Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?
Oh wait...sorry. That would be productive and require more brainpower than the "yes it is! no it isn't!" shouting match.
Cool. If only they paid the *car owner* a "bounty" for recycling the batteries.
In wonder what will happen with all those hybrids when the batteries reach the end of their service life and need to be replaced? With this new generation of hybrids, will we see a huge move towards leasing instead of buying?
"...but the company says it still prefers licensing deals with open-source developers, software distributors and users instead of legal action against them."
Me too! I prefer people to just give me money rather than have to go through all the hassle of producing something of value.
Hey, Microsoft! I've got a bunch of patents that you're infringing and I would prefer that you go ahead and license them from me rather than starting an ugly legal battle. I'll even give you a deal (just this once, because you like a nice kid): $100 Million for the lot. This offer won't be repeated, so take advantage while you still can!
"but we don't have the viewership that a great show should get"
Are they including iTunes downloads and DVD sales? If not, why not? These days, anyone between the ages of 15 and 30 spends more time watching downloads and DVDs than they do tuning into TV broadcasts.
The era of everyone tuning into a scheduled TV broadcast is *over*. Does Nielsen still think it's 1960?
Does someone here work for one of these companies? Flamebait, huh? You're right...what I said has no basis at all. I mean Verizon and Comcast have *great* customer service.
Personally, I think several of our social problems stem from the automobile culture and it's effect on our city planning and lives.
Perhaps if people, oh, I don't know... didn't live 30 miles from where they worked? If our city planners allowed for the necessary commercial establishments (grocery & drug stores, etc.) to be integral parts of a neighborhood instead of having enormous residential zones separated by equally enormous commercial zones? What about all of the land we waste on roads and parking lots? The list goes on and on...
What really gets me is all the people who are outraged about the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, but don't bat an eye at the fact that the total number of lives lost (both Iraqi and occupation forces) over 5 years is less than a single year of fatalities on the roads in the U.S. I mean, in Iraq they're actually *trying* to kill each other, and they can't top the number of *accidental* deaths on our roads?! Why do we put up with this nonsense?
Ah, there's the rub. If I'm on a secret government list of suspected terrorists, then it's also a crime for me to know about it, let alone reveal the fact. That, and I don't know that any restitution (I strongly doubt any would be forthcoming from the government) would cover my having been detained in a military prison and tortured for information.
Of course, the above scenario doesn't apply to US citizens. That we know about. Yet.
Verizon's lawyers are simply perpetuating a common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Yes, we are free to say what we please. No, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.
In old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the problem is not the speech itself, but the resulting stampede and probable damage to people and property.
Slander is another example. You are free to stand up in public and say all sorts of nasty things about someone, but then they can sue you.
If Verizon wants to claim First Amendment rights, fine. We'll just start a class-action lawsuit.
Then let me ask you a question: can you explain why in the U.S., where there is most definietly not a monopoly air carrier, that travel between two given cities at a certain time of day costs roughly the same for a given class of service across all of the major airlines (Southwest being the obvious exception)?
You'll notice that when one airline raises ticket prices, they pretty much all do. Coincidence?
Let's suppose that one airline got the bright idea to charge its passengers an "infrastructure improvement" fee for travel on its busiest routes. The idea being that this money would be put towards buying nicer new jets so that travelers will enjoy more space and faster flights.
Do you suppose that the other airlines would follow suit and start to charge the same fee, or would they forgo collecting the fee to try and gain market share by offering lower prices?
My assertion is that most of the airlines would start to charge the fee. The difference for a given ticket would be small in comparison to the overall cost of travel; only truly dedicated penny-pinchers would care enough to try find an airline that doesn't charge the fee (who flies ValueJet?). The stated purpose behind the fee is non-binding, so just because a certain airline collects the fee, it doesn't mean that they're obligated to actually spend it on new jets (and really, who would bother to check?). It's an easy cost/benefit analysis: you gain a lot of money by charging the new fee vs. perhaps picking up a small amount of "value conscious" customers (who wants those?) by not charging the fee.
I think that the same situation applies with broadband providers in the US as well. No monopoly is necessary in order for the industry to charge us extra for something that we can't reliably hold them accountable for (how do you prove that the throughput you got for your "faster" connection was, in fact, faster? average or peak? compared to who? do you bother to check now?).
I think politicians are all in favor of a "toll-road on the Internet" because just like with state highways, there is money to be had in bribes and kickbacks for the politician(s) who give a particular toll-road company the operating contract.
"We're running out of time," Ted Cohen, managing director of music consulting firm TAG Strategic, told the roughly 200 attendees. "We need to get money flowing from consumers and get them used to paying for music again."
Good luck with that. They're going to have to face facts: they are no longer in the business of selling music. They are in the business of promoting musicians.
The sale of the bits and/or the physical media they might happen to be stored on* should really be considered a service offered as a convenice at this point. The labels should think about how to differentiate their product from other copies of the music. You know - some reason to purchase it from them other than "we'll sue you."
*Did we ever get a straight answer on which it was that they were selling? I guess they just go with whichever one fits their particular argument at any point.
While we're at it, maybe we can also deal with one area where patents work *too* well: drug patents.
The problem with drug patents isn't that they stifle innovation: it's that they encourage the *wrong sort* of innovation. After the patent on a useful and effective drug expires, it is quickly manufactured as a generic and profitability drops (which is exactly what the point of a patent is in the first place). Great.
The problem comes in when drug companies spend their R&D on creating new drugs that treat the exact same conditions as already existing drugs - just because they'll have another patent and therefore another (however short-lived) monopoly on the drug, which equals large profits.
Security is constant vigilence. Certain tools come in handy, but they are not by themselves security. Security is either part of your corporate culture and SOP, or it is not. You can't buy something and tack it on to make your business secure. The sooner PHBs learn this, the sooner we can get past all this nonsense.
I don't think so. Where do you think aesthetic sense comes from, exactly? I highly suspect it has to do with your culture and what you learned from your relatives growing up, and not with some innate ability.
I sumbit to you that the reason geeks don't learn to dress trendily in High School has less to do with ability and more to do with motivation. I believe I am a case in point: in high school I was a protoypical geek, but my fiancee has whipped me into shape. I now have the ability to go clothes shopping by myself and assmble outfits which will draw the approval of my SO and all her friends (a skill which will win you BIG points - I recommend it).
Oh, and back to the topic at hand: one thing most web designers need to learn is appropriate use of whitespace.
Even here on Slashdot, we see a range of reactions to this issue from "Childhood bullying is just a part of growing up" to "Any bully should be thrown in prison".
Reasonably, the response should be proportional to the offense. One child pushing another on the playground should provoke a different response than one child sending death threats to another.
As with any issue like this, blanket laws tend to remove the ability of those involved to deal with the issue in a proportional manner - instead requiring a Procrustean approach to determining what a violation is and handing out punishment.
While I share the concern over the increasing levels of school violence, and I acknowledge that children can be cruel to one another (I endured my own share of being bullied), I would caution against passing laws that remove the power of the responsible authorities (the parents and school administrators) to deal with the situation in a sane and appropriate manner.
I wonder if this is just a variation on a theme we've seen before:
1. Drop DRM on a bunch of music that nobody cares about 2. Collect sales figures for 6 months 3. Issue a report saying that sales did not increase for non-DRM'd music - "See, removing DRM doesn't make people want to buy more music!"
Slashdot Mirror
What DVDs have *you* bought lately? Mine have all come with 10 freakin' minutes of advertisements at the front that can't be skipped!
Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?
Oh wait...sorry. That would be productive and require more brainpower than the "yes it is! no it isn't!" shouting match.
Cool. If only they paid the *car owner* a "bounty" for recycling the batteries.
In wonder what will happen with all those hybrids when the batteries reach the end of their service life and need to be replaced? With this new generation of hybrids, will we see a huge move towards leasing instead of buying?
Hopefully, they will also have either a battery recycling program or batteries that don't have such nasty stuff in them...
people still use eBay?
"Above is one of the collider's massive particle detectors, called the Compact Muon Solenoid"
I'd hate to see the Large Muon Solenoid!
"...but the company says it still prefers licensing deals with open-source developers, software distributors and users instead of legal action against them."
Me too! I prefer people to just give me money rather than have to go through all the hassle of producing something of value.
Hey, Microsoft! I've got a bunch of patents that you're infringing and I would prefer that you go ahead and license them from me rather than starting an ugly legal battle. I'll even give you a deal (just this once, because you like a nice kid): $100 Million for the lot. This offer won't be repeated, so take advantage while you still can!
"but we don't have the viewership that a great show should get"
Are they including iTunes downloads and DVD sales? If not, why not? These days, anyone between the ages of 15 and 30 spends more time watching downloads and DVDs than they do tuning into TV broadcasts.
The era of everyone tuning into a scheduled TV broadcast is *over*. Does Nielsen still think it's 1960?
I've known for years that I could parse well-written code faster than the equivalent English.
Does someone here work for one of these companies? Flamebait, huh? You're right...what I said has no basis at all. I mean Verizon and Comcast have *great* customer service.
Yeah, I know. Practicality and all that.
Personally, I think several of our social problems stem from the automobile culture and it's effect on our city planning and lives.
Perhaps if people, oh, I don't know... didn't live 30 miles from where they worked? If our city planners allowed for the necessary commercial establishments (grocery & drug stores, etc.) to be integral parts of a neighborhood instead of having enormous residential zones separated by equally enormous commercial zones? What about all of the land we waste on roads and parking lots? The list goes on and on...
What really gets me is all the people who are outraged about the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, but don't bat an eye at the fact that the total number of lives lost (both Iraqi and occupation forces) over 5 years is less than a single year of fatalities on the roads in the U.S. I mean, in Iraq they're actually *trying* to kill each other, and they can't top the number of *accidental* deaths on our roads?! Why do we put up with this nonsense?
We can end our dependence on fossil fuels and solve the obesity problem in the U.S. in one fell stroke: ban automobiles and give everyone a bicycle.
Not to mention that road fatalities would drop to effectively zero.
I'm not saying...I'm just saying.
but why do I have to choose between two of the worst companies ever (Comcast and Verizon) to get a fast Internet connection?
For those of us old enough to remember, this sounds very familiar
Ah, there's the rub. If I'm on a secret government list of suspected terrorists, then it's also a crime for me to know about it, let alone reveal the fact. That, and I don't know that any restitution (I strongly doubt any would be forthcoming from the government) would cover my having been detained in a military prison and tortured for information.
Of course, the above scenario doesn't apply to US citizens. That we know about. Yet.
Verizon's lawyers are simply perpetuating a common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Yes, we are free to say what we please. No, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.
In old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the problem is not the speech itself, but the resulting stampede and probable damage to people and property.
Slander is another example. You are free to stand up in public and say all sorts of nasty things about someone, but then they can sue you.
If Verizon wants to claim First Amendment rights, fine. We'll just start a class-action lawsuit.
You don't have to be religious to be self-righteous, authoritarian, or just a plain old bastard.
Monopoly is the problem, huh?
Then let me ask you a question: can you explain why in the U.S., where there is most definietly not a monopoly air carrier, that travel between two given cities at a certain time of day costs roughly the same for a given class of service across all of the major airlines (Southwest being the obvious exception)?
You'll notice that when one airline raises ticket prices, they pretty much all do. Coincidence?
Let's suppose that one airline got the bright idea to charge its passengers an "infrastructure improvement" fee for travel on its busiest routes. The idea being that this money would be put towards buying nicer new jets so that travelers will enjoy more space and faster flights.
Do you suppose that the other airlines would follow suit and start to charge the same fee, or would they forgo collecting the fee to try and gain market share by offering lower prices?
My assertion is that most of the airlines would start to charge the fee. The difference for a given ticket would be small in comparison to the overall cost of travel; only truly dedicated penny-pinchers would care enough to try find an airline that doesn't charge the fee (who flies ValueJet?). The stated purpose behind the fee is non-binding, so just because a certain airline collects the fee, it doesn't mean that they're obligated to actually spend it on new jets (and really, who would bother to check?). It's an easy cost/benefit analysis: you gain a lot of money by charging the new fee vs. perhaps picking up a small amount of "value conscious" customers (who wants those?) by not charging the fee.
I think that the same situation applies with broadband providers in the US as well. No monopoly is necessary in order for the industry to charge us extra for something that we can't reliably hold them accountable for (how do you prove that the throughput you got for your "faster" connection was, in fact, faster? average or peak? compared to who? do you bother to check now?).
I think politicians are all in favor of a "toll-road on the Internet" because just like with state highways, there is money to be had in bribes and kickbacks for the politician(s) who give a particular toll-road company the operating contract.
Good luck with that. They're going to have to face facts: they are no longer in the business of selling music. They are in the business of promoting musicians.
The sale of the bits and/or the physical media they might happen to be stored on* should really be considered a service offered as a convenice at this point. The labels should think about how to differentiate their product from other copies of the music. You know - some reason to purchase it from them other than "we'll sue you."
*Did we ever get a straight answer on which it was that they were selling? I guess they just go with whichever one fits their particular argument at any point.
While we're at it, maybe we can also deal with one area where patents work *too* well: drug patents.
The problem with drug patents isn't that they stifle innovation: it's that they encourage the *wrong sort* of innovation. After the patent on a useful and effective drug expires, it is quickly manufactured as a generic and profitability drops (which is exactly what the point of a patent is in the first place). Great.
The problem comes in when drug companies spend their R&D on creating new drugs that treat the exact same conditions as already existing drugs - just because they'll have another patent and therefore another (however short-lived) monopoly on the drug, which equals large profits.
Security is constant vigilence. Certain tools come in handy, but they are not by themselves security. Security is either part of your corporate culture and SOP, or it is not. You can't buy something and tack it on to make your business secure. The sooner PHBs learn this, the sooner we can get past all this nonsense.
I don't think so. Where do you think aesthetic sense comes from, exactly? I highly suspect it has to do with your culture and what you learned from your relatives growing up, and not with some innate ability.
I sumbit to you that the reason geeks don't learn to dress trendily in High School has less to do with ability and more to do with motivation. I believe I am a case in point: in high school I was a protoypical geek, but my fiancee has whipped me into shape. I now have the ability to go clothes shopping by myself and assmble outfits which will draw the approval of my SO and all her friends (a skill which will win you BIG points - I recommend it).
Oh, and back to the topic at hand: one thing most web designers need to learn is appropriate use of whitespace.
Even here on Slashdot, we see a range of reactions to this issue from "Childhood bullying is just a part of growing up" to "Any bully should be thrown in prison".
Reasonably, the response should be proportional to the offense. One child pushing another on the playground should provoke a different response than one child sending death threats to another.
As with any issue like this, blanket laws tend to remove the ability of those involved to deal with the issue in a proportional manner - instead requiring a Procrustean approach to determining what a violation is and handing out punishment.
While I share the concern over the increasing levels of school violence, and I acknowledge that children can be cruel to one another (I endured my own share of being bullied), I would caution against passing laws that remove the power of the responsible authorities (the parents and school administrators) to deal with the situation in a sane and appropriate manner.
I wonder if this is just a variation on a theme we've seen before:
1. Drop DRM on a bunch of music that nobody cares about
2. Collect sales figures for 6 months
3. Issue a report saying that sales did not increase for non-DRM'd music - "See, removing DRM doesn't make people want to buy more music!"