Yeah. Because businesses like paying license fees, taxes, tariffs, and duties, and having their goods embargoed.
"Business" as such, is indeed hurt by these. But don't make the fallacy of composition -- specific businesses can certainly benefit from them through elimination or hindering of rivals. For example, Sarbanes-Oxley -- ostensibly to promote a fair environment -- actually imposes disproportionate costs on smaller businesses. ExxonMobil can easily adjust its finance department to comply. A newer firm going public is going to have a tougher time. I don't mean to reopen the SarbOx debate, just to point out that it's a regulation that *some* specific businesses can feel comfortable cheering on.
In fact, politics can basically be summed up as "Businesses trying to cloak self-serving regulations as being in the public interest, while the ones that 'just' focus on serving customers get screwed."
Conservative/Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz ran into the same thing. (According to a story he regularly tells) He told some airline, Delta I think, that the security check in procedures were too lax. They ignored him. After he was fed up with that, he made a bet with the head of security, then dressed up like a pilot, got waved through a checkpoint, and once on a plane, he got out his cell phone and called the head of security to let him know he got through.
Don't know what became of that. (This was long before 9/11.)
It doesn't equate technicians with scientists. It just says that they are "jobs in science", i.e., a job whose effort is directed to a scientific end. The point is, these are things that need to be done to gain scientific knowledge.
True. For example, take the worst case: Ted Stevens. I mean, he was correct to say that "The internet is not a truck.", yes yes? That's true. The internet is not a truck.
Yeah, but I mean, I can't sympathize with Lik-Sang. He could have put up a defense. Didn't Sony choose to only sue him in one country so he'd have a chance?
Their net book value is also negative, in the 10's of billions.
That means that, even with ALL that "huge number of plants, huge real estate holdings, global infrastructure", if it were all sold, it wouldn't cancel out their pension, health care, union employment, and bond obligations.
Having real assets does not eliminate real debt.
Btw, most of those are legacy costs that don't add to product value. Toyota doesn't have them. Good luck competing, GM.
And, even though their bonds are "no longer junk", their 30 year bonds pay interest rates as if they were.
think it would be better to buy a $250 unit from a profitable company than a $500 unit from a failing one.
This would be a good time to remind everyone that when GM tries to get its sales going again through offering that great "10 year, 100,000 mile warranty", you need to remind yourself that that really means, "10 year, 100,000 mile, or until we go bankrupt warranty".
The biggest improvement I got in shaving was when I stopped using shaving cream (while using Mach 3), rather than getting a razor with more blades. I didn't think it would work, but it did. It felt rough at first, but after a while, as long as your face is wet, the shave is closer, more comfortable, and with far fewer cuts. In fact, I don't think I've cut myself since dropping the shaving cream (~6 months ago).
Very true. Strictly speaking, I'm sure Google is "intervening" in the sense that they're trying to improve the algorithm so as to maintain its effectiveness without allowing people to use it for Googlebombs. The goal is to shut down these pranksters WITHOUT specifically making exceptions for their targets as part of the algorithm. It's kind of an arms race between Google and the pranksters, the result of which will most likely make the search engine better.
Of course it was stupid to remove rumble, and of course it wasn't necessary to support the motion sensing. Sony's just trying to make the best of bad deal. The rumble patent is probably the one part of the PS3 development/marketing on which I actually sympathize with them. The patent was total crap. Way to broad, way too obvious. We should be thanking Sony for trying to fight patent, rather than rewarding Immersion through settling.
Everything else Sony has done is boneheaded (going for overpriced design, trying to impose BluRay through the PS3, arrogant statements, E3 screwups, poor production management), but on the rumble patent, I do feel for them.
Make sure none of the students is able to carry out any of the classroom handouts unless each page is clearly marked with a copyright warning on both sides.
Well, if it's really that bad, they should be able to get a court order to shut down the sites, at which point, Google will comply... coincidentally, like they said they would:
Google, whose corporate motto is "don't be evil", says it will take the blogs in question offline only if ordered to do so by a court."
The difference is that when the government censors speech, they are making that speech illegal. If they catch you performing that speech, you will be arrested. On the other hand, if you're "caught" re-recording a clip that really falls under fair use rights, you won't be arrested, as that is legal. (Sure, the RIAA could bribe a judge or whatever, but in that case, the problem is bribery, not DRM.) A technological limitation of the encoding is not an infrigment of your fair use rights.
Right, but if, for whatever reason, your argument against DRM were some excuse like "DRM takes away my fair use rights", the possibility of analog re-recording kinda puts lie to that. Fair use requirements (though not easy copyright violation) can be satisfied by re-recording that fair use clip you plan to use.
Does anyone use the "fair use" argument against DRM anymore?
So, then, do you want the transcript of the communications, or would you prefer to just join the others and assume everything incorrectly?...Yeah, I figured.
Actually, asshole who fires off before understanding the situation, I explained the work, and the potential coders placed their bids. A bid is how much they, not I, think they can do the job for. At no point did I suggest that number. I even turned down lower bids.
b) telling coders how much time a job will take without a detailed spec and schedule to back it up (in the RFP).
No. I never told anyone how much time it would take. That was my rough estimate, soley for purposes of gauging complaints about wages. The spec was detailed enough for an intelligent human being to know what program would satisfy it. The Coder asked for a month, and that was set in the contract.
c) hiring in an environment (RAC) that simply will not support first world lifesyles.
The Coder was in Italy and seemed to think that bid supported his lifestyle.
d) letting your inner asshole free while writing the RFP and corresponding with overseas coders.
Your basis for this is?
Like I say I don't know more about you then reading a few posts on/. But I already would'nt respond to your RFP at any price.
Thanks for not cluttering the bids.
Don't know why I'm wasting time posting.
There's a lot of things you don't know, apparently. You don't know who set the rate. You don't know what a "detailed spec" means. You don't know how much time the Coder was given. You didn't know the Coder was from the first world, beliving his bid would support his lifestyle.
But as for your lack of knowledge as to why you are "wasting your time" posting? That I can rectify. You are posting because you feel that programmers can do no wrong and that it is your obligation to "stand up for your brethren", coupled with a general mentality that, when it comes to forming an opinion, facts... are just another inconvenience.
The "cheating" was in "forgetting" a requirement he obviously understood from the beginning, even showing an example of its implementation. The "cheating" was in demanding that I pay him *right now* for work that's obviously not complete. The "cheating" was in griping about cost of living to get me to pay him more after we agreed to terms.
Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what "word processing" is. A text editor that allows you to make words bold counts as a word processor. A wysiwyg html editor that handles three tags is a word processor. Take a look. I used the term "word processor" here because I thought people would realize I was using a term with a standardized meaning, but I guess all the meaning you got out of it was that I think MS Word could be written in a day. But at least now I understand that anyone who suggested that I "just" modify an existing word processor had no clue what they were talking about -- and that's a lot of people.
As for unpredictability, they had time to look at what they would need to do to implement the features. It's not a huge project with loads of unpredictability.
Heh. Your post is a great example of the jerking around I got in my search for a solution to my problem (of which RAC was only a part). People would tell me, "OH, hey, that's so easy, man, just let me do it, it's a cinch" and then when it came to actually, you know, doing it, they'd quickly sputter. They'd say, "Oh, simple, just use off-the-shelf $PROGRAM_X for that, that handles requirement Y." "Did you actually understand Y?" "... oh... I guess X can't do that." Then people would say, "Oh, simple, just modify the source code of $OPEN_SOURCE_SOLUTION_Z, because as everyone knows, anyone familiar with C++ can always learn from any open source solution they come across simply by reading the clearly-written, well-commented code!" And now you're coming in and saying, merely to figure out the word processor itself, let alone write with it, is complex.
Now do I have an excuse for high blood pressure?
Anyone who wants to follow up on the specs, btw, should post about it in my journal, even though it'd be off-topic.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it was just photoshopped. Gimme ten minutes, and I can give you a wave doing 99.999% of the speed of light.
Yeah. Because businesses like paying license fees, taxes, tariffs, and duties, and having their goods embargoed.
"Business" as such, is indeed hurt by these. But don't make the fallacy of composition -- specific businesses can certainly benefit from them through elimination or hindering of rivals. For example, Sarbanes-Oxley -- ostensibly to promote a fair environment -- actually imposes disproportionate costs on smaller businesses. ExxonMobil can easily adjust its finance department to comply. A newer firm going public is going to have a tougher time. I don't mean to reopen the SarbOx debate, just to point out that it's a regulation that *some* specific businesses can feel comfortable cheering on.
In fact, politics can basically be summed up as "Businesses trying to cloak self-serving regulations as being in the public interest, while the ones that 'just' focus on serving customers get screwed."
"AARP" doesn't mean "American Association of Retired Persons" anymore. So "AARP" actually doesn't stand for anything
(except for fucking anyone under 50 on Social Security, of course)
Games becoming like MTV? So that would mean:
Increasingly, less of a game (MTV) involves your input (music) and instead has little parts where you watch some cheesy cinema (sitcom).
Then, those movies (sitcoms) take up more and more of the game (MTV), to the point where it no longer has much of a game (music videos) left.
Then those videos (sitcoms) become increasingly sex- and celebrity-oriented.
Yep, sounds about right.
Yeah.
They dropped this case because they felt they needed to divert more of their efforts to protecting the Second Amendment.
Conservative/Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz ran into the same thing. (According to a story he regularly tells) He told some airline, Delta I think, that the security check in procedures were too lax. They ignored him. After he was fed up with that, he made a bet with the head of security, then dressed up like a pilot, got waved through a checkpoint, and once on a plane, he got out his cell phone and called the head of security to let him know he got through.
Don't know what became of that. (This was long before 9/11.)
Yeah, they need to just get with the program and do perpetual Beta versions, like Google.
It doesn't equate technicians with scientists. It just says that they are "jobs in science", i.e., a job whose effort is directed to a scientific end. The point is, these are things that need to be done to gain scientific knowledge.
--NitpickDupe
True. For example, take the worst case: Ted Stevens. I mean, he was correct to say that "The internet is not a truck.", yes yes? That's true. The internet is not a truck.
Yeah, but I mean, I can't sympathize with Lik-Sang. He could have put up a defense. Didn't Sony choose to only sue him in one country so he'd have a chance?
Their net book value is also negative, in the 10's of billions.
That means that, even with ALL that "huge number of plants, huge real estate holdings, global infrastructure", if it were all sold, it wouldn't cancel out their pension, health care, union employment, and bond obligations.
Having real assets does not eliminate real debt.
Btw, most of those are legacy costs that don't add to product value. Toyota doesn't have them. Good luck competing, GM.
And, even though their bonds are "no longer junk", their 30 year bonds pay interest rates as if they were.
think it would be better to buy a $250 unit from a profitable company than a $500 unit from a failing one.
This would be a good time to remind everyone that when GM tries to get its sales going again through offering that great "10 year, 100,000 mile warranty", you need to remind yourself that that really means, "10 year, 100,000 mile, or until we go bankrupt warranty".
The biggest improvement I got in shaving was when I stopped using shaving cream (while using Mach 3), rather than getting a razor with more blades. I didn't think it would work, but it did. It felt rough at first, but after a while, as long as your face is wet, the shave is closer, more comfortable, and with far fewer cuts. In fact, I don't think I've cut myself since dropping the shaving cream (~6 months ago).
Damn shaving cream marketers!
Very true. Strictly speaking, I'm sure Google is "intervening" in the sense that they're trying to improve the algorithm so as to maintain its effectiveness without allowing people to use it for Googlebombs. The goal is to shut down these pranksters WITHOUT specifically making exceptions for their targets as part of the algorithm. It's kind of an arms race between Google and the pranksters, the result of which will most likely make the search engine better.
Of course it was stupid to remove rumble, and of course it wasn't necessary to support the motion sensing. Sony's just trying to make the best of bad deal. The rumble patent is probably the one part of the PS3 development/marketing on which I actually sympathize with them. The patent was total crap. Way to broad, way too obvious. We should be thanking Sony for trying to fight patent, rather than rewarding Immersion through settling.
Everything else Sony has done is boneheaded (going for overpriced design, trying to impose BluRay through the PS3, arrogant statements, E3 screwups, poor production management), but on the rumble patent, I do feel for them.
Make sure none of the students is able to carry out any of the classroom handouts unless each page is clearly marked with a copyright warning on both sides.
Well, you may be content with it, but I'm always a dupe for new Ubuntu stuff.
The difference is that when the government censors speech, they are making that speech illegal. If they catch you performing that speech, you will be arrested. On the other hand, if you're "caught" re-recording a clip that really falls under fair use rights, you won't be arrested, as that is legal. (Sure, the RIAA could bribe a judge or whatever, but in that case, the problem is bribery, not DRM.) A technological limitation of the encoding is not an infrigment of your fair use rights.
Right, but if, for whatever reason, your argument against DRM were some excuse like "DRM takes away my fair use rights", the possibility of analog re-recording kinda puts lie to that. Fair use requirements (though not easy copyright violation) can be satisfied by re-recording that fair use clip you plan to use.
Does anyone use the "fair use" argument against DRM anymore?
So, then, do you want the transcript of the communications, or would you prefer to just join the others and assume everything incorrectly? ...Yeah, I figured.
You're:
/. But I already would'nt respond to your RFP at any price.
... are just another inconvenience.
a) paying a bottom feeders rate.
Actually, asshole who fires off before understanding the situation, I explained the work, and the potential coders placed their bids. A bid is how much they, not I, think they can do the job for. At no point did I suggest that number. I even turned down lower bids.
b) telling coders how much time a job will take without a detailed spec and schedule to back it up (in the RFP).
No. I never told anyone how much time it would take. That was my rough estimate, soley for purposes of gauging complaints about wages. The spec was detailed enough for an intelligent human being to know what program would satisfy it. The Coder asked for a month, and that was set in the contract.
c) hiring in an environment (RAC) that simply will not support first world lifesyles.
The Coder was in Italy and seemed to think that bid supported his lifestyle.
d) letting your inner asshole free while writing the RFP and corresponding with overseas coders.
Your basis for this is?
Like I say I don't know more about you then reading a few posts on
Thanks for not cluttering the bids.
Don't know why I'm wasting time posting.
There's a lot of things you don't know, apparently. You don't know who set the rate. You don't know what a "detailed spec" means. You don't know how much time the Coder was given. You didn't know the Coder was from the first world, beliving his bid would support his lifestyle.
But as for your lack of knowledge as to why you are "wasting your time" posting? That I can rectify. You are posting because you feel that programmers can do no wrong and that it is your obligation to "stand up for your brethren", coupled with a general mentality that, when it comes to forming an opinion, facts
Glad I could help you with that one.
The "cheating" was in "forgetting" a requirement he obviously understood from the beginning, even showing an example of its implementation. The "cheating" was in demanding that I pay him *right now* for work that's obviously not complete. The "cheating" was in griping about cost of living to get me to pay him more after we agreed to terms.
Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what "word processing" is. A text editor that allows you to make words bold counts as a word processor. A wysiwyg html editor that handles three tags is a word processor. Take a look. I used the term "word processor" here because I thought people would realize I was using a term with a standardized meaning, but I guess all the meaning you got out of it was that I think MS Word could be written in a day. But at least now I understand that anyone who suggested that I "just" modify an existing word processor had no clue what they were talking about -- and that's a lot of people.
As for unpredictability, they had time to look at what they would need to do to implement the features. It's not a huge project with loads of unpredictability.
Heh. Your post is a great example of the jerking around I got in my search for a solution to my problem (of which RAC was only a part). People would tell me, "OH, hey, that's so easy, man, just let me do it, it's a cinch" and then when it came to actually, you know, doing it, they'd quickly sputter. They'd say, "Oh, simple, just use off-the-shelf $PROGRAM_X for that, that handles requirement Y." "Did you actually understand Y?" "... oh ... I guess X can't do that." Then people would say, "Oh, simple, just modify the source code of $OPEN_SOURCE_SOLUTION_Z, because as everyone knows, anyone familiar with C++ can always learn from any open source solution they come across simply by reading the clearly-written, well-commented code!" And now you're coming in and saying, merely to figure out the word processor itself, let alone write with it, is complex.
Now do I have an excuse for high blood pressure?
Anyone who wants to follow up on the specs, btw, should post about it in my journal, even though it'd be off-topic.