Kenh should be banned from slashdot. Why do kenhs need to 'post' on slashdot? And no, arguing that this is how kenh wants to spend his time isn't good enough, there are too many alternatives for kenh to spend time, bandwidth etc.
Simple, you are an I am extremely sure there is no deity, but who can be 100% sure at the end of the day? If it turns out there is one, then cool, I'll eat humble pie, but until that point, 'no'!ist
Well, Buddha was a historical figure. There is not a great deal of doubt about what he said. And it is well known that he was quite reticent - so saying something in the heat of the moment is also ruled out. To say the least, he didn't say much.
He didn't tell his followers to ask for money. So followers of his "ism", i.e. Buddhism do not ask for money. "Ism" is quite a well known suffix in the English language, there is no need to extrapolate.
All the posts I made on slashdot can be summed up into "bingoUVism". Anyone practicing voodoo in the name of holy bingoUV is obviously not bingoUVist (need to go through all my posts to conclude that). But you don't have to necessarily abandon the idea that there is a true bingoUVism.
No true Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply here because there is no "definition" of a Scotsman. But there is a definition of Buddhism that follows unambiguously from contemporary usage of the suffix "ism".
No, genetic lottery made you much richer than an average citizen of developing nation - to the extent that unemployment benefits in many developed nations os higher than average incomes in most developing nations. Which, in turn, is caused by early industrialization by causing orders of magnitude more greenhouse gas emissions than an average citizen of developing nations. Which is most of the man-released greenhouse gas in the atmosphere at the moment.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Logical fallacy , arithmetical too. 23% of stock is owned by > 50% of shareholding population , which implies that "most shareholders are mutual fund holders".
Actually this 23 % share is owned by >90% of shareholding population, but >50% is enough to make the point.
how it is that an organisation that "rakes in" about 1% *annually* of what Apple raked in last *quarter* is somehow bullying Apple?
Logical error. You need not equal someone in might to be a threat.
During the cold war, at times USSR GDP was less than 20% that of the US, and later around 10%. Yet they were equal to the US in military might, and on paper by some estimates, even stronger. They had the first fusion bomb, they had bigger fusion bomb, they had an enormous non-nuclear bomb unmatched by any US non-nuclear bomb, they had the ballistic missile protector functional much before the US did. All this in spite of suffering much higher economic and human damage from the World War II than the US.
Reason - USSR spent much higher percentage of their GDP on military as compared to the US. Similar to the Apple Greenpeace story - Greenpeace is NOTHING BUT PR. Apple has to create electronic products, run services supporting the products, employ thousands of people directly and support ~ million indirectly. Greenpeace could easily be spending more on PR than Apple does, or at least would spend if such terrorist organizations did not give them bad PR which only the educated can understand to be false. As you are talking about "American reaction", you would no doubt realize that "No one ever went broke underestimating the American consumer's intellect".
Frankly, if Apple won't communicate with an enviro group as large as Greenpeace on matters of waste and power consumption, then it is Apple's attitude and business model that I have to question
Apple is not accountable to Greenpeace. No attitude necessary, Apple is morally and legally quite within their rights to tell Greenpeace to fuck off.
Remember this is the same Greenpeace which made a noise about Philippines governments negligence towards coral reefs, went in their own ships to "examine" and ended up damaging the coral reefs with their ship? Same Greenpeace which "rated" technological companies by the amount of shit they write on company websites about taking steps to preserve the environment, completely ignoring what the companies are actually doing? They hid their "rating methodology" during the initial noise making exercise, revealing it only later to maximize decibel level.
Laughable when anyone considers not only Apple, but ANYONE answerable to Greenpeace.
Come on, even if dropping Meego is a condition, it won't be publicized so explicitly. Primary platform can easily be taken to mean "only platform" for smartphones. S30 / S40 are alive and well no doubt.
That's my interpretation, confirmed by their "killing" N9. I admit I could be wrong, hope so even.
Really? Where is your explanation of the lies and logical errors you have used to try making your point?
Funny, I've provided data directly from Nokia....Pro tip: losing money isn't a recipe for success
I see no N9 specific data. Another logical error - losing money for the company does not mean a particular product cannot be "successful". E.g. Microsoft was losing money on Xbox, yet Microsoft as a whole was making profits. Similarly, N9 could be doing well, yet Nokia losing money.
You've changed the argument, so you admit your GGP post was non-sense? I quote again some more non-sense from it just for completeness -
Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware
This is patently false. As you now admit "Yes, it's clear that Motorola, Samsung and HTC have bet big on WP7".
As for your current argument,
Nokia have demonstrated a huge lack of ability to deliver software for their phones already (see: their flailing inability to deliver a coherent strategy built around Maemo/Meego/Symbian, while Android and iOS ate their lunch
They have created mobile OSes quite well, as demonstrated by N9's success despite conspicuously absent marketing. Strategy around it has failed, but once a company decides that they can never strategize, they can as well pack up, liquidate and return the money to shareholders. Even hardware design needs strategy. Becoming Microsoft's Lumia is also a strategy.
Microsoft has stepped in and said, "we can do that."
Haha. Microsoft is "doing that" for Samsung, HTC and Motorola too. Without taking their soul in return. Nokia could have got the same deal.
Jumping on the Android bandwagon would not have changed that trajectory, because Android (along with iOS) was a major *cause* of it
Android being a "major cause of it" does not prove that Nokia adopting Android would not have changed the trajectory. You are drawing a conclusion where none exists.
Person A is beating person B black and blue with a baseball bat. Person B after being quite injured from this beating, somehow forcibly acquires the baseball bat from person A. But following your logic, quickly concludes that "since the baseball bat is a major *cause* of my injuries, and I was being beaten badly, the baseball bat cannot help me". So he respectfully returns the baseball bat to person A.
After your excellent advice in the GGP post to minimize one's profits, this is another piece of great advice from you.
Nokia would have floundered at creating a working platform out of Android just as they floundered with Symbian, Maemo, and Meego.
And, by this logic, they will flounder at earning profits even after becoming Microsoft's Lumia. See point above for returning money to shareholders when a company considers itself too stupid to do business any more.
Make no mistake: Nokia was already dying. Android would not have changed that.
You would have people believe that but all your arguments for this have been blatant lies or logical fallacies.
Ok, so you liked Nokia's hardware decisions. Now you are cheering them for relinquishing the ability to make their own decisions? Since Microsoft makes the hardware decisions for all WP makers.
they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones
Right, so now that they have gone with WP, they are just another WP maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the even smaller portion of industry *profits* being earned by WP smartphones.
Smart. Why get small profits when you can get even smaller profits?
No, reading his autobiography shows he had all the makings of modern Sony. He was dead against getting into price wars - and price wars benefit customers. He didn't let his dealers sell Sony stuff at a low price even if buyers didn't see value in it.
since without Latitude they'd have to call me all the time to tell me where they are and where they're going
Minor nitpick - Latitude doesn't tell you where they are going. If you want to prevent their going somewhere, you still want them to tell you where they are going. With latitude, you can only take corrective measures - come back straight home, NOW!
Since you work at Google - do you develop Latitude?
I have already quoted your post where you assumed "Apple not profiting from being mean to developers implies Apple is NOT being mean to developers". This assumption is erroneous and displays your ignorance of Logic 101.
I replied to that post of yours, I didn't reply to the "entire thread". Whether in the context of this "entire thread" or not, your aforementioned assumption is erroneous and will remain so. Which I pointed out, maybe your shill salary will be reduced this time, not sure of your exact agreement with the PR company.
potential newcomers cannot offer something better, that's their problem
Ok, so potential newcomers cannot offer something better. And agreed it is their problem. Now the incumbent seller has a monopoly. Through this monopoly this incumbent seller amasses huge wealth by charging the premium it commands as per demand and supply. Using this huge wealth, it signs exclusive contracts with all kinds of suppliers (including potential employees).
Which makes it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better. Further increasing the wealth and power of this incumbent. Further making it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better.
All this is fair and square, except the consumer / customer / society as a whole suffers now because this incumbent refuses to make progress that could have been made if there were any healthy competition. Others cannot step in because of the exclusive contracts this incumbent has signed with all kinds of business raw materials.
That makes it simpler than my example, 20 becomes 1. Still, testing complexity has increased enough that you wouldn't be able to do the update NOW. Though I agree the live update can be applied once you finish testing which can be before the authorization to reboot comes.
I am not saying Apple is being mean to developers, nor am I saying Apple is NOT being mean to developers. All I am saying is that apple not profiting from being mean to developers DOES NOT IMPLY Apple is NOT being mean to developers. Your below quoted statement proves that you tried to make such a misguided implication.
..most of which goes to the credit card companies and for maintenance costs. Apple makes a small profit off the store, but it's entire purpose is to move sales of iDevices. So the facts simply do not meet the "Apple is meaaaan to developers" storyline.
So far you had only displayed your failure in elementary logic, now you display failure in reading comprehension. Great going.
Even if you update a kernel at runtime, how do you test it? Suppose in 5 years lifetime of a system, you patched 20 kernel bugs saving you 20 restarts.
This creates kernel version 1, 2, 3.... 20.
A process was created in version $i , got a signal when kernel version was $j1, another signal when kernel version was $j2... nth signal when kernel version was $jn, where n >> 20.
Just to test signal related issues, this will need an enormous number of test iterations, impractical to do in a lifetime. Include process context switching related tests, file descriptor related etc. and it will never get done within the lifetime of the universe. Cheaper to add 10 completely redundant systems.
Need regulation. Stock markets are regulated so that it is difficult for companies to get money from primary markets, show fictional losses in fictional enterprises and run away with the money. Various other accounting regulations make it difficult to perform less complete fraud too. I am not saying fraud is completely impossible but there is a huge regulatory framework and legal case history to keep things under control.
If you open a crowd funded R&D enterprise, how can the "crowd" trust you that the fruits of thus funded R&D will go on to reward the "investors"?
Ironically, your best bet is here too to open a holding company, get reputation somehow, open child company IPOs in the regular stock market based on that reputation and use each child company for a particular R&D effort. This will keep it legal, trustworthy and to a degree conventional
Slashdot Mirror
Kenh should be banned from slashdot. Why do kenhs need to 'post' on slashdot? And no, arguing that this is how kenh wants to spend his time isn't good enough, there are too many alternatives for kenh to spend time, bandwidth etc.
When you agree to communicate in some language, agreeing to the contemporary meaning of its commonly used suffixes is implicit.
Simple, you are an I am extremely sure there is no deity, but who can be 100% sure at the end of the day? If it turns out there is one, then cool, I'll eat humble pie, but until that point, 'no'!ist
that was simple!
Well, Buddha was a historical figure. There is not a great deal of doubt about what he said. And it is well known that he was quite reticent - so saying something in the heat of the moment is also ruled out. To say the least, he didn't say much.
He didn't tell his followers to ask for money. So followers of his "ism", i.e. Buddhism do not ask for money. "Ism" is quite a well known suffix in the English language, there is no need to extrapolate.
All the posts I made on slashdot can be summed up into "bingoUVism". Anyone practicing voodoo in the name of holy bingoUV is obviously not bingoUVist (need to go through all my posts to conclude that). But you don't have to necessarily abandon the idea that there is a true bingoUVism.
No true Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply here because there is no "definition" of a Scotsman. But there is a definition of Buddhism that follows unambiguously from contemporary usage of the suffix "ism".
But this is vigilante justice. Comcast punishing Sony for the rootkit. Watch out for the next one - for OtherOS.
After vista became synonymous with failure, I don't think they wanted to be easily searchable.
No, genetic lottery made you much richer than an average citizen of developing nation - to the extent that unemployment benefits in many developed nations os higher than average incomes in most developing nations. Which, in turn, is caused by early industrialization by causing orders of magnitude more greenhouse gas emissions than an average citizen of developing nations. Which is most of the man-released greenhouse gas in the atmosphere at the moment.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Logical fallacy , arithmetical too. 23% of stock is owned by > 50% of shareholding population , which implies that "most shareholders are mutual fund holders".
Actually this 23 % share is owned by >90% of shareholding population, but >50% is enough to make the point.
how it is that an organisation that "rakes in" about 1% *annually* of what Apple raked in last *quarter* is somehow bullying Apple?
Logical error. You need not equal someone in might to be a threat.
During the cold war, at times USSR GDP was less than 20% that of the US, and later around 10%. Yet they were equal to the US in military might, and on paper by some estimates, even stronger. They had the first fusion bomb, they had bigger fusion bomb, they had an enormous non-nuclear bomb unmatched by any US non-nuclear bomb, they had the ballistic missile protector functional much before the US did. All this in spite of suffering much higher economic and human damage from the World War II than the US.
Reason - USSR spent much higher percentage of their GDP on military as compared to the US. Similar to the Apple Greenpeace story - Greenpeace is NOTHING BUT PR. Apple has to create electronic products, run services supporting the products, employ thousands of people directly and support ~ million indirectly. Greenpeace could easily be spending more on PR than Apple does, or at least would spend if such terrorist organizations did not give them bad PR which only the educated can understand to be false. As you are talking about "American reaction", you would no doubt realize that "No one ever went broke underestimating the American consumer's intellect".
Frankly, if Apple won't communicate with an enviro group as large as Greenpeace on matters of waste and power consumption, then it is Apple's attitude and business model that I have to question
Apple is not accountable to Greenpeace. No attitude necessary, Apple is morally and legally quite within their rights to tell Greenpeace to fuck off.
Remember this is the same Greenpeace which made a noise about Philippines governments negligence towards coral reefs, went in their own ships to "examine" and ended up damaging the coral reefs with their ship? Same Greenpeace which "rated" technological companies by the amount of shit they write on company websites about taking steps to preserve the environment, completely ignoring what the companies are actually doing? They hid their "rating methodology" during the initial noise making exercise, revealing it only later to maximize decibel level.
Laughable when anyone considers not only Apple, but ANYONE answerable to Greenpeace.
Come on, even if dropping Meego is a condition, it won't be publicized so explicitly. Primary platform can easily be taken to mean "only platform" for smartphones. S30 / S40 are alive and well no doubt.
That's my interpretation, confirmed by their "killing" N9. I admit I could be wrong, hope so even.
But the money was given on the precondition that Meego/Tizen are to be shelved. Or do you have inside information contradicting this?
Good lord, you're tedious.
Really? Where is your explanation of the lies and logical errors you have used to try making your point?
Funny, I've provided data directly from Nokia....Pro tip: losing money isn't a recipe for success
I see no N9 specific data. Another logical error - losing money for the company does not mean a particular product cannot be "successful". E.g. Microsoft was losing money on Xbox, yet Microsoft as a whole was making profits. Similarly, N9 could be doing well, yet Nokia losing money.
You've changed the argument, so you admit your GGP post was non-sense? I quote again some more non-sense from it just for completeness -
Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware
This is patently false. As you now admit "Yes, it's clear that Motorola, Samsung and HTC have bet big on WP7".
As for your current argument,
Nokia have demonstrated a huge lack of ability to deliver software for their phones already (see: their flailing inability to deliver a coherent strategy built around Maemo/Meego/Symbian, while Android and iOS ate their lunch
They have created mobile OSes quite well, as demonstrated by N9's success despite conspicuously absent marketing. Strategy around it has failed, but once a company decides that they can never strategize, they can as well pack up, liquidate and return the money to shareholders. Even hardware design needs strategy. Becoming Microsoft's Lumia is also a strategy.
Microsoft has stepped in and said, "we can do that."
Haha. Microsoft is "doing that" for Samsung, HTC and Motorola too. Without taking their soul in return. Nokia could have got the same deal.
Jumping on the Android bandwagon would not have changed that trajectory, because Android (along with iOS) was a major *cause* of it
Android being a "major cause of it" does not prove that Nokia adopting Android would not have changed the trajectory. You are drawing a conclusion where none exists.
Person A is beating person B black and blue with a baseball bat. Person B after being quite injured from this beating, somehow forcibly acquires the baseball bat from person A. But following your logic, quickly concludes that "since the baseball bat is a major *cause* of my injuries, and I was being beaten badly, the baseball bat cannot help me". So he respectfully returns the baseball bat to person A.
After your excellent advice in the GGP post to minimize one's profits, this is another piece of great advice from you.
Nokia would have floundered at creating a working platform out of Android just as they floundered with Symbian, Maemo, and Meego.
And, by this logic, they will flounder at earning profits even after becoming Microsoft's Lumia. See point above for returning money to shareholders when a company considers itself too stupid to do business any more.
Make no mistake: Nokia was already dying. Android would not have changed that.
You would have people believe that but all your arguments for this have been blatant lies or logical fallacies.
Ok, so you liked Nokia's hardware decisions. Now you are cheering them for relinquishing the ability to make their own decisions? Since Microsoft makes the hardware decisions for all WP makers.
they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones
Right, so now that they have gone with WP, they are just another WP maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the even smaller portion of industry *profits* being earned by WP smartphones.
Smart. Why get small profits when you can get even smaller profits?
No, reading his autobiography shows he had all the makings of modern Sony. He was dead against getting into price wars - and price wars benefit customers. He didn't let his dealers sell Sony stuff at a low price even if buyers didn't see value in it.
since without Latitude they'd have to call me all the time to tell me where they are and where they're going
Minor nitpick - Latitude doesn't tell you where they are going. If you want to prevent their going somewhere, you still want them to tell you where they are going. With latitude, you can only take corrective measures - come back straight home, NOW!
Since you work at Google - do you develop Latitude?
I have already quoted your post where you assumed "Apple not profiting from being mean to developers implies Apple is NOT being mean to developers". This assumption is erroneous and displays your ignorance of Logic 101.
I replied to that post of yours, I didn't reply to the "entire thread". Whether in the context of this "entire thread" or not, your aforementioned assumption is erroneous and will remain so. Which I pointed out, maybe your shill salary will be reduced this time, not sure of your exact agreement with the PR company.
potential newcomers cannot offer something better, that's their problem
Ok, so potential newcomers cannot offer something better. And agreed it is their problem. Now the incumbent seller has a monopoly. Through this monopoly this incumbent seller amasses huge wealth by charging the premium it commands as per demand and supply. Using this huge wealth, it signs exclusive contracts with all kinds of suppliers (including potential employees).
Which makes it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better. Further increasing the wealth and power of this incumbent. Further making it more and more likely the potential newcomers will not be able to offer something better.
All this is fair and square, except the consumer / customer / society as a whole suffers now because this incumbent refuses to make progress that could have been made if there were any healthy competition. Others cannot step in because of the exclusive contracts this incumbent has signed with all kinds of business raw materials.
So free market leads to society suffering.
That makes it simpler than my example, 20 becomes 1. Still, testing complexity has increased enough that you wouldn't be able to do the update NOW. Though I agree the live update can be applied once you finish testing which can be before the authorization to reboot comes.
I am not saying Apple is being mean to developers, nor am I saying Apple is NOT being mean to developers. All I am saying is that apple not profiting from being mean to developers DOES NOT IMPLY Apple is NOT being mean to developers. Your below quoted statement proves that you tried to make such a misguided implication.
So far you had only displayed your failure in elementary logic, now you display failure in reading comprehension. Great going.
Even if you update a kernel at runtime, how do you test it? Suppose in 5 years lifetime of a system, you patched 20 kernel bugs saving you 20 restarts.
This creates kernel version 1, 2, 3 .... 20.
A process was created in version $i , got a signal when kernel version was $j1, another signal when kernel version was $j2 ... nth signal when kernel version was $jn, where n >> 20.
Just to test signal related issues, this will need an enormous number of test iterations, impractical to do in a lifetime. Include process context switching related tests, file descriptor related etc. and it will never get done within the lifetime of the universe. Cheaper to add 10 completely redundant systems.
Millions shipped. There won't be any evidence of actual market share.
Need regulation. Stock markets are regulated so that it is difficult for companies to get money from primary markets, show fictional losses in fictional enterprises and run away with the money. Various other accounting regulations make it difficult to perform less complete fraud too. I am not saying fraud is completely impossible but there is a huge regulatory framework and legal case history to keep things under control.
If you open a crowd funded R&D enterprise, how can the "crowd" trust you that the fruits of thus funded R&D will go on to reward the "investors"?
Ironically, your best bet is here too to open a holding company, get reputation somehow, open child company IPOs in the regular stock market based on that reputation and use each child company for a particular R&D effort. This will keep it legal, trustworthy and to a degree conventional