FTA:
To gain access to One Zone WiFi follow the easy steps below.
Open your WiFi enabled device
Use the network connections manager on your WiFi enabled device to view available wireless networks.
Select the SSID One Zone_High Speed Internet
Open your web browser and visit the new user page.
Enter your mobile phone number in the space provided.
You will instantly receive a text message containing your username and password.
Enter your username and password.
Start surfing.
Your username and password will remain valid for free service until March 2007
So what is to stop people from giving their username/password combos to their friends, or posting them in public places? Currently it's free, so maybe it's no big deal, but how about when it's a pay-for service? I wonder if a particular username can only be logged in on one device at a time? Or perhaps the username/password expires periodically (monthly if you don't pay your bill, and at the end of the "free" period in March 2007)?
The irony of "free markets" is that the less regulation the worse they perform.
Interesting. As one who has worked in the heavily regulated medical device industry, one of my favorite sayings that I utter frequently (especially when a really good idea gets squashed for "regulatory reasons") is "The more you regulate a business, the worse its products become."
I have a huge number of examples that demonstrate the truth of this statement (don't get me started). Now, that said, I agree that a completely unfettered market breeds a different kind of problem. So what are we to conclude? As in most things, the "sweet spot" is somewhere in the middle. Of course, that means you must be willing to accept mild doses of the "negative" from the two extremes. In return you get to enjoy some of the "positives" of the two extremes. I look at it like balancing your portfolio in investing terms.
Browse from within a virtual machine. Then don't save its state when you exit. BTW, this is also a nice way to avoid catching viruses or other malware.
Re:Just get it pre-installed at dell/compaq/HP/etc
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 2
You are exactly correct. Most users (the 90% who don't currently run Firefox, or something close to it) simply don't download much (at least on purpose) - especially replacements for existing stuff they already have. And to do so from some guys they never heard of named (scarily) 'Mozilla' goes against their better judgement. There are just too many reasons for them to stick with what came with their machines. After all, if this Firefox thing was better, then HP/Dell/Gateway/Lenovo would have put it on their machines in the first place, right? And nevermind the fact that many don't even have broadband, so even as svelt as Firefox is, it's a major commitment of time for dialup folks.
Actually I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.
Seriously, this is not really any different that what we have today. The "screening" is already terribly ineffective, so in the end both sides "lawyer up" and hash it out, first lawyer-to-lawyer, and then if that fails, in court. The fact that the patent was granted is not all that meaningful, since prior art very often is unearthed, retroactively rendering the patent invalid. Another common result of patent disputes is to argue the interpretation of the language in the claims... again not something that can be anticipated during the "examination" phase of a patent. I really don't see the point of trying to screen these things up front.
I think you have nailed it here. The problem is the huge number of *suspect* patents. And the primary cause of these patents is the tremendous number of filings, compounded with their increasing complexity.
Personally, I think we need a fundamental change in the patent system. It is simply too difficult to provide a gate-keeping function. The quality of the screening inevitably becomes less and less accurate and effective over time. Instead, what if companies/inventors could file their "patent" without any "examination". It would really be more of a "patent registration". The patent would become instantly public. This would dramatically diminish the perceived "power" of a patent, since anyone could get one with a minimal filing fee. Then, let the lawyers and courts sort out the conflicts. And the loser pays court costs. For the smaller inventors, perhaps some sort of "public patent defender" could be provided. In the end that system is not very unlike what we have now, except that we would save enormous resources "screening" the patents. The government's role becomes one of documentarian only. And of course the judicial system would still be involved as before, adjudicating the conflicts. This effectively postpones the "examination" process to the end, only to be done when "conflicts" are suspected by the patent holder.
You pay extra (over the XPS or the custom-built machine) in exchange for extra service/support and the style factor. That's all it is. Quality parts assembled by a quality manufacturer in a sleek case.
I would be willing to bet a few folks have asked you "How do I get rid of the old one? Will you take it away?" The best answer to this might be "Well, if you buy a Dell, they will take your old one back."
As good little consumers, we buy the best product (hail capitalism) and we evaluate the products based on commonly held beliefs about quality and service.
And as more and more people become concerned with the mess we are creating, "greeness" gets added to the list of criteria they use to select their next purchase. Smart companies (EG Dell and Nokia) perceive this new customer need and fullfill it, thereby taking that small (but growing) niche market. Eventually, due to competitive pressure, other companies follow suit. Then we have a little "green" war where each tries to outdo the other...
Seriously, for those poor SUNW stockholders... how happy that must make them to see this $6000 expenditure on the books. I mean, this is not exactly a company rolling in profits. Perhaps stunts like this are one of the reasons?
The only thing I see capable of dethrowning the iPod is a cellphone that also makes an excellent mp3 player.
I agree with you, though I still think Microsoft should not be underestimated. BTW, as it happens, I worked for a small startup who built an over-the-air music download service for cell phones, before iPod even existed. I have since left the company, but you can check them out at http://groovemobile.com/
When MS first announced XBOX who thought they would have a fighting chance against Sony's Playstation? Now here we are 4 years later. Have any of you changed your mind? Do not underestimate a company full of smart people armed with loads of cash and a long term view.
As regards iPod - personally, I carry a Pocket PC - it basically matches the specs of the Zune (except I have an SD card instead of a 30GB hard drive). It is my music player (mp3s and downloaded Yahoo Music WMAs), my PDA, my portable gaming machine and my mobile internet appliance. And I have had it for 2 years now. Battery life is phenomenal (I easily get a week on a charge). Now, that said, I bought iPod Nanos for my kids. They are the cool thing to have right now. However, cool with the younger set is a fleeting thing... check back in 3 years and see what things look like. And don't be surprised if it's a much closer race.
What does that have to do with music and how much musicians get paid?
I was reacting to the OP's suggestion that we should cap how much musicians get paid. You disagreed vehemtly with my argument, and raised many valid and excellent points. So now I have to ask, do you then agree with the assertion of the OP (the one I quoted and disagreed with)? Specifically:
Put actors and actresses and music artists at a cap of 150k
Do you really think that is a good idea to cap how much money artists can make? Will that solve anything? If so, how will that make movies and music better? By your assertion true musicians do not care about money. So how exactly does a salary cap help to improve the arts? Answer: It doesn't. It's just another simple-minded approach borne from jealousy and a distorted sense of entitlement. What the OP really meant was... I should get whatever music and movies and games I want for free because, well, because I want them. And by (over-)paying those greedy artists and corporations, I am prevented from getting what I want for free.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly folks suggest that things would be much better if only other people's salaries were capped (or confiscated/taxed and re-distributed). It always seems like a good idea, that is until someone comes along and caps YOUR salary. Then it's UNFAIR!
According to Wikipedia you are correct and I am mistaken:
"If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and may still be broad enough to bar competitors from valuable commercial territory. "
Hmmm, now you've got me thinking. Perhaps there is a patent attorney who could clarify this. I know claim 2 is dependent on claim 1. What I am not certain of is whether the composite of claim1/claim2 could be considered a valid claim even though claim 1 was deemed invalid.
Please don't call me ignorant. If you read the text of the claim, you will notice that it is an independent claim. You can indeed just read one claim if it is not dependent on prior claims. Note that claim 2 of the patent starts out with the statement (I'm paraphrasing) "A system as described in claim 1...". This is known as a dependent claim and cannot stand on its own. If claim 1 were knocked out, claim 2 automatically is knocked out. People who are not ignorant of patents realize this.
"1. A system that facilitates self-regulation of a social network comprising: a network monitoring component that watches user behavior on the social network; and an asset allocation component that allocates or re-allocates one or more assets among one or more network users based at least in part on whether the user behavior is desirable."
As I read that, the Slashdot moderation system infringes. The "network monitoring component" is the editors and the moderators. They "watch user behavior on the social network". The "asset allocation component" is the karma, which affects how broadly users' messages get seen. Lastly, "based... on whether the user behavior is desireable" is obviously a big part of the moderation system (flamebait, troll, are ways to discoiurage undesirable behavior).
Put actors and actresses and music artists at a cap of 150k anything higher than that is just a little bonus. They shouldn't be expecting millions on a small amount of work. This goes for athletes as well. Maybe if we do that, there will be better movies and albums out there.
Huh? Do you honestly think that if you take away the incentives to *get rich and famous* that there will be better movies and albums? Do you really believe that? Were you not paying attention during the last 50 years as one centrally-managed economy after another failed? Did you not notice that the products produced in those countries were orders of magnitude worse than those produced in free market economies - and losing ground with each passing decade? Did you notice that virtually all innovation sprung from countries with free market economies? Incentive breeds competition, which leads to dramatic product improvements and innovations. If you take away the incentive, everything stagnates.
With the RIAA and MPAA if they had it their way, we wouldn't have CDs or DVDs to burn on.
But we do have those, so they didn't have their way. So what exactly is the problem? Their power fades with each passing year. We are witnessing their dying gasps.
I think what they meant was WMA/MS DRM (aka PlayForSure) based players. iPods can't play WMA or DRM'd WMA, such as those files you download from services like Napster and Yahoo Music Unlimited. The comment was poorly worded, I grant you.
In what world do you live in where the "free market" isn't also only about connections?
I walk into Best Buy. I pick out a TV from a wide range of products (mfg, sizes, technologies, prices, warranties, design, etc). I rarely know the salesperson. S/he rarely knows me. Maybe I go across the street to Circuit City to shop around first. Multiply this by 100 million people doing the same thing. That is a free market. That said, you are correct that when large purchases are made, connections and "glad-handing" and all sorts of other distortions enter the picture. This is true in private-to-private purchases as well as private-to-public purchases. But the OP was suggesting that the free market is somehow flawed because Diebold still has the contract for voting machines. I was merely pointing out that this is far removed from a free market scenario, for the reasons I gave, and does not illustrate a weakness of the free market economic model.
No! There is no "free market" when the government is the customer. It's all about connections, campaign contributions, whose turn it is (I'll explain that in a minute), and many other distortions. If you accept that it is the role of government to control/regulate free enterprise so as to "smooth the rought edges" of capitalism, then how can that work when the government is also the customer? You have a serious conflict of interest.
As regards "whose turn it is" -- I worked for a defense contractor years ago. We submitted a prototype for a new missile system. Our system met all of the program requirements (size, range, accuracy, cost); plus we won the "shoot off" hands down (our competitor failed to hit a single target). However, our competitor had not won a contract in awhile and neither had any other contractors in their geographic region (ie congressional district). Consequently the contract was awarded to them. This is just one example of what goes on every day with big government contracts. It is hardly what I would call a "free market". Rather, it is more aptly called a "fixed market" - as in, "the fix is in".
I put that down to the move to 65nm, something that AMD should also get when they move to the same process.
Ummm, I think that is exactly what I said. They are competitive because 20-30% is about what a die-scale can buy you, both by virtue of smaller geometries, as well as giving you the ability to add logic, caching, and pipelines with the extra space. No, simply scaling down to 65nm probably won't allow them to pass Intel, but tweaking the design along with 65nm will go a long way towards closing the gap. My central point was there is one big advantage (65nm vs 90nm) that Intel enjoys *at the moment* that is a big factor in their better performance, and that advantage will vanish soon as AMD brings up their 65nm fab (it is already producing chips, as I understand it, but has not yet ramped to full production).
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
To gain access to One Zone WiFi follow the easy steps below.
Open your WiFi enabled device Use the network connections manager on your WiFi enabled device to view available wireless networks. Select the SSID One Zone_High Speed Internet Open your web browser and visit the new user page. Enter your mobile phone number in the space provided. You will instantly receive a text message containing your username and password. Enter your username and password. Start surfing. Your username and password will remain valid for free service until March 2007
So what is to stop people from giving their username/password combos to their friends, or posting them in public places? Currently it's free, so maybe it's no big deal, but how about when it's a pay-for service? I wonder if a particular username can only be logged in on one device at a time? Or perhaps the username/password expires periodically (monthly if you don't pay your bill, and at the end of the "free" period in March 2007)?
The irony of "free markets" is that the less regulation the worse they perform.
Interesting. As one who has worked in the heavily regulated medical device industry, one of my favorite sayings that I utter frequently (especially when a really good idea gets squashed for "regulatory reasons") is "The more you regulate a business, the worse its products become."
I have a huge number of examples that demonstrate the truth of this statement (don't get me started). Now, that said, I agree that a completely unfettered market breeds a different kind of problem. So what are we to conclude? As in most things, the "sweet spot" is somewhere in the middle. Of course, that means you must be willing to accept mild doses of the "negative" from the two extremes. In return you get to enjoy some of the "positives" of the two extremes. I look at it like balancing your portfolio in investing terms.
Surf from inside a Virtual PC.
Browse from within a virtual machine. Then don't save its state when you exit. BTW, this is also a nice way to avoid catching viruses or other malware.
I'll give you 600 reasons why it might fail.
You are exactly correct. Most users (the 90% who don't currently run Firefox, or something close to it) simply don't download much (at least on purpose) - especially replacements for existing stuff they already have. And to do so from some guys they never heard of named (scarily) 'Mozilla' goes against their better judgement. There are just too many reasons for them to stick with what came with their machines. After all, if this Firefox thing was better, then HP/Dell/Gateway/Lenovo would have put it on their machines in the first place, right? And nevermind the fact that many don't even have broadband, so even as svelt as Firefox is, it's a major commitment of time for dialup folks.
Actually I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.
... again not something that can be anticipated during the "examination" phase of a patent. I really don't see the point of trying to screen these things up front.
Seriously, this is not really any different that what we have today. The "screening" is already terribly ineffective, so in the end both sides "lawyer up" and hash it out, first lawyer-to-lawyer, and then if that fails, in court. The fact that the patent was granted is not all that meaningful, since prior art very often is unearthed, retroactively rendering the patent invalid. Another common result of patent disputes is to argue the interpretation of the language in the claims
Then a lot of the 'maybes' could be thrown out.
I think you have nailed it here. The problem is the huge number of *suspect* patents. And the primary cause of these patents is the tremendous number of filings, compounded with their increasing complexity.
Personally, I think we need a fundamental change in the patent system. It is simply too difficult to provide a gate-keeping function. The quality of the screening inevitably becomes less and less accurate and effective over time. Instead, what if companies/inventors could file their "patent" without any "examination". It would really be more of a "patent registration". The patent would become instantly public. This would dramatically diminish the perceived "power" of a patent, since anyone could get one with a minimal filing fee. Then, let the lawyers and courts sort out the conflicts. And the loser pays court costs. For the smaller inventors, perhaps some sort of "public patent defender" could be provided. In the end that system is not very unlike what we have now, except that we would save enormous resources "screening" the patents. The government's role becomes one of documentarian only. And of course the judicial system would still be involved as before, adjudicating the conflicts. This effectively postpones the "examination" process to the end, only to be done when "conflicts" are suspected by the patent holder.
You pay extra (over the XPS or the custom-built machine) in exchange for extra service/support and the style factor. That's all it is. Quality parts assembled by a quality manufacturer in a sleek case.
Sounds suspiciously like Apple.
I would be willing to bet a few folks have asked you "How do I get rid of the old one? Will you take it away?" The best answer to this might be "Well, if you buy a Dell, they will take your old one back."
As good little consumers, we buy the best product (hail capitalism) and we evaluate the products based on commonly held beliefs about quality and service.
...
And as more and more people become concerned with the mess we are creating, "greeness" gets added to the list of criteria they use to select their next purchase. Smart companies (EG Dell and Nokia) perceive this new customer need and fullfill it, thereby taking that small (but growing) niche market. Eventually, due to competitive pressure, other companies follow suit. Then we have a little "green" war where each tries to outdo the other
Hail capitalism.
Seriously, for those poor SUNW stockholders ... how happy that must make them to see this $6000 expenditure on the books. I mean, this is not exactly a company rolling in profits. Perhaps stunts like this are one of the reasons?
The only thing I see capable of dethrowning the iPod is a cellphone that also makes an excellent mp3 player.
I agree with you, though I still think Microsoft should not be underestimated. BTW, as it happens, I worked for a small startup who built an over-the-air music download service for cell phones, before iPod even existed. I have since left the company, but you can check them out at http://groovemobile.com/
When MS first announced XBOX who thought they would have a fighting chance against Sony's Playstation? Now here we are 4 years later. Have any of you changed your mind? Do not underestimate a company full of smart people armed with loads of cash and a long term view.
... check back in 3 years and see what things look like. And don't be surprised if it's a much closer race.
As regards iPod - personally, I carry a Pocket PC - it basically matches the specs of the Zune (except I have an SD card instead of a 30GB hard drive). It is my music player (mp3s and downloaded Yahoo Music WMAs), my PDA, my portable gaming machine and my mobile internet appliance. And I have had it for 2 years now. Battery life is phenomenal (I easily get a week on a charge). Now, that said, I bought iPod Nanos for my kids. They are the cool thing to have right now. However, cool with the younger set is a fleeting thing
What does that have to do with music and how much musicians get paid?
... I should get whatever music and movies and games I want for free because, well, because I want them. And by (over-)paying those greedy artists and corporations, I am prevented from getting what I want for free.
I was reacting to the OP's suggestion that we should cap how much musicians get paid. You disagreed vehemtly with my argument, and raised many valid and excellent points. So now I have to ask, do you then agree with the assertion of the OP (the one I quoted and disagreed with)? Specifically:
Put actors and actresses and music artists at a cap of 150k
Do you really think that is a good idea to cap how much money artists can make? Will that solve anything? If so, how will that make movies and music better? By your assertion true musicians do not care about money. So how exactly does a salary cap help to improve the arts? Answer: It doesn't. It's just another simple-minded approach borne from jealousy and a distorted sense of entitlement. What the OP really meant was
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly folks suggest that things would be much better if only other people's salaries were capped (or confiscated/taxed and re-distributed). It always seems like a good idea, that is until someone comes along and caps YOUR salary. Then it's UNFAIR!
According to Wikipedia you are correct and I am mistaken:
"If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and may still be broad enough to bar competitors from valuable commercial territory. "
Hmmm, now you've got me thinking. Perhaps there is a patent attorney who could clarify this. I know claim 2 is dependent on claim 1. What I am not certain of is whether the composite of claim1/claim2 could be considered a valid claim even though claim 1 was deemed invalid.
Please don't call me ignorant. If you read the text of the claim, you will notice that it is an independent claim. You can indeed just read one claim if it is not dependent on prior claims. Note that claim 2 of the patent starts out with the statement (I'm paraphrasing) "A system as described in claim 1 ...". This is known as a dependent claim and cannot stand on its own. If claim 1 were knocked out, claim 2 automatically is knocked out. People who are not ignorant of patents realize this.
Exactly! Although it does also depend on the date of filing.
Here is the first claim of the patent:
... on whether the user behavior is desireable" is obviously a big part of the moderation system (flamebait, troll, are ways to discoiurage undesirable behavior).
"1. A system that facilitates self-regulation of a social network comprising: a network monitoring component that watches user behavior on the social network; and an asset allocation component that allocates or re-allocates one or more assets among one or more network users based at least in part on whether the user behavior is desirable."
As I read that, the Slashdot moderation system infringes. The "network monitoring component" is the editors and the moderators. They "watch user behavior on the social network". The "asset allocation component" is the karma, which affects how broadly users' messages get seen. Lastly, "based
Put actors and actresses and music artists at a cap of 150k anything higher than that is just a little bonus. They shouldn't be expecting millions on a small amount of work. This goes for athletes as well. Maybe if we do that, there will be better movies and albums out there.
Huh? Do you honestly think that if you take away the incentives to *get rich and famous* that there will be better movies and albums? Do you really believe that? Were you not paying attention during the last 50 years as one centrally-managed economy after another failed? Did you not notice that the products produced in those countries were orders of magnitude worse than those produced in free market economies - and losing ground with each passing decade? Did you notice that virtually all innovation sprung from countries with free market economies? Incentive breeds competition, which leads to dramatic product improvements and innovations. If you take away the incentive, everything stagnates.
With the RIAA and MPAA if they had it their way, we wouldn't have CDs or DVDs to burn on.
But we do have those, so they didn't have their way. So what exactly is the problem? Their power fades with each passing year. We are witnessing their dying gasps.
I think what they meant was WMA/MS DRM (aka PlayForSure) based players. iPods can't play WMA or DRM'd WMA, such as those files you download from services like Napster and Yahoo Music Unlimited. The comment was poorly worded, I grant you.
In what world do you live in where the "free market" isn't also only about connections?
I walk into Best Buy. I pick out a TV from a wide range of products (mfg, sizes, technologies, prices, warranties, design, etc). I rarely know the salesperson. S/he rarely knows me. Maybe I go across the street to Circuit City to shop around first. Multiply this by 100 million people doing the same thing. That is a free market. That said, you are correct that when large purchases are made, connections and "glad-handing" and all sorts of other distortions enter the picture. This is true in private-to-private purchases as well as private-to-public purchases. But the OP was suggesting that the free market is somehow flawed because Diebold still has the contract for voting machines. I was merely pointing out that this is far removed from a free market scenario, for the reasons I gave, and does not illustrate a weakness of the free market economic model.
Is it the power of the free market?
No! There is no "free market" when the government is the customer. It's all about connections, campaign contributions, whose turn it is (I'll explain that in a minute), and many other distortions. If you accept that it is the role of government to control/regulate free enterprise so as to "smooth the rought edges" of capitalism, then how can that work when the government is also the customer? You have a serious conflict of interest.
As regards "whose turn it is" -- I worked for a defense contractor years ago. We submitted a prototype for a new missile system. Our system met all of the program requirements (size, range, accuracy, cost); plus we won the "shoot off" hands down (our competitor failed to hit a single target). However, our competitor had not won a contract in awhile and neither had any other contractors in their geographic region (ie congressional district). Consequently the contract was awarded to them. This is just one example of what goes on every day with big government contracts. It is hardly what I would call a "free market". Rather, it is more aptly called a "fixed market" - as in, "the fix is in".
I put that down to the move to 65nm, something that AMD should also get when they move to the same process.
Ummm, I think that is exactly what I said. They are competitive because 20-30% is about what a die-scale can buy you, both by virtue of smaller geometries, as well as giving you the ability to add logic, caching, and pipelines with the extra space. No, simply scaling down to 65nm probably won't allow them to pass Intel, but tweaking the design along with 65nm will go a long way towards closing the gap. My central point was there is one big advantage (65nm vs 90nm) that Intel enjoys *at the moment* that is a big factor in their better performance, and that advantage will vanish soon as AMD brings up their 65nm fab (it is already producing chips, as I understand it, but has not yet ramped to full production).