The math is not wrong. Apple gets $831 from each iPhone. That doesn't mean it profits $831. It has a number of costs, from raw materials to labor to prorated warranty costs, all the way to packaging, shipping, inventory management, advertising, and ongoing software development; there's always then burden-shifting among products--some products may subsidize others and therefore have an apparently increased profit margin to cover the lower margins on a different product. Deducting all of these would be impossible for an analyst to do without intimate knowledge of Apple's overall operation.
It's better to report the total without them taking wild-ass blind guesses as to how much of that is profit (like iSuppli's crazily inadequate "what it costs" figures). Even if those numbers are right (and sometimes they just pull costs out of their ass because it's "close enough" to something they've seen before), that still only gets you to gross profit. And at the end of the day, gross profit is nowhere even close to the much smaller net profit.
Reaganomics IS deficit spending, making your whole point self-contradictory. It is also not a solution in and of itself. The particular supply-side approach also only restores the status quo, as it loses energy as the economy recovers; in other words, you have to dig the hole in order to need it. I'd also challenge you for a factual source for your claim that the deficit is going down as Bush wastes tens of billions of dollars seemingly every month--money we don't have.
As to basic services that "shouldn't cost more and more", it would appear you need to be introduced to reality. We have this thing called the dollar, which is tanking on account of our terrible spending and disastrous fiscal policy. When it's worth less, it takes more to cover costs. Population is also increasing, which increases costs. Inflation is also a consequence of time. All of these things mean it will continually cost more to provide the services that society wants.
Too much government in medicine? My god, you ARE bonkers. The whole HMO/healthcare access clusterfuck is the result of Conservative and free market policies put forth by your heroes. Care to those who can best afford it. Price controls? What price controls?
"WE NEED TERM LIMITS"? Turns out we HAVE term limits. They're called elections. The people get exactly what the people choose. But you're encouraging people not to vote; what you think that would actually accomplish is unknown. I support your advice, though, because the more people like you that sit at home, the better. The 97% incumbency rate is also being misapplied by you (though it does indicate where you get your outrageously cockeyed "news" and "information")--more than 3% of Congress changes at each election, and if people wanted different people in office, well, there's that secret little "ballot" thing.
Since Vietnam the country (and the Democratic Party) has shifted solidly to the RIGHT. The Democrats are not liberals. They're chickenshit moderates who don't have the spines to stand up to the Jesus hypocrites and the Spendy Conservatives. Democrats want to spend money, but they have a strategy for paying for it. Republicans (and your "Conservative" friends you try to separate from the current administration) want to spend the same amount of money, but couple it with tax cuts so it becomes even MORE expensive.
It's amazing how you can stand on your soapbox with so little of substance. You're practically a Fox News posterchild--a real life Stephen Colbert. Sensationalist ranting aside, you've got nothing but a desire to shove your Jesus up everyone's ass and unravel the social programs that need to be repaired if this society has any hope of meeting its humanitarian obligations, let alone staying economically competitive.
I don't know who's spoon feeding you your manure, but it sure is funny.
The "precision" you're using the terms? Liberal and Democrat are interchangeable, but Conservative and Republican aren't? Republicans have a pretty good stranglehold on the bulk of giant disasters and wasteful spending.
Everyone says they want less government and less taxes, but they also want the basics covered, which costs an increasing amount of money. Where is your question about where the money is coming from for tax cuts and outrageous Iraq spending? How about the money on infrastructure improvements the country so desperately needs? How about the abomination that is faith-based initiative spending and putting strings on funding mandates? You "conservatives" are worse than any Democrat--you're willing to spend the money if it harps your backwards viewpoints and furthers your own ego-stoking goals, and who cares whether or not it actually helps anyone?
"Conservatives are almost Libertarian"? Someone seems a little definition-challenged. "Do you *really* want to put your *life* in their hands"...when no government healthcare program (only a funding plan) has even been proposed, nor would it be mandatory if you don't "trust" them? Your facts are no better than your spelling.
If you'll read more closely, you'd see it was not ignored in the slightest. Marginal cost ("mpg per passenger" has little to do with it, which is the entire point of the post. It attempts to spread what is a more or less fixed fuel demand across the fact that lots of people benefit from the flight.
It doesn't work that way. Yes, it is better to fly than to have 200 people arrange personal transportation options in terms of net environmental impact. No, that does not mean that jets are fuel efficient.
That's just a fancy way of telling the truth: a commercial airliner gets about 1/3 of a mile to the "gallon" (when converted from the proper "pounds" to "gallons at sea level and standard temperature").
Alternatively, one could say that my car gets 125 miles per gallon per passenger when carrying four passengers. It just makes planes sound better (they're only off by half this way, instead of an order of magnitude).
It's still quite a feat, given the power requirements of flying and the HUGE savings as opposed to using multiple cars and/or buses.
How is keeping the number of windows down a "good computing habit"? There's not a lot of point in a fast, high-RAM computer with a massively multitasking OS if you're not going to use it. Why not leave the applications open that you use often? (This is the reason the red button doesn't close out of certain kinds of applications.) It's not like it's hogging memory that I need, and while staring at a splash screen for a few seconds is fun, why should I?
If I'm working with a few windows like you do and want easy access to them all, I'll minimize them to the Dock. If I'm working as I usually do, with 10+ windows, I use Expose. For the life of me, I don't know how the taskbar gives you a "view" of ANY window. It tells you what application it is, if you recognize the icon, and a few cryptic letters about it. In order to get any use out of it, you have to move your mouse down to the button and wait for a litle preview to pop up. Instead of doing that, I can tap a mouse button or a key and get an immediate, live view of ALL the windows I have open and can choose it based on sight, rather than memory of the filename.
Will it install? Probably. Will it run roughly as well as an 867MHz single-proc? Not likely at all.
The general rule of thumb for dual processor systems is that you can count on no more that 150% core speed performance for general operation (about 800MHz in your case and still below the cut). That will improve as software evolves, but it won't affect the way G4 systems work.
Based on my experience with Leopard through a developer friend, I wouldn't try it on anything less than a dual 800.
Why shouldn't Windows do the same? I don't see any reason why "zoom" can't be implemented--do you know how god-awfully annoying it is to have Firefox take up all 30" of screen space and turn the monitor into a tidal wave of bright white? I have yet to see a web page that required that kind of space.
Some people have a preference for window glyphs on the top right. Some people can't handle icons that align to the right. Some people like purple scroll bars. It's not that some preferences are wrong, it's that some people value consistency and integrity of UI experience over complication and needless gratification of every whim. Apple falls into that group. It's not for everybody; it's not supposed to be, and it doesn't try to be.
Experience shows that people who are super picky generally also have questionable taste. If you want to do something stylish, there's some image preservation in narrowing down the venues for "ricing" your desktop.
If you fall into the "I need to be in control over every possible aspect" group, use Linux or seek out a suitable theme using a desktop skinning app like ShapeShifter.
All the boxed Tiger DVDs are the same--PPC. I just picked one up to examine at the Apple Store the other day while waiting for an iPhone repair, since I'd never seen a retail packaged Tiger.
If you have a Mac and have lost your restore discs, you can bring it in and they'll reload the OS for you. You can also order replacement restore discs for your system if you're the registered owner, or at least you used to be able to. That solves the replacement problem.
Would you rather spend a half-day taking to a lookie-loo who eventually says, "I'll get back to you" (and never does), or spend that half-day dealing with customers who are actually putting money on the counter? There's no reason you can't do both. If the lookie-loo is actively taking up your time, you can easily excuse yourself when necessary to deal with other customers. If they're just browsing, they don't require your attention and you can deal with other customers.
The issue of non-buying time wasters is wholly independent from a disabled customer or someone who requires a greater amount of time/attention on your part. It's a different scenario entirely and a far cry from ignoring someone who IS buying something because it involves a little more work on your part.
Sure, but it's an ADA case and that means it'll get at least to the 9th Circuit.
If you're comfortable taking 9 states out of your market (including one state with 10% of the people and going on 20% of the country's money), that's an option, if a stupid one. You'd invariably lose more money than the trivial costs of modification by doing so, but stupid business decisions are certainly your right.
Sure, or the three other people could realize that you're helping another customer and will get to them as soon as you can, or you can ask if the first customer would mind if you got rid of the the impatient fucks so that you could get back to helping your customer.
Again, standing with your hand held open and neglecting customers who fairly arrived first is not indicative of someone providing good service. It's also not indicative of someone who can manage their customer load or schedule effectively. If you're in a business where it involves personal examination of fabrics and styles, then you would be foolish to schedule more than you can handle at any given time.
If they're walk-ins, you can ring them up and take their orders if they know what they want, or they can wait like everyone else when you go somewhere and are helping another customer when you arrive.
Nonsense. Why shouldn't online businesses have to make some accommodation to people just like brick and mortar establishments? Why should they be exempt from having to provide everyone with a fair chance to become a customer? Designing a website properly should be done anyway, but having to make a special page with information for disabled customers is practically cost-free. Redesigning the site so that it functions effectively is a decent goal, but if you can come up with a cheaper alternative, that's suitable too.
Then you figure it out. Work something out. Provide service.
Too many people think it's just a matter of having something and holding your hand out and waiting for money. You could try talking to him, getting a feel for what he's looking for, and bringing up a few samples and going back a few times until you can present some fabric choices. What are you doing in a cloth-based business without a sample book anyway?
No. You should serve your community. If someone in a wheelchair wants anything to do with your basement business (and who would?), you go upstairs to them and provide service. It's not cost effective for you to modify your home. You're also not Section 508, so you don't have to modify your website. But you can bring your goods up to ground level and talk to your customer (same as if you just have a really old person who can't do many stairs--invite them inside and take your business to them). Service is a part of business. People apparently can't remember that. You wouldn't need laws if people weren't such assholes about everything.
How hard is it to put up a phone number for people with difficulty--and actually answer it? There should be some sort of special contact tag that a screen reader can search for and read first that has a phone number or email address for people with difficulty to get in touch with someone who can help them.
Can it be argued that Apple must have known full well that they wouldn't be able to keep the iPhone locked down? No, because it's as locked down as can reasonably be required in the course of business. Some people will always get through. There is no requirement to create a hack-proof system, but only to create a secure system that ensures that AT&T is able to reasonably rely on the promised exclusivity.
No other carrier will pick it up, and no resupplier will be able to sell mass quantities of unlocked iPhones (except on the current firmware version). The job's been done pretty well.
No, it's not a mistake. There is no misapprehension of fact. It's not even misunderstanding, because the meaning assigned by both parties is the same.
Acts which are impossible are not enforceable, but that comes back on the Offeree for fraudulently assenting to a performance he knew he could not complete. If you agree to do something you know you won't, you're in a lot more trouble than the other party for requesting or requiring it.
You can defend yourself without lying and without wasting time. Of course, the prerequisite there is doing something worthy of a defense.
She should have settled and gotten over it. Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, copyright is not a center of controversy. She pirated music. She tried to get herself off the hook by dishonest means instead of making well-formed arguments or challenging procedure. If you want to defend yourself in a case where you are clearly in the wrong, go for due process.
Unless something is just completely out of control, judges defer to the legislature. "This Court is not an instrument of the populace and not a venue for social change" should sound familiar--courts don't make policy except when cornered or in extreme cases. It's the exception, not the rule, and it's by design.
They aren't worth bullshitting a court and lying to a jury over, either. She was punished for trying to beat the system. She definitely did something wrong, and she tried to do an end run with a lame defense to an unsympathetic infraction. The jury was smart enough to assign a punishment that fit her offense--the downloading was but one component of that.
You know how your parents always said that lying and cheating only makes things worth? $5000 punishment for a $50 crime is exactly what they were talking about.
Slashdot wants nullification of the jury's finding, not jury nullification. As much as the chant goes on, it remains dependent on a limited and narrow set of circumstances, not to upend the court system because the tiny fraction of men here disagrees with it. Wasn't the point to find the RIAA as evil and despicable? When you look as bad as the bad guys, it doesn't help much.
You have a fundamental ignorance of how copyright works. Well for starters, no, I don't. But more to the point, your entire premise is taking copyright out of the equation, so it's irrelevant. The issue isn't copyright, it's natural assertion of ownership, and it's a fundamental concept in capitalist societies.
A "work" is not owned by its creator. A work is not owned by anyone. Not according to any free market theory to which the American legal and commercial system avails itself. It's a fair notion, but not on this planet. The work is most certainly invested in the individual who created it. No one can assert superior title to defend against the creator. Without copyright, there is no transfer of title and thus an even lesser degree of freedom for the customer.
The owner would simply adapt to use other means to enforce exclusivity and individualism, since those are the key properties of value in the economic system we have. You can't demonstrate otherwise, and from all appearances, aren't even cognizant of this basic fact.
The only brick wall is the one sitting in your skull. One dimensional thinking doesn't get you very far in complicated systems. But as long as you're convinced in your head, you can continue living in that fantasy. It doesn't really matter to me.
In fact, there WAS NO full private control before copyright. Oh, so you could just take books and paintings and get away with it?
You seek to divorce modern developments from a single facet. It doesn't work like that. Copyright only works because there is a natural investiture of control stemming from the labour of creation. If copyright holders didn't have preexisting rights, what would be the need for such a system? Clearly you've still failed to grasp the basic flaws in your premise.
You can't cite to a "specific" statute or legal theory when speaking of hypotheticals. YOU show me a comprehensive academic source that says that copyright is the sole source of power of the modern software business or YOU shut up. Show how they would fail to be able to protect their assets. Show how the law would restrain them from action without copyright, in a scenario where a work would be the sole property of the owner/creator.
If that's too difficult a concept for your foaming-at-the-mouth myopic tirade, demonstrate what gives you a "means of control" over anything. Copyright is not a grant of ownership. It is bargained-for exchange of ownership backed by the faith of the government. It is a means of taking privately held works and slowly transitioning them to the public. Show a source to the contrary. Burden of proof lies in the affirmative.
Look, in the absence of copyright, there simply is no legal theory or mechanism that would make possession of any work illegal. None. Sure there is. Apparently you don't recall how things worked before copyright. The owner owned the work and held it completely.
Copyright isn't the tool that allowed security for works of creative authorship. Copyright is the tool that brought the government into guaranteeing it in exchange for eventual ownership. The government became the buyer of works of art for society, rather than patrons.
Take away copyright, and you take away any restriction on the distribution or use of works. It would all be in the public domain. I don't know how you got those ideas into your head, but they're just plain wrong. Without copyrights, he users default rights == public domain. That's absolutely inaccurate. Without copyright, there is no public domain. You're living a fantasy. Proprietary ownership of one's work is irreversibly ingrained into this society. Copyright exists to bring works into the public. Take away copyright, and works return to full private control, just as before.
If you think that you can find some kind of law or legal theory to back up your absurd claims It doesn't work like that. You're the one with the burden of proof on how an isolated change would actually shift the status quo. Copyright doesn't do what you hope; the eradication of it would only serve to benefit the authors and large corporations, just as it worked before copyright existed--the wealthy were the beneficiaries.
I don't need to post a link showing the deterministic result of corporate control, because you're sorely misinterpreting the function and reach of copyright. I've already outlined a few of the many tools companies could use to enforce their work. You're the one that needs to demonstrate how a company would be constrained in pursuing those who took their work without authorization. Taking away copyright takes away all constraints. Natural ownership of your labor's fruits is a Lockean fundamental. Taking away copryight doesn't change that mentality one bit.
in this hypothetical world where there were no copyright, then I could do whatever the hell I want with the fruits of your labor. Based on what? Your oblivious ranting reflects an elementary understanding of every issue central to your point.
If copyright were to disappear, the only thing that would change would be that users would no longer have a set of default rights. The producer would still fully own and control the work under the law--only now, you'd have no rights whatsoever.
Mere possession of the work without permission would be grounds for massive legal retaliation, and you've still neglected to respond to how exactly it would create a moral entitlement. This is not surprising, given that there is no rational argument. It's not yours to possess, so it invariably remains wrong to take, copyright or no.
The false dichotomy of "not signing the contract" is also a humorous detour. Don't sign the contract? Fine. You've got no right to access whatsoever. You just don't get it. Taking out copyright would simply undermine the entire structure of consumers having any power whatsoever. The creator would have full control and nothing in the law could stop him from causing you endless frustration. Individual rights over collective rights. Clear favor for the owner.
You can't cut away one side of copyright while foolishly believing the other will magically persist.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just use your freaking debit card. Problem solved.
The math is not wrong. Apple gets $831 from each iPhone. That doesn't mean it profits $831. It has a number of costs, from raw materials to labor to prorated warranty costs, all the way to packaging, shipping, inventory management, advertising, and ongoing software development; there's always then burden-shifting among products--some products may subsidize others and therefore have an apparently increased profit margin to cover the lower margins on a different product. Deducting all of these would be impossible for an analyst to do without intimate knowledge of Apple's overall operation.
It's better to report the total without them taking wild-ass blind guesses as to how much of that is profit (like iSuppli's crazily inadequate "what it costs" figures). Even if those numbers are right (and sometimes they just pull costs out of their ass because it's "close enough" to something they've seen before), that still only gets you to gross profit. And at the end of the day, gross profit is nowhere even close to the much smaller net profit.
More and more nonsense.
Reaganomics IS deficit spending, making your whole point self-contradictory. It is also not a solution in and of itself. The particular supply-side approach also only restores the status quo, as it loses energy as the economy recovers; in other words, you have to dig the hole in order to need it. I'd also challenge you for a factual source for your claim that the deficit is going down as Bush wastes tens of billions of dollars seemingly every month--money we don't have.
As to basic services that "shouldn't cost more and more", it would appear you need to be introduced to reality. We have this thing called the dollar, which is tanking on account of our terrible spending and disastrous fiscal policy. When it's worth less, it takes more to cover costs. Population is also increasing, which increases costs. Inflation is also a consequence of time. All of these things mean it will continually cost more to provide the services that society wants.
Too much government in medicine? My god, you ARE bonkers. The whole HMO/healthcare access clusterfuck is the result of Conservative and free market policies put forth by your heroes. Care to those who can best afford it. Price controls? What price controls?
"WE NEED TERM LIMITS"? Turns out we HAVE term limits. They're called elections. The people get exactly what the people choose. But you're encouraging people not to vote; what you think that would actually accomplish is unknown. I support your advice, though, because the more people like you that sit at home, the better. The 97% incumbency rate is also being misapplied by you (though it does indicate where you get your outrageously cockeyed "news" and "information")--more than 3% of Congress changes at each election, and if people wanted different people in office, well, there's that secret little "ballot" thing.
Since Vietnam the country (and the Democratic Party) has shifted solidly to the RIGHT. The Democrats are not liberals. They're chickenshit moderates who don't have the spines to stand up to the Jesus hypocrites and the Spendy Conservatives. Democrats want to spend money, but they have a strategy for paying for it. Republicans (and your "Conservative" friends you try to separate from the current administration) want to spend the same amount of money, but couple it with tax cuts so it becomes even MORE expensive.
It's amazing how you can stand on your soapbox with so little of substance. You're practically a Fox News posterchild--a real life Stephen Colbert. Sensationalist ranting aside, you've got nothing but a desire to shove your Jesus up everyone's ass and unravel the social programs that need to be repaired if this society has any hope of meeting its humanitarian obligations, let alone staying economically competitive.
I don't know who's spoon feeding you your manure, but it sure is funny.
The "precision" you're using the terms? Liberal and Democrat are interchangeable, but Conservative and Republican aren't? Republicans have a pretty good stranglehold on the bulk of giant disasters and wasteful spending.
Everyone says they want less government and less taxes, but they also want the basics covered, which costs an increasing amount of money. Where is your question about where the money is coming from for tax cuts and outrageous Iraq spending? How about the money on infrastructure improvements the country so desperately needs? How about the abomination that is faith-based initiative spending and putting strings on funding mandates? You "conservatives" are worse than any Democrat--you're willing to spend the money if it harps your backwards viewpoints and furthers your own ego-stoking goals, and who cares whether or not it actually helps anyone?
"Conservatives are almost Libertarian"? Someone seems a little definition-challenged. "Do you *really* want to put your *life* in their hands"...when no government healthcare program (only a funding plan) has even been proposed, nor would it be mandatory if you don't "trust" them? Your facts are no better than your spelling.
If you'll read more closely, you'd see it was not ignored in the slightest. Marginal cost ("mpg per passenger" has little to do with it, which is the entire point of the post. It attempts to spread what is a more or less fixed fuel demand across the fact that lots of people benefit from the flight.
It doesn't work that way. Yes, it is better to fly than to have 200 people arrange personal transportation options in terms of net environmental impact. No, that does not mean that jets are fuel efficient.
That's just a fancy way of telling the truth: a commercial airliner gets about 1/3 of a mile to the "gallon" (when converted from the proper "pounds" to "gallons at sea level and standard temperature").
Alternatively, one could say that my car gets 125 miles per gallon per passenger when carrying four passengers. It just makes planes sound better (they're only off by half this way, instead of an order of magnitude).
It's still quite a feat, given the power requirements of flying and the HUGE savings as opposed to using multiple cars and/or buses.
How is keeping the number of windows down a "good computing habit"? There's not a lot of point in a fast, high-RAM computer with a massively multitasking OS if you're not going to use it. Why not leave the applications open that you use often? (This is the reason the red button doesn't close out of certain kinds of applications.) It's not like it's hogging memory that I need, and while staring at a splash screen for a few seconds is fun, why should I?
If I'm working with a few windows like you do and want easy access to them all, I'll minimize them to the Dock. If I'm working as I usually do, with 10+ windows, I use Expose. For the life of me, I don't know how the taskbar gives you a "view" of ANY window. It tells you what application it is, if you recognize the icon, and a few cryptic letters about it. In order to get any use out of it, you have to move your mouse down to the button and wait for a litle preview to pop up. Instead of doing that, I can tap a mouse button or a key and get an immediate, live view of ALL the windows I have open and can choose it based on sight, rather than memory of the filename.
So...you mean the iTunes WiFi Store.
It exists already, works great, and syncs and tracks perfectly with the desktop iTunes.
Why bet? 533867. Question answered.
Will it install? Probably. Will it run roughly as well as an 867MHz single-proc? Not likely at all.
The general rule of thumb for dual processor systems is that you can count on no more that 150% core speed performance for general operation (about 800MHz in your case and still below the cut). That will improve as software evolves, but it won't affect the way G4 systems work.
Based on my experience with Leopard through a developer friend, I wouldn't try it on anything less than a dual 800.
Why shouldn't Windows do the same? I don't see any reason why "zoom" can't be implemented--do you know how god-awfully annoying it is to have Firefox take up all 30" of screen space and turn the monitor into a tidal wave of bright white? I have yet to see a web page that required that kind of space.
Some people have a preference for window glyphs on the top right. Some people can't handle icons that align to the right. Some people like purple scroll bars. It's not that some preferences are wrong, it's that some people value consistency and integrity of UI experience over complication and needless gratification of every whim. Apple falls into that group. It's not for everybody; it's not supposed to be, and it doesn't try to be.
Experience shows that people who are super picky generally also have questionable taste. If you want to do something stylish, there's some image preservation in narrowing down the venues for "ricing" your desktop.
If you fall into the "I need to be in control over every possible aspect" group, use Linux or seek out a suitable theme using a desktop skinning app like ShapeShifter.
All the boxed Tiger DVDs are the same--PPC. I just picked one up to examine at the Apple Store the other day while waiting for an iPhone repair, since I'd never seen a retail packaged Tiger.
If you have a Mac and have lost your restore discs, you can bring it in and they'll reload the OS for you. You can also order replacement restore discs for your system if you're the registered owner, or at least you used to be able to. That solves the replacement problem.
The issue of non-buying time wasters is wholly independent from a disabled customer or someone who requires a greater amount of time/attention on your part. It's a different scenario entirely and a far cry from ignoring someone who IS buying something because it involves a little more work on your part.
Sure, but it's an ADA case and that means it'll get at least to the 9th Circuit.
If you're comfortable taking 9 states out of your market (including one state with 10% of the people and going on 20% of the country's money), that's an option, if a stupid one. You'd invariably lose more money than the trivial costs of modification by doing so, but stupid business decisions are certainly your right.
Sure, or the three other people could realize that you're helping another customer and will get to them as soon as you can, or you can ask if the first customer would mind if you got rid of the the impatient fucks so that you could get back to helping your customer.
Again, standing with your hand held open and neglecting customers who fairly arrived first is not indicative of someone providing good service. It's also not indicative of someone who can manage their customer load or schedule effectively. If you're in a business where it involves personal examination of fabrics and styles, then you would be foolish to schedule more than you can handle at any given time.
If they're walk-ins, you can ring them up and take their orders if they know what they want, or they can wait like everyone else when you go somewhere and are helping another customer when you arrive.
Nonsense. Why shouldn't online businesses have to make some accommodation to people just like brick and mortar establishments? Why should they be exempt from having to provide everyone with a fair chance to become a customer? Designing a website properly should be done anyway, but having to make a special page with information for disabled customers is practically cost-free. Redesigning the site so that it functions effectively is a decent goal, but if you can come up with a cheaper alternative, that's suitable too.
Then you figure it out. Work something out. Provide service.
Too many people think it's just a matter of having something and holding your hand out and waiting for money. You could try talking to him, getting a feel for what he's looking for, and bringing up a few samples and going back a few times until you can present some fabric choices. What are you doing in a cloth-based business without a sample book anyway?
No. You should serve your community. If someone in a wheelchair wants anything to do with your basement business (and who would?), you go upstairs to them and provide service. It's not cost effective for you to modify your home. You're also not Section 508, so you don't have to modify your website. But you can bring your goods up to ground level and talk to your customer (same as if you just have a really old person who can't do many stairs--invite them inside and take your business to them). Service is a part of business. People apparently can't remember that. You wouldn't need laws if people weren't such assholes about everything.
How hard is it to put up a phone number for people with difficulty--and actually answer it? There should be some sort of special contact tag that a screen reader can search for and read first that has a phone number or email address for people with difficulty to get in touch with someone who can help them.
No other carrier will pick it up, and no resupplier will be able to sell mass quantities of unlocked iPhones (except on the current firmware version). The job's been done pretty well.
No, it's not a mistake. There is no misapprehension of fact. It's not even misunderstanding, because the meaning assigned by both parties is the same.
Acts which are impossible are not enforceable, but that comes back on the Offeree for fraudulently assenting to a performance he knew he could not complete. If you agree to do something you know you won't, you're in a lot more trouble than the other party for requesting or requiring it.
You can defend yourself without lying and without wasting time. Of course, the prerequisite there is doing something worthy of a defense.
She should have settled and gotten over it. Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, copyright is not a center of controversy. She pirated music. She tried to get herself off the hook by dishonest means instead of making well-formed arguments or challenging procedure. If you want to defend yourself in a case where you are clearly in the wrong, go for due process.
Unless something is just completely out of control, judges defer to the legislature. "This Court is not an instrument of the populace and not a venue for social change" should sound familiar--courts don't make policy except when cornered or in extreme cases. It's the exception, not the rule, and it's by design.
They aren't worth bullshitting a court and lying to a jury over, either. She was punished for trying to beat the system. She definitely did something wrong, and she tried to do an end run with a lame defense to an unsympathetic infraction. The jury was smart enough to assign a punishment that fit her offense--the downloading was but one component of that.
You know how your parents always said that lying and cheating only makes things worth? $5000 punishment for a $50 crime is exactly what they were talking about.
Slashdot wants nullification of the jury's finding, not jury nullification. As much as the chant goes on, it remains dependent on a limited and narrow set of circumstances, not to upend the court system because the tiny fraction of men here disagrees with it. Wasn't the point to find the RIAA as evil and despicable? When you look as bad as the bad guys, it doesn't help much.
The owner would simply adapt to use other means to enforce exclusivity and individualism, since those are the key properties of value in the economic system we have. You can't demonstrate otherwise, and from all appearances, aren't even cognizant of this basic fact.
The only brick wall is the one sitting in your skull. One dimensional thinking doesn't get you very far in complicated systems. But as long as you're convinced in your head, you can continue living in that fantasy. It doesn't really matter to me.
You seek to divorce modern developments from a single facet. It doesn't work like that. Copyright only works because there is a natural investiture of control stemming from the labour of creation. If copyright holders didn't have preexisting rights, what would be the need for such a system? Clearly you've still failed to grasp the basic flaws in your premise.
You can't cite to a "specific" statute or legal theory when speaking of hypotheticals. YOU show me a comprehensive academic source that says that copyright is the sole source of power of the modern software business or YOU shut up. Show how they would fail to be able to protect their assets. Show how the law would restrain them from action without copyright, in a scenario where a work would be the sole property of the owner/creator.
If that's too difficult a concept for your foaming-at-the-mouth myopic tirade, demonstrate what gives you a "means of control" over anything. Copyright is not a grant of ownership. It is bargained-for exchange of ownership backed by the faith of the government. It is a means of taking privately held works and slowly transitioning them to the public. Show a source to the contrary. Burden of proof lies in the affirmative.
Copyright isn't the tool that allowed security for works of creative authorship. Copyright is the tool that brought the government into guaranteeing it in exchange for eventual ownership. The government became the buyer of works of art for society, rather than patrons. Take away copyright, and you take away any restriction on the distribution or use of works. It would all be in the public domain. I don't know how you got those ideas into your head, but they're just plain wrong. Without copyrights, he users default rights == public domain. That's absolutely inaccurate. Without copyright, there is no public domain. You're living a fantasy. Proprietary ownership of one's work is irreversibly ingrained into this society. Copyright exists to bring works into the public. Take away copyright, and works return to full private control, just as before. If you think that you can find some kind of law or legal theory to back up your absurd claims It doesn't work like that. You're the one with the burden of proof on how an isolated change would actually shift the status quo. Copyright doesn't do what you hope; the eradication of it would only serve to benefit the authors and large corporations, just as it worked before copyright existed--the wealthy were the beneficiaries.
I don't need to post a link showing the deterministic result of corporate control, because you're sorely misinterpreting the function and reach of copyright. I've already outlined a few of the many tools companies could use to enforce their work. You're the one that needs to demonstrate how a company would be constrained in pursuing those who took their work without authorization. Taking away copyright takes away all constraints. Natural ownership of your labor's fruits is a Lockean fundamental. Taking away copryight doesn't change that mentality one bit.
If copyright were to disappear, the only thing that would change would be that users would no longer have a set of default rights. The producer would still fully own and control the work under the law--only now, you'd have no rights whatsoever.
Mere possession of the work without permission would be grounds for massive legal retaliation, and you've still neglected to respond to how exactly it would create a moral entitlement. This is not surprising, given that there is no rational argument. It's not yours to possess, so it invariably remains wrong to take, copyright or no.
The false dichotomy of "not signing the contract" is also a humorous detour. Don't sign the contract? Fine. You've got no right to access whatsoever. You just don't get it. Taking out copyright would simply undermine the entire structure of consumers having any power whatsoever. The creator would have full control and nothing in the law could stop him from causing you endless frustration. Individual rights over collective rights. Clear favor for the owner.
You can't cut away one side of copyright while foolishly believing the other will magically persist.