If my Cable company had any competition, any competition at all - perhaps someday I might get a chance to switch to a service like this. Oh well - I guess I will just have to make due with 6Mbps for the next decade or so.
The cat is out of the bag so to speak. There isn't any going back now. People have realized the usefulness of P2P - and no piece of legislation anywhere is going to prevent its use. Worst case scenario - rewrite some protocols to encrypt data and make it look like normal traffic. Instead of writing dumb legislation how about a proactive approach (sorry for the management speak). How about some sort of coherent plan for how to deal with emerging technology in a way that makes sense?
It seems IP doesn't only belong to the company- but also at least to some degree to the person who actually developed said IP. As it is located in his/her intellect and it is sort of difficult to remove without destroying it. Not that this argument about IP works in the first place - this guy is an executive.
Name one major business based in the Cayman Islands that is willing to raise prices in the midst of a major recession. The company I currently work for is included in this group. We don't get to just set prices in our market. Consumers aren't going to be picking up our tab. We may have to pay taxes on our profits (for the services we receive from the government like Patent Law enforcement and roads and such) causing us to lower dividends, but we cannot just raise prices in our market since we don't have a monopoly and we are competing primarily with large Japanese and South Korean companies.
Fines don't seem to be particularly good - breaking up market collusion and creating a more competitive marketplace would seem to be the goal. I'm no economist but it would seem to me that breaking up giants like Intel into many smaller companies could be more effective - but the crux of this seems to be that the R&D at this point is all toward smaller lithography processes. With only two major players in this market there is still significant incentive to invest in R&D but with more players it might be hard for each company to justify the massive costs of producing newer/better/faster processes.
In order to presume that robotics will advance sufficiently in 11 years to support remote science labs - well he should at least have to take a control systems course.
Couldn't agree more.
Most electrical engineers won't hand etch antennas in their jobs - but it was useful for me to learn. And without a Prof right there to tell me how not to horribly burn myself with acid, well, lets just say it probably would not have been a pleasant learning experience. And what exactly is his plan to replace this experience? Remote science labs? Is he (a psychology major) really making the prediction that robotics will be sufficiently advanced in 11 years that it will be possible for you to weld, and for me to etch an antenna? Then to get feedback from a Prof on how the final product functions in test? I sort of hope he is right, but I seriously doubt it.
What did you study? CS? There are subjects for which lots and lots of very expensive equipment is necessary for experimentation. While the toolset for a CS major can be replicated at home, or provided through SSH at the very least - I don't see how I possibly could have gotten access to the equipment I needed in my undergraduate studies at home. Expensive lasers - tons of data acquisition hardware - Logic analyzers - a sweet Faraday cage, with even more data acquisition hardware to measure the output of antennas. To summarize: Lab Classes don't work over the internet. And Labs are a necessary - and very useful learning tool. To neglect the obvious necessity of Labs is simply dumb.
Net Pain vs. Pleasure. Consider, the dairy cow felt really good while being milked to make the delicious butter I'm gonna slather over the crab. So overall it all works out.
Its about convenience not price. Yea, some folks are just thieves but there is still a market out there for a convenient app like this. At least for some of us it isn't so much the "i don't want to pay for a movie I may not like" as it is "I have no need for another DVD laying around, I have no need for previews of other movies, the FBI warning, and DRM. So I'll rationalize my theft by saying its about convenience." As for the 2.99, a one time fee conveniently offered over the app store might be worth the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
If my Cable company had any competition, any competition at all - perhaps someday I might get a chance to switch to a service like this. Oh well - I guess I will just have to make due with 6Mbps for the next decade or so.
The cat is out of the bag so to speak. There isn't any going back now. People have realized the usefulness of P2P - and no piece of legislation anywhere is going to prevent its use. Worst case scenario - rewrite some protocols to encrypt data and make it look like normal traffic. Instead of writing dumb legislation how about a proactive approach (sorry for the management speak). How about some sort of coherent plan for how to deal with emerging technology in a way that makes sense?
It seems IP doesn't only belong to the company- but also at least to some degree to the person who actually developed said IP. As it is located in his/her intellect and it is sort of difficult to remove without destroying it.
Not that this argument about IP works in the first place - this guy is an executive.
Name one major business based in the Cayman Islands that is willing to raise prices in the midst of a major recession. The company I currently work for is included in this group. We don't get to just set prices in our market. Consumers aren't going to be picking up our tab. We may have to pay taxes on our profits (for the services we receive from the government like Patent Law enforcement and roads and such) causing us to lower dividends, but we cannot just raise prices in our market since we don't have a monopoly and we are competing primarily with large Japanese and South Korean companies.
I think the only important word in the article is $200M. This means hype, and lots of it.
Its only hype if the movie doesn't sync with a Pink Floyd album in a meaningful way.
A valid point. If only regulators in the US had balls.
Fines don't seem to be particularly good - breaking up market collusion and creating a more competitive marketplace would seem to be the goal. I'm no economist but it would seem to me that breaking up giants like Intel into many smaller companies could be more effective - but the crux of this seems to be that the R&D at this point is all toward smaller lithography processes. With only two major players in this market there is still significant incentive to invest in R&D but with more players it might be hard for each company to justify the massive costs of producing newer/better/faster processes.
The way things have been run at the FDA in recent history it would seem to me with enough cash - anecdotal evidence is quite sufficient.
In China, hair is a commodity, used in wigs and even as an additive in food.
OK as an additive in food? That is gross. Wait, hair pie? Nevermind.
They are Mormon crickets dude.
If Google went around banning those books from every library, bookstore, and online bookstore -- then it would be censorship.
Google will maintain rights to the books it deems inappropriate even though they are not hosting them.
Perhaps you could just get your book labeled as 'inappropriate'. They would then pull it down right?
rm?
Is inappropriate. Don't be evil Google.
If you sold them for less than they cost to manufacture you'd qualify for bailout money.
No. If you sold them for less than the cost of manufacture you would be a horizontally integrated Japanese manufacturer.
Before they produce the beverage man was not meant to brew!
Key light?
Um, was anyone terrified that the fiber had been cut?
In order to presume that robotics will advance sufficiently in 11 years to support remote science labs - well he should at least have to take a control systems course.
Couldn't agree more.
Most electrical engineers won't hand etch antennas in their jobs - but it was useful for me to learn. And without a Prof right there to tell me how not to horribly burn myself with acid, well, lets just say it probably would not have been a pleasant learning experience.
And what exactly is his plan to replace this experience? Remote science labs? Is he (a psychology major) really making the prediction that robotics will be sufficiently advanced in 11 years that it will be possible for you to weld, and for me to etch an antenna? Then to get feedback from a Prof on how the final product functions in test?
I sort of hope he is right, but I seriously doubt it.
What did you study? CS? There are subjects for which lots and lots of very expensive equipment is necessary for experimentation. While the toolset for a CS major can be replicated at home, or provided through SSH at the very least - I don't see how I possibly could have gotten access to the equipment I needed in my undergraduate studies at home. Expensive lasers - tons of data acquisition hardware - Logic analyzers - a sweet Faraday cage, with even more data acquisition hardware to measure the output of antennas. To summarize: Lab Classes don't work over the internet. And Labs are a necessary - and very useful learning tool. To neglect the obvious necessity of Labs is simply dumb.
Since the power is supplied externally, the robot does not carry a power source or a controller, which enhances its maneuverability.
How can they call this thing a robot, if it has no power source or controller? It would appear to me to be a magnet, with some grippers applied.
I know I stay in shape by doing plenty of 12 ounce curls. - To Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Net productivity gain was 9% for those who surf less than 20% of the time. So, still an improvement even if they surf > 8% and 20%.
Net Pain vs. Pleasure. Consider, the dairy cow felt really good while being milked to make the delicious butter I'm gonna slather over the crab. So overall it all works out.
Its about convenience not price. Yea, some folks are just thieves but there is still a market out there for a convenient app like this. At least for some of us it isn't so much the "i don't want to pay for a movie I may not like" as it is "I have no need for another DVD laying around, I have no need for previews of other movies, the FBI warning, and DRM. So I'll rationalize my theft by saying its about convenience." As for the 2.99, a one time fee conveniently offered over the app store might be worth the cost.