You've nailed the reasons this German comapany has invested and utilized this technology. It's not about "fighting climate change" like the pro-green TFA title, it's about saving $1600 a day.
There is no doubt that markets without artificial barriers to entry are inherently good for the consumer (as always the more competition, the better for the consumer). While the barriers being erected in the wireless industry are discouraging more competition, there is existing fierce competition between carriers.
To say that the incumbents in the wireless market are in some sort of trust or effective monopoly is incorrect. Over the course of the relatively short lived wireless market, consumers have seen cost to service ratios drop steadily as the competition between Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon remains constant.
I think that's an oversimplified sensational exaggeration to the notion that a business is out to make money, and would hence not readily open the market to more competition and subsequent profit loss.
For the record, trying to make money != greed. Not relinquishing a dominated holding (what they're doing is legal) is not greedy, it's intelligent business. What do the companies have to gain by allowing more competition in an already competitive market?
I don't think it's out of the norm for a business in a competitive market to create artificial barriers to entry to protect their profit margins. In a capitalist system, a business must take certain steps to "get ahead" of current and would be competition to survive. These are typical tactics.
I feel like the summary is a tad sensationalist... I don't find a business not voluntarily allowing more competition to be suprising.
There are many, many factors in the evolutionary process that cannot be explained by science. Take, for instance, the Cambrian explosion. I refuse to accept that thousands of species evolved by natural selection in the span of 10 million years.
The basis for evolution by natural selection revolves around slight genetic modifications changing species over time (hint: not 10 million years!). Whilst it is true that certain selection pressures might have sped this process up, it is unbelievable that so many species could have manifested themselves so quickly.
I wonder if the AO version of the game will make it on to the internet (via BT, what have you). It'd be a shame to have to play a "kiddied-down" version of the game due to the morality police.
Be real. What is a reasonable profit margin? It's what they can get away with charging. As long as Joe Sixpack still buys the shiny new printer with his new Dell, this model with flourish, as it has been.
I really can't remember the last time I heard of a company using questionable tactics to sell more of their product... It seems natural that they (the printer companies) would allow this to happen; most of the cost involved with owning a printer is buying cartridges, hence their expanded profit margins.
It's a win-win for the companies, and a lose-lose for the consumer. What's new?
A line must be drawn, however, when it comes to fighting and eliminating crime. Individuals who rape children deserve no privacy. Individuals who sell drugs deserve no privacy. Disgusting politicians who accept dirty money for their campaigns deserve no privacy. There is a definite need for a restriction of "privacy" in it's basic sense... it's obvious in the society we live in today.
At what point does the intrinsic need for privacy override the need to prevent societal decay?
You know all of that "suing an old lady" or "requesting a deposition with a 10 year old girl" was just scare tactics, nothing more. How often was I told as a young child "if you do something bad the police will get you and take you to the slammer!"... I would assume that notion translates here.
And that $12 that stays in your pocket could very well go to purchasing goods from a brick-and-mortar (thereby generating tax revenue and putting money back into the economy) . What politicians don't seem to understand is that when citizens have more money to spend, they will do so. This HELPS the economy!
Is anyone honestly surprised that politicians want to dip government coffers into a network (series of tubes?) that generates billions of dollars annually? It's just a matter of time.
The idea is that if you "attempt" to murder someone, chances are you've actually come into some kind of violent contact with them... regardless if you harm or actually kill them.
From TFA:
Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life.
That made me feel a little more at ease from reading the sensationalist line in the summary. I don't think that too many major business centers government owned or otherwise would be using pirated software to begin with, especially a hospital.
Oh, very true. I was just recalling my experiences with booting windows on a slow machine and thinking to myself "Well, the bars are moving across the screen, but is the hard disk doing anything?" The sound told me that I only had 45 minutes left to go:P
Oh please. Google would absolutely not be holding Viacom hostage if they were to take their site off of the Google index; there are many other alternative search engines available to the public. If anything, that would be a case of Viacom "biting the hand that feeds" and getting their site removed rather than a "hostage" situation.
Saying that just because a film was made outside the U.S. means that it should be under no protection is asinine. I'm not saying that everything in the DMCA is good sense and not "moronic", but I do believe that the industry should have influence in its distribution locales, especially in places where movies from places other than Hollywood are not widely viewed.
I personally do not find any issue with lobbyists trying to get Canadian laws changed. Why not? American corporations have every right to pressure the government if they are the ones producing the goods. If another country tried to pressure American policy and were told to "F*** themselves", then the pressure was not founded in a source that couldn't be obtained elsewhere. If Canada doesn't want to play ball in the anti-piracy arena, the movie industry should cease exportation of American movies to Canada. The power is in the product, plain and simple. Because American movie exports compose much of what viewers want, they should have every right to press policy against theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Woosh!
You've nailed the reasons this German comapany has invested and utilized this technology. It's not about "fighting climate change" like the pro-green TFA title, it's about saving $1600 a day.
There is no doubt that markets without artificial barriers to entry are inherently good for the consumer (as always the more competition, the better for the consumer). While the barriers being erected in the wireless industry are discouraging more competition, there is existing fierce competition between carriers.
To say that the incumbents in the wireless market are in some sort of trust or effective monopoly is incorrect. Over the course of the relatively short lived wireless market, consumers have seen cost to service ratios drop steadily as the competition between Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon remains constant.
I think that's an oversimplified sensational exaggeration to the notion that a business is out to make money, and would hence not readily open the market to more competition and subsequent profit loss.
For the record, trying to make money != greed. Not relinquishing a dominated holding (what they're doing is legal) is not greedy, it's intelligent business. What do the companies have to gain by allowing more competition in an already competitive market?
I don't think it's out of the norm for a business in a competitive market to create artificial barriers to entry to protect their profit margins. In a capitalist system, a business must take certain steps to "get ahead" of current and would be competition to survive. These are typical tactics.
I feel like the summary is a tad sensationalist... I don't find a business not voluntarily allowing more competition to be suprising.
There are many, many factors in the evolutionary process that cannot be explained by science. Take, for instance, the Cambrian explosion. I refuse to accept that thousands of species evolved by natural selection in the span of 10 million years.
The basis for evolution by natural selection revolves around slight genetic modifications changing species over time (hint: not 10 million years!). Whilst it is true that certain selection pressures might have sped this process up, it is unbelievable that so many species could have manifested themselves so quickly.
typical AC/slashdot rhetoric...
Well, I can say easily "I'm glad I live in America".
I wonder if the AO version of the game will make it on to the internet (via BT, what have you). It'd be a shame to have to play a "kiddied-down" version of the game due to the morality police.
Be real. What is a reasonable profit margin? It's what they can get away with charging. As long as Joe Sixpack still buys the shiny new printer with his new Dell, this model with flourish, as it has been.
Yeah, there are a few solutions out there to reset the cartridge chip so that you can refill it.
Inksupply seems to have a few solutions.
British company proprint has some pay solutions.
Also found this.
I couldn't find any "free software" solutions to the chip problem, albeit I only looked for a little while.
I really can't remember the last time I heard of a company using questionable tactics to sell more of their product... It seems natural that they (the printer companies) would allow this to happen; most of the cost involved with owning a printer is buying cartridges, hence their expanded profit margins.
It's a win-win for the companies, and a lose-lose for the consumer. What's new?
RoboCop! *orgasm*
A line must be drawn, however, when it comes to fighting and eliminating crime. Individuals who rape children deserve no privacy. Individuals who sell drugs deserve no privacy. Disgusting politicians who accept dirty money for their campaigns deserve no privacy. There is a definite need for a restriction of "privacy" in it's basic sense... it's obvious in the society we live in today. At what point does the intrinsic need for privacy override the need to prevent societal decay?
You know all of that "suing an old lady" or "requesting a deposition with a 10 year old girl" was just scare tactics, nothing more. How often was I told as a young child "if you do something bad the police will get you and take you to the slammer!"... I would assume that notion translates here.
And that $12 that stays in your pocket could very well go to purchasing goods from a brick-and-mortar (thereby generating tax revenue and putting money back into the economy) . What politicians don't seem to understand is that when citizens have more money to spend, they will do so. This HELPS the economy!
Is anyone honestly surprised that politicians want to dip government coffers into a network (series of tubes?) that generates billions of dollars annually? It's just a matter of time.
The idea is that if you "attempt" to murder someone, chances are you've actually come into some kind of violent contact with them... regardless if you harm or actually kill them.
That made me feel a little more at ease from reading the sensationalist line in the summary. I don't think that too many major business centers government owned or otherwise would be using pirated software to begin with, especially a hospital.
Oh, very true. I was just recalling my experiences with booting windows on a slow machine and thinking to myself "Well, the bars are moving across the screen, but is the hard disk doing anything?" The sound told me that I only had 45 minutes left to go :P
Agreed. How often does one lean their head closer to their computer to hear the reassuring whirr of the hard drive during an intensive operation?
Oh please. Google would absolutely not be holding Viacom hostage if they were to take their site off of the Google index; there are many other alternative search engines available to the public. If anything, that would be a case of Viacom "biting the hand that feeds" and getting their site removed rather than a "hostage" situation.
Saying that just because a film was made outside the U.S. means that it should be under no protection is asinine. I'm not saying that everything in the DMCA is good sense and not "moronic", but I do believe that the industry should have influence in its distribution locales, especially in places where movies from places other than Hollywood are not widely viewed.
I personally do not find any issue with lobbyists trying to get Canadian laws changed. Why not? American corporations have every right to pressure the government if they are the ones producing the goods. If another country tried to pressure American policy and were told to "F*** themselves", then the pressure was not founded in a source that couldn't be obtained elsewhere. If Canada doesn't want to play ball in the anti-piracy arena, the movie industry should cease exportation of American movies to Canada. The power is in the product, plain and simple. Because American movie exports compose much of what viewers want, they should have every right to press policy against theft.