NYC busses are some of the most clean and environmentally friendly busses in the nation. They run off of natural gas and many of them are now becoming hybrids.
Lego has deep problems that are masked by a well recognized brand. If you haven't noticed, they've released more "licensed" kits for movies than any original design. They've hit the jackpot with the Star Wars sets and have had great success with Spider-Man and others.
Before that, Lego was struggling to stay profitable; sales were down compared to earlier years. Perhaps it was a combination of competition from other block makers or with interactive devices from Nintendo and Sony. But whatever the reason, Lego can't seem to innovate and adapt with changing times.
Sure, those licensed tie-ins are hugely profitable but it’s their only real trick right now. And I think they know that. Otherwise, they would be confident in their reputation as a brick maker.
P.S.
As a HUGE Lego fan as a child, I am really upset that the licensing has gotten so big for them. I'm all for special & rare sets but the fun I had with their blocks came from being able to create my own world. The special pieces and branded parts that come with those sets wouldn't let me be as creative.
1. The fans always know what's best. It actually touches on crowd theory and mass psychology a bit. Not to be confused with the related mob mentality but you get the idea. The fans ALWAYS know what's right and that's the free market at work. The sooner the labels and remaining artists realize that, the happier we'll all be.
2. Rzeznik admits to file sharing but will give the band Flesh For Lulu a buck which means even he feels the cost for an "unauthorized" download is far less than the ridiculous $750 a song nonsense people are asking for. When the artist says his songs are "worth" (and I use that term incorrectly because they tend to misunderstand price & value) a dollar on Limewire, you know the labels are not representing their interests at all.
Before I left my SaaS comment, I thought about how complex this issue really is. With questionable EULAs and how pervasive software is in traditionally mechanical objects (home appliances like refrigerators) this decision has the ability to cripple our economy. Cars, phones, appliances, TVs, etc. All have software. All could come with EULAs that restrict 1st Sale by a "license." Wait until EULAs are written into your credit card PoS device not just for the terms of the merchant & credit card company but for the terms of the objects you're licensing. (I wonder if I could patent a method to do that??) :-/
The courts might have realized the ruling is a bad one even if the right one under the law, but they might not have realized is how bad this idea really is in the broader sense.
I will say this, though. If the day ever comes where you can't sell your car because of EULA or software license, the world would go crazy.
The net effect will be to drive new business software as a service providers like Google where "freemium" supports the cash flow of small & medium organzations better.
If the internet is an atomic bomb, then he and the recording industry are in a losing arms race where the destruction is not mutually assured... only theirs is.
I'm surprised they didn't go after all the S&P 500 companies. What an odd choice of targets for their bogus lawsuit... Google & Apple, Frito-Lay & Dr. Pepper???
I made a brief mention of due process and similar themes in my comment. And I'd hope that's how they argue their case because not being read the charges against them and not being able to confront their accusers seems to be the most egregious act of this whole thing.
You make a very valid point in bringing up the 9th Amendment which I did forget about. But I don't see the method of travel (other than individual propulsion) as being a right whereas the travel itself I consider a fundamental right of personal freedom.
They're arguing they have a constitutional right to fly and I don't know if you do. While I'm no Constitutional scholar, I don't remember reading in any text of one's right to fly. Now, you *might* be able to argue against due process and similar themes but there's no crime here.
Moreover, the lack of one's authorization to fly doesn't prevent someone from traveling - just not by air. There are other ways to return to the country and there's no "no drive" or "no sail" list. Yeah, its a burden but as long as they have valid US passports, they shouldn't be denied entry into the country. Sail to New York City from England; fly to Mexico and drive in. Fly using carriers not bound by US law or FAA regulation. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks of this?
I agree that the "no fly" list is rubbish and doesn't work in the least. But these odd "rights" that people think they have, have to go... driving is not a right - flying is not a right.
You have something to cry about when they come up with a "no travel anywhere anytime list" without being indicted for a crime.
When I read that article, the quote about the two parents coaching together stuck out at me, too. Forget the fact they don't solve anything by taking the cowardly way out, it sets a bad example for the child. Instead of dealing with issues directly, you run around it - prolonging the situation and making it worse in many respects. What does that say about conflict resolution and problem solving?
But I will say this as a new parent: it scares me to think that my child could be the victim of such abusive behavior. Where the fear comes from, though, is not knowing how to properly handle it. As the article says, contacting the police is problematic; contacting the other parent might not work either if they take offense to the accusation or, worse, encourage it (as we've also seen before).
If the community can come up with a step-by-step plan for dealing with situations like this, perhaps the fear mongering would go away and when this happens, we'd all be able to deal with this in a way that address the bullying and teaches children valuable socail & problem solving lessons.
At some point, I'll come up with my own plan for dealing with bullies - cyber or otherwise - and do the research to understand the best way to handle the situation based on the severity of the threats. I think they call that... parenting. :-/
Wait, what?? That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
The app isn't "padding up their content offerings" at all; they aren't in the content business - they're in the RSS reader app business. It’s offering other people's free content - for free. While the app developer might be charging for the convenient and well designed RSS reader, it isn't charging for someone else's content.
The whole story should be this:
The NYTimes is competing with itself by offering RSS feeds for free. If they want to make sure this doesn't happen in the future, I recommend the try this:
1. Beg the world to move away from RSS and other HTML/XML publish/subscribe technologies.
2. Take down their RSS feeds so they don't exist on their site.
3. Get their head in the game and create a digital business model that accounts for competing free options (including their own free offerings).
A man walks into a store. The man says to the owner of the store that he should pay money to prevent bad things from happening. The owner looks at the man and asks him what bad things? The owner goes on to say that he has a good security system and insurance - he doesn't need an extra level of security and, therefore, doesn't need to pay on the small chance that something would happen. The man says the protection he'd pay for is necessary even though the owner took real and auditable steps to prevent bad things from happening; he essentially doesn't believe the owner has mitigated he risk satisfactorally.
The owner thinks about how to best deal with the situation, he can either pay the man and factor the cost of protection into his goods & services or close up shop. The owner doesn't want to do either so he takes additional risk - the risk the man will become angry and threaten the owner and cause him harm. The owner must then defend his livelihood against this stranger that walked into his store.
In the end, the everyone but the man who walked into the store suffers because the owner either has to close shop (i.e. stop offering live, local music), pass the increase in costs to his customers, or defend against threats (a legal & financial loss/risk).
How is this any different than the mob walking into a deli and demanding protection money?
Patents aside, I can't see why HP would pay 1.2b for Palm. As of yesterday's close, its market cap was in the mid 700m range. That's a huge premium for a dying brand, an unpopular mobile OS, and no direction. The fact that existing management is staying to run the company seems, well, crazy.
I understand the synergies are there but HP better give Palm a lot more than cash to fund new projects. It needs to focus on something - anything, really - if they want to compete with an aggressively saturated market with two dominating providers.
I'm skeptical of these "exchanges" and would be cautious in approving them for more than the (arguably) silly reasons the MPAA and others might concern themselves with.
With almost every futures market, there is a real (scarce) underlying instrument that underpins the trade. For oil, natural gas, coffee, sugar, cocoa, gold, silver, & copper, each trade is a contract which includes "taking delivery" of the physical good in the price. Many contracts are bought & sold and if you don't net your position after the last trade date, you just bought yourself 1,000 barrels of light sweet crude and someone will be shipping it your way soon.
But with these types of "markets" you’re really betting. There isn't, to my knowledge, any physical product or stock certificate you get if you keep a position after the last trade date. Yes, the financial markets can be like betting but it’s not really supposed to be like that. These types of exchanges sound as if they could be more like binomial betting or variations on that concept. It’s a pure cash bet. Moreover, there is already shorting going on with Hollywood - its called the NYSE - and it happens with their REAL stock.
I will say this of the system, however. Some reports suggest the prediction accuracy is well above most other analysis - as high as 96% by some sources. If I were the MPAA, I'd study these legalized betting rings and determine what goes into them to help build a better product.
I don't know how it would alter their business model, though. The studios wouldn't be issuing "ownership" in the product like a stock certificate nor would they take delivery of an commodity. The market would just be a bet on how successful the movie would be. If the industry changes its business model - to stream movies or even give them away for free - the underlying profitability of that creative process is still what this market would bet on.
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 10:48am
Re:
I believe the Federalist Papers reference was in response to the "not good for... our country" comment as our country might not have existed if it weren't for the anonymous publishing of the document. And we can thank the forefathers for valuing free speech and writing the First Amendment - which she (I assume) values as a journalist. I think the analogy is sound.
Yes, there are management issues with anonymous comments that affect the quality of the conversation but without them, there's no real conversation at all.
I thought of that, too! If this US Copyright Group and others consider litigation a way to monetize BitTorrent distribution, I can't see why ISPs can't make some money and charge a pre-settlement service fee. Of course, then ISPs would have an incentive to support infringement which would only force the US Copyright Group to send more letters so ISPs could charge them a fee. Ponzi scheme!
I agree that publishers SHOULD be working to make their iPad style content available for all platforms but I have no reason to doubt it will at some point. For argument's sake, lets say the special iPad content is hugely successful. At some point, the publishers are going to want to grow their audience and their business and move beyond Apple. Similarly, they'll want to control their own distribution (bypassing the App Store or Apple's 30% cut) and they'll expand their offerings. Of course, if the iPad content fails, then we go back to what we have today.
And despite their past performance (which as we know isn't indicative of future results) I'd like to think they'll want to increase their "circulation numbers" as much as possible even if they have to extend their fancy offerings to non-iPad users.
And if they don't want to increase their circulation, well, then you can give up on them and let someone else capture their audience
With such broad language, this outlaws the entire Internet.
Google is the search engine, but what about the hardware makers like Cisco? Are they obligated to abide by the law and prevent file sharing? Are they to make their product less valuable because their routers could be used to abetting violating copyright? They can include deep packet inspection, after all; would not having it in their products could expose them to criminal charges?
Twitter and Facebook fall under Google's category. What about URL shorteners? What about software as a service like WordPress.org/com (there is a difference)? Web hosting companies could be held liable. What about Microsoft, Apple, and the open source OS makers? If they don't include protections against unauthorized backups, distribution, and publishing in their software, could they be held liable? I'd argue, yes, they can under such broad language. The Internet would crumble and we'd be sent back to the cultural and informational dark ages.
And for the naysayers who think it would never come to that, I say take a look at the recent Google decision in Italy where, effectively, a 3rd person is liable for the actions of its users without knowing the video’s contents. Look at the filtering régimes and the oppressive laws which make it a crime to own or play a violent video game.
On the post: Bagel Company Sued For Claiming It Had Patented Process For Making 'Brooklyn Water'
Re: Re: Plus...
On the post: Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re:
There is no definition.
On the post: Once Again, Lego Learns That It Cannot Trademark An Interconnecting Brick
Same problem: litigate instead of innovate
Before that, Lego was struggling to stay profitable; sales were down compared to earlier years. Perhaps it was a combination of competition from other block makers or with interactive devices from Nintendo and Sony. But whatever the reason, Lego can't seem to innovate and adapt with changing times.
Sure, those licensed tie-ins are hugely profitable but it’s their only real trick right now. And I think they know that. Otherwise, they would be confident in their reputation as a brick maker.
P.S.
As a HUGE Lego fan as a child, I am really upset that the licensing has gotten so big for them. I'm all for special & rare sets but the fun I had with their blocks came from being able to create my own world. The special pieces and branded parts that come with those sets wouldn't let me be as creative.
On the post: GooGoo Dolls Frontman Admits To Using Limewire; Says He Likes Fan-Made Video More Than His Official Video
Ethics & Vaule
1. The fans always know what's best. It actually touches on crowd theory and mass psychology a bit. Not to be confused with the related mob mentality but you get the idea. The fans ALWAYS know what's right and that's the free market at work. The sooner the labels and remaining artists realize that, the happier we'll all be.
2. Rzeznik admits to file sharing but will give the band Flesh For Lulu a buck which means even he feels the cost for an "unauthorized" download is far less than the ridiculous $750 a song nonsense people are asking for. When the artist says his songs are "worth" (and I use that term incorrectly because they tend to misunderstand price & value) a dollar on Limewire, you know the labels are not representing their interests at all.
On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore
Re: Ripple Effects
The courts might have realized the ruling is a bad one even if the right one under the law, but they might not have realized is how bad this idea really is in the broader sense.
I will say this, though. If the day ever comes where you can't sell your car because of EULA or software license, the world would go crazy.
On the post: Appeals Court Destroys First Sale; You Don't Own Your Software Anymore
SaaS
On the post: John Mellencamp: The Internet Is An Atomic Bomb For Music
Not M.A.D.
On the post: Spam Filtering? Patented! 36 Companies Sued
Only 36?
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: Re: Constitutional Right?
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Constitutional Right?
Moreover, the lack of one's authorization to fly doesn't prevent someone from traveling - just not by air. There are other ways to return to the country and there's no "no drive" or "no sail" list. Yeah, its a burden but as long as they have valid US passports, they shouldn't be denied entry into the country. Sail to New York City from England; fly to Mexico and drive in. Fly using carriers not bound by US law or FAA regulation. Seriously, am I the only one who thinks of this?
I agree that the "no fly" list is rubbish and doesn't work in the least. But these odd "rights" that people think they have, have to go... driving is not a right - flying is not a right.
You have something to cry about when they come up with a "no travel anywhere anytime list" without being indicted for a crime.
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Cowards
But I will say this as a new parent: it scares me to think that my child could be the victim of such abusive behavior. Where the fear comes from, though, is not knowing how to properly handle it. As the article says, contacting the police is problematic; contacting the other parent might not work either if they take offense to the accusation or, worse, encourage it (as we've also seen before).
If the community can come up with a step-by-step plan for dealing with situations like this, perhaps the fear mongering would go away and when this happens, we'd all be able to deal with this in a way that address the bullying and teaches children valuable socail & problem solving lessons.
At some point, I'll come up with my own plan for dealing with bullies - cyber or otherwise - and do the research to understand the best way to handle the situation based on the severity of the threats. I think they call that... parenting. :-/
On the post: NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
Re:
The app isn't "padding up their content offerings" at all; they aren't in the content business - they're in the RSS reader app business. It’s offering other people's free content - for free. While the app developer might be charging for the convenient and well designed RSS reader, it isn't charging for someone else's content.
The whole story should be this:
The NYTimes is competing with itself by offering RSS feeds for free. If they want to make sure this doesn't happen in the future, I recommend the try this:
1. Beg the world to move away from RSS and other HTML/XML publish/subscribe technologies.
2. Take down their RSS feeds so they don't exist on their site.
3. Get their head in the game and create a digital business model that accounts for competing free options (including their own free offerings).
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Protection Money
The owner thinks about how to best deal with the situation, he can either pay the man and factor the cost of protection into his goods & services or close up shop. The owner doesn't want to do either so he takes additional risk - the risk the man will become angry and threaten the owner and cause him harm. The owner must then defend his livelihood against this stranger that walked into his store.
In the end, the everyone but the man who walked into the store suffers because the owner either has to close shop (i.e. stop offering live, local music), pass the increase in costs to his customers, or defend against threats (a legal & financial loss/risk).
How is this any different than the mob walking into a deli and demanding protection money?
On the post: Does HP Buying Palm Promise To Solve Any Problems?
That's what I thought
I understand the synergies are there but HP better give Palm a lot more than cash to fund new projects. It needs to focus on something - anything, really - if they want to compete with an aggressively saturated market with two dominating providers.
On the post: The MPAA Doesn't Want Anyone Shorting Movies
Futures Have an Underlying Instrument
With almost every futures market, there is a real (scarce) underlying instrument that underpins the trade. For oil, natural gas, coffee, sugar, cocoa, gold, silver, & copper, each trade is a contract which includes "taking delivery" of the physical good in the price. Many contracts are bought & sold and if you don't net your position after the last trade date, you just bought yourself 1,000 barrels of light sweet crude and someone will be shipping it your way soon.
But with these types of "markets" you’re really betting. There isn't, to my knowledge, any physical product or stock certificate you get if you keep a position after the last trade date. Yes, the financial markets can be like betting but it’s not really supposed to be like that. These types of exchanges sound as if they could be more like binomial betting or variations on that concept. It’s a pure cash bet. Moreover, there is already shorting going on with Hollywood - its called the NYSE - and it happens with their REAL stock.
I will say this of the system, however. Some reports suggest the prediction accuracy is well above most other analysis - as high as 96% by some sources. If I were the MPAA, I'd study these legalized betting rings and determine what goes into them to help build a better product.
I don't know how it would alter their business model, though. The studios wouldn't be issuing "ownership" in the product like a stock certificate nor would they take delivery of an commodity. The market would just be a bet on how successful the movie would be. If the industry changes its business model - to stream movies or even give them away for free - the underlying profitability of that creative process is still what this market would bet on.
On the post: Columnist Claims Anonymity Is Bad For Our Country
Re:
Yes, there are management issues with anonymous comments that affect the quality of the conversation but without them, there's no real conversation at all.
On the post: Extortion-Like Mass Automated Copyright Lawsuits Come To The US: 20,000 Filed, 30,000 More On The Way
Re:
On the post: Are Publishers Putting Too Much Stock In The iPad, Or Are They Just Doing It Wrong?
Don't be so negative (yet).
And despite their past performance (which as we know isn't indicative of future results) I'd like to think they'll want to increase their "circulation numbers" as much as possible even if they have to extend their fancy offerings to non-iPad users.
And if they don't want to increase their circulation, well, then you can give up on them and let someone else capture their audience
--
Sent from my iPhone
:-)
On the post: EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google
Where does it begin? Where does it end?
Google is the search engine, but what about the hardware makers like Cisco? Are they obligated to abide by the law and prevent file sharing? Are they to make their product less valuable because their routers could be used to abetting violating copyright? They can include deep packet inspection, after all; would not having it in their products could expose them to criminal charges?
Twitter and Facebook fall under Google's category. What about URL shorteners? What about software as a service like WordPress.org/com (there is a difference)? Web hosting companies could be held liable. What about Microsoft, Apple, and the open source OS makers? If they don't include protections against unauthorized backups, distribution, and publishing in their software, could they be held liable? I'd argue, yes, they can under such broad language. The Internet would crumble and we'd be sent back to the cultural and informational dark ages.
And for the naysayers who think it would never come to that, I say take a look at the recent Google decision in Italy where, effectively, a 3rd person is liable for the actions of its users without knowing the video’s contents. Look at the filtering régimes and the oppressive laws which make it a crime to own or play a violent video game.
Next >>