value can be assigned or where you make the copy with intent to defraud. counterfeiting and fraud are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. the selling of counterfeit goods is fraud, amongst other things. the combination is often referred to as "piracy" [stealing a market?] when conducted in a large-scale, organized manner. but here i think we might devolve into arguments over semantics...
so while i understand your points and do think the us is intentionally vague on these issues, i stand by my analysis. the/. article insinuates this is a story about events in the us that concern us law and us citizens. it is not, except by indirect reference. this is a story about chinese law and us/china economic relations.
while i am not an advocate of the us pushing their own ip law on the rest of the world, nor of their blurring of the line between personal "fair use" and industrial piracy [aka counterfeiting], i still believe that the correct context here is not the one presented by the/. article.
from tfa:
"They have made good progress on this front, but there's more work to be done," Evans said. "That means criminalizing the laws as opposed to (having) just civil laws that slap some simple little fine on companies and they go on down the road. You've got to start putting people in jail."
note the emphasis on companies, not individuals in that quote. imho, the individuals targetted with jail time are the executives/presidents/ceos/gang leaders.
i believe that this is about protecting industries from large-scale, for-profit piracy/counterfeiting of their products and "ip" and not joe sixpack and his kazaa file share.
sum.zero
this title and/. article is highly misleading. did the poster rtfa?
this is about the usa pushing for china to start putting people in jail for counterfeiting. that IS widely acknowledged as "piracy."
sum.zero
"They were burning games onto the hard drive and equipping the hard drive with copying software so that the average consumer could just go ahead and copy the software themselves," she said.
she definitely shows the kind of technical knowledge and precise use of language needed for a job like this...
although i can't say i am surprised.
sum.zero
"No income was lost when I sat in the bookstore for five hours reading a really good novel off their shelf and then putting it back because I wasn't going to buy the book anyway."
i guess you haven't been inside a chapters bookstore then. they have food, beverages and seating areas specifically so you can do exactly that.
it's an added service used to differentiate from the competition, or what we used to call a loss leader.
Slashdot Mirror
it is dumb to sell "songs" that are actually nothing more than silence. i think that is pretty ridiculous.
sum.zero
it doesn't matter if they vocalize the words, we all know they are THINKING them.
sum.zero
i feel that people were willing to put up with a certain amount of advertising on their tv at one point. the networks and cable operators realized how much money was to be made and started to place too much emphasis on the advertising [eg shows that are actually commercials, annoying animated logos and ads disrupting portions of the screen, fast forwarding of credits and split screens, ad nauseum]. eventually people staretd to fight back.
the networks abused their position and people are voting with their wallets. they are buying technology that allows them to express their disgust in the only way they really can.
the situation is similar on the internet, but without the legacy of corporate control. should we hate pop-up blockers? no? good.
sum.zero
that penalizes citizens for actually complying with previous legislation.
i know we told you to cut down on the gas, but...
sum.zero
so, they like the additional traffic and sales that result from the FREE ADVERTISING provided for them by google in the form of search results, but they don't like competition...
industry business indexes have been doing something similar to this in print for years. i know, i used to buy ad space in these publications.
sum.zero
it also appears, as others have suggested, that the majority of the cost is shuttle flight-prep work, and not hubble itself. shouldn't that be part of the shuttle re-prep budget instead of hubble's?
sum.zero
msnbc bbc
some quick results [not guaranteed to reflect the whole picture]:
0 5. stm
looks like the white house lowered the priority of and cut the funding for the fixing of hubble from the budget in january and are just now spinning it out to the pleebs.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/41975
sum.zero
why the large increase in costs for this mission? the delay? they don't say at all. it doesn't even really sound like they're sure it will cost that much...
guess it's google time.
sum.zero
the article asserts that ibm is failing to live up to a strategic shift to linux. the shift is still under way. ibm is a large and complex operation. it will take a few years. no story there.
the timeframe the article is using to suggest that they are late is misleading. sam p's challenge was exactly that, a challenge. not an order or threat. it was not the deadline.
further, the issues plaguing ibm in escaping ie highlight the dangers in using non-open/non-standards compliant software quite nicely. ibm should learn from this.
finally, the article is long on innuendo, but short on fact. that is telling in an article on a subject as technical as this one.
call me a troll if you like, but i stand by my intuition.
sum.zero
the article reads to me like anti-linux/anti-ibm fud.
they seem to me to be creating a story where there isn't one, oversimplify the issues and infer that ibm is hiding something.
oh no! ibm isn't migrating fast enough! linux is not ready for prime time! ie is a must!
nothing to see here...
sum.zero
sum.zero
old band. i am getting old. soon i will be dead. sigh...
sum.zero
the /. article mention that evans will be going to china, but doesn't mention that his comments are addressed to the chinese or that they concern chinese law as opposed to us law. a quick review of the posts in response to the /. article seems to confirm my suspicion that many were confused on this issue.
/. article insinuates this is a story about events in the us that concern us law and us citizens. it is not, except by indirect reference. this is a story about chinese law and us/china economic relations.
"ip" is a very broad term [too broad, imho]. it covers many things, including copyright, patents, and trade secrets.
if you look at your quote you will notice the mention of brake pads and birth control pills? i have never been aware that these were available via p2p or were items commonly shared between friends. these are things that are counterfeited, whether completely bogus or copies based on theft of "ip," and sold for-profit.
imho, the reuter's aricle is clearly primarily about "ip" from the point of view of a company/industry thinking about investing in new factories/development and looking to expand their markets in china. i mean, you can't outsource all your development to china if your competitors just steal your code/processes/trade secrets/etc and face limited penalties for doing so [and no, i am not a proponent of outsourcing]. the us, and many other countries, are currently investing serious amounts of money [and their futures, but that is another discussion...] in china. i think it natural that they would have concerns about the protection of "ip" in a country with such a long history of disrespect for the concept.
your definition of counterfeiting is also limited. counterfeiting involves the fradulent reproduction of any good to which value can be assigned or where you make the copy with intent to defraud. counterfeiting and fraud are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. the selling of counterfeit goods is fraud, amongst other things. the combination is often referred to as "piracy" [stealing a market?] when conducted in a large-scale, organized manner. but here i think we might devolve into arguments over semantics...
so while i understand your points and do think the us is intentionally vague on these issues, i stand by my analysis. the
sum.zero
while i am not an advocate of the us pushing their own ip law on the rest of the world, nor of their blurring of the line between personal "fair use" and industrial piracy [aka counterfeiting], i still believe that the correct context here is not the one presented by the /. article.
from tfa:
"They have made good progress on this front, but there's more work to be done," Evans said. "That means criminalizing the laws as opposed to (having) just civil laws that slap some simple little fine on companies and they go on down the road. You've got to start putting people in jail."
note the emphasis on companies, not individuals in that quote. imho, the individuals targetted with jail time are the executives/presidents/ceos/gang leaders.
i believe that this is about protecting industries from large-scale, for-profit piracy/counterfeiting of their products and "ip" and not joe sixpack and his kazaa file share.
sum.zero
this title and /. article is highly misleading. did the poster rtfa?
this is about the usa pushing for china to start putting people in jail for counterfeiting. that IS widely acknowledged as "piracy."
sum.zero
"They were burning games onto the hard drive and equipping the hard drive with copying software so that the average consumer could just go ahead and copy the software themselves," she said. she definitely shows the kind of technical knowledge and precise use of language needed for a job like this... although i can't say i am surprised. sum.zero
"No income was lost when I sat in the bookstore for five hours reading a really good novel off their shelf and then putting it back because I wasn't going to buy the book anyway."
i guess you haven't been inside a chapters bookstore then. they have food, beverages and seating areas specifically so you can do exactly that.
it's an added service used to differentiate from the competition, or what we used to call a loss leader.
sum.zero