Even worse than Big Brother would be what is described in the summary: A set of decentralized agencies full of politics/bureaucracy that have rules with little or no unification and no compassion or human oversight. Suddenly, instead of a force seeking only power there is a "force" that is simply a mass of rules and surveillance with the illusion of trying to control when in fact it only creates massive inconvenience for people ala Brazil.
Basically: Given the choice I would almost rather be imprisoned/watched by an entity with an agenda rather than a decentralized, inept morass of bureaucracy. I fear that is what we are moving toward, however. See Red Light Cameras as an example.
How about finding a way to slash bureaucracy for a change? I'll bet (but I don't know) that's one of the biggest drains on any modern government's budget: Bureaucrats who want to entrench themselves so they can get paid forever.
This seems a little like Google acquiring Facebook. What value do either of things generate?
While the article may not be true, could we please get away from more DotBomb 2.0 mentality?
Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price. See the following, as always re: Apple and Rumors:
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
I was one of those, to my argument's detriment. You make a good point.
Going back to 2000 is tough. It is blocky and harder to work with in the UI sense. It does seem snappier and easier to optimize, though. Really, though, that's my point: It's gotten to a level where it does not seem to make sense to upgrade other than MS telling us to.
Why should we do that?
Alright, I'll stop ranting and replying. Thanks for the input.
Yes, the price to us is ludicrous. We have paid for Windows when it is obvious that the benefit is worth the cost.
I agree, not needing it does not make it ludicrous. However, what makes it ludicrous is that Microsoft is just smoking its wheels at the starting line in a desperate effort to churn out a product which they can spin enough to get people to buy. They aren't presenting something that increases productivity or that has compelling new features. They just keep piling on code in the hopes that something marketable will result. *that* is ludicrous, and I won't pay for it.
Also, we *do* have to pay for the software. Whether it is bundled or not, we have to pay for it somehow. Just because you can't see the cost does that mean it isn't there?
Regarding software which does not support XP: I don't really see how simply using software which does not support XP suddenly makes it compelling enough for me to buy it. Perhaps there are Vista/7-only programs out there which offer wonderful UI, split-second responses, and powerful features. Maybe there are not exclusive programs for my professional or personal use that do that yet. Until I see those it is ludicrous to upgrade. Maybe we are just miscommunicating here.
Adding a new person is not really the point. The point is not just teaching everyone/a new hire how things work, it's supporting the software, learning its peccadilloes, and my going through the hassle of everything a new OS entails. Considering I do a lot of work already adding an OS is an extra burden that, after evaluating the lack of useful new features we would get, I simply won't put up with.
In short, this is still the same back-and-forth I get from every single Vista/7 user I have ever talked to (including a programmer for Microsoft who worked on the recent Visual Studio): Just upgrade. "Why?" Because it's a new version. "What features are better, why would I want to? Is there a really great User Interface that makes your life easier? Programs that will get me excited about all the cool new APIs or functionality?" Silence.
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just saying that I've paid over and over again for an experience that has improved with each purchase. The current version has little or none of that improvement, and considering that it comes out of my pocket I won't pay for it until I'm shown a deeply compelling reason. If you can show me that then I am open to the experience.
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block. After effectively skewering the financial system, starting a couple wars, and heaven knows what else we still expect to be taken so seriously.
I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
It's ludicrous because I don't see any functionality that I really want or need in either Vista or 7. Why should I pay for something that is likely to be slower and which I need to spend copious amounts of time learning? I can already do everything I want and more in XP. There is just no reason to upgrade for upgrade's sake, I don't want to spend the time or patience or money on it unless there is a viciously compelling reason.
Through Win95,98,NT,2000,and XP I paid (in one way or another) for each of those operating systems and the underlying code. I don't have any serious issues with XP, while with past versions I did. Windows is good enough. I have a small business that needs everything to run smoothly and buying a new OS with no new useful features is ludicrous to us.
For us it's like buying a new car which has completely new functionality and position of every button and lever. I have to teach a few other people how to drive it in addition to myself while we are driving. Our old cars were running just fine. I'll keep the old cars, thanks. Your mileage may vary.
Full retail or bundled, paying for it still makes no sense to us.
Except that many of those processes were created then bought and paid for years ago in previous versions of Windows.
I am happy to pay for additional content and functionality, but to ask me to pay $250 every few/several years to receive the same old bloated code is ludicrous. If it doesn't have a significant value proposition then there is no reason to buy in my mind.
This is sure to result in another Norse invasion of Europe just to "get away from that buzzing sound, man!"
It's just what we needed: Thousands of stoned, paranoid Norsemen looking at each going "Did you hear something, man? I thought I heard something! Look out the window, in the sky!"
My (admittedly thin) understanding is that the people of the town were fed up with TWC, got together, and made something happen. That's what government is for: By the people and for the people. Of course it has its limitations, but when corporations have a stranglehold it is actually refreshing to me to see that the government is still a way for people to take a stand, even at a tiny local level.
I think the precedent is a great one. If it shoes people that they really can do something, rather than being squashed by a big corp, then great.
Also, the all-or-nothing argument seems a bit much. Do you just propose that people continue to live under the current oppression?
I used to take Aderall and ritalin before that. I was diagnosed with ADD early on in grade school, so I took medication for a decade or so. I found that although I could concentrate for the first 3-6 months (i would go off of it periodically) the effects would begin to wane. I would take the drug but it wouldn't bring a benefit after a certain amount of time. I also had bad changes (i felt) in personality. I may be a jerk, but I can turn into a type-A monster on aderall. I was very organized and focused, but everything else in my life went away to make room for that. I was the perfect cubicle drone, so I stopped taking the meds.
Nowadays it's sometimes hard to get work done. I sometimes come in at 10am to work but stay quite late when necessary, so it's ok. Work can go slowly and I get distracted (slashdot), but I have an awesome relationship with a girl who really values my attitudes, hobbies I enjoy and am quite good at, and while I may never rise to be the "perfect worker" ideal that many seem to aspire to in the U.S. I can say that I'm fairly happy overall.
Not everyone's brain works the same. To try and pump ourselves full of drugs because our culture and society are too broken to recognize that it takes "every type of people to make the world go 'round" (as Robert Palmer once said) is at best short-sighted and at worst dangerous.
Well the herd has to be thinned sometime, right? And who says that sustainable has to mean a tenfold reduction? It just means not using monoculture crops and ultimately ill-advised strategies for food production. If you go back and read up on the recent Monsanto Pig thread, there's a farmer on there who talks all about it. We're setting ourselves up for disaster and it's happening faster than you might think.
Let's hope technology can find a way that also doesn't cost humanity its future.
Although science is great, that would feel to me like it is just pushing the problem off in to the future when something else will evolve to kill the bees. Why not just have sustainable environmental practices, (which seem to help according to that Scientific American article on the subject)?
Which is why they will get massive amounts of money when they finally do begin to fail.
Governments around the world will bankrupt themselves in order to prop up Monsanto if they ever fail or if their crops begin to. It's just like AIG except on a much more serious scale.
Ah, there we are. This is why I love slashdot. You're right. Technically his argument had nothing to do with the article. On the other hand, I think a LOT of people try running casually with ancient, worn out shoes that should never be used for running.
Many urban runners do it on concrete too, which is *really* bad regardless of shoes.
I'll echo what a lot of other people have said here: The article doesn't have very good science. Serious runners will be more prone to injury and they will buy nicer shoes (Correlation != causation etc). We did not evolve to run on concrete or stone or asphalt (it will REALLY fuck you up and I speak from experience!!), and even the romans wore shoes (believe it or not!). There were also probably many fewer runners, and they ended up being the people whose physique could stand up to the harsh abuse that running on stone brings anyway.
Running shoe padding wears out over time. In fact there is even a "best by" date on good running shoes. After a couple years on the shelf they get recycled because the padding material inside begins to break down. With regular running it also breaks down. Please try to be informed about a subjective before ridiculing someone who is actually directly involved with it.
Some may say "how convenient" regarding the sell-by date, but I'm in the same boat. I can tell when a running shoe is beginning to wear out as I begin to have more knee and foot pain. Of course, my whole body is screwed up so I'm more sensitive than most.
It *is* harvard business school, so perhaps a grain of salt is required.
Although others may not agree with me, there is an important point in both the Democrat article linked by the summary and in the link above: Venture Capital is not a systemic risk to the financial system. Why? The articles disagree on that point, but I tend to think they are not doing what they are supposed to, and the reason why they aren't might be worthy of a moment of cogitation (or whatever).
Haque makes the argument that one major reason the downturn has been so bad is that VCs have not done what they are supposed to for the last 15-odd years: Invest in risky technology and bring in the new companies/ideas as the old ones crumble, not try to be completely safe and make a a gazillion dollars! The new technologies, processes, and ideas that are supposed to sweep in and replace the old broken ones (is there anyone to replace GM, Ford, and Chrysler, for instance?) are not here, they're 5-10 years out, such as Tesla Motors. Venture capital is supposed to be the creative force behind our economy (please argue with me here), while the market determines the worth of the product created and ultimately leads to the destruction of companies that do not pass muster.
The reason we had this bubble is because there was no real blockbusters worth investing in. Something had to be mocked up to look like a good investment, not only Real Estate, but things like social networking sites. There was even a recent Slashdot article, I believe, on Facebook's issues. Why are we pouring money into things like this (I'll cover my opinion on that in a moment)?
Haque's argument also states that America was the only really booming economy in the world for the last 100 years because it was the only real venture capital country. I'm not sure I completely agree (it's obviously more complicated than that) but I wonder if the point isn't partly true. By deciding to not take big risks in technology and science, by not funding the education necessary for people to actually take those risks, and by creating a culture where style matters over substance, perhaps the state of Venture Capital firms (and even silicon valley) is a reflection of the mindset that has led to the current economy.
In that regard, I'm not sure any political party should really want to control them. How innovative are they really going to be without visionaries willing to take big risks for their visions?
Yes, I know there are visionary benefactors out there, but if there's a discussion to be had surrounding VCs should we tie it back into innovation since this is Slashdot?
Are there any people here involved marginally with VC (I know I have been recently and have a story for another post) that can give us some perspective?
Is this a "Dr. Phibes" joke? Because if it is then you, sir, are awesome.
Ah, something on topic? hmmm. While I don't see the current generation of breath contraptions ad impto hardum, the far reaching implications inherent in the very philosophy that embodies a device such as this should give each of us pause as we... oh fine, yes, it's off topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Even worse than Big Brother would be what is described in the summary: A set of decentralized agencies full of politics/bureaucracy that have rules with little or no unification and no compassion or human oversight. Suddenly, instead of a force seeking only power there is a "force" that is simply a mass of rules and surveillance with the illusion of trying to control when in fact it only creates massive inconvenience for people ala Brazil.
Basically: Given the choice I would almost rather be imprisoned/watched by an entity with an agenda rather than a decentralized, inept morass of bureaucracy. I fear that is what we are moving toward, however. See Red Light Cameras as an example.
How about finding a way to slash bureaucracy for a change? I'll bet (but I don't know) that's one of the biggest drains on any modern government's budget: Bureaucrats who want to entrench themselves so they can get paid forever.
This seems a little like Google acquiring Facebook. What value do either of things generate? While the article may not be true, could we please get away from more DotBomb 2.0 mentality? Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price. See the following, as always re: Apple and Rumors: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
I was one of those, to my argument's detriment. You make a good point.
Going back to 2000 is tough. It is blocky and harder to work with in the UI sense. It does seem snappier and easier to optimize, though. Really, though, that's my point: It's gotten to a level where it does not seem to make sense to upgrade other than MS telling us to.
Why should we do that?
Alright, I'll stop ranting and replying. Thanks for the input.
Yes, the price to us is ludicrous. We have paid for Windows when it is obvious that the benefit is worth the cost.
I agree, not needing it does not make it ludicrous. However, what makes it ludicrous is that Microsoft is just smoking its wheels at the starting line in a desperate effort to churn out a product which they can spin enough to get people to buy. They aren't presenting something that increases productivity or that has compelling new features. They just keep piling on code in the hopes that something marketable will result. *that* is ludicrous, and I won't pay for it.
Also, we *do* have to pay for the software. Whether it is bundled or not, we have to pay for it somehow. Just because you can't see the cost does that mean it isn't there?
Regarding software which does not support XP: I don't really see how simply using software which does not support XP suddenly makes it compelling enough for me to buy it. Perhaps there are Vista/7-only programs out there which offer wonderful UI, split-second responses, and powerful features. Maybe there are not exclusive programs for my professional or personal use that do that yet. Until I see those it is ludicrous to upgrade. Maybe we are just miscommunicating here.
Adding a new person is not really the point. The point is not just teaching everyone/a new hire how things work, it's supporting the software, learning its peccadilloes, and my going through the hassle of everything a new OS entails. Considering I do a lot of work already adding an OS is an extra burden that, after evaluating the lack of useful new features we would get, I simply won't put up with.
In short, this is still the same back-and-forth I get from every single Vista/7 user I have ever talked to (including a programmer for Microsoft who worked on the recent Visual Studio): Just upgrade. "Why?" Because it's a new version. "What features are better, why would I want to? Is there a really great User Interface that makes your life easier? Programs that will get me excited about all the cool new APIs or functionality?" Silence.
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just saying that I've paid over and over again for an experience that has improved with each purchase. The current version has little or none of that improvement, and considering that it comes out of my pocket I won't pay for it until I'm shown a deeply compelling reason. If you can show me that then I am open to the experience.
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block.
After effectively skewering the financial system, starting a couple wars, and heaven knows what else we still expect to be taken so seriously.
I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
It's ludicrous because I don't see any functionality that I really want or need in either Vista or 7. Why should I pay for something that is likely to be slower and which I need to spend copious amounts of time learning? I can already do everything I want and more in XP. There is just no reason to upgrade for upgrade's sake, I don't want to spend the time or patience or money on it unless there is a viciously compelling reason.
Through Win95,98,NT,2000,and XP I paid (in one way or another) for each of those operating systems and the underlying code. I
don't have any serious issues with XP, while with past versions I did. Windows is good enough. I have a small business that needs everything to run smoothly and buying a new OS with no new useful features is ludicrous to us.
For us it's like buying a new car which has completely new functionality and position of every button and lever. I have to teach a few other people how to drive it in addition to myself while we are driving. Our old cars were running just fine. I'll keep the old cars, thanks. Your mileage may vary.
Full retail or bundled, paying for it still makes no sense to us.
Except that many of those processes were created then bought and paid for years ago in previous versions of Windows.
I am happy to pay for additional content and functionality, but to ask me to pay $250 every few/several years to receive the same old bloated code is ludicrous. If it doesn't have a significant value proposition then there is no reason to buy in my mind.
Maybe I'm just trying... to... yeah. I see what I did there.
As I understand it the law allows one to possess mary jane, but growing it is illegal.
This is sure to result in another Norse invasion of Europe just to "get away from that buzzing sound, man!"
It's just what we needed: Thousands of stoned, paranoid Norsemen looking at each going "Did you hear something, man? I thought I heard something! Look out the window, in the sky!"
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
Should we even be falling for this stuff anymore?
My (admittedly thin) understanding is that the people of the town were fed up with TWC, got together, and made something happen. That's what government is for: By the people and for the people. Of course it has its limitations, but when corporations have a stranglehold it is actually refreshing to me to see that the government is still a way for people to take a stand, even at a tiny local level.
I think the precedent is a great one. If it shoes people that they really can do something, rather than being squashed by a big corp, then great.
Also, the all-or-nothing argument seems a bit much. Do you just propose that people continue to live under the current oppression?
I used to take Aderall and ritalin before that. I was diagnosed with ADD early on in grade school, so I took medication for a decade or so. I found that although I could concentrate for the first 3-6 months (i would go off of it periodically) the effects would begin to wane. I would take the drug but it wouldn't bring a benefit after a certain amount of time. I also had bad changes (i felt) in personality. I may be a jerk, but I can turn into a type-A monster on aderall. I was very organized and focused, but everything else in my life went away to make room for that. I was the perfect cubicle drone, so I stopped taking the meds.
Nowadays it's sometimes hard to get work done. I sometimes come in at 10am to work but stay quite late when necessary, so it's ok. Work can go slowly and I get distracted (slashdot), but I have an awesome relationship with a girl who really values my attitudes, hobbies I enjoy and am quite good at, and while I may never rise to be the "perfect worker" ideal that many seem to aspire to in the U.S. I can say that I'm fairly happy overall.
Not everyone's brain works the same. To try and pump ourselves full of drugs because our culture and society are too broken to recognize that it takes "every type of people to make the world go 'round" (as Robert Palmer once said) is at best short-sighted and at worst dangerous.
....so it might be hard to get first post!
Well the herd has to be thinned sometime, right? And who says that sustainable has to mean a tenfold reduction? It just means not using monoculture crops and ultimately ill-advised strategies for food production. If you go back and read up on the recent Monsanto Pig thread, there's a farmer on there who talks all about it. We're setting ourselves up for disaster and it's happening faster than you might think.
Let's hope technology can find a way that also doesn't cost humanity its future.
Although science is great, that would feel to me like it is just pushing the problem off in to the future when something else will evolve to kill the bees. Why not just have sustainable environmental practices, (which seem to help according to that Scientific American article on the subject)?
I get the sneaking suspicion that Disney is going to buy a whole fleet of these things and create a Happy Feet show at Disney World.
An entire army of dancing robot penguins with glowing eyes is the stuff nightmares are made of. Thanks, Germany!
Which is why they will get massive amounts of money when they finally do begin to fail.
Governments around the world will bankrupt themselves in order to prop up Monsanto if they ever fail or if their crops begin to. It's just like AIG except on a much more serious scale.
Has anyone suggested investing in commodities? :-)
New Sham Genetics?
I thought this was an old sham from 2005. Funny that, really.
Ah, there we are. This is why I love slashdot.
You're right. Technically his argument had nothing to do with the article.
On the other hand, I think a LOT of people try running casually with ancient, worn out shoes that should never be used for running.
Many urban runners do it on concrete too, which is *really* bad regardless of shoes.
I'll echo what a lot of other people have said here: The article doesn't have very good science. Serious runners will be more prone to injury and they will buy nicer shoes (Correlation != causation etc). We did not evolve to run on concrete or stone or asphalt (it will REALLY fuck you up and I speak from experience!!), and even the romans wore shoes (believe it or not!). There were also probably many fewer runners, and they ended up being the people whose physique could stand up to the harsh abuse that running on stone brings anyway.
Anyway, you're right and I need to GBTW!
Running shoe padding wears out over time. In fact there is even a "best by" date on good running shoes. After a couple years on the shelf they get recycled because the padding material inside begins to break down. With regular running it also breaks down. Please try to be informed about a subjective before ridiculing someone who is actually directly involved with it.
Some may say "how convenient" regarding the sell-by date, but I'm in the same boat. I can tell when a running shoe is beginning to wear out as I begin to have more knee and foot pain. Of course, my whole body is screwed up so I'm more sensitive than most.
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/01/asleep_at_the_wheel_of_creativ_1.html
Here is the original, unsummarized version. Sorry 'bout that.
I'd like to bring the idea of venture capital firms into focus for a minute, and I think it may be important to Slashdot.
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/04/asleep_at_the_wheel_of_creativ_2.html
It *is* harvard business school, so perhaps a grain of salt is required.
Although others may not agree with me, there is an important point in both the Democrat article linked by the summary and in the link above: Venture Capital is not a systemic risk to the financial system. Why? The articles disagree on that point, but I tend to think they are not doing what they are supposed to, and the reason why they aren't might be worthy of a moment of cogitation (or whatever).
Haque makes the argument that one major reason the downturn has been so bad is that VCs have not done what they are supposed to for the last 15-odd years: Invest in risky technology and bring in the new companies/ideas as the old ones crumble, not try to be completely safe and make a a gazillion dollars! The new technologies, processes, and ideas that are supposed to sweep in and replace the old broken ones (is there anyone to replace GM, Ford, and Chrysler, for instance?) are not here, they're 5-10 years out, such as Tesla Motors. Venture capital is supposed to be the creative force behind our economy (please argue with me here), while the market determines the worth of the product created and ultimately leads to the destruction of companies that do not pass muster.
The reason we had this bubble is because there was no real blockbusters worth investing in. Something had to be mocked up to look like a good investment, not only Real Estate, but things like social networking sites. There was even a recent Slashdot article, I believe, on Facebook's issues. Why are we pouring money into things like this (I'll cover my opinion on that in a moment)?
Haque's argument also states that America was the only really booming economy in the world for the last 100 years because it was the only real venture capital country. I'm not sure I completely agree (it's obviously more complicated than that) but I wonder if the point isn't partly true. By deciding to not take big risks in technology and science, by not funding the education necessary for people to actually take those risks, and by creating a culture where style matters over substance, perhaps the state of Venture Capital firms (and even silicon valley) is a reflection of the mindset that has led to the current economy.
In that regard, I'm not sure any political party should really want to control them. How innovative are they really going to be without visionaries willing to take big risks for their visions?
Yes, I know there are visionary benefactors out there, but if there's a discussion to be had surrounding VCs should we tie it back into innovation since this is Slashdot?
Are there any people here involved marginally with VC (I know I have been recently and have a story for another post) that can give us some perspective?
Is this a "Dr. Phibes" joke? Because if it is then you, sir, are awesome.
Ah, something on topic? hmmm.
While I don't see the current generation of breath contraptions ad impto hardum, the far reaching implications inherent in the very philosophy that embodies a device such as this should give each of us pause as we... oh fine, yes, it's off topic.