They are competing against Apple and the Apple business model. They are priced at exactly where Apple is priced at.
If they were competing, wouldn't it be cheaper rather than exactly the same price? Not that I have any further evidence of it, but rather than competing it looks more like collusion to me.
But see, that would put an end to the extremely profitable portable device accessories market where chargers that cost $0.30 to make are sold for $30.00. Can't have that, now can we!?
Excellent points. Combine computer actors who don't age and perpetual copyright and you have decades of entertainment product without the need for creativity!
That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point.
This is the same stupid argument the cowardly Democrats have been using to betray every one of their supposed principles in the last 20 years. The Republicans will attack Obama as being soft on terror NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES! Look at John Kerry, who was on a swift boat on the rivers of Vietnam and personally was involved in small arms combat in which he was wounded. Compare that to Bush who got his daddy to pull strings to get out of real service during the war. Despite this obvious difference, the Republicans attacked KERRY for being a coward. It was a completely ridiculous conceit but the media played right along as they always do. They even attacked triple-amputee veteran Max Cleland for being soft on terror.
Besides that, fuck them if they attack you. You do the right thing no matter what the consequences, that's leadership, that's "change." You don't vote for a bill that is definitionally unconstitutional, NO MATTER WHAT! It's not like there were armed brownshirt thugs ringing the Senate chambers demanding he vote for the bill. He did it on his own accord. He won't be getting a dime of the hundreds of dollars I was going to give to his campaign, and he probably will not get my vote either, depending on his behavior in the next few months. As president his job would be to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." He has demonstrated that he can't do that, and is therefore not fit for the job.
I agree that Obama's campaign has been marked by vagueness, but on this particular issue he was actually rather clear about opposing telecom immunity, but then did an about face. I was planning on supporting him both financially and with labor to help get him elected, but now he gets nothing from me. I'll give my money to the new batch of Democratic congresspeople and candidates, many of whom are unapologetically progressive and reject telecom amnesty.
Finally, something powerful enough to stop George Washington! I hope these things are hardened against radiation too, cause that's what he and his thirty god damn dicks are made out of.
Unfortunately, it is still only a "closed source" crack proprietary to SlySoft. Looks like someone needs to crack AnyDVDHD so that we can get an open source implementation of the BD+ crack.
Where do scientists earn $300k/year? This is a typical amount for a grant, which would pay salaries of the principal investigator, graduate students, post docs, as well as equipment and overhead (which if you are lucky is only a 50% tax on all of that, often significantly higher). There are very few scientists who would make that much in salary, though I know M.D. medical researchers make a pretty comfortable living.
One of the consequences of the rapid rise of the internet is the clumsiness of the responses to the problems that have arisen as a result. It also has resulted in responses that imagine new phenomenon in "cyberspace" that aren't fundamentally new. Bullying has been around forever. Bullying on the internet is new only because it is on the internet, there is nothing fundamentally different about it that would warrant coining a new term "cyber bullying," but yet here we are talking about it. Are there laws against bullying or harassment? If so, apply them to these cases, it's the message not the medium. The concept of "cyber bullying" among other fad terms will be looked at as quaint even 10 years from now, much like the panic over rock and roll music in the 50's.
My system is just so much easier to use in a general sense using free software. My computer used to feel like a wrestling ring with two dozen different companies and a few organized criminals duking it out while I tried to keep things from falling apart, with anti-spyware and anti-virus programs acting like my assistant referrees. That feeling is just gone. I don't think I could go back to the way things were before and be happy working that way now. That really is the most eloquent description I've ever heard of the difference between using Windows and Linux.
My fairly limited experience has been that the journal does charge the author, but I'm sure there are others that do not as you say. I would say that for those that do charge, the author fee is a smaller percent of their total revenue than subscriptions, since those might add up to ~$20k-$30k per month for 20-30 articles, where they may get $2k-3k per month per large institution subscribing, which could be in the hundreds of schools depending on the journal. These are rough estimates and probably vary widely between journals.
This is a move in the right direction towards an acceptable model of academic publishing. I find it interesting and not surprising that this policy was proposed by a computer science professor, I think this is the open source philosophy spilling over into non-computer-code realms. For those that are not familiar with the publication process, and who might have some misconceptions as to where money and labor comes from, here's a basic rundown:
The author, more often than not funded with tax dollars, submits a fully written manuscript to a journal
The journal arranges to have one or more individuals in the field review this manuscript and give their input. These people are anonymous volunteers and are unpaid.
The journal sends the anonymous comments to the author, the author makes corrections and resubmits.
Steps 2 and 3 are repeated until the manuscript is either accepted or rejected.
If accepted, the author pays the journal for publishing (typically $1k or more for a single article).
The journal fixes small typographical errors, typesets the documents, and publishes the article online (as PDF) and in paper form.
In order to access the published material, one must have a paid subscription, either individual or institutional, the latter often being tens of thousands of dollars per year per journal, pushing total subscription costs for institutions well into the millions of dollars per year. So, for the revenues generated from both authors paying publishing fees and institutions and individuals paying (often hefty) subscriptions, the journal arranges unpaid peer reviewing and typesets and publishes the manuscript, that's it. In addition to the subscription fees, the journal retains copyright to the works published. So we have a situation where taxpayer-funded research is stuck behind a very expensive wall. In my opinion this research must be freely available to the public, period. The question then is, if journals are not replaced with a different model, who pays them to keep them in business? I propose that the journals be contracted by the federal government and paid directly. Government (whether state or federal in the U.S.) is already paying the journals, both through grant money for author publishing fees as well as institutional subscriptions, but what it is getting is closed to the public. A direct payment keeps the journals in business (they do provide an important service) and the information is publicly available. I don't know how feasible this scheme is, but it's an idea to fix a broken system.
"But that's not good for capitalism, so it isn't the goal of capitalism!" while sitting on Mommy's lap or at Mommy's Marxist University Actually the tendency for capitalism to eat itself alive with its drive for monopolization is accepted in and is part of Marxist economic theory. Another contradiction of capitalism that is an observation in Marxist theory is the desire of an individual firm to pay its employees as little as possible, but that depends on well-paid consumers having enough money to buy their products. That's my personal favorite.
What's wrong with 'mythfrontend' that Totem needs to get involved? It does a terrible job of playing back high-definition video. I have a two-tuner Mythtv box with a standard-def and high-def tuner. I know my system is powerful enough to playback high-definition video because there are no problems using xine, mplayer, and totem. When playing back HD content in mythfrontend on the same machine however, there are frequent pauses in the video playback. This is a widely reported problem. Being able to use Totem as a form of frontend would be nice, as I currently have to open HD shows manually with xine, and have to figure out which file is the one I want based on the Mythtv file naming scheme (which is logical but does not include the program name). It's a small hassle but count me in as being interested in Mythtv integration in Totem. Ideally the mythfrontend player would be improved so that this wouldn't be necessary, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them. The official statistic for unemployment is around 7.7 million individuals right now. If we are to believe the RIAA, approximately 10% of unemployment for the entire economy of the U.S. is due to music and movie copyright infringement. This is completely absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Herb Kohl is one of the few good guys left in Congress...he's pushing this in part simply because he's disgusted with the telecom companies.
Really? Is that why he voted for retroactive immunity for their crimes? That's a funny way of showing disgust.
If they were competing, wouldn't it be cheaper rather than exactly the same price? Not that I have any further evidence of it, but rather than competing it looks more like collusion to me.
They're in Denver.
But see, that would put an end to the extremely profitable portable device accessories market where chargers that cost $0.30 to make are sold for $30.00. Can't have that, now can we!?
Excellent points. Combine computer actors who don't age and perpetual copyright and you have decades of entertainment product without the need for creativity!
That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point.
This is the same stupid argument the cowardly Democrats have been using to betray every one of their supposed principles in the last 20 years. The Republicans will attack Obama as being soft on terror NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES! Look at John Kerry, who was on a swift boat on the rivers of Vietnam and personally was involved in small arms combat in which he was wounded. Compare that to Bush who got his daddy to pull strings to get out of real service during the war. Despite this obvious difference, the Republicans attacked KERRY for being a coward. It was a completely ridiculous conceit but the media played right along as they always do. They even attacked triple-amputee veteran Max Cleland for being soft on terror.
Besides that, fuck them if they attack you. You do the right thing no matter what the consequences, that's leadership, that's "change." You don't vote for a bill that is definitionally unconstitutional, NO MATTER WHAT! It's not like there were armed brownshirt thugs ringing the Senate chambers demanding he vote for the bill. He did it on his own accord. He won't be getting a dime of the hundreds of dollars I was going to give to his campaign, and he probably will not get my vote either, depending on his behavior in the next few months. As president his job would be to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." He has demonstrated that he can't do that, and is therefore not fit for the job.
I agree that Obama's campaign has been marked by vagueness, but on this particular issue he was actually rather clear about opposing telecom immunity, but then did an about face. I was planning on supporting him both financially and with labor to help get him elected, but now he gets nothing from me. I'll give my money to the new batch of Democratic congresspeople and candidates, many of whom are unapologetically progressive and reject telecom amnesty.
Given how successful the mobile rovers have been, does anyone know about the logic of going with a stationary lander this time around?
Finally, something powerful enough to stop George Washington! I hope these things are hardened against radiation too, cause that's what he and his thirty god damn dicks are made out of.
Mod parent +1 Cute.
If iSee one more product name with an 'i' in front of it, iThink iWill have to stab my left iOut then my right iOut.
The Monty Hall scenario assumes I wouldn't rather ride...er, I mean pick the goat over the car.
One of the consequences of the rapid rise of the internet is the clumsiness of the responses to the problems that have arisen as a result. It also has resulted in responses that imagine new phenomenon in "cyberspace" that aren't fundamentally new. Bullying has been around forever. Bullying on the internet is new only because it is on the internet, there is nothing fundamentally different about it that would warrant coining a new term "cyber bullying," but yet here we are talking about it. Are there laws against bullying or harassment? If so, apply them to these cases, it's the message not the medium. The concept of "cyber bullying" among other fad terms will be looked at as quaint even 10 years from now, much like the panic over rock and roll music in the 50's.
You are completely right on all counts, I don't really believe what I said. It was just a sarcastic dig at the telecoms.
AT&T and Verizon, huh? They probably just want to phase out analog because it is easier to store digital phone calls to sell to the government.
My fairly limited experience has been that the journal does charge the author, but I'm sure there are others that do not as you say. I would say that for those that do charge, the author fee is a smaller percent of their total revenue than subscriptions, since those might add up to ~$20k-$30k per month for 20-30 articles, where they may get $2k-3k per month per large institution subscribing, which could be in the hundreds of schools depending on the journal. These are rough estimates and probably vary widely between journals.
This is a move in the right direction towards an acceptable model of academic publishing. I find it interesting and not surprising that this policy was proposed by a computer science professor, I think this is the open source philosophy spilling over into non-computer-code realms. For those that are not familiar with the publication process, and who might have some misconceptions as to where money and labor comes from, here's a basic rundown:
In order to access the published material, one must have a paid subscription, either individual or institutional, the latter often being tens of thousands of dollars per year per journal, pushing total subscription costs for institutions well into the millions of dollars per year. So, for the revenues generated from both authors paying publishing fees and institutions and individuals paying (often hefty) subscriptions, the journal arranges unpaid peer reviewing and typesets and publishes the manuscript, that's it. In addition to the subscription fees, the journal retains copyright to the works published. So we have a situation where taxpayer-funded research is stuck behind a very expensive wall. In my opinion this research must be freely available to the public, period. The question then is, if journals are not replaced with a different model, who pays them to keep them in business? I propose that the journals be contracted by the federal government and paid directly. Government (whether state or federal in the U.S.) is already paying the journals, both through grant money for author publishing fees as well as institutional subscriptions, but what it is getting is closed to the public. A direct payment keeps the journals in business (they do provide an important service) and the information is publicly available. I don't know how feasible this scheme is, but it's an idea to fix a broken system.