...Apple [is] making massive inroads into the student laptop market. That's the classic opinion-former group, and losing that market is usually regarded as a very bad thing.
Yep. Those college students have influence over younger students because they're "cool" and also over their parents because they're "so tech-savvy." Not to mention that in a few years, they'll be helping their employers decide what computers to buy.
My parents' Windows machine seems to get slower every day. If I were still living at home to help them make the transition, I'd tell them to switch to a Mac.
By the way, I think it does stand to reason that if there is a being who can create matter and energy from nothing, including all the laws that govern them and time itself, that being would not be limited by the laws of the physical universe any more than you are limited by the conditional statements in the programs you write.
"Is it possible for an omnipotent creature to create a rock so heavy that he can not lift it?". Both answers would mean he's not omnipotent. So that makes all such religions look.. well.. PLAIN STUPID.
This is a silly argument. The response of C.S. Lewis was that omnipotence does not mean "ability to do things that are inherently impossible." A square circle is a non-thing, therefore even an omnipotent God cannot make it. Nonsense doesn't become sense just because you insert the words 'God can'.
If something is logically possible, an omnipotent God could do it. And we may guess incorrectly about what's possible. But what you're doing is knocking down straw men. The God you're disproving is the one of childish belief.
You contradict yourself. Which is it? Monopolies keep prices lower, or higher? If it's the former, then that's good for the consumer, and no reason to bust-up the monopoly. If it's the latter, then a new startup company can produce the same item for a lower price and thereby reintroduce competition.
It's both. Every business seeks to maximize profits. A monopoly can set high prices and rake in the profits. If a competitor comes along with lower prices, the monopoly can use their scale and their deep pockets to undercut the price, even take a loss on sales, until the competitor goes out of business.
Once the competitor is gone, the price goes back up, and so do profits.
When one company (or cartel) exerts sole control over the price and quality of a product, that's never good for the consumer.
White-space devices will kill over-the-air free television. Reserve channels 2-51 for TV only.
Really? Assuming the threat to TV signals is real, why wouldn't internet be better than TV? Internet is an all-purpose data pipe, so you can still use it for TV if you like.
If Microsoft or the DRM disables recording the Line In at the same time as audio playback, then this technique would not work.
If Microsoft does this, they will make multi-track recording impossible on their system. Most studio recordings are made one track at a time - bass and drums, guitar, lead vocal, background vocal, etc, each get at least one track. You have to listen to what's been recorded while simultaneously recording the next instrument/vocal.
I guess they could analyze the input and output to see if they're different, but that would really bog down the system, probably get false positives for layered or echoed parts, and generally make their OS more useless.
Artsy types are doing it backwards.. They do work up front, for nobody in particular, then demand money for it. They ought to negotiate like the 99% of non-artsy types and do services rendered for money.
Congratulations! Your plan has been accepted. Here are the new chart-topping hits!
Coca-Cola I Love You
We Could Have Made It With Microsoft
Hugging You Is Like Hugging Charmin Brand Paper Towels
The moment you write it, you have the copyright. If you want to extend your copyright, only then do you need to do something.
You're partly right. As soon as you record something "in fixed form" (on paper, hard drive, CD, or whatever), the copyright is yours. But if you want to go to court over it, you'll want to have it registered.
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
What if i'm coming home late from work, and want to just check my e-mail before bed?
That's what I use my BlackBerry for - I have the Gmail app installed. Instant gratification.
I saw a video a while back for a new laptop made by someone unusual - nVidia maybe? - that came with an instant boot to basic functions like email, with an optional boot into Vista. I thought that sounded great. It also might make users realize that they don't need Vista for a lot of what they do.
I wonder if this was created as a concession to carriers? They have always been reluctant to relinquish control of handsets, and an open platform would seem very threatening to them.
For example, what if somebody writes an app to route SMS via voice channels and avoid the hefty charges? The carrier would want to know that they can pressure Google into killing that app.
There are probably valid arguments about malware, as well, but overall users will see this as unfriendly, and some of them will probably hack their devices to disable the kill switch.
With the advent of online distribution, are the traditional music industry functions of promotion, samples, radio, and marketing now nothing but costly overhead for the artists?
No. The difficulty of being independent is having to call venues, sell yourself, plan tours, design and put up posters, make websites, plan and budget recordings, do your own accounting and taxes, etc etc etc. Believe it or not, The Internet will not do all the work for you.
All of this leaves less time for writing music, practicing, and recording - the stuff you really want to do. Not to mention working your regular job and having a family life.
I think musicians should be in charge of their own business, but if they're successful enough, most of them would gladly pay to hire someone to do these "traditional music industry functions."
I'd have opposed the rescue plan too, except that Warren Buffet, who's one of the smartest financial men in America, and one of the most conservative, said it was not only a good idea, but essential. I give his opinion more weight than 90,000 folks who barely comprehend the system.
Warren Buffet also has a heck of a lot more money in the stock market than you do. Maybe he said it's essential because it benefits him. (Or maybe he's honest - I don't know.)
What I really want is for the people who made all the shady deals to be the ones who lose their money. If we taxpayers always bail them out, why wouldn't they continue to game the system?
Once the supply of fresh money stops, the stock value can only rise artificially. So sooner or later a stock market has to crash.
I'm not an economist, so I'm asking: really?
I thought the whole idea of capitalism is that labor creates value. As long as the amount of labor is increasing, shouldn't the value continue increasing?
I know that stock prices are mostly the results of wild guesses, but a share in a company should have a true (if unclear) value that boils down to "one share of lots of valuable goods and services," right?
Oh - and I should have added this: if there's ever a point when solar energy is comparable in price to fossil fuels, it will have one big economic advantage: predictability. You don't have to try to factor in the price of sunlight in your long-term plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Those college students have influence over younger students because they're "cool" and also over their parents because they're "so tech-savvy." Not to mention that in a few years, they'll be helping their employers decide what computers to buy.
My parents' Windows machine seems to get slower every day. If I were still living at home to help them make the transition, I'd tell them to switch to a Mac.
By the way, I think it does stand to reason that if there is a being who can create matter and energy from nothing, including all the laws that govern them and time itself, that being would not be limited by the laws of the physical universe any more than you are limited by the conditional statements in the programs you write.
This is a silly argument. The response of C.S. Lewis was that omnipotence does not mean "ability to do things that are inherently impossible." A square circle is a non-thing, therefore even an omnipotent God cannot make it. Nonsense doesn't become sense just because you insert the words 'God can'.
If something is logically possible, an omnipotent God could do it. And we may guess incorrectly about what's possible. But what you're doing is knocking down straw men. The God you're disproving is the one of childish belief.
It's both. Every business seeks to maximize profits. A monopoly can set high prices and rake in the profits. If a competitor comes along with lower prices, the monopoly can use their scale and their deep pockets to undercut the price, even take a loss on sales, until the competitor goes out of business.
Once the competitor is gone, the price goes back up, and so do profits.
When one company (or cartel) exerts sole control over the price and quality of a product, that's never good for the consumer.
I'd actually like to ask about your sig.
Really? Assuming the threat to TV signals is real, why wouldn't internet be better than TV? Internet is an all-purpose data pipe, so you can still use it for TV if you like.
This seems flawed somehow. Let me see if I understand your approach.
function determineIntellgence {
if (voter.opinion != my.opinion) {
voter.isIntelligent = false;
}
}
Is that about right?
If Microsoft does this, they will make multi-track recording impossible on their system. Most studio recordings are made one track at a time - bass and drums, guitar, lead vocal, background vocal, etc, each get at least one track. You have to listen to what's been recorded while simultaneously recording the next instrument/vocal.
I guess they could analyze the input and output to see if they're different, but that would really bog down the system, probably get false positives for layered or echoed parts, and generally make their OS more useless.
Congratulations! Your plan has been accepted. Here are the new chart-topping hits!
I, for one, welcome our international, face-recognizing over... Aw, wait a minute! No, that's creepy.
You're partly right. As soon as you record something "in fixed form" (on paper, hard drive, CD, or whatever), the copyright is yours. But if you want to go to court over it, you'll want to have it registered.
From the Copyright Office website:
Yes! I tip my hat to you, sir. No further jokes are needed.
That's what I use my BlackBerry for - I have the Gmail app installed. Instant gratification.
I saw a video a while back for a new laptop made by someone unusual - nVidia maybe? - that came with an instant boot to basic functions like email, with an optional boot into Vista. I thought that sounded great. It also might make users realize that they don't need Vista for a lot of what they do.
I wonder if this was created as a concession to carriers? They have always been reluctant to relinquish control of handsets, and an open platform would seem very threatening to them.
For example, what if somebody writes an app to route SMS via voice channels and avoid the hefty charges? The carrier would want to know that they can pressure Google into killing that app.
There are probably valid arguments about malware, as well, but overall users will see this as unfriendly, and some of them will probably hack their devices to disable the kill switch.
Exactly. 99.8% of 16-year-olds don't give a rip about cholesterol, either - but someday they will.
People who don't care about DRM now will learn to care when their games/music won't work anymore.
This discriminates against those of us with super powers, who run at highway speeds.
Not anymore!
No. The difficulty of being independent is having to call venues, sell yourself, plan tours, design and put up posters, make websites, plan and budget recordings, do your own accounting and taxes, etc etc etc. Believe it or not, The Internet will not do all the work for you.
All of this leaves less time for writing music, practicing, and recording - the stuff you really want to do. Not to mention working your regular job and having a family life.
I think musicians should be in charge of their own business, but if they're successful enough, most of them would gladly pay to hire someone to do these "traditional music industry functions."
Warren Buffet also has a heck of a lot more money in the stock market than you do. Maybe he said it's essential because it benefits him. (Or maybe he's honest - I don't know.)
What I really want is for the people who made all the shady deals to be the ones who lose their money. If we taxpayers always bail them out, why wouldn't they continue to game the system?
Ha! As you can see by my handle, I was never a true nerd in the first place.
Although my PC's case has not been closed in about a year.
Aw, who am I kidding? C'mon guys, let me back in the club! :)
Yep. And in other news, those metal things inside toasters get dangerously hot.
Personally, I've given up on using half-disassembled devices.
I'm not an economist, so I'm asking: really?
I thought the whole idea of capitalism is that labor creates value. As long as the amount of labor is increasing, shouldn't the value continue increasing?
I know that stock prices are mostly the results of wild guesses, but a share in a company should have a true (if unclear) value that boils down to "one share of lots of valuable goods and services," right?
Oh - and I should have added this: if there's ever a point when solar energy is comparable in price to fossil fuels, it will have one big economic advantage: predictability. You don't have to try to factor in the price of sunlight in your long-term plans.
I agree with your skepticism regarding solar breakthroughs, much as I'd like to see one.
On the other hand, the way things are going with energy prices, solar may become competitive to fossil fuels just by standing still.
Well played!
Geek 1: "I won't be satisfied until I need an electron microscope to see my web server!"
Geek 2: "I won't be satisfied until I need a crane to plug in my web server!"