Here's a tip: the stuff after the word "brand" is what you are actually buying. It is not precisely the name of the thing you are buying. In "Kleenex Brand Tissues" "Kleenex" is the trademark, "Brand" is the word that tells you the thing you just read, (i.e. "Kleenex"), is its trademark name, and what ever comes after "Brand" is the generic class, i.e. Tissues. Think of it as species and genus.
You state that the relation ship between the words "Adobe" and "Illustrator" is the same as the relationship between "Kleenex" and "Tissues". I find it hard to believe you think this since earlier you point out that Kimberly-Clark makes Kleenex. Adobe makes Illustrator. Kleenex is a brand name for Kimberly-Clark's version of the thin slices of dried pulp that are more commonly called tissues. Adobe is to Kimberly-Clark as Illustrator is to Kleenex as vector drawing programs are to tissues.
I'm curious, have you ever heard someone refer to vector drawing programs as "illustrator programs"? (Note the little "i".) Drawing program is what I hear but then, I don't get out much. And if you think that "tissue" and "glass cleaner" are not in common use, stroll down the generic product aisle of your favorite supermarket. Or ask a photographer. These terms are *so* common that they are the name for the thing itself. That is, they are generic.
"I can't think of a better term for an application program orientated towards creating illustrations than an illustrator. Can you?"
An "illustrator" is someone who illustrates, someone who creates illustrations. A piece of software is not an "illustrator," it is a tool. I think "Draw" is probably the most generic term likely to be used as a vector drawing program name. It is (or has been) used by at least three commercial programs that I can remember, including the one I worked on, Harvard Draw.
"This technologically-driven ADD is transforming politics, entertainment, sports and culture."
The ADD reference is not helpful. I do not think this article is discussing the possible intersection of many information sources and the medical condition of Attention Deficit Disorder. Rather it appears to be about finding stuff worth looking at and convincing people that your stuff is worth looking at. "ADD" is a loaded buzzword and misusing it in this context does a disservice to those suffering from it and those trying to understand what you have written. Consider your reaction to misuse of the word "hacker".
"There is only so much attention to go around, and we are being bombarded with more information all the time. Most of us have no idea how to allocate our attention widely or productively."
I think this last is at least a partial contradiction. I can allocate my attention widely but it isn't always productive to do so. And vice versa. "Widely AND productively" would be a real trick.
"Those who can help us will be rich."
These people used to be called "editors". How many of them are rich?;^)
"Acme also can't really amend the contract to charge a fee for "fast driving." That would expose them to a slew of lawsuits as a conspirator to speeding or contributor to any accidents that resulted because of it."
I don't understand what you are saying here. Beyond the inchoate liability issues of "conspiring to speed," what the company is trying to do (beyond the revenue generation issue, natch) is prevent speeding. They are trying to discourage unlawful behavior, not encourage it. They may make a profit off a customer's unlawful behavior but that is not inherently illegal. Would you be happier if the lease contract was for $2000 / day with a $1965 rebate if you don't speed?
As for being a "contributor to accidents", again, they are trying to discourage these by discouraging speeding. Again, they may profit off of the speeding that lead to an accident, but so does a body shop or mortician. Another/.er noted that sometimes speeding is necessary to avoid an accident. But it would be a simple matter to contract around this problem. There could be a provision that speeding that exceeds the agreed upon limit but returns to it in less than a minute is not a violation of the terms of the contract. A minute is an eternity in an accident avoidance situation. At 80 MPH (Yes, yes you/.ers in parts of the world where people can count to ten; I use "standard" measures. Quit whining about it. Your lucky we got past the "rods to the hogshead" measurements of Grampa Simpson.) you will cover more than 7000 feet in one minute.
Does this address your concerns with the liability issues?
"Due process" is not a right that can be bargained away to an employer. All it means is that a person cannot be deprived of "process" they are "due" (i.e. owed). Most employers don't owe you any process at all. The state (meaning any government) owes you process in various proceedings. But your employer doesn't owe you anything unless they promise it to you first. So if the contract or employee manual states that they can't fire you without first getting you to fall for the henway gambit, then they can't. That's as close as an employer gets to owing you "due process."
In general, of course, you're right. Most of the rights you have can be contracted away. So what? There are any number of ways to get along through life without giving up any particular right you are concerned with. They may well be less comfortable, but thems the breaks. And exercising rights has all sorts of consequences. Every choice you make has an opportunity cost. By exercising your "right" to have a glass of water first thing after your run, you've lost the "right" to do anything else first thing. This example obviously trivializes your choice of language, "human rights", but I think it is one extreme on a continuum. YMMV.
I think you are confused by the phrase "contains illegal acts." A contract can make reference to an illegal act. However, a contract cannot require the *performace* of an illegal act. In this example, the contract is requiring the van renter to *not perform* an illegal act. No problem there. There are many contracts that have clauses requiring that certain illegal acts not be performed. Many so-called "morals clauses" in endorsement contracts, for example, contain these provisions. (They also typically contain many more provisions for legal acts that the contractor doesn't want you to do because it would reflect poorly on the product. I believe there was a clause like this in the endorsement contract between the Beef Council and Cybil Sheppard. Ms. Sheppard announced she was a vegetarian in some interview. Whoops.)
Good Samaritan laws are the exception, not the rule, in the US. In most jurisdictions, there is no affirmative duty to aid another. However, anything you do must be "reasonable" (in the legal sense). If I watch you drowning, I have no duty to help you. However, if I start to rescue you, I must be "reasonable." I can't start to rescue you, have you rely on my rescue attempt (by, for example, stop asking others for help), and then abandon the attempt for no reason.
1) You have no general duty (in the US) to report to the police that someone committed a crime (there may be specific instances where you are required to report that certain facts have happened; e.g. large cash transfers from banks or serious car accidents.). If you hinder the investigation or help the perpetrator or something akin to that you may be in trouble.
2) In this case, they aren't "charging the transgressor based on special knowledge of the crime." They are enternig into a contract with an individual. Exceeding the contracted speed triggered the payment clause. That's it. It's no more blackmail than when the grocer charges you for his special knowledge that you are going to leave his store with a loaf of bread.
I showed my dad my Mac SE back in 87 or 88. He has used Wangs and PCs and dumb terminals but had never encountered a mouse. I had a Reversi (i.e. Othello) game on my Mac and this happened to be his favorite game so I tried to show him how to access it. He grasped the GUI right away. But when I told him to move the mouse to move the cursor, he picked up the mouse, moved it, and set it down. He was non-plussed when I told him he had to slide the mouse to get the cursor to move.
What exactly is this weighting system telling us? As you point out, this system has the effect of favoring old records over new records. Maybe there is some useful predictive value in this somewhere. Maybe with more granularity in the data, week-by-week sales for example, it would be more interesting. But as is it looks like a complicated justification for why the (old) music the author likes is better than new music.
A more serious onjection is that the study only examines albums. But albums have played different roles in the marketing of music. The single as a stand-alone product was tremendously important for a long time. Of course, counting those would probably catapult Slim Whitman into the Top Ten.
He also doesn't correct (though how this would be done I have no idea) for the effects of demographics. The Boomer generation is inordinately large and wealthy they could buy more records period. This is really the only explanation for the Eagles I think.;-) Michael Jackson's _Thriller_ was released in 1982 when the main record buying demographic was dominated by the baby bust generation. And it sold over 26 million copies in the US alone. An astonishing phenomenom.
Popular music works best as ephemera. And whatever you're in to when you are the right age is the best music that there has ever been. A brilliant disc by Beck, for example, is not going to affect me in the same way that a mere pretty good album by The Specials will. Why? Because I listened to The Specials in high school.
Are the Beatles a better band than Haircut 100? Sure. Are they better than XTC? Well maybe you think so but I don't. So what? Some bands changed pop music "forever" before and some will do it again. Now be quiet. The music's starting.
The main reason the US lags behind is that here the mobile phone user pays for incoming calls. This makes their use a bit less casual because of the increased cost to the owner of the mobile phone. Also, those European countries that have staggeringly high mobile phone market penetration rates also tend to be sparsely populated. Because the US is so large and has a large population, it requires much more infrastructure. In New York City, the number of mobile phone users per cell tower is many many times what it is in, say, Reykjavik. This means all mobile phone users here have to put up with service glitches that are apparently much less frequent in European markets.
>>To even
>>practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam.
>
>This is just plain nonsense. It's not true, and
>there is no such exam. Individual states have
>bar examinations under the authority of the
>state judiciary. In some states this is done in
>a fairly direct manner, in others it is
>delegated entirely to a semi-independent bar
>association. The ABA has nothing to do with
>these. An arm of the ABA does accredit law
>schools, however (but this may change, too.)
One caveat, in almost all states, in order to even take the bar exam you need to have graduated from an ABA accredited law school.
1) If I break the spine on a hardcover book, I can still read it. I've done something careless and damaged the carrying medium of the data but the data itself is still readily retrievable. If I crack the screen of an ebook device, the data may well still be intact but I have no simple way of retrieving it (unless the data is stored on a removable media and I have another, compatible player). Also, the replacement cost of an ebook device is substantially higher than the replacement cost of a hardcover book. Your point about the potential storage capabilities of an ebook player is well taken and part of the reason why ebooks will eventually dominate.
2) Obviously people who aren't burning books are generally not interested in damaging books for the fun of it. Your response to this question was disingenuous. The point is that things do accumulate wear. Presumably an ebook device will be a bit tougher than a shredded tree device, but the downside of damage is far greater. If I crack the spine on one of my books, only that one book is damaged. If I get a scratch on my ebook device's screen, *all* of my books have that flaw. That is a problem.
3) "The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas." I have found my electronic goodies to be short of battery life in times of bright sunlight more often than I have found myself wanting to read a book when no electric light was available. Still, this is really just a technical problem. Eventually, tiny fuel cells or super capacity batteries or Area 51 solar cells or something will allow an ebook device to go indefinitely (or at least weeks) without recharging.
4) Bookmarking and other indices are where ebooks can kick ass. Not just the page but the word! Not just margin notes but hyperlinks! Full text searching! Woo hoo!
5) Ebook devices are not as hospitable as books. Eyestrain is just one of the ergonomic issues. But again, this is just a technical problem. It isn't hard to imagine a device of comparable size and weight to a trade paper book that has a 600 dpi screen, is tough enough to stand up to some abuse, has vast storage capacity, offers wireless communications, has all the text analysis goodies one could want, and is even waterproof so you can use it in the tub or at the beach.
6) The license terms are tricky. I'd like to think that a viable model of inexpensive titles and vast storage will emerge. But who knows? As for it being "the exact same as the whole Napster thing," what do you mean?
The problem with ebooks, today, is that they aren't compelling to most people. "Ooooohhh more expensive, fragile, and less convenient? I'll take three!" Still, it is obvious that the technical problems will be overcome eventually. The rest will be up to authors and publishers.
This interview struck me as pointless. A more interesting interview would be with someone from the SciFi channel about why they put John Edward (accomplished practitioner of "cold reading" who prays on people by pretending to talk to the dead) on the air. (I hear Edward is moving to CBS to spread his quackery even further.) Or maybe James "the Amzing" Randi and Edward could both be interviewed. That would be entertaining. If the goal was to have fun with frauds, an ideal subject would be Ricky Jay. Mr. Jay is a closup illusionist extraordinaire, scholar of odd performers and scoundrels, and funny to boot. (Yes, I am a total fan boy.) Besides, he's done both David Mamet productions and the X-Files (as well as Boogie Nights). That's pretty geeky.
I assume so because the email says that the change doesn't affect customers on "volume based plans." I read that as saying if you contracted for 6 gigs a month, you get 6 gigs a month. Of course, you will also pay for 6 gigs when you only use 5. But them's the breaks
"Bait-and-switch" is when, for example, a store advertises something but when you go to purchase it, they are "sold out" (because they never had it) but have plenty of a different model that is "just a little bit more money."
The software model of cheap software / expensive support has evolved because a few people need much more support than others. If you wish to subsidize other people's need for support, be my guest. I'd rather have cheaper software and fix my own problems or research the answers online. (Thanks, Google!)
Video game consoles and razors are a different, classic pricing model. It is called the "razor pricing model." A razor is two things: a sharp thing and a handle thing. The sharp thing is a precision manufactured blade designed to scrape away unwanted facial hair (which has a tensile strength comparable to copper wire of the same diameter) with out scraping away the wanted flesh underneath. The handle thing is a modified stick. Which do you think is the value-add in this product? Moreover, the blade wears out. You may view this as part of the Illuminati's conspiracy to keep hirsute men in chains. If so, you are welcome to use a straight razor and a strap. Pay up your health insurance first though.
The Gillettes and Shicks of the world give away, practically, the stick part because it is cheap in itself and it will give you an incentive to purchase their blades in the future. Eventually you will see third-party blades that fit the Mach3. And you may or may not like them.
In addition, Gillette apparently spent $750 Million doing the R&D on the blade and blade assembly. There was an interesting article on it in the New Yorker a long while back. (Sorry, I couldn't find a link on Google.) I imagine they didn't do that for fun. I use the razor and am annoyed at the high cost of the blades. But, they do seem to give me a better shave than my Atra did and the blades seem to last a bit longer as well.
In short, none of the things you mentioned are bait-and-switch. The change in DSL pricing described in the email doesn't fit classic bait and switch either. Rather, it looks like a pricing change designed to avoid having to offer the service at a loss. It is more akin to bait-and-switch then the examples in your post because it is a change in the product. But they aren't pretending the product exists at all. There is *no* all-you-can-eat DSL anymore. This may be rude or unfair or gouging, but it isn't a bait-and-switch.
Re:Possession is 9/10 th's of the law
on
Make Way for Fiber
·
· Score: 1
The 9/10 quote is just a mutated meme. Possession is actually nine points of the law. The saying may come from common law or canon (i.e. church) law traditions. It is unclear how many points of law there were at the time of the quote, but if the number of lawyer jokes is any indication, the nine points of possession are much less than 9/10 of the law. Sorry about this, but you triggered one of my pet peeves. This one's name is Daryl.</pedantic>
If you didn't like this, you also may not like
on
The Business
·
· Score: 1
There is no reason for unions to exist in a capitalistic environment . . .
In a capitalist society, business is supposed to maximize the return on capital. The best way to do this is to be a monopoly. It isn't easy to do achieve but the rewards are great. The irony is that while seeking a monopoly is the goal that motivates capitalism, actually achieving it results in the destruction of competition that makes capitalism so successful and beneficial.
Unions create a power that helps counter the power of business. Similar to a good business seeking to maximize the return on capital, a good
union seeks to maximize the return on labor.
Where work is demanded, employers compete for empolyees. All that is needed is for independent groups to provide easy access to this employment data. Viola! No need for unions.
Mobility of the labor force has been a great boon for the economy. But that may not matter to individuals who like where they live. If they want to stay and can collectively force a company to remain, more power to them. The beauty of the Invisible Hand is that it is all about freedom. If business and labor are both free to seek the best terms they can, both sides benefit.
A bug (in my development experience, limited though it is) has both a severity and a frequency. A sev 1 bug that rarely happens might not be as important as a sev 3 bug that is a frequent annoyance. We always eliminated all known Sev 0 bugs (crash server; yikes) but the occasional Sev 1 bug that was very hard to kill AND deemed unlikely to affect the customer was left in so we could release now and fixed in the SP or point release. Yes, leaving bugs in sucks but sometimes not shipping until they are all dead sucks more.
"I would not mind if it were just stupid redneck Americans playing these games, but even educated nations such as Great Britain and Japan now seem to be obsessed with these semi-pornographic games."
Perhaps he can work on the port of Martin Prince's (of "The Simpsons") favorite, "My Dinner With Andre: The Video Game"
A better story covering some of the same ground...
on
Microchips That Evolve
·
· Score: 1
My favorite thing in "Sneakers" (other than the "cattle mutilations are up" bit) was seeing the evil hacker Cosmo demonstrate how he was using his mafia-owned supercomputer (A Y-MP? I don't remember.) to run Excel. Windows everywhere indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a tip: the stuff after the word "brand" is what you are actually buying. It is not precisely the name of the thing you are buying. In "Kleenex Brand Tissues" "Kleenex" is the trademark, "Brand" is the word that tells you the thing you just read, (i.e. "Kleenex"), is its trademark name, and what ever comes after "Brand" is the generic class, i.e. Tissues. Think of it as species and genus.
You state that the relation ship between the words "Adobe" and "Illustrator" is the same as the relationship between "Kleenex" and "Tissues". I find it hard to believe you think this since earlier you point out that Kimberly-Clark makes Kleenex. Adobe makes Illustrator. Kleenex is a brand name for Kimberly-Clark's version of the thin slices of dried pulp that are more commonly called tissues. Adobe is to Kimberly-Clark as Illustrator is to Kleenex as vector drawing programs are to tissues.
I'm curious, have you ever heard someone refer to vector drawing programs as "illustrator programs"? (Note the little "i".) Drawing program is what I hear but then, I don't get out much. And if you think that "tissue" and "glass cleaner" are not in common use, stroll down the generic product aisle of your favorite supermarket. Or ask a photographer. These terms are *so* common that they are the name for the thing itself. That is, they are generic.
As for the lawyers being nasty, well, duh.
"I can't think of a better term for an application program orientated towards creating illustrations than an illustrator. Can you?"
An "illustrator" is someone who illustrates, someone who creates illustrations. A piece of software is not an "illustrator," it is a tool. I think "Draw" is probably the most generic term likely to be used as a vector drawing program name. It is (or has been) used by at least three commercial programs that I can remember, including the one I worked on, Harvard Draw.
"This technologically-driven ADD is transforming politics, entertainment, sports and culture."
;^)
The ADD reference is not helpful. I do not think this article is discussing the possible intersection of many information sources and the medical condition of Attention Deficit Disorder. Rather it appears to be about finding stuff worth looking at and convincing people that your stuff is worth looking at. "ADD" is a loaded buzzword and misusing it in this context does a disservice to those suffering from it and those trying to understand what you have written. Consider your reaction to misuse of the word "hacker".
"There is only so much attention to go around, and we are being bombarded with more information all the time. Most of us have no idea how to allocate our attention widely or productively."
I think this last is at least a partial contradiction. I can allocate my attention widely but it isn't always productive to do so. And vice versa. "Widely AND productively" would be a real trick.
"Those who can help us will be rich."
These people used to be called "editors". How many of them are rich?
"Acme also can't really amend the contract to charge a fee for "fast driving." That would expose them to a slew of lawsuits as a conspirator to speeding or contributor to any accidents that resulted because of it."
/.er noted that sometimes speeding is necessary to avoid an accident. But it would be a simple matter to contract around this problem. There could be a provision that speeding that exceeds the agreed upon limit but returns to it in less than a minute is not a violation of the terms of the contract. A minute is an eternity in an accident avoidance situation. At 80 MPH (Yes, yes you /.ers in parts of the world where people can count to ten; I use "standard" measures. Quit whining about it. Your lucky we got past the "rods to the hogshead" measurements of Grampa Simpson.) you will cover more than 7000 feet in one minute.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Beyond the inchoate liability issues of "conspiring to speed," what the company is trying to do (beyond the revenue generation issue, natch) is prevent speeding. They are trying to discourage unlawful behavior, not encourage it. They may make a profit off a customer's unlawful behavior but that is not inherently illegal. Would you be happier if the lease contract was for $2000 / day with a $1965 rebate if you don't speed?
As for being a "contributor to accidents", again, they are trying to discourage these by discouraging speeding. Again, they may profit off of the speeding that lead to an accident, but so does a body shop or mortician. Another
Does this address your concerns with the liability issues?
"If they don't incur a loss, they don't have grounds to claim a customer owes them money."
There's a "free as in beer" or RMS joke to be made somewhere in here but I just can't get it together this morning.
"Due process" is not a right that can be bargained away to an employer. All it means is that a person cannot be deprived of "process" they are "due" (i.e. owed). Most employers don't owe you any process at all. The state (meaning any government) owes you process in various proceedings. But your employer doesn't owe you anything unless they promise it to you first. So if the contract or employee manual states that they can't fire you without first getting you to fall for the henway gambit, then they can't. That's as close as an employer gets to owing you "due process."
In general, of course, you're right. Most of the rights you have can be contracted away. So what? There are any number of ways to get along through life without giving up any particular right you are concerned with. They may well be less comfortable, but thems the breaks. And exercising rights has all sorts of consequences. Every choice you make has an opportunity cost. By exercising your "right" to have a glass of water first thing after your run, you've lost the "right" to do anything else first thing. This example obviously trivializes your choice of language, "human rights", but I think it is one extreme on a continuum. YMMV.
I think you are confused by the phrase "contains illegal acts." A contract can make reference to an illegal act. However, a contract cannot require the *performace* of an illegal act. In this example, the contract is requiring the van renter to *not perform* an illegal act. No problem there. There are many contracts that have clauses requiring that certain illegal acts not be performed. Many so-called "morals clauses" in endorsement contracts, for example, contain these provisions. (They also typically contain many more provisions for legal acts that the contractor doesn't want you to do because it would reflect poorly on the product. I believe there was a clause like this in the endorsement contract between the Beef Council and Cybil Sheppard. Ms. Sheppard announced she was a vegetarian in some interview. Whoops.)
Good Samaritan laws are the exception, not the rule, in the US. In most jurisdictions, there is no affirmative duty to aid another. However, anything you do must be "reasonable" (in the legal sense). If I watch you drowning, I have no duty to help you. However, if I start to rescue you, I must be "reasonable." I can't start to rescue you, have you rely on my rescue attempt (by, for example, stop asking others for help), and then abandon the attempt for no reason.
1) You have no general duty (in the US) to report to the police that someone committed a crime (there may be specific instances where you are required to report that certain facts have happened; e.g. large cash transfers from banks or serious car accidents.). If you hinder the investigation or help the perpetrator or something akin to that you may be in trouble.
2) In this case, they aren't "charging the transgressor based on special knowledge of the crime." They are enternig into a contract with an individual. Exceeding the contracted speed triggered the payment clause. That's it. It's no more blackmail than when the grocer charges you for his special knowledge that you are going to leave his store with a loaf of bread.
I showed my dad my Mac SE back in 87 or 88. He has used Wangs and PCs and dumb terminals but had never encountered a mouse. I had a Reversi (i.e. Othello) game on my Mac and this happened to be his favorite game so I tried to show him how to access it. He grasped the GUI right away. But when I told him to move the mouse to move the cursor, he picked up the mouse, moved it, and set it down. He was non-plussed when I told him he had to slide the mouse to get the cursor to move.
What exactly is this weighting system telling us? As you point out, this system has the effect of favoring old records over new records. Maybe there is some useful predictive value in this somewhere. Maybe with more granularity in the data, week-by-week sales for example, it would be more interesting. But as is it looks like a complicated justification for why the (old) music the author likes is better than new music.
;-) Michael Jackson's _Thriller_ was released in 1982 when the main record buying demographic was dominated by the baby bust generation. And it sold over 26 million copies in the US alone. An astonishing phenomenom.
A more serious onjection is that the study only examines albums. But albums have played different roles in the marketing of music. The single as a stand-alone product was tremendously important for a long time. Of course, counting those would probably catapult Slim Whitman into the Top Ten.
He also doesn't correct (though how this would be done I have no idea) for the effects of demographics. The Boomer generation is inordinately large and wealthy they could buy more records period. This is really the only explanation for the Eagles I think.
Popular music works best as ephemera. And whatever you're in to when you are the right age is the best music that there has ever been. A brilliant disc by Beck, for example, is not going to affect me in the same way that a mere pretty good album by The Specials will. Why? Because I listened to The Specials in high school.
Are the Beatles a better band than Haircut 100? Sure. Are they better than XTC? Well maybe you think so but I don't. So what? Some bands changed pop music "forever" before and some will do it again. Now be quiet. The music's starting.
The main reason the US lags behind is that here the mobile phone user pays for incoming calls. This makes their use a bit less casual because of the increased cost to the owner of the mobile phone. Also, those European countries that have staggeringly high mobile phone market penetration rates also tend to be sparsely populated. Because the US is so large and has a large population, it requires much more infrastructure. In New York City, the number of mobile phone users per cell tower is many many times what it is in, say, Reykjavik. This means all mobile phone users here have to put up with service glitches that are apparently much less frequent in European markets.
>>To even
>>practice law, you have to pass an ABA exam.
>
>This is just plain nonsense. It's not true, and
>there is no such exam. Individual states have
>bar examinations under the authority of the
>state judiciary. In some states this is done in
>a fairly direct manner, in others it is
>delegated entirely to a semi-independent bar
>association. The ABA has nothing to do with
>these. An arm of the ABA does accredit law
>schools, however (but this may change, too.)
One caveat, in almost all states, in order to even take the bar exam you need to have graduated from an ABA accredited law school.
1) If I break the spine on a hardcover book, I can still read it. I've done something careless and damaged the carrying medium of the data but the data itself is still readily retrievable. If I crack the screen of an ebook device, the data may well still be intact but I have no simple way of retrieving it (unless the data is stored on a removable media and I have another, compatible player). Also, the replacement cost of an ebook device is substantially higher than the replacement cost of a hardcover book. Your point about the potential storage capabilities of an ebook player is well taken and part of the reason why ebooks will eventually dominate.
2) Obviously people who aren't burning books are generally not interested in damaging books for the fun of it. Your response to this question was disingenuous. The point is that things do accumulate wear. Presumably an ebook device will be a bit tougher than a shredded tree device, but the downside of damage is far greater. If I crack the spine on one of my books, only that one book is damaged. If I get a scratch on my ebook device's screen, *all* of my books have that flaw. That is a problem.
3) "The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas." I have found my electronic goodies to be short of battery life in times of bright sunlight more often than I have found myself wanting to read a book when no electric light was available. Still, this is really just a technical problem. Eventually, tiny fuel cells or super capacity batteries or Area 51 solar cells or something will allow an ebook device to go indefinitely (or at least weeks) without recharging.
4) Bookmarking and other indices are where ebooks can kick ass. Not just the page but the word! Not just margin notes but hyperlinks! Full text searching! Woo hoo!
5) Ebook devices are not as hospitable as books. Eyestrain is just one of the ergonomic issues. But again, this is just a technical problem. It isn't hard to imagine a device of comparable size and weight to a trade paper book that has a 600 dpi screen, is tough enough to stand up to some abuse, has vast storage capacity, offers wireless communications, has all the text analysis goodies one could want, and is even waterproof so you can use it in the tub or at the beach.
6) The license terms are tricky. I'd like to think that a viable model of inexpensive titles and vast storage will emerge. But who knows? As for it being "the exact same as the whole Napster thing," what do you mean?
The problem with ebooks, today, is that they aren't compelling to most people. "Ooooohhh more expensive, fragile, and less convenient? I'll take three!" Still, it is obvious that the technical problems will be overcome eventually. The rest will be up to authors and publishers.
As my Torts professor was fond of saying, "Legal writing is to writing as military music is to music."
This interview struck me as pointless. A more interesting interview would be with someone from the SciFi channel about why they put John Edward (accomplished practitioner of "cold reading" who prays on people by pretending to talk to the dead) on the air. (I hear Edward is moving to CBS to spread his quackery even further.) Or maybe James "the Amzing" Randi and Edward could both be interviewed. That would be entertaining. If the goal was to have fun with frauds, an ideal subject would be Ricky Jay. Mr. Jay is a closup illusionist extraordinaire, scholar of odd performers and scoundrels, and funny to boot. (Yes, I am a total fan boy.) Besides, he's done both David Mamet productions and the X-Files (as well as Boogie Nights). That's pretty geeky.
I assume so because the email says that the change doesn't affect customers on "volume based plans." I read that as saying if you contracted for 6 gigs a month, you get 6 gigs a month. Of course, you will also pay for 6 gigs when you only use 5. But them's the breaks
"Bait-and-switch" is when, for example, a store advertises something but when you go to purchase it, they are "sold out" (because they never had it) but have plenty of a different model that is "just a little bit more money."
The software model of cheap software / expensive support has evolved because a few people need much more support than others. If you wish to subsidize other people's need for support, be my guest. I'd rather have cheaper software and fix my own problems or research the answers online. (Thanks, Google!)
Video game consoles and razors are a different, classic pricing model. It is called the "razor pricing model." A razor is two things: a sharp thing and a handle thing. The sharp thing is a precision manufactured blade designed to scrape away unwanted facial hair (which has a tensile strength comparable to copper wire of the same diameter) with out scraping away the wanted flesh underneath. The handle thing is a modified stick. Which do you think is the value-add in this product? Moreover, the blade wears out. You may view this as part of the Illuminati's conspiracy to keep hirsute men in chains. If so, you are welcome to use a straight razor and a strap. Pay up your health insurance first though.
The Gillettes and Shicks of the world give away, practically, the stick part because it is cheap in itself and it will give you an incentive to purchase their blades in the future. Eventually you will see third-party blades that fit the Mach3. And you may or may not like them.
In addition, Gillette apparently spent $750 Million doing the R&D on the blade and blade assembly. There was an interesting article on it in the New Yorker a long while back. (Sorry, I couldn't find a link on Google.) I imagine they didn't do that for fun. I use the razor and am annoyed at the high cost of the blades. But, they do seem to give me a better shave than my Atra did and the blades seem to last a bit longer as well.
In short, none of the things you mentioned are bait-and-switch. The change in DSL pricing described in the email doesn't fit classic bait and switch either. Rather, it looks like a pricing change designed to avoid having to offer the service at a loss. It is more akin to bait-and-switch then the examples in your post because it is a change in the product. But they aren't pretending the product exists at all. There is *no* all-you-can-eat DSL anymore. This may be rude or unfair or gouging, but it isn't a bait-and-switch.
The 9/10 quote is just a mutated meme. Possession is actually nine points of the law. The saying may come from common law or canon (i.e. church) law traditions. It is unclear how many points of law there were at the time of the quote, but if the number of lawyer jokes is any indication, the nine points of possession are much less than 9/10 of the law. Sorry about this, but you triggered one of my pet peeves. This one's name is Daryl.</pedantic>
"Interface" by the pseudonymous Stephen Bury.
There is no reason for unions to exist in a capitalistic environment . . .
In a capitalist society, business is supposed to maximize the return on capital. The best way to do this is to be a monopoly. It isn't easy to do achieve but the rewards are great. The irony is that while seeking a monopoly is the goal that motivates capitalism, actually achieving it results in the destruction of competition that makes capitalism so successful and beneficial.
Unions create a power that helps counter the power of business. Similar to a good business seeking to maximize the return on capital, a good union seeks to maximize the return on labor.
Where work is demanded, employers compete for empolyees. All that is needed is for independent groups to provide easy access to this employment data. Viola! No need for unions.
Mobility of the labor force has been a great boon for the economy. But that may not matter to individuals who like where they live. If they want to stay and can collectively force a company to remain, more power to them. The beauty of the Invisible Hand is that it is all about freedom. If business and labor are both free to seek the best terms they can, both sides benefit.
A bug (in my development experience, limited though it is) has both a severity and a frequency. A sev 1 bug that rarely happens might not be as important as a sev 3 bug that is a frequent annoyance. We always eliminated all known Sev 0 bugs (crash server; yikes) but the occasional Sev 1 bug that was very hard to kill AND deemed unlikely to affect the customer was left in so we could release now and fixed in the SP or point release. Yes, leaving bugs in sucks but sometimes not shipping until they are all dead sucks more.
"I would not mind if it were just stupid redneck Americans playing these games, but even educated nations such as Great Britain and Japan now seem to be obsessed with these semi-pornographic games."
Perhaps he can work on the port of Martin Prince's (of "The Simpsons") favorite, "My Dinner With Andre: The Video Game"
ran in the Economist.
My favorite thing in "Sneakers" (other than the "cattle mutilations are up" bit) was seeing the evil hacker Cosmo demonstrate how he was using his mafia-owned supercomputer (A Y-MP? I don't remember.) to run Excel. Windows everywhere indeed.