Is it used to tag stories that are about money? Obviously not, because this about the specific sale of a site, not about money itself.
Is it used to tag stories that involve the transaction of money? Possibly, but so many things in our commercial world involve the transaction of money, the tag would become useless if applied with any consistency. Besides, the "business" tag is far more appropriate.
Is it used with a negative connotation to demonise certain parties in certain mutual transactions? Probably, but I hope someone will contradict me.
Where does it say on the outside of the PS3 box -- This unit only runs software licensed by Sony. Any other use of this equipment violates the Sony Playstation 3 License Agreement.
Where does it say outside the PS3 box -- Make your own prgorams and run them on the console's super-fast cell processor! or some such rubbish? Where does it say -- We guarantee that we will not include any DRM in this product!
Companies should be able to include whatever they want in their products, without having to put up with crap like this from consumers.
Moderator: You may completely disagree with Anonymous Coward's point, but labeling his comment as funny is an insult to real debate. He wasn't trying to be funny and what was said should not be taken lightly.
I think labelling the post as funny is a damn sight better than the overrated/troll/flamebait mods. When the post is modded funny, it raises the posts score and promotes "real debate", rather than burying the post and thus quashing "real debate".
Even though he's a prejudiced, racist asshole, he's perfectly right in ridiculing the GP for his "criticism" of Pan's Labyrinth. I think he at least deserves a score of 1 for his... erm... "insight".
Good, so I'm not the only one noticing that Slashdot has become 30-40% consumer watchdog. Everyone (companies) has some ulterior motive, doing some shady deal, or is simply greedy. And EVERYONE is guilty until proven innocent.
As for the question posed in the title, the answer probably a mixture of both. The manufacturers wanted the printers to make a conservative estimate, partially for the money, and partially to ensure that the ink cartridge doesn't sputter while its on low ink.
My Grandpa recently got a shiny new Dell with a shiny new operating system, a shiny new graphics card, and a shiny new 20" wide-screen LCD. You know what? He loves it. He thinks "the new computer" (read windows) looks fantastic. After looking at it myself, I have to admit, it looks pretty good. It'll be the second biggest thing going for it in the home computer market (after OEM lock-in), and its no small victory.
But yeah, in the geek/corporate market, it'll flop.
Telstra the wholesaler limited the connection to 1.5M (from your house to the exchange)... The link to the exchange isn't dependent upon bandwidth (you get what you get... no sharing).
I was under the impression that was some merging between telephone lines before they got to the exchange, which would explain the limited bandwidth theory. If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you're there's basically a dedicated line from each house to the exchange, where the signals are relayed through the world-wide web, which would completely discredit the theory altogether.
No, I do not want the government monitoring my privacy. That is the exact opposite of privacy.
Don't worry. If you don't want the government monitoring your privacy, you can always leave it up to the free market! *rolls eyes*
Seriously though, they won't monitor you. They will monitor companies with access to your records, making sure they don't release them. Seriously, you've got to admit that that is better than "We will look after your private data! We promise!"
the 1.5 speed was deemed by the wholesaler/retailer (Telstra) as "as much speed as a domestic user would require" and prior to the opening up of the wholesale market (caused by the watchdog) it was all you could get without going over to the very expensive commerical options (which is what they where trying to protect with the speed limitations).
Perhaps, but wouldn't it have more to do with infrastructure limitations? At that time, did we have the bandwidth to offer 8Mbps/24Mbps? I have an adsl2+ plan now that only goes to about 6.5Mbps. I'm only about a kilometre from my local exchange, so theoretically, if the lines were clear, I should be getting higher speeds. I'm thinking that if everyone back then started buying unlimited bandwidth, they wouldn't get nearly the speed advertised, and the result would be that the commercial lines (the ones requiring the most bandwidth) would become as bad as the common lines. I don't think it was just some money-grabbing scheme.
This is all just a theory based upon my flimsy knowledge of internet infrastructure and corporate reasoning. Feel free to disillusion me if I happen to be way off target.
I live in a very well populated part of urban Australia (Newcastle), and I can get (theoretically) 24Mbits per second (I've reached that speed once, but mostly it's around 6.5Mbps) for $40/mo with 4GB limit on peak, and 32GB limit off peak (midnight-noon), and $3.00 per GB for excess downloads.
If you don't mind me asking, what reason was given for restricting the speeds to 1.5Mbit? Also, how exactly do these restrictions help Telstra over other carriers?
Yeah, it's true, but whaddaya gonna do? So long as one of them gets the job done, I'll be happy.
And by the way, that "massive 1%" will be the hardest 1% of the population to reach. Plus it is cutting the number of people missing out in Labour's plan by a massive 50%! I, for one, am impressed (at both Labour and Liberal).
The reason Howard's talking about broadband (apart from the fact that he's running scared from a buoyant & surprisingly competent opposition with a better broadband plan) is because this will give him access to more Australians to spam, spam spam.
Well, I guess a loudly self-proclaimed fiscal conservative like John Howard could be forking out hundreds of millions of dollars just so he can add one more irritating email to peoples' mile-long list of spam in their email addresses...
On another hand, he may just want the re-election prospects of finally bringing decent speeds to the 80% of Australia who don't have broadband.
On another less plausible hand, he may just want to go down in history as being the prime minister who pushed Australia into the 21st century.
you misunderstand, or mis-represent what i say. i am not talking about _revoking_ copyright.
You're right, I apologise. However, my argument, despite its opening, is still valid. I still think that we spend too much time concentrating on copyrights (for whatever you to do with them), and not nearly enough time on the legal and political systems. I think we could deal with the extended copyright terms, the trading of IP, and whatever else if the holders of those copyrights were less empowered, and less aggressive. As I was trying to get through in my rant, reforming the legal and political systems could solve the common problem of rich people/companies buying favour in our society. It's a long overdue change.
So you'd feel just fine with a 6.4mm thick phone 30cm high by 15cm wide and weighing 68kg?
I care about exactly one aspect of my phone's geometry - Does it fit in the little half-pockets on the mid-leg side of all my jeans.
For the record, the iPhone comes in at 12x61x114mm. That would probably not fit in said pockets (which have a flattened width of just under 6.4cm on the pants I have on today), or at best would fit too tightly for comfort. My current phone fits nicely, however, at 23x51x109mm, despite literally twice the given-yet-irrelevant thickness.
the comparison charts deal strictly with physical attributes, not things like GPS.
The "Wi-Fi", "Talk Time", "Internet Use", "Video Playback", and "Audio Playback" rows on that chart would tend to disagree.
OK, so you'd rather blackmail them to stop them abusing the system by threatening to revoke copyright. That is a valid approach. However, wouldn't it be better if no-one were able to abuse the system in that way? Would copyright still be a problem then? And if we revoke the IFPI's copyrights, does that mean we have to start revoking corporation charters for corporations who also abuse the system in the same ways? What about individuals? It would be easier to just fix the problematic systems rather than punishing each perpetrator on a case-by-case, and copyrights aren't seriously undermined.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get the "money" tag.
Is it used to tag stories that are about money? Obviously not, because this about the specific sale of a site, not about money itself.
Is it used to tag stories that involve the transaction of money? Possibly, but so many things in our commercial world involve the transaction of money, the tag would become useless if applied with any consistency. Besides, the "business" tag is far more appropriate.
Is it used with a negative connotation to demonise certain parties in certain mutual transactions? Probably, but I hope someone will contradict me.
Companies should be able to include whatever they want in their products, without having to put up with crap like this from consumers.
I know. It's a fear I face everyday: accidentally taping the police and being charged with illegal wiretapping.
Even though he's a prejudiced, racist asshole, he's perfectly right in ridiculing the GP for his "criticism" of Pan's Labyrinth. I think he at least deserves a score of 1 for his... erm... "insight".
Good, so I'm not the only one noticing that Slashdot has become 30-40% consumer watchdog. Everyone (companies) has some ulterior motive, doing some shady deal, or is simply greedy. And EVERYONE is guilty until proven innocent.
As for the question posed in the title, the answer probably a mixture of both. The manufacturers wanted the printers to make a conservative estimate, partially for the money, and partially to ensure that the ink cartridge doesn't sputter while its on low ink.
What is this "mandatory device signing", and why can something so mandatory be disabled? :)
My Grandpa recently got a shiny new Dell with a shiny new operating system, a shiny new graphics card, and a shiny new 20" wide-screen LCD. You know what? He loves it. He thinks "the new computer" (read windows) looks fantastic. After looking at it myself, I have to admit, it looks pretty good. It'll be the second biggest thing going for it in the home computer market (after OEM lock-in), and its no small victory.
But yeah, in the geek/corporate market, it'll flop.
I think an opt-in system would only serve to make the whole system much more costly and messy.
"How many times have you had a company ask for ridiculously invasive information for your protection ."
."
Never.
Oh wait, you mean:
"How many times have you had a company ask for ridiculously invasive information under the guise of being for your protection
All the time.
Seriously though, they won't monitor you. They will monitor companies with access to your records, making sure they don't release them. Seriously, you've got to admit that that is better than "We will look after your private data! We promise!"Evidently not.
... title bar ever.
This is all just a theory based upon my flimsy knowledge of internet infrastructure and corporate reasoning. Feel free to disillusion me if I happen to be way off target.
I live in a very well populated part of urban Australia (Newcastle), and I can get (theoretically) 24Mbits per second (I've reached that speed once, but mostly it's around 6.5Mbps) for $40/mo with 4GB limit on peak, and 32GB limit off peak (midnight-noon), and $3.00 per GB for excess downloads.
I reckon that's not too bad.
If you don't mind me asking, what reason was given for restricting the speeds to 1.5Mbit? Also, how exactly do these restrictions help Telstra over other carriers?
Yeah, it's true, but whaddaya gonna do? So long as one of them gets the job done, I'll be happy.
And by the way, that "massive 1%" will be the hardest 1% of the population to reach. Plus it is cutting the number of people missing out in Labour's plan by a massive 50%! I, for one, am impressed (at both Labour and Liberal).
On another hand, he may just want the re-election prospects of finally bringing decent speeds to the 80% of Australia who don't have broadband.
On another less plausible hand, he may just want to go down in history as being the prime minister who pushed Australia into the 21st century.
Finally, slimness is what consumers care about.
So you'd feel just fine with a 6.4mm thick phone 30cm high by 15cm wide and weighing 68kg?
I care about exactly one aspect of my phone's geometry - Does it fit in the little half-pockets on the mid-leg side of all my jeans.
For the record, the iPhone comes in at 12x61x114mm. That would probably not fit in said pockets (which have a flattened width of just under 6.4cm on the pants I have on today), or at best would fit too tightly for comfort. My current phone fits nicely, however, at 23x51x109mm, despite literally twice the given-yet-irrelevant thickness.
the comparison charts deal strictly with physical attributes, not things like GPS.
The "Wi-Fi", "Talk Time", "Internet Use", "Video Playback", and "Audio Playback" rows on that chart would tend to disagree.
Actually, "death by a thousand pricks" was supposed to describe the effect of piracy on the RIAA. And I did mean both meanings.
OK, so you'd rather blackmail them to stop them abusing the system by threatening to revoke copyright. That is a valid approach. However, wouldn't it be better if no-one were able to abuse the system in that way? Would copyright still be a problem then? And if we revoke the IFPI's copyrights, does that mean we have to start revoking corporation charters for corporations who also abuse the system in the same ways? What about individuals? It would be easier to just fix the problematic systems rather than punishing each perpetrator on a case-by-case, and copyrights aren't seriously undermined.
... we have you now, Mr. Coward!