Basically, that article pointed out the fatal flaw:
The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers: persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video. Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions, which, according to some estimates, could cost between 10% and 20% more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.
Not going to happen. People are going to resist this like mad. "New TV? I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive? Yeah, go fuck yourselves."
Inflammatory rhetoric aside, what I found most interesting, though, is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push (at least in this arena) against the "Not invented here" bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony. Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats. Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm.
... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently? I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower. Javascript also stutters. It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something. It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.
You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.
This isn't necessarily off-topic, just poorly referenced to the topic. The summary cites the original article's claims of "the fastest javascript engine," so clearly Firefox performance claims are being made here. And I, too, thought that existing versions of firefox (I'm running 3.5.5 64bit linux) don't provide strong support for Firefox Mobile to live up to this hype.
If you're as good at it as Google, if you, too, can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system, then yes, you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions.
The "downloading porn" is an unproven allegation. If we were to fire every admin who's ever downloaded something that a prude would consider "porn" (like accidentally clicking on a goatguy or tubgirl link), there'd be no admins left.
Actually, since he had machines that the school claims is theirs at home, and TFA was (carefully?) worded not to suggest that any "porn" was downloaded while at school or during school hours, I'm guessing that whatever they found was on computers in his home that the school claims are theirs and assumptions were made as to how it arrived there.
Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article.
Yeah, I can be a pompous ass just like you. Notice the freaking timestamp of my post, and perhaps realize that it was posted considerably earlier than yours and many others, and by the nature of time, I hadn't the luxury of reading posts & information made in the future... Moreover, the only reason it WASN'T posted 10 or so minutes earlier than it actually was is that I actually took the time to read the linked article--which provided meager insights, as it can barely be called an article--and watched the video. Jerk.
So, you already have an unruly crowd waiting for the arrival of someone special, and you want to effectively disseminate a rumor* that said special person isn't arriving? And that's supposed to calm the crowd down and get them to leave peacefully? Must be some new-age thinking, there...
*As previous poster(s) have mentioned, a message via twitter is only going to be received by a select few people who have access to twitter in that situation, and therefore, its only going to spread to everyone via word of mouth. In other words, a rumor.
Second, how a chemical enters your body and in what quantities is equally important. Just as you haven't died from your first exposure to a campfire, so too will you not die from incidental exposure to cigarette residue. Inhalation and injection are efficient ways to get chemicals into your body, but absorption through undamaged skin is pretty damn inefficient for most.
All this to say that "third hand smoke" is a FUD buzzword. It's nothing more than the microscopic particulate traces (i.e. ash) containing the same compounds you'd find from standing near a campfire. Back to the topic at hand--that incidental exposure to a surface stained by cigarette smoke is unlikely to cause anything other than personal discomfort as long as you wash your hand afterwards.
...and many rejected apps get through with a few simple changes...
FTFA, Rogue Amoeba's issue was with a rejection to an update to their existing application, though the rejection itself had nothing to do with the proposed change. Instead, Apple decided that features in its existing, approved version are now a problem.
Apple's problem is that they have put a guard on the gate to enter their walled garden, except there are thousands of gates each with their own, different guard, and apparently only the vaguest of ideals are guiding their decision-making.
I applaud Apple for releasing it. If Apple rejected it just because they don't like what its content, that would be censure and they would be no better that the Chinese government.
Wait, are we talking about the same Apple that censors everything else that goes on the iphone just because they don't like its content?
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
One could argue that DRM is in place, by choice of the content producer, to reject the market's economics.
If a CD is heavily pirated at $15, then the market can implement DRM and try to continue selling the disc at $15, or it can realize that the piracy at $15 identifies demand segments for the product at multiple less-than-$15 price points. If someone is willing to pirate it, then logically they want it, and therefore they can ascribe a non-zero monetary value to it, even if it is very, very low.
The solution is to develop an system that allows a single individual to purchase the product at a price tailored to that individual. And then get both the buyer and the seller to be content with the money paid and received, even if it's more/less than a previous sale.
Why is this marked as troll? He is answering the stated question to the best of his knowledge. If anything should be marked as troll, it is the question itself. What do you expect when you use such a subject term such as "crapware?"
+1. GP isn't a troll; at worst, this entire article is trolling.
Don't be confused. They're not hacking your hardware or the Xbox Live servers. They're using social engineering and any publicly available information (courtesy of things users choose to divulge in their profiles) to attempt to get passwords.
Big difference between hacking & phishing. Moreover, there's nothing particularly unique to the XBox Live service & this phishing, either.
However, I'm unconvinced that this is some sort of smoking gun; Silver needs to really run this sort of simplistic analysis on a lot of other polls and see if there in fact is a bias towards a 47 - 43 split with 10% undecided. That actually sounds about right for a lot of the polls I remember in the last election.
If you read the TFA, Nate addresses this. He states that his data--SV LLC's polling results--are selected from a wide, wide, wide variety of topics, not just necessarily the highly divisive ones where there may be a relatively even split between two choices.
Moreover, (as Nate states) over enough data, even the effect of the undecided percentage on the trailing digit should be random.
It passed, but with a 285-225 vote, there's noticeably significant opposition. And that's just the lower house; it still has to go to a "parliamentary commission of seven senators and seven members of the lower house to pen a final draft that's acceptable to both houses". And that's if it's not blocked by another constitutional appeal.
So, just typical politicking bullshit you'd see across the pond over here, or really anywhere, nowadays, so that Jack can say he was for it and accuse Jane of being against it, to further some hatespeech... er, campaigning. I can't get too worked up until it's actually for real; there's just too much of this nonsense nowadays.
And how would your company know you used the laptop do to X, Y, or Z? If its on your own time and if the laptop is devoid of big-brother-like apps, I fail to see how they could even begin to make a claim for it.
I wouldn't expect someone like you to be commenting on an article like this when they clearly don't know what they're talking about. You'd know, right off the bat, from the article summary that it uses a mechanism similar to that of greeting cards with sound chips in them. That means THERE IS NO STANDBY MODE. It's either ON. OR OFF. The tab that is pulled when you open the card, and in this case... the advertisement fold itself, removes the complete power short that prevents the battery from powering the device at all.
You can't possibly think a battery is going to drain that fast. I have greeting cards from 3 years ago that still play the samples as loud as I first opened them. They're your standard CR232 cells inside... so they don't even recharge.
/feed the troll
Unlike your CR232 cells, rechargeable batteries dissipate even when not being used, reportedly a couple percent a day. Besides, I didn't even bring up "standby mode." At least troll properly next time! Thanks for playing.
Agreed. This isn't "video in print", this is "we've taken your typical hardcover book and put a ridiculously small screen with a bad interface inside it. Other content, what other content?"
If I a device like the one shown in the youtube vid, I'll just take one that's not bound in cardboard, thanks.
First of all that's 70 minutes of runtime. Standby wouldn't be nearly as draining
I wouldn't expect the standby capacity of that to be much longer than the time it would take insert the device into the magazine, finish production, box up the magazine(s), and ship them to the point of sale. Can you imagine needing dozens upon dozens of USB power cords to recharge these things at your local bookseller? I'd imagine someone is paying for that kind of ridiculous service to ensure that this very expensive advertising venture delivers as promised to the target audience.
Seems great, but TFA seems light on details that would seem to come to most peoples' minds:
Is it actually an insert into the magazine, or is it part of a page, itself?
How durable is it? And its corollary:
How flexible is it?
Is it always on, or can you turn it off?
Wait, the battery is rechargeable? If this is an ADVERTISEMENT in a paper magazine, why would you want to recharge it beyond the novelty? What good is this, and with a battery of 70min, wouldn't they ALL have no power by the time you get it off the shelf?
Can I rip it out of the magazine and keep the screen/device and repurpose them for something actually useful?
Mod parent up. Good link to an utterly fascinating article, though, from the article, it seems to suggest not so much that itch is a function of nerves/nerve endings insofar as itch is a function of the brain. The linked article even makes car analogies. A must read.:)
Agreed. If it weren't for the near-monopoly on broadband, the market would theoretically be able to weed out the bad companies that don't adopt a neutral stance.
You are making a lot of assumptions here without even stating them, let alone proving them.
For instance, you assume that the marginal cost of maintaining a neutral network is identical to a non-neutral one, which might not be true. If the non-neutral one has significantly lower upkeep, it might win out as an inferior but cheaper product. That is, even if consumers prefer neutral ISPs to non-neutral ones, that preference only goes so far towards convincing them to pay a higher rate.
Another important assumption is that the consumer preference function really distinguishes between neutral and non-neutral. For the vast majority of consumers this might not be the case -- especially with less-tech savvy older folks that use the net mostly for email/light web and don't notice any filtering. For those consumers, there is no product differentiation being neutral and non-neutral at all.
So yeah, if the costs stack up right and the consumer preference actually does favor neutrality, then a free market would deliver it. Those are some pretty big caveats though.
I gave up moderation in this thread to reply to this post.
First, there's nothing to suggest either (a) net-neutrality will present a higher marginal cost or (b) net-neutrality will present a lower marginal cost on the same. Given this, it's logical to assume no change.
Second, consumer preference is moot if there is no outlet to express said preference. Few consumers--slashdot crowds included--will opt to forego internet to flex their meager muscle against the monopoly; internet is such a necessity that people are going to choose some internet over none, even if it's sole-sourced. Moreover, this point piggybacks on your earlier point, which seems to assume that neutrality carries higher costs, and therefore there is a cost function impacting consumer decisions in a hypothetical neutral vs non-neutral decision.
Ultimately, lets first get to a free market, and then we can take a look at your points.
Slashdot Mirror
An article on Sony and "betting it all" on 3D TVs was published in the Wall Street Journal, yesterday. A pretty detailed article, imo.
Basically, that article pointed out the fatal flaw:
The challenge for Sony and the other electronics makers: persuading people to adopt 3-D so quickly after hundreds of millions of households just made the transition to high-definition video. Consumers will have to buy brand new televisions, which, according to some estimates, could cost between 10% and 20% more than the high-definition TVs currently on the market.
Not going to happen. People are going to resist this like mad. "New TV? I just bought a new HDTV, and now you want me to go buy a new one so soon which is more expensive? Yeah, go fuck yourselves."
Inflammatory rhetoric aside, what I found most interesting, though, is that CEO Stringer appears to be his push (at least in this arena) against the "Not invented here" bias that is apparently so prevalent at Sony. Most slashdotters will agree--we don't need more proprietary, incompatible Sony formats. Hopefully this attitude is promoted outside the 3D TV realm.
"Great" minds "think" alike.
You forgot to also put "minds" in quotes, there, too.
... who thinks FF is lacking quality control recently? I have 3.5.2, but it crashes way too often and feels slower. Javascript also stutters. It pauses now and again, as if it were trying to catch up to something. It could be blazing fast between pauses, but if its freezing, it ain't blazing.
You can tout your own horn all you want, but show me the evidence.
This isn't necessarily off-topic, just poorly referenced to the topic. The summary cites the original article's claims of "the fastest javascript engine," so clearly Firefox performance claims are being made here. And I, too, thought that existing versions of firefox (I'm running 3.5.5 64bit linux) don't provide strong support for Firefox Mobile to live up to this hype.
If you're as good at it as Google, if you, too, can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system, then yes, you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions.
The "downloading porn" is an unproven allegation. If we were to fire every admin who's ever downloaded something that a prude would consider "porn" (like accidentally clicking on a goatguy or tubgirl link), there'd be no admins left.
Actually, since he had machines that the school claims is theirs at home, and TFA was (carefully?) worded not to suggest that any "porn" was downloaded while at school or during school hours, I'm guessing that whatever they found was on computers in his home that the school claims are theirs and assumptions were made as to how it arrived there.
Yeah, previous posters, there's a legitimate source of information. You could read the god damn article, but that's way too hard, just read the comments and assume the ones you like were in the article.
Yeah, I can be a pompous ass just like you. Notice the freaking timestamp of my post, and perhaps realize that it was posted considerably earlier than yours and many others, and by the nature of time, I hadn't the luxury of reading posts & information made in the future... Moreover, the only reason it WASN'T posted 10 or so minutes earlier than it actually was is that I actually took the time to read the linked article--which provided meager insights, as it can barely be called an article--and watched the video. Jerk.
So, you already have an unruly crowd waiting for the arrival of someone special, and you want to effectively disseminate a rumor* that said special person isn't arriving? And that's supposed to calm the crowd down and get them to leave peacefully? Must be some new-age thinking, there...
*As previous poster(s) have mentioned, a message via twitter is only going to be received by a select few people who have access to twitter in that situation, and therefore, its only going to spread to everyone via word of mouth. In other words, a rumor.
It may be more of a danger to children, but to dismiss an environment that is coated with poison dust as harmless without further study is absurd.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke
First, let's change the rhetoric to "chemicals" instead of the FUD "poison." Virtually the same chemicals exist in wood smoke that exist in cigarette smoke--unsurprising since they're both combustion byproducts of plant matter. If you want some pretty reliable numbers on amounts resulting from combustion, I refer you to the EPA's AP-42 for wood combustion (scroll down to Ch. 1.6). Pretty much every scary-sounding chemical in cigarette smoke is also in your friendly campfire. Dioxins, arsenic, mercury, lead, etc. The difference is people actively breathe in the smoke from a cigarette, which leads me to...
Second, how a chemical enters your body and in what quantities is equally important. Just as you haven't died from your first exposure to a campfire, so too will you not die from incidental exposure to cigarette residue. Inhalation and injection are efficient ways to get chemicals into your body, but absorption through undamaged skin is pretty damn inefficient for most.
All this to say that "third hand smoke" is a FUD buzzword. It's nothing more than the microscopic particulate traces (i.e. ash) containing the same compounds you'd find from standing near a campfire. Back to the topic at hand--that incidental exposure to a surface stained by cigarette smoke is unlikely to cause anything other than personal discomfort as long as you wash your hand afterwards.
...and many rejected apps get through with a few simple changes...
FTFA, Rogue Amoeba's issue was with a rejection to an update to their existing application, though the rejection itself had nothing to do with the proposed change. Instead, Apple decided that features in its existing, approved version are now a problem.
Apple's problem is that they have put a guard on the gate to enter their walled garden, except there are thousands of gates each with their own, different guard, and apparently only the vaguest of ideals are guiding their decision-making.
And this app was approved by Apple?
I applaud Apple for releasing it. If Apple rejected it just because they don't like what its content, that would be censure and they would be no better that the Chinese government.
Wait, are we talking about the same Apple that censors everything else that goes on the iphone just because they don't like its content?
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
One could argue that DRM is in place, by choice of the content producer, to reject the market's economics.
If a CD is heavily pirated at $15, then the market can implement DRM and try to continue selling the disc at $15, or it can realize that the piracy at $15 identifies demand segments for the product at multiple less-than-$15 price points. If someone is willing to pirate it, then logically they want it, and therefore they can ascribe a non-zero monetary value to it, even if it is very, very low.
The solution is to develop an system that allows a single individual to purchase the product at a price tailored to that individual. And then get both the buyer and the seller to be content with the money paid and received, even if it's more/less than a previous sale.
Why is this marked as troll? He is answering the stated question to the best of his knowledge. If anything should be marked as troll, it is the question itself. What do you expect when you use such a subject term such as "crapware?"
+1. GP isn't a troll; at worst, this entire article is trolling.
Don't be confused. They're not hacking your hardware or the Xbox Live servers. They're using social engineering and any publicly available information (courtesy of things users choose to divulge in their profiles) to attempt to get passwords.
Big difference between hacking & phishing. Moreover, there's nothing particularly unique to the XBox Live service & this phishing, either.
However, I'm unconvinced that this is some sort of smoking gun; Silver needs to really run this sort of simplistic analysis on a lot of other polls and see if there in fact is a bias towards a 47 - 43 split with 10% undecided. That actually sounds about right for a lot of the polls I remember in the last election.
If you read the TFA, Nate addresses this. He states that his data--SV LLC's polling results--are selected from a wide, wide, wide variety of topics, not just necessarily the highly divisive ones where there may be a relatively even split between two choices.
Moreover, (as Nate states) over enough data, even the effect of the undecided percentage on the trailing digit should be random.
Emphasize the danger.
Right on. The American public really isn't anti-danger, look at NASCAR.
Screw NASCAR. It should be more like "The Deadliest Catch... In SPACE!"
It passed, but with a 285-225 vote, there's noticeably significant opposition. And that's just the lower house; it still has to go to a "parliamentary commission of seven senators and seven members of the lower house to pen a final draft that's acceptable to both houses". And that's if it's not blocked by another constitutional appeal.
So, just typical politicking bullshit you'd see across the pond over here, or really anywhere, nowadays, so that Jack can say he was for it and accuse Jane of being against it, to further some hatespeech... er, campaigning. I can't get too worked up until it's actually for real; there's just too much of this nonsense nowadays.
And how would your company know you used the laptop do to X, Y, or Z? If its on your own time and if the laptop is devoid of big-brother-like apps, I fail to see how they could even begin to make a claim for it.
I wouldn't expect someone like you to be commenting on an article like this when they clearly don't know what they're talking about. You'd know, right off the bat, from the article summary that it uses a mechanism similar to that of greeting cards with sound chips in them. That means THERE IS NO STANDBY MODE. It's either ON. OR OFF. The tab that is pulled when you open the card, and in this case... the advertisement fold itself, removes the complete power short that prevents the battery from powering the device at all.
You can't possibly think a battery is going to drain that fast. I have greeting cards from 3 years ago that still play the samples as loud as I first opened them. They're your standard CR232 cells inside... so they don't even recharge.
/feed the troll Unlike your CR232 cells, rechargeable batteries dissipate even when not being used, reportedly a couple percent a day. Besides, I didn't even bring up "standby mode." At least troll properly next time! Thanks for playing.
Agreed. This isn't "video in print", this is "we've taken your typical hardcover book and put a ridiculously small screen with a bad interface inside it. Other content, what other content?"
If I a device like the one shown in the youtube vid, I'll just take one that's not bound in cardboard, thanks.
First of all that's 70 minutes of runtime. Standby wouldn't be nearly as draining
I wouldn't expect the standby capacity of that to be much longer than the time it would take insert the device into the magazine, finish production, box up the magazine(s), and ship them to the point of sale. Can you imagine needing dozens upon dozens of USB power cords to recharge these things at your local bookseller? I'd imagine someone is paying for that kind of ridiculous service to ensure that this very expensive advertising venture delivers as promised to the target audience.
Seems great, but TFA seems light on details that would seem to come to most peoples' minds:
FYI, here's what it does list:
Note the giant typo in the slashdot summary versus eldavojohn's (emphasis added). From Slashdot:
only 4% of respondents said they wouldn't buy a new 360 because of hardware failures.
From eldavojohn
only 3.8% said they would buy another Xbox
This is a pretty significant difference, and owing to Slashdot's frequent editorial errors, I'd say trust eldavojohn.
Nix that. I didn't RTFA. The slashdot summary is correct. Who knew?
only 4% of respondents said they wouldn't buy a new 360 because of hardware failures.
From eldavojohn
only 3.8% said they would buy another Xbox
This is a pretty significant difference, and owing to Slashdot's frequent editorial errors, I'd say trust eldavojohn.
Mod parent up. Good link to an utterly fascinating article, though, from the article, it seems to suggest not so much that itch is a function of nerves/nerve endings insofar as itch is a function of the brain. The linked article even makes car analogies. A must read. :)
Agreed. If it weren't for the near-monopoly on broadband, the market would theoretically be able to weed out the bad companies that don't adopt a neutral stance.
You are making a lot of assumptions here without even stating them, let alone proving them.
For instance, you assume that the marginal cost of maintaining a neutral network is identical to a non-neutral one, which might not be true. If the non-neutral one has significantly lower upkeep, it might win out as an inferior but cheaper product. That is, even if consumers prefer neutral ISPs to non-neutral ones, that preference only goes so far towards convincing them to pay a higher rate.
Another important assumption is that the consumer preference function really distinguishes between neutral and non-neutral. For the vast majority of consumers this might not be the case -- especially with less-tech savvy older folks that use the net mostly for email/light web and don't notice any filtering. For those consumers, there is no product differentiation being neutral and non-neutral at all.
So yeah, if the costs stack up right and the consumer preference actually does favor neutrality, then a free market would deliver it. Those are some pretty big caveats though.
I gave up moderation in this thread to reply to this post.
First, there's nothing to suggest either (a) net-neutrality will present a higher marginal cost or (b) net-neutrality will present a lower marginal cost on the same. Given this, it's logical to assume no change.
Second, consumer preference is moot if there is no outlet to express said preference. Few consumers--slashdot crowds included--will opt to forego internet to flex their meager muscle against the monopoly; internet is such a necessity that people are going to choose some internet over none, even if it's sole-sourced. Moreover, this point piggybacks on your earlier point, which seems to assume that neutrality carries higher costs, and therefore there is a cost function impacting consumer decisions in a hypothetical neutral vs non-neutral decision.
Ultimately, lets first get to a free market, and then we can take a look at your points.