Who gets the contract to do the fiber? How much should be paid to do this contract? Should everyone get it or only dense populations? How dense do the populations have to be? How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
Who gets the maintenance contracts? How much do we pay for the maintenance contracts? How much maintenance should be spent on all fiber or should only dense populations get it? How dense do the populations have to be? How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
Who gets to use the fiber? How much do we charge companies to use this fiber? How do we ensure its being used for the right purposes and companies aren't bidding for contacts and locking in those customers? Who is responsible for faults in the network? How are costs allocated?
The market is fine, the solution is to deregulate so companies are forced to compete, as opposed to the more segregated systems that we are used to now a days.
I don't recall anyone ever saying "To have a free market, it must be provided by public Government services", a free market can never have any Government regulation or intervention, else it is not a free market.
1) A McDonalds Junior Manager understands that a marketing orientation is better than a product or production orientation?
2) A McDonalds Junior Manager understands that when the business uses their own product they get a better sense of its flaws and similar, which allows for them to make better decisions?
3) A McDownalds Junior Manager understands that a business does not need to produce a perfect work, and can use iterative processes to improve it over time?
4) A McDonalds Junior Manager would know not to consider sunk costs when making business decisions?
5) A McDonalds Junior Manager would know to develop a product which reaches different kinds of customers, however limit its scope to only economic market segments?
6) A McDonalds Junior Manager would understand that to reduce the impact of failures it is necessary to fail early on in the development lifecycle?
Okay, I'm bored with commenting on this now...
I think you would find many people including McDonalds Junior Managers who would just say "of course" without knowing any reasoning or repercussions, and because of this if you put them in a position to make these decisions, they would fail since they would down play the impact things like this have, on every business.
I remember having a conversation with someone about how I was amazed by activity based costings ability to improve understanding about the business, quality and similar, but all I ever got back was "Of course, it's obvious". Yet later on when I brought up an example that they could use in their business, they were absolutely dumbfounded.
Oh, of course not. But it depends in the setting, if it's a casual setting (Not at work/uni) where they really don't have any reason to talk to you, and your subject is about you/something mundane you did (It may matter to you, but has no repercussions for him), then he wants you. Now there will be differing degrees and there might be something holding him back (He could be self conscious too), but I haven't seen this happen where a guy didn't want the girl.
All of my friends that are known as the "good listeners" where they "just like to listen" are the guys who are trying to score every girl the run into, no matter who they are or who they are with.
If you're trying to talk to a guy and he starts fucking around, is barely paying attention, starts making jokes, or wanders off. That guy, doesn't want you.
So if you're female and you want to know if a guy wants you, get him aside for a second then start talking about yourself, if he's trying to listen, he likes you, if he isn't, he doesn't.
Don't take this as a hard rule, there are exceptions. But if you've got a boyfriend and someone is listening to your shitty story about you and the girls out at the club, or what you said to the hair dresser, your boyfriend has a right to be pissed, because that guy is trying to score you.
But I think women know this, they just like to pretend they don't.
As Slashdot is the bastion of male nerdiness what I've read in this topic doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen all sorts of cliche ideas, theories, rules and similar, about men and women.
It really isn't that complicated, here is the only thing you need to consider.
Yourself.
Don't take into account your average income, her rating of attractiveness, what the dynamic between you and her is, some strategy out of a book or the rate of continental drift.
Chief Wigum is the only guide you need... "If it feels good, do it!"
You're attracted to that girl and you really want to grab her arse? Do it! If she doesn't go for it, she wasn't going to anyway, or she was going make you put in so much work to get here you would have lost interest by then.
Good point, I've found it's always easy to see some other guys intentions, but a womens is never accurate. There is lots of "that's just how she is", and women don't seem to know the intentions of other women.
I've stated this to most of the women I know, when a guy is hanging around you and you're making idle chit chat, if he doesn't ignore you, this generally means he wants you.
Certainly this is too clear cut for this to always be true, but if he stands there and actually thinks about what you're saying and asks you more questions when you're not talking about anything worthwhile other than what you think about some other woman, then he wants you.
Yes, that's part of collective licensing. However, which businesses get the money? How much does each business get? If every business is entitled, I'm going to start millions of businesses representing random garage bands, and get my piece of the action.
However, taking whatever you want from shop windows (as in the analogy of the GP), does have both legal and moral repercussions.
So I amend the analogy to a shop, but instead of possible theft, you have possible seemingly identical duplication.
You think? You reckon companies which don't receive revenues from this deal are not going to try and sue you/your ISP?
There never were any moral repercussions, supply a product at a competitive price, and people will pay for it. If you don't someone will copy your work and will supply it for a competitive price.
Maybe a better example would be you walk into a shopping mall, but you don't buy anything, but just because you walked into the mall you have to pay for it just in case you stole something, however if you do want to buy something, then you need to pay again.
That's a more accurate description of what is happening.
This is the most retarded business idea I have ever seen.
How is it decided who gets the money, what are we paying for?
This is just another way of passing the costs on to us, however this time we don't get a valuable product in return, and there is no incentive to produce. This will inevitably cripple the music industry more than file sharing could ever do, and it will hurt the ISP industry as well (Unless it's voluntary, in which case it won't last long, since there are significant economic incentives to not do it).
I can't believe someone even considered this.
No legitimate business would ever consider this, only Government would consider a revenue stream like this.
This is pissing me off heaps right now, and I haven't even read the article. I hope this is another one of those "Slashdot went crazy and badly worded the article" moments.
Someone needs to smack them over the head with the wealth of nations followed by free to choose.
Although I am a staunch privacy advocate, I am with you on this one. However, the device should be recalibrated with time so as to not trigger on false positives, and the device should be reviewed for service after a period, to see whether it is really necessary for funding to be put into these.
I like passive monitoring... within reason.
As you outlined, the primary concern here is the tact with which the officer dealt with the situation. If he went straight for the gun and assumed it was Osama and friends, then this is ridiculous and he should lose his job, then procedures and training should be revised.
That is because of Microsofts predatory practices and absence of competitive pricing. Which is somewhat, what the article was addressing.
If you don't treat your customers badly (Read: Don't unnecessarily narrow your target market), then you will have more customers and less cost, since less development time is spent on worrying about the bad people, and more is spent on producing a quality product.
Additionally, for some reason everyone seems to assume that a lack of anti-piracy software means you are going to give your product away. This is not true, you can sell it just like you do at the moment, you just spend less money and effort trying to fuck your legitimate consumers and inadvertently developing a market for your pirated goods, which are now higher quality goods than the one you supplied.
A business that wants to use Windows or Office is probably not setting aside money in their budget to give to Microsoft if they don't legally have to.
I don't know, convince me. Specifically, that it would be in MS's economic best interests in the form of making more money or whatever exactly warms the possibly-black hearts of their shareholders. You're right. Good point! No business in their right mind is going to support the business that support them. That is just insane! That is why absolutely nobody pays for Linux!... oh... wait a minute.
</sarcasm>
All joking aside there are other strategies which don't require the law, such as: 1) pricing strategies (If the cost wasn't so absurdly high, most people would rather the original) 2) value add (If you want all the driver support, update support, telephone support, forums access, etc, you need to pay for a plan)
Additionally when talking about businesses. The majority of businesses love to support the businesses support them, the ones that don't, have a short term strategy and won't last long.
Businesses are creative. In the absence of government beating people into paying for them, they will find a way to be profitable.
I see now. So if I go to a webpage objects and similar from that page should persist in memory for the rest of the applications life time. Additionally, plugins should be free to allocate as much memory as possible. This all means it will operate faster!
Sarcasm aside, you've got a point, but you need to find a balance.
I have seen this at my organization. It is not that they don't understand that IT produces value for the company, it's that it produces it indirectly and is hard to measure. This is why a lot of accountants get to the IT department when they are using activity based costing, they often skip over it and just assign a fixed cost.
I have found that to attempt to rectify some of these problems, the IT department needs to be seen in an evolving context which better supports the organization. By this I mean the IT department needs to have it's own vision in relation to the business, which allows goals to be produced, which allows measurable progress, which allows the organization to see the IT department as not just a utility.
Additionally developing a vision for the IT department allows better communication, team generation and has many other advantages.
When originally realizing this problem I coined the term, electrical plumbers. We don't pro-actively help the business, we just fix it when it breaks.
Although it sounds inhumane, I can picture thousands if not tens of thousands of people around the world, whether they be fit and young or else wise who would kill (or be killed) to go down as the first person to ever set foot on Mars, and to be the first explorer.
Perhaps we could develop a system where by food and supply packages are sent continuously, such that he could develop and build the initial infrastructure required for a civilization on mars. However, this could be better done on the moon. We could refine a technique whereby one person or a team of people are sent to the moon, on a one way trip initially, where they can build and develop a colony, however this implies that a continual stream of supplies can be sent.
From developing a method like this, we should be able to refine it and eventually use this to continually and speedily colonize the universe. Since we only need to go one way, we just need to send a steady stream of support after them.
I only bought the $5 package, on the second day, because the servers were too lagged.
I did think that was a bad idea, however the downloading could have been handled better. I was afraid the download would stop.
As this sort of service evolves, they will develop better ways to deliver the content, and as bandwidth becomes cheaper, my guess is you'll have the ability to download it multiple times.
If iTunes changes their pricing policies to be more dynamic, perhaps it will be economical for bands like this to use their service in the future.
You will see better services as they mature, and eventually consolidate into an iTunes like service which doesn't charge so much.
Either way, you can see this is moving in the right direction.
Labels, retail outlets, etc are cut out, replaced by creditcard agencies, CD-R manufactucters, ink makers, webhosters and ISPs. Overall the new middlemen are more efficient and differect, yes, but they are still middlemen.
One role that the "new middlemen" fill very well is promotion, the traditional role of the label. NIN is in a good position right now since the whole media does that for free for them: they are an established act and do something new and to spite the established power structure. So it's news and gets reported generating publicity. New bands won't have that luxury unfortunately. I like your comparison, labels are cut out, however you go wrong after that. Retail outlets are free to purchase the CD, and have the buying power to most likely purchase it for less than we can. So they haven't been cut out. Credit card agencies, cd-r manufacturers, ink makers, web hosters and ISPs aren't the replacement. These were there in the other system, so that makes the other system not just inefficient but grossly inefficient.
Before:
Retail outlets
Labels (Recording company)
Labels (Publishers)
Credit Card Agencies
CD-R manufacturers
ink makers
web hosters
ISPs
After:
Retail outlets
Credit Card Agencies
CD-R manufacturers
ink makers
web hosters
ISPs
It's not that big of a change, however it's far better for their customers, much more efficient and in turn far better for them.
Good example. People go above and below the speed limit. There is not definitive right or wrong (Although most media campaigns on TV now a days try to convince you there is).
I know I found it frustrating when there was a large bush fire across the road from my house, and I'm trying to get home to my invalid mother and grand mother who are panicking.
The amount of people I cam up behind who were going under the speed limit on the freeway, was annoying. However, at least I was flashing my lights and so forth, and they could see a big plume of smoke so a lot of people moved over before I got there, or just as I was getting there.
I understand that they are merging to similar things, however this is not necessarily good for them. Sure they have consolidated their products (to some extent), however this only puts a greater managing burden on them selves. Do they err on the side of the processor, or the graphics processor? Which gets more attention and money?
Since they can't drop the original architecture just yet, I see this as now fighting a front on 3 sides.
Someone should smack them with the Wealth Of Nations, we divide labour around because nobody can do everything perfectly!
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets the contract to do the fiber? How much should be paid to do this contract? Should everyone get it or only dense populations? How dense do the populations have to be? How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
Who gets the maintenance contracts? How much do we pay for the maintenance contracts? How much maintenance should be spent on all fiber or should only dense populations get it? How dense do the populations have to be? How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
Who gets to use the fiber? How much do we charge companies to use this fiber? How do we ensure its being used for the right purposes and companies aren't bidding for contacts and locking in those customers? Who is responsible for faults in the network? How are costs allocated?
The market is fine, the solution is to deregulate so companies are forced to compete, as opposed to the more segregated systems that we are used to now a days.
I don't recall anyone ever saying "To have a free market, it must be provided by public Government services", a free market can never have any Government regulation or intervention, else it is not a free market.
1) A McDonalds Junior Manager understands that a marketing orientation is better than a product or production orientation?
2) A McDonalds Junior Manager understands that when the business uses their own product they get a better sense of its flaws and similar, which allows for them to make better decisions?
3) A McDownalds Junior Manager understands that a business does not need to produce a perfect work, and can use iterative processes to improve it over time?
4) A McDonalds Junior Manager would know not to consider sunk costs when making business decisions?
5) A McDonalds Junior Manager would know to develop a product which reaches different kinds of customers, however limit its scope to only economic market segments?
6) A McDonalds Junior Manager would understand that to reduce the impact of failures it is necessary to fail early on in the development lifecycle?
Okay, I'm bored with commenting on this now...
I think you would find many people including McDonalds Junior Managers who would just say "of course" without knowing any reasoning or repercussions, and because of this if you put them in a position to make these decisions, they would fail since they would down play the impact things like this have, on every business.
I remember having a conversation with someone about how I was amazed by activity based costings ability to improve understanding about the business, quality and similar, but all I ever got back was "Of course, it's obvious". Yet later on when I brought up an example that they could use in their business, they were absolutely dumbfounded.
Tell me more about beauty++
Oh, of course not. But it depends in the setting, if it's a casual setting (Not at work/uni) where they really don't have any reason to talk to you, and your subject is about you/something mundane you did (It may matter to you, but has no repercussions for him), then he wants you. Now there will be differing degrees and there might be something holding him back (He could be self conscious too), but I haven't seen this happen where a guy didn't want the girl.
All of my friends that are known as the "good listeners" where they "just like to listen" are the guys who are trying to score every girl the run into, no matter who they are or who they are with.
If you're trying to talk to a guy and he starts fucking around, is barely paying attention, starts making jokes, or wanders off. That guy, doesn't want you.
So if you're female and you want to know if a guy wants you, get him aside for a second then start talking about yourself, if he's trying to listen, he likes you, if he isn't, he doesn't.
Don't take this as a hard rule, there are exceptions. But if you've got a boyfriend and someone is listening to your shitty story about you and the girls out at the club, or what you said to the hair dresser, your boyfriend has a right to be pissed, because that guy is trying to score you.
But I think women know this, they just like to pretend they don't.
Haha, Yeah well within reason. There is no problem with it, and I haven't heard of an girls who would charge you for something like that.
As Slashdot is the bastion of male nerdiness what I've read in this topic doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen all sorts of cliche ideas, theories, rules and similar, about men and women.
It really isn't that complicated, here is the only thing you need to consider.
Yourself.
Don't take into account your average income, her rating of attractiveness, what the dynamic between you and her is, some strategy out of a book or the rate of continental drift.
Chief Wigum is the only guide you need... "If it feels good, do it!"
You're attracted to that girl and you really want to grab her arse? Do it! If she doesn't go for it, she wasn't going to anyway, or she was going make you put in so much work to get here you would have lost interest by then.
You want to talk to her about something? Do it!
Just do it!
(Full disclosure: I am a representative of Nike)
Good point, I've found it's always easy to see some other guys intentions, but a womens is never accurate. There is lots of "that's just how she is", and women don't seem to know the intentions of other women.
I've stated this to most of the women I know, when a guy is hanging around you and you're making idle chit chat, if he doesn't ignore you, this generally means he wants you.
Certainly this is too clear cut for this to always be true, but if he stands there and actually thinks about what you're saying and asks you more questions when you're not talking about anything worthwhile other than what you think about some other woman, then he wants you.
Yes, that's part of collective licensing. However, which businesses get the money? How much does each business get? If every business is entitled, I'm going to start millions of businesses representing random garage bands, and get my piece of the action.
So I amend the analogy to a shop, but instead of possible theft, you have possible seemingly identical duplication.
You think? You reckon companies which don't receive revenues from this deal are not going to try and sue you/your ISP?
There never were any moral repercussions, supply a product at a competitive price, and people will pay for it. If you don't someone will copy your work and will supply it for a competitive price.
Maybe a better example would be you walk into a shopping mall, but you don't buy anything, but just because you walked into the mall you have to pay for it just in case you stole something, however if you do want to buy something, then you need to pay again.
That's a more accurate description of what is happening.
This is the most retarded business idea I have ever seen.
How is it decided who gets the money, what are we paying for?
This is just another way of passing the costs on to us, however this time we don't get a valuable product in return, and there is no incentive to produce. This will inevitably cripple the music industry more than file sharing could ever do, and it will hurt the ISP industry as well (Unless it's voluntary, in which case it won't last long, since there are significant economic incentives to not do it).
I can't believe someone even considered this.
No legitimate business would ever consider this, only Government would consider a revenue stream like this.
This is pissing me off heaps right now, and I haven't even read the article. I hope this is another one of those "Slashdot went crazy and badly worded the article" moments.
Someone needs to smack them over the head with the wealth of nations followed by free to choose.
Although I am a staunch privacy advocate, I am with you on this one. However, the device should be recalibrated with time so as to not trigger on false positives, and the device should be reviewed for service after a period, to see whether it is really necessary for funding to be put into these.
I like passive monitoring... within reason.
As you outlined, the primary concern here is the tact with which the officer dealt with the situation. If he went straight for the gun and assumed it was Osama and friends, then this is ridiculous and he should lose his job, then procedures and training should be revised.
I think I'm the parent thread, else your post makes less sense. :-)
That is because of Microsofts predatory practices and absence of competitive pricing. Which is somewhat, what the article was addressing.
If you don't treat your customers badly (Read: Don't unnecessarily narrow your target market), then you will have more customers and less cost, since less development time is spent on worrying about the bad people, and more is spent on producing a quality product.
Additionally, for some reason everyone seems to assume that a lack of anti-piracy software means you are going to give your product away. This is not true, you can sell it just like you do at the moment, you just spend less money and effort trying to fuck your legitimate consumers and inadvertently developing a market for your pirated goods, which are now higher quality goods than the one you supplied.
I don't know, convince me. Specifically, that it would be in MS's economic best interests in the form of making more money or whatever exactly warms the possibly-black hearts of their shareholders. You're right. Good point! No business in their right mind is going to support the business that support them. That is just insane! That is why absolutely nobody pays for Linux!
</sarcasm>
All joking aside there are other strategies which don't require the law, such as:
1) pricing strategies (If the cost wasn't so absurdly high, most people would rather the original)
2) value add (If you want all the driver support, update support, telephone support, forums access, etc, you need to pay for a plan)
Additionally when talking about businesses. The majority of businesses love to support the businesses support them, the ones that don't, have a short term strategy and won't last long.
Businesses are creative. In the absence of government beating people into paying for them, they will find a way to be profitable.
Cyber Cops, keeping us safe, from our selves. Finally I don't have to worry about making a bad decision!
I see now. So if I go to a webpage objects and similar from that page should persist in memory for the rest of the applications life time. Additionally, plugins should be free to allocate as much memory as possible. This all means it will operate faster!
Sarcasm aside, you've got a point, but you need to find a balance.
WOW, Really appropriate captcha: caching
I have seen this at my organization. It is not that they don't understand that IT produces value for the company, it's that it produces it indirectly and is hard to measure. This is why a lot of accountants get to the IT department when they are using activity based costing, they often skip over it and just assign a fixed cost.
I have found that to attempt to rectify some of these problems, the IT department needs to be seen in an evolving context which better supports the organization. By this I mean the IT department needs to have it's own vision in relation to the business, which allows goals to be produced, which allows measurable progress, which allows the organization to see the IT department as not just a utility.
Additionally developing a vision for the IT department allows better communication, team generation and has many other advantages.
When originally realizing this problem I coined the term, electrical plumbers. We don't pro-actively help the business, we just fix it when it breaks.
Great point.
Although it sounds inhumane, I can picture thousands if not tens of thousands of people around the world, whether they be fit and young or else wise who would kill (or be killed) to go down as the first person to ever set foot on Mars, and to be the first explorer.
Perhaps we could develop a system where by food and supply packages are sent continuously, such that he could develop and build the initial infrastructure required for a civilization on mars. However, this could be better done on the moon. We could refine a technique whereby one person or a team of people are sent to the moon, on a one way trip initially, where they can build and develop a colony, however this implies that a continual stream of supplies can be sent.
From developing a method like this, we should be able to refine it and eventually use this to continually and speedily colonize the universe. Since we only need to go one way, we just need to send a steady stream of support after them.
I only bought the $5 package, on the second day, because the servers were too lagged.
I did think that was a bad idea, however the downloading could have been handled better. I was afraid the download would stop.
As this sort of service evolves, they will develop better ways to deliver the content, and as bandwidth becomes cheaper, my guess is you'll have the ability to download it multiple times.
If iTunes changes their pricing policies to be more dynamic, perhaps it will be economical for bands like this to use their service in the future.
You will see better services as they mature, and eventually consolidate into an iTunes like service which doesn't charge so much.
Either way, you can see this is moving in the right direction.
One role that the "new middlemen" fill very well is promotion, the traditional role of the label. NIN is in a good position right now since the whole media does that for free for them: they are an established act and do something new and to spite the established power structure. So it's news and gets reported generating publicity. New bands won't have that luxury unfortunately. I like your comparison, labels are cut out, however you go wrong after that. Retail outlets are free to purchase the CD, and have the buying power to most likely purchase it for less than we can. So they haven't been cut out. Credit card agencies, cd-r manufacturers, ink makers, web hosters and ISPs aren't the replacement. These were there in the other system, so that makes the other system not just inefficient but grossly inefficient.
Before:
After:
It's not that big of a change, however it's far better for their customers, much more efficient and in turn far better for them.
And so we see the benefits in open source software, a bug was found before it was even out in the wild, and fixed.
Hoorah for google and open source software.
Good example. People go above and below the speed limit. There is not definitive right or wrong (Although most media campaigns on TV now a days try to convince you there is).
I know I found it frustrating when there was a large bush fire across the road from my house, and I'm trying to get home to my invalid mother and grand mother who are panicking.
The amount of people I cam up behind who were going under the speed limit on the freeway, was annoying. However, at least I was flashing my lights and so forth, and they could see a big plume of smoke so a lot of people moved over before I got there, or just as I was getting there.
Only a few idiots didn't connect the dots.
I understand that they are merging to similar things, however this is not necessarily good for them. Sure they have consolidated their products (to some extent), however this only puts a greater managing burden on them selves. Do they err on the side of the processor, or the graphics processor? Which gets more attention and money?
Since they can't drop the original architecture just yet, I see this as now fighting a front on 3 sides.
Someone should smack them with the Wealth Of Nations, we divide labour around because nobody can do everything perfectly!
BULLSHIT!
I know a lot of people who have received warnings from their ISP in Australia, and I don't know one person who has taken them seriously.
This is from young users with parents to old users.
I even had a friend who, for a while received the regularly.