Actually, grocery stores do pay (or I should say are required to pay). As are most businesses. They usually contract a service to pipe in music and the fees are built into the subscription fees.
I don't know where the law comes down on small mom and pop outfits that have the radio on in the background, but anyplace that has piped in music is paying.
A final note: if the stores are part of a chain, there is a good chance that all the stores get the same music, since the chain can use that in-house channel to play not just light-jazzed-pop-songs, but in-store specials and other internal marketing pieces.
Calling this "novelty hunting" doesn't add to the discussion. What would you have studied? Why aren't you studying it?
Let's face it--we're still in our infancy when it comes to understanding how our minds assimilate complex concepts through language. This is one bit of research that points out that we may be able to improve reading skills by approaching reading in a manner in line with our natural visual processes rather than the way it has always been done. Would you also make such a trite remark if someone came out with a radical new keyboard design based on research that indicates that our fingers are more efficient when our hands are perpendicular to the work surface?
After spending time on the Live Ink website, reading the actual samples they provided (not just the eye-candy intro piece), and spending time reviewing the abstracts for the studys that have been done, I believe they are on the right track. I'm willing to examine this topic in regards to cognative development, linguistic/grammatical constructs, reading efficiency, and language processing. Are you?
And on a side note: The fact that some people can develop large-block speed reading skills does not negate the potential of this technology for the rest of the population, nor does it invalidate the research that prompted its creation.
I spent time on the company's website. If you go past the eye-grabbing intro piece and view their samples, there are no colors and the flow became quite natural and comfortable after the first few pages. IMHO, this is a worthwhile concept. I found I had to re-read sentences far fewer times using the sample files they provided.
Another important thing to note (also from the vendor's site) is that this is a teaching tool. Once familiar with identifying the textual structure, readers can return to block text and find a significant improvement in reading speed and comprehension.
Teaching as an adjunct prof at a private, regional, or technical college may be the trick. It is especially fun to teach adult learners who would appreciate the real-life experiences you could bring to the table (sometimes I ask the day students who come through my classroom for their feedback and they have no life experiences by which they can relate to many "soft skills" in the tech field). Now, teaching one class here or there won't make you rich, but if you enjoy it, it's worth more than money. Pick up two or three nights of teaching and you can make a reasonable living. If you have a degree that goes outside of the tech field (and the desire to do so), you could even teach some other courses in different subject areas.
The musician potentially (if s/he is the author/composer) has ownership of the written music and the lyrics. The musician also has ownership of this seemingly intangible right to profit from his/her performances and/or recordings. Other musicians may use the tune, lyrics, or both if they pay a royalty to the original owner or the current copyright holder (if the original rights were transferred). If musician B takes a song written and composed by musician A and plays it at a concert or includes it in a recording, royalties are due to musician A. When we delve into recorded and reproduced media, current law extends the same protections to those recordings. If you don't like it, work to change the law.
I agree that performed media cannot be constrained in a manner analogous to your mountain echo example--otherwise the RIAA would have a right to sue everyone who walks away from a concert while humming a tune from the show. Yet you seem to forget that musicians did not always create music simply for the enjoyment of all people. Musicians often crafted their works at the behest of dukes, barrons, lords, and ladies who would pay them for their services. The model may have changed, but musicians are still in the business of scraping out a living.
My solution to this entire scenario is two-fold. First, the recording industry should realize from history that any great product will be copied, and often it is the copy, not the original that sees real success. If they want to undercut 90+% of song swapping, they should cut the price of a track down to 25 cents (1/4 USD) or less. Their second option is to let them keep selling their full sample rate digital content for whatever price they ask, but that consumers be allowed to freely exchange music files that are at a lesser sample rate (at near-CD quality or less). That way, those who want the premium quality can pay for it. Those who don't, won't.
Poor teenagers? Don't tell the marketers. They have the absurd notion that teens typically have more disposable income than their day-job-holding parents. Wait! They're right!
Just drop the name of the company and its practice in the right place and someone will make the call to the piracy hotline.
Hey, I'm not big on ratting people out, but I'm tired of M$ justifying their high prices by being able to cite the cost of piracy. Come on people. Pay for your dang software if you want it so much.
This scenario is exactly one I've had my students contemplate time and again. When they don't get to make the calls regarding budget and purchasing, they have to deal with management's decisions. When asked to do something that you understand to be illegal or immoral, you have to choose how to respond. Asking the question in a forum like this will generate a range of answers, each dependent on the moral outlook of each respondent. I wonder if the original poster really wanted to hear how this situation could be handled, or if all that was wanted was an easy way to justify a preferred course of action (like doing it regardless of license status, and getting on with life).
I never cease to be amazed by how adept members of the human race are at deceiving themselves.
Slave labor? Yes, most of the toys in the stores are made using those in China's prisons, and we know that China's prisons are full of people placed their for their beliefs more often than not.
What a convenience! Get rid of the detractors and those dangerous house-church Christians by putting them in prison. While they're there, we can use them to feed American (and other) corporations that want cheap goods. Those poor saps in the U.S. are actually paying us to keep political and ideological prisoners! We love the United States of America!
That's why in business "first to market" does not automatically equal success. The iPod was not first to market. There is a distinct advantage to being the No. 2 (or subsequent) player--you learn from your predacessor's mistakes. Apple looked at digital music players and improved a key feature--the navigation controls. Others have done the same. Microsoft was not first to market (true across many of its products), now was it?
I'm not here to pick a fight, but I do want to challenge two of your points.
1. Untrue. "Nobody" implies 100%. It would be fair to say most people don't care about your blog. Bloggers (especially the online journal-keepers, not the true web-loggers) may have a few fans or friends who read regularly, but most people won't know they exist. Many families are starting to use blogs to replace those once-a-year newsletters.
2. Illiterate? Based on what critera? You've just proved that old saying that says most statistics are made up. Or, should I consider your claim that "nobody" wants to read someone's blog a sign of illiteracy?
3. True. So true.
Re:Things like this are easy to fix.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
IANAL, but from going through home sales and purchases a number of times now, each party must initial anywhere there was a change, to indicate that the change was accepted. If the candidate lines out an item, it may not be a valid revision unless someone with authority to represent Google also initials each stricken or modified comment.
Stated simply, government will never keep up with technology, since they are not involved in its innovation. At best, we can hope that the gap between "current" technology and that in the hands of government shrinks to the point where government is no longer living in the land of fossils.
She would not have saved money by following the Michigan link. What consumer typically has fine powdered sulfer or zinc around the house? Who has the equipment to test for mercury vapors? I'll agree that the $2k price tag for a small cleanup seems rediculous, but it's on par with cleanup for other regulated waste products that are considered hazardous. Ever priced an asbestos cleanup? I had to have my old house abated of the stuff (it wrapped all the old duct work). Ever consider having lead paint removed from a home? Big money there, too.
As environmental laws and regulations become more strict regarding levels of pollutants, we can only expect that costs for such cleanups will increase (due to demand) unless technology emerges that would make the process simpler, less time consuming, and results in a neutral waste product.
John James Smith filed a suit in Federal Court today indicting the United States Government in the death of his wife, Mary Jane Smith of Nowheretown, Pennsylvania. Mary was driving on the Interstate highway system when she was killed. Borrowing from the tactics of the R.I.A.A., the case argues that since the car was on the Federal highway, the Federal Government must be responsible for everything that happens on the highway.
Perhaps the legal community should spend some time with IT auditors. The real question that gets to the problem with the RIAAs tactics is "How do you know that...".
When you keep asking that question, it opens up opportunities to ask about the processes used to derive the answer. You keep drilling down bit by bit until you know (to a reasonable certainty) whether or not they really know what happened or whether you are being snowed. It all breaks down once you get to the ISP-assigned IP address. Unless the ISP can attest to a certainty that a customer had the IP address, they can't get anywhere. Once the IP is known, present facts (and even demonstrations!) on IP spoofing. Ask if they (the RIAA) can attest to a certainty that the traffic they monitored came, in fact, from the legitimate IP address and not from a spoofed one. They often jump that hurdle, but I don't understand why the courts keep allowing the RIAA to insist that person A was on the other side of an IP or MAC address. They are allowed to present as fact that which has no proof whatsoever. Are our judges so tech illiterate that they cannot understand such simple concepts? Would they be confused if a letter was presented into evidence with a return address of 1313 Mockingbird Lane? Could they not comprehend that anyone can print ANY reuturn address on any envelope, and they can mail it from any city (not necessarily the writer's city of origin)?
I'm just amazed by people who are so dense as to believe the entire snake-oil pitch thrown by the RIAA. Do they have a right to go after copyright violators? Absolutely? Should they be allowed to gill-net entire lakes just to prove the presence of an invasive species? No, no, a thousand times NO!
Here in Minnesota, such red-light cameras were deemed unconstitutional on a technicality (that the law enforcement officer did not directly witness the offense), but the issue was raised that some of the violations that were documented (before the cameras were ordered off) were of stolen vehicles or vehicles under the control of another. The question then comes down to how the laws are written--is the driver responsible for the illegal action, or the owner of the car? The biggest obstacle the RIAA is facing is that although they can often point to a piece of hardware or at least a street address, they cannot know who was driving the download device. I think the courts will eventually normalize the standard here as well, but it will be a painful few years before that happens.
Why introduce Mac into the enterprise (and I'm a long-time MS-guy--I teach MS curricula)???
After a while, dealing with all of the ongoing problems with PCs make Macs look very attractive--something more stable, [currently] less prone to serious vulnerabilities, largely nonexistant hardware compatibility issues... These add up fast.
That said, I think the article did a good job of noting that (at least for some), Macs required more hand-holding than the PC user base. That actually surprised me, but it does make sense. It would be for the same reason that (using one argument from the article) the artsy crowd prefers Mac--if you read between the lines. Mac users don't want to deal with technical issues--AT ALL.
Now, I've had plenty of PC users who fall into the same camp, but when you have Mac users in a mixed shop, they are probably the income generators or the premium salary crowd. They may have just enough risk-aversion-clout [the knowledge that they can whine their way out of tasks most other employees are expected to perform because the companies fear they may lose them] to get away with it.
Perhaps its also because I like to root for an underdog, but I would love to see the day where Mac is a real player in the corporate enterprise.
I'm just glad to be reading another piece of good news in the whole fair use / RIAA abuse spectacle! Thank God for a judge who was willing to look for precedent, and was not simply willing to let yet another case go by that would have kept the thumb screws down on yet another defendant.
And I've heard of monumental progress toward the treatment of MS and MD, but yet nothing difinitive. It is the way of the world with research. A new discovery ignites a glimmer of hope long enough to carry us to the next new discovery, which gives us a little more hope...
It is far better than hopelessness, but I understand your pain.
Well, if that's how they want to play, I say the school should send detention notices to every one of those buggers. If they don't show up, call their parents!
OLPC has designed a laptop that better fits the infrastructure of the developing world. In order for this suite to work, it will need to be on a industry standard (or pretty darn close cousin) PC (laptop or other). IMO, if Microsoft really wanted to accomplish the same goals as the OLPC team, they would have provided additional monetary support for that initiative.
I believe this can only be seen as one thing: Microsoft undercutting its typical pricing model to reach market segments where it has no hope of success.
HOWEVER, it begs another question for us in the West: If Microsoft can make this suite available to the developing world for only $3, why not make it available in the US (and other western markets) for only $25, or even $50.
If anything, Microsoft's willingness to sell this suite of OS and applications at this price further fuels the claims of many critics (and governments) that Microsoft has engaged in unfair markups and predatory pricing tactics. They've made it clear they can sell it for less--unless they now try to justify the rest of their (IMO) over-priced software as what is making the $3 deal possible.
Any developing governments out there want to sell me nine laptops (with this software suite) for my kids?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, grocery stores do pay (or I should say are required to pay). As are most businesses. They usually contract a service to pipe in music and the fees are built into the subscription fees.
I don't know where the law comes down on small mom and pop outfits that have the radio on in the background, but anyplace that has piped in music is paying.
A final note: if the stores are part of a chain, there is a good chance that all the stores get the same music, since the chain can use that in-house channel to play not just light-jazzed-pop-songs, but in-store specials and other internal marketing pieces.
Calling this "novelty hunting" doesn't add to the discussion. What would you have studied? Why aren't you studying it?
Let's face it--we're still in our infancy when it comes to understanding how our minds assimilate complex concepts through language. This is one bit of research that points out that we may be able to improve reading skills by approaching reading in a manner in line with our natural visual processes rather than the way it has always been done. Would you also make such a trite remark if someone came out with a radical new keyboard design based on research that indicates that our fingers are more efficient when our hands are perpendicular to the work surface?
After spending time on the Live Ink website, reading the actual samples they provided (not just the eye-candy intro piece), and spending time reviewing the abstracts for the studys that have been done, I believe they are on the right track. I'm willing to examine this topic in regards to cognative development, linguistic/grammatical constructs, reading efficiency, and language processing. Are you?
And on a side note: The fact that some people can develop large-block speed reading skills does not negate the potential of this technology for the rest of the population, nor does it invalidate the research that prompted its creation.
I spent time on the company's website. If you go past the eye-grabbing intro piece and view their samples, there are no colors and the flow became quite natural and comfortable after the first few pages. IMHO, this is a worthwhile concept. I found I had to re-read sentences far fewer times using the sample files they provided.
Another important thing to note (also from the vendor's site) is that this is a teaching tool. Once familiar with identifying the textual structure, readers can return to block text and find a significant improvement in reading speed and comprehension.
Teaching as an adjunct prof at a private, regional, or technical college may be the trick. It is especially fun to teach adult learners who would appreciate the real-life experiences you could bring to the table (sometimes I ask the day students who come through my classroom for their feedback and they have no life experiences by which they can relate to many "soft skills" in the tech field). Now, teaching one class here or there won't make you rich, but if you enjoy it, it's worth more than money. Pick up two or three nights of teaching and you can make a reasonable living. If you have a degree that goes outside of the tech field (and the desire to do so), you could even teach some other courses in different subject areas.
The musician potentially (if s/he is the author/composer) has ownership of the written music and the lyrics. The musician also has ownership of this seemingly intangible right to profit from his/her performances and/or recordings. Other musicians may use the tune, lyrics, or both if they pay a royalty to the original owner or the current copyright holder (if the original rights were transferred). If musician B takes a song written and composed by musician A and plays it at a concert or includes it in a recording, royalties are due to musician A. When we delve into recorded and reproduced media, current law extends the same protections to those recordings. If you don't like it, work to change the law.
I agree that performed media cannot be constrained in a manner analogous to your mountain echo example--otherwise the RIAA would have a right to sue everyone who walks away from a concert while humming a tune from the show. Yet you seem to forget that musicians did not always create music simply for the enjoyment of all people. Musicians often crafted their works at the behest of dukes, barrons, lords, and ladies who would pay them for their services. The model may have changed, but musicians are still in the business of scraping out a living.
My solution to this entire scenario is two-fold. First, the recording industry should realize from history that any great product will be copied, and often it is the copy, not the original that sees real success. If they want to undercut 90+% of song swapping, they should cut the price of a track down to 25 cents (1/4 USD) or less. Their second option is to let them keep selling their full sample rate digital content for whatever price they ask, but that consumers be allowed to freely exchange music files that are at a lesser sample rate (at near-CD quality or less). That way, those who want the premium quality can pay for it. Those who don't, won't.
Such sentences should be separated by two spaces if ending with a period. If ending with a question mark, the proper spacing is a single space.
My response would be along these lines:
Act? I thought that is all you folks do anyway.
Poor teenagers? Don't tell the marketers. They have the absurd notion that teens typically have more disposable income than their day-job-holding parents. Wait! They're right!
Just drop the name of the company and its practice in the right place and someone will make the call to the piracy hotline.
Hey, I'm not big on ratting people out, but I'm tired of M$ justifying their high prices by being able to cite the cost of piracy. Come on people. Pay for your dang software if you want it so much.
This scenario is exactly one I've had my students contemplate time and again. When they don't get to make the calls regarding budget and purchasing, they have to deal with management's decisions. When asked to do something that you understand to be illegal or immoral, you have to choose how to respond. Asking the question in a forum like this will generate a range of answers, each dependent on the moral outlook of each respondent. I wonder if the original poster really wanted to hear how this situation could be handled, or if all that was wanted was an easy way to justify a preferred course of action (like doing it regardless of license status, and getting on with life).
I never cease to be amazed by how adept members of the human race are at deceiving themselves.
Slave labor? Yes, most of the toys in the stores are made using those in China's prisons, and we know that China's prisons are full of people placed their for their beliefs more often than not.
What a convenience! Get rid of the detractors and those dangerous house-church Christians by putting them in prison. While they're there, we can use them to feed American (and other) corporations that want cheap goods. Those poor saps in the U.S. are actually paying us to keep political and ideological prisoners! We love the United States of America!
Anyone notice how the male mascots have spade-ends on their tails, while the female mascots' tails are bushy? Are they implying something?
That's why in business "first to market" does not automatically equal success. The iPod was not first to market. There is a distinct advantage to being the No. 2 (or subsequent) player--you learn from your predacessor's mistakes. Apple looked at digital music players and improved a key feature--the navigation controls. Others have done the same. Microsoft was not first to market (true across many of its products), now was it?
I'm not here to pick a fight, but I do want to challenge two of your points.
1. Untrue. "Nobody" implies 100%. It would be fair to say most people don't care about your blog. Bloggers (especially the online journal-keepers, not the true web-loggers) may have a few fans or friends who read regularly, but most people won't know they exist. Many families are starting to use blogs to replace those once-a-year newsletters.
2. Illiterate? Based on what critera? You've just proved that old saying that says most statistics are made up. Or, should I consider your claim that "nobody" wants to read someone's blog a sign of illiteracy?
3. True. So true.
IANAL, but from going through home sales and purchases a number of times now, each party must initial anywhere there was a change, to indicate that the change was accepted. If the candidate lines out an item, it may not be a valid revision unless someone with authority to represent Google also initials each stricken or modified comment.
Stated simply, government will never keep up with technology, since they are not involved in its innovation. At best, we can hope that the gap between "current" technology and that in the hands of government shrinks to the point where government is no longer living in the land of fossils.
We got lucky in the flooring area. The tiles we were told were likely asbestos could be sealed in by re-flooring over them.
She would not have saved money by following the Michigan link. What consumer typically has fine powdered sulfer or zinc around the house? Who has the equipment to test for mercury vapors? I'll agree that the $2k price tag for a small cleanup seems rediculous, but it's on par with cleanup for other regulated waste products that are considered hazardous. Ever priced an asbestos cleanup? I had to have my old house abated of the stuff (it wrapped all the old duct work). Ever consider having lead paint removed from a home? Big money there, too.
As environmental laws and regulations become more strict regarding levels of pollutants, we can only expect that costs for such cleanups will increase (due to demand) unless technology emerges that would make the process simpler, less time consuming, and results in a neutral waste product.
***BREAKING NEWS***
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUED IN MOTORIST DEATH CASE.
John James Smith filed a suit in Federal Court today indicting the United States Government in the death of his wife, Mary Jane Smith of Nowheretown, Pennsylvania. Mary was driving on the Interstate highway system when she was killed. Borrowing from the tactics of the R.I.A.A., the case argues that since the car was on the Federal highway, the Federal Government must be responsible for everything that happens on the highway.
Perhaps the legal community should spend some time with IT auditors. The real question that gets to the problem with the RIAAs tactics is "How do you know that...".
When you keep asking that question, it opens up opportunities to ask about the processes used to derive the answer. You keep drilling down bit by bit until you know (to a reasonable certainty) whether or not they really know what happened or whether you are being snowed. It all breaks down once you get to the ISP-assigned IP address. Unless the ISP can attest to a certainty that a customer had the IP address, they can't get anywhere. Once the IP is known, present facts (and even demonstrations!) on IP spoofing. Ask if they (the RIAA) can attest to a certainty that the traffic they monitored came, in fact, from the legitimate IP address and not from a spoofed one. They often jump that hurdle, but I don't understand why the courts keep allowing the RIAA to insist that person A was on the other side of an IP or MAC address. They are allowed to present as fact that which has no proof whatsoever. Are our judges so tech illiterate that they cannot understand such simple concepts? Would they be confused if a letter was presented into evidence with a return address of 1313 Mockingbird Lane? Could they not comprehend that anyone can print ANY reuturn address on any envelope, and they can mail it from any city (not necessarily the writer's city of origin)?
I'm just amazed by people who are so dense as to believe the entire snake-oil pitch thrown by the RIAA. Do they have a right to go after copyright violators? Absolutely? Should they be allowed to gill-net entire lakes just to prove the presence of an invasive species? No, no, a thousand times NO!
Here in Minnesota, such red-light cameras were deemed unconstitutional on a technicality (that the law enforcement officer did not directly witness the offense), but the issue was raised that some of the violations that were documented (before the cameras were ordered off) were of stolen vehicles or vehicles under the control of another. The question then comes down to how the laws are written--is the driver responsible for the illegal action, or the owner of the car? The biggest obstacle the RIAA is facing is that although they can often point to a piece of hardware or at least a street address, they cannot know who was driving the download device. I think the courts will eventually normalize the standard here as well, but it will be a painful few years before that happens.
Why introduce Mac into the enterprise (and I'm a long-time MS-guy--I teach MS curricula)???
After a while, dealing with all of the ongoing problems with PCs make Macs look very attractive--something more stable, [currently] less prone to serious vulnerabilities, largely nonexistant hardware compatibility issues... These add up fast.
That said, I think the article did a good job of noting that (at least for some), Macs required more hand-holding than the PC user base. That actually surprised me, but it does make sense. It would be for the same reason that (using one argument from the article) the artsy crowd prefers Mac--if you read between the lines. Mac users don't want to deal with technical issues--AT ALL.
Now, I've had plenty of PC users who fall into the same camp, but when you have Mac users in a mixed shop, they are probably the income generators or the premium salary crowd. They may have just enough risk-aversion-clout [the knowledge that they can whine their way out of tasks most other employees are expected to perform because the companies fear they may lose them] to get away with it.
Perhaps its also because I like to root for an underdog, but I would love to see the day where Mac is a real player in the corporate enterprise.
I'm just glad to be reading another piece of good news in the whole fair use / RIAA abuse spectacle! Thank God for a judge who was willing to look for precedent, and was not simply willing to let yet another case go by that would have kept the thumb screws down on yet another defendant.
And I've heard of monumental progress toward the treatment of MS and MD, but yet nothing difinitive. It is the way of the world with research. A new discovery ignites a glimmer of hope long enough to carry us to the next new discovery, which gives us a little more hope...
It is far better than hopelessness, but I understand your pain.
Well, if that's how they want to play, I say the school should send detention notices to every one of those buggers. If they don't show up, call their parents!
OLPC has designed a laptop that better fits the infrastructure of the developing world. In order for this suite to work, it will need to be on a industry standard (or pretty darn close cousin) PC (laptop or other). IMO, if Microsoft really wanted to accomplish the same goals as the OLPC team, they would have provided additional monetary support for that initiative.
I believe this can only be seen as one thing: Microsoft undercutting its typical pricing model to reach market segments where it has no hope of success.
HOWEVER, it begs another question for us in the West: If Microsoft can make this suite available to the developing world for only $3, why not make it available in the US (and other western markets) for only $25, or even $50.
If anything, Microsoft's willingness to sell this suite of OS and applications at this price further fuels the claims of many critics (and governments) that Microsoft has engaged in unfair markups and predatory pricing tactics. They've made it clear they can sell it for less--unless they now try to justify the rest of their (IMO) over-priced software as what is making the $3 deal possible.
Any developing governments out there want to sell me nine laptops (with this software suite) for my kids?