The US is totally different; there, in the landmark court case Judd v Citibank
[JC], Dorothy Judd claimed that she had not made a number of ATM with- drawals which Citibank had debited to her account; Citibank claimed that she must have done. The judge ruled that Citibank was wrong in law to claim that its systems were infallible, as this placed `an unmeetable burden of proof' on the plaintif. Since then, if a US bank customer disputes an electronic debit, the bank must refund the money within 30 days, unless it can prove that the claim is an attempted fraud.
Basically, it says that the bank has the burden of proof in the United States, because the court decided it was unreasonable to have the customer "prove" a flaw within the bank's systems. The UK, however, is different. The customer has the burden of proof.
While a little market research isn't necessarily bad, I don't think it's the way to make a good movie.
The best works are usually from an individual, writing their vision. The marketing types will tell them it won't work. For examples, see Roddenberry and the original Trek TV show, or Lucas and the original Star Wars. With this method you also have to accept that, a lot of the time, this lone writer's vision actually does suck. It's a risk. Perhaps something great, perhaps something that sucks.
With a market research approach, however, you're basically guaranteed something mediocre. Nothing visionary is designed by committee. I promise you that Shanghai Knights was created by the studio's marketing department.
Charge what the market will bear and don't leave money on the table. Sales and Marketing 101.
Of course. Because nobody ever remembers anything and a company's reputation isn't worth building. There's a difference between a healty profit and being a scam artist. Sure, there are a lot of quick bucks in being a scam artist, but you have to be ready to leave town quickly.
Re:Computers Teaching UI to Humans = Bad
on
Palm Kills Off Graffiti
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your argument assumes that writing by hand is some sort of natural act. It isn't. You had to learn it. Just because you learned how to do that before you learned how to type or write graffiti doesn't mean that hand-writing is superior.
Is printing superior to scripting? No, scripting is much faster, but you had to learn that too. Typing is much faster than writing by hand. If repetitive-stress disorders are a problem now, think of what they'd be if everyone was trying to write out things on tablets for data entry.
The problem most usability "experts" have is that they think it's never a good idea to learn a new interface. That is not universally true. While it is a bad idea to break interface concepts that are common (like red=stop, green=go), it doesn't mean every new interface is bad. When farm tractors were first introduced, several models had the operator driving the same way they drove a team of horses. The steering mechanism was designed to mimic the old horse-drawn equipment. While this method was familiar, it wasn't superior to the car-style interface that it now used.
The targeted advertising itself? No real problems. It's the information that they use to target you. Do you really want the world to know you watch 25 hours of Jerry Springer a month? What if your health insurance company bought that information and decided you watch too much TV, so they're increasing your rates?
I don't actually think this would happen any time soon, but it's the other side of the equation.
I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right. The Nielsen rating only apply to a very small number of households. I would bet a lot of groups are underrepresented. How many single college kids living in apartments/dorms do you know with Nielsen boxes?
It would be interesting to see what happened if you could suddenly get viewing data from all those TiVos, digital cable boxes, and satellites out there. It might be like when album sales became directly tied to the sales register instead of clerk reporting. It was discovered that country music accounted for far more sales than was credited.
I'd love to believe this, but it sounds like this is an "opt-in" service that he can't get out of. You'd probably need to send them a registered letter first, indicating that you wish to opt-out of the service. If that is ignored, then you've got some documentation that you can take to court.
Disintigrates? True, that will take a while. Collapse? Could happen very soon. The collapse is a concern because of the 1.5 million gallons of fuel oil that were onboard (after the fire and leaking over the years, nobody is quite sure how much is still inside).
And you still didn't cover the structural limitations of a 10mph helmet.
The DOT standard is weak, that's why I have a SNELL M2000 cerified helmet.
In the end, you're right about helmet limitations. Every helmet has a limitation, nothing is going to protect you if you go 90MPH driectly into a brick wall. Odds are, however that your accident will be much less severe. You'll probably skid a lot (don't forget the armor!) and take a glacing blow at low speed off something. Fatal without a helmet, completely survivable with one. I know several people who owe their life to their helmets. I know some that would be alive today had they been wearing one.
I support individual rights. I don't agree with helmet laws. It's silly, however, to try and argue that you're safer without one. Read the Hurt study: people wearing helmets showed a significant reduction in all types of injuries; plus, people wearing helmets are underrepresented in accidents. Helmet wearing riders are less likely to be in an accident than someone not wearing a helmet. This, of course, is most likely because riders who wear helmets are more cautious in general, but it also shows that wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents due to restricted vision/hearing.
I never hesitated to buy gear. My bike is still stock, but I've got two helmets, three pairs of gloves, and two riding jackets. The key to gear is wearing it, so I've got both warm weather and cold weather stuff, so I'm never tempted not not wear it because it would be too hot/cold.
Alec Guinness. Hated Star Wars and Star Wars fans. Supposedly he once told a little kid to never watch the movie again (the kid's mother was asking Sir Guinness to give the kid some "Obi-Wan like" advice).
For those who aren't familiar with big numbers, it would take a modern processor (at around 10^12 moves per second) somewhere around 3^61 years to complete that game tree. How long is 3^61 years? Well... the sun will explode at 5^9 years, long before the computer ever finished searching the tree.
Now is a great time to be investing. The simple rule of investing is "buy low and sell high". Right now, prices are low.
People focus way too much on returns in the short term. My IRA cash value took a nose dive, so what? I don't plan on retiring for another 30 years. I'm betting I'll gain all these short-term losses back, plus much more. You have to look at long-range returns, not just a few years.
Here's a chart that shows the Dow Jones Industrial average since 1900. Note that the scale is logarithmic. There are a lot of short-term (under ten years) losses, but look at the long term.
If you had a large amount invested and were planning on retiring right now, you'd be in trouble. However, as you near retirement you should begin shifting money from stocks into low-interest low-risk investments to protect yourself from that very thing.
I completely agree with the "you only live once" idea. The point the original poster is making, I believe, is based on the advantage of compound interest. Not only do you only live once, but you're only young once...
Consider two people. The first person invests $100 a month from the time he's 20 until he's thirty. Then he stops and doesn't withdraw until he's 60. The second person invests $100 a month from the time he's 30 until he's 60. Now, which person has more money at age 60? The first person, although he invest a whole lot less. That's the issue with getting your finances in order as young as possible.
Personally, I try to keep everything in line while still having a little fun now and then (I bought a new motorcycle this year).
I use software to track my housing expenses. I'd lived in an apartment up until about 18 months ago. My house expense is no more than the apartment.
Regarding housing appreciation, according to this article, home prices are expected to rise another 10% this year.
Like you said, however, the situation is not the same everywhere. There just seemed to be a lot of house==bad going around on this thread, and I wanted to state that houses can be a good investment.
I volunteer with a non-profit housing provider. Around here, we had a stretch of 10% rent increases. Of course, real estate taxes in Minnesota are baised towards home ownership. Taxes on a single-family home (as long as you properly register it) are about 25% lower than one the same property if it is rented. Recent changes to state tax law (precisely because of spiraling rents) should being rental property tax more in line with homes.
Yes, most of your early payments are interest and, therefore, "wasted". Of course, 100% of your apartment rent is wasted. Your assumption is based on the idea that you can rent for less than a mortgage so there is excess to invest.
The mortgage on my 2-bedroom house is under $800 a month. A two-bedroom apartment around here is in excess of $1000 a month. With utilities it comes out about the same. With appreciation on the house (8.8% last year), plus the tax deduction for the mortgage interest I'm coming out ahead. As rents go up each year I keep coming out farther ahead.
Only if you put 20% down. There are many services for new home buyers that allow you to put 5% (or even less) down on a home.
The median home price is a bit misleading too. Median prices in my area are around $200k. I bought a 2-bedroom, 1-bath house with a 2-car garage in a great neighborhood for $125k. It's not the latest McDevelopement, but it's a safe area, lots of big trees (since the houses were built in the late 1940s), and close to all those places the people in the far-flung suburbs have to spend 30 minutes driving to.
I thought no houses existed in my price range until I got a realtor. There were a lot of houses, but they'll never show up in the newspaper or on the web MLS listings.
Adjusted for inflation, $100,000 today was about $53,000 in 1982.
As to whether most current 50 year olds had $50k in investments back then, I do not know. I'd imagine that a lot of them had been relying on corporate pensions.
In understand amendments. The issue is the intent of the authors regarding "freedom of speech". The first amendment was added very soon after the Constitution was originally ratified. It was almost part of the original document. In the writings of the time, I have never seen it mentioned that supporters of the first amendment were trying to ratify it in order to revoke the power to grant copyright.
I believe that the First Ammendment to the Constitution invalidated the ability of Congress to grant Copyright.
Perhaps you should read the whole document. What did the authors mean when they said there shall be no law "abriding the freedom of speech or of the press"? Do you really think they meant that you can say and write whatever you want? Are they allowing slander? Libel? Are they allowing you to copy anyone else's work? No.
In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/users/rja14/liabil ity.pdf
From the linked PDF:
Basically, it says that the bank has the burden of proof in the United States, because the court decided it was unreasonable to have the customer "prove" a flaw within the bank's systems. The UK, however, is different. The customer has the burden of proof.
The best works are usually from an individual, writing their vision. The marketing types will tell them it won't work. For examples, see Roddenberry and the original Trek TV show, or Lucas and the original Star Wars. With this method you also have to accept that, a lot of the time, this lone writer's vision actually does suck. It's a risk. Perhaps something great, perhaps something that sucks.
With a market research approach, however, you're basically guaranteed something mediocre. Nothing visionary is designed by committee. I promise you that Shanghai Knights was created by the studio's marketing department.
Are the kids around here really so young they don't remember Hamms?
Of course. Because nobody ever remembers anything and a company's reputation isn't worth building. There's a difference between a healty profit and being a scam artist. Sure, there are a lot of quick bucks in being a scam artist, but you have to be ready to leave town quickly.
Your argument assumes that writing by hand is some sort of natural act. It isn't. You had to learn it. Just because you learned how to do that before you learned how to type or write graffiti doesn't mean that hand-writing is superior.
Is printing superior to scripting? No, scripting is much faster, but you had to learn that too. Typing is much faster than writing by hand. If repetitive-stress disorders are a problem now, think of what they'd be if everyone was trying to write out things on tablets for data entry.
The problem most usability "experts" have is that they think it's never a good idea to learn a new interface. That is not universally true. While it is a bad idea to break interface concepts that are common (like red=stop, green=go), it doesn't mean every new interface is bad. When farm tractors were first introduced, several models had the operator driving the same way they drove a team of horses. The steering mechanism was designed to mimic the old horse-drawn equipment. While this method was familiar, it wasn't superior to the car-style interface that it now used.
The targeted advertising itself? No real problems. It's the information that they use to target you. Do you really want the world to know you watch 25 hours of Jerry Springer a month? What if your health insurance company bought that information and decided you watch too much TV, so they're increasing your rates?
I don't actually think this would happen any time soon, but it's the other side of the equation.
It would be interesting to see what happened if you could suddenly get viewing data from all those TiVos, digital cable boxes, and satellites out there. It might be like when album sales became directly tied to the sales register instead of clerk reporting. It was discovered that country music accounted for far more sales than was credited.
I'd love to believe this, but it sounds like this is an "opt-in" service that he can't get out of. You'd probably need to send them a registered letter first, indicating that you wish to opt-out of the service. If that is ignored, then you've got some documentation that you can take to court.
Disintigrates? True, that will take a while. Collapse? Could happen very soon. The collapse is a concern because of the 1.5 million gallons of fuel oil that were onboard (after the fire and leaking over the years, nobody is quite sure how much is still inside).
And you still didn't cover the structural limitations of a 10mph helmet.
The DOT standard is weak, that's why I have a SNELL M2000 cerified helmet.
In the end, you're right about helmet limitations. Every helmet has a limitation, nothing is going to protect you if you go 90MPH driectly into a brick wall. Odds are, however that your accident will be much less severe. You'll probably skid a lot (don't forget the armor!) and take a glacing blow at low speed off something. Fatal without a helmet, completely survivable with one. I know several people who owe their life to their helmets. I know some that would be alive today had they been wearing one.
I support individual rights. I don't agree with helmet laws. It's silly, however, to try and argue that you're safer without one. Read the Hurt study: people wearing helmets showed a significant reduction in all types of injuries; plus, people wearing helmets are underrepresented in accidents. Helmet wearing riders are less likely to be in an accident than someone not wearing a helmet. This, of course, is most likely because riders who wear helmets are more cautious in general, but it also shows that wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents due to restricted vision/hearing.
I think you've got it right.
I never hesitated to buy gear. My bike is still stock, but I've got two helmets, three pairs of gloves, and two riding jackets. The key to gear is wearing it, so I've got both warm weather and cold weather stuff, so I'm never tempted not not wear it because it would be too hot/cold.
Alec Guinness. Hated Star Wars and Star Wars fans. Supposedly he once told a little kid to never watch the movie again (the kid's mother was asking Sir Guinness to give the kid some "Obi-Wan like" advice).
That's a silly comparision. Do you realize how much larger New York is than Edmonton?
I can't speak for other parts of the country, but in Minnesota, such an "invasion" occured once and it was all over the news.
Oops. Should have used preview.
Sun explodes: 5 x 10^9
Computer finishes chess game tree: 3 x 10^61
For those who aren't familiar with big numbers, it would take a modern processor (at around 10^12 moves per second) somewhere around 3^61 years to complete that game tree. How long is 3^61 years? Well... the sun will explode at 5^9 years, long before the computer ever finished searching the tree.
People focus way too much on returns in the short term. My IRA cash value took a nose dive, so what? I don't plan on retiring for another 30 years. I'm betting I'll gain all these short-term losses back, plus much more. You have to look at long-range returns, not just a few years.
Here's a chart that shows the Dow Jones Industrial average since 1900. Note that the scale is logarithmic. There are a lot of short-term (under ten years) losses, but look at the long term.
If you had a large amount invested and were planning on retiring right now, you'd be in trouble. However, as you near retirement you should begin shifting money from stocks into low-interest low-risk investments to protect yourself from that very thing.
I completely agree with the "you only live once" idea. The point the original poster is making, I believe, is based on the advantage of compound interest. Not only do you only live once, but you're only young once...
Consider two people. The first person invests $100 a month from the time he's 20 until he's thirty. Then he stops and doesn't withdraw until he's 60. The second person invests $100 a month from the time he's 30 until he's 60. Now, which person has more money at age 60? The first person, although he invest a whole lot less. That's the issue with getting your finances in order as young as possible.
Personally, I try to keep everything in line while still having a little fun now and then (I bought a new motorcycle this year).
I use software to track my housing expenses. I'd lived in an apartment up until about 18 months ago. My house expense is no more than the apartment.
Regarding housing appreciation, according to this article, home prices are expected to rise another 10% this year.
Like you said, however, the situation is not the same everywhere. There just seemed to be a lot of house==bad going around on this thread, and I wanted to state that houses can be a good investment.
I volunteer with a non-profit housing provider. Around here, we had a stretch of 10% rent increases. Of course, real estate taxes in Minnesota are baised towards home ownership. Taxes on a single-family home (as long as you properly register it) are about 25% lower than one the same property if it is rented. Recent changes to state tax law (precisely because of spiraling rents) should being rental property tax more in line with homes.
Yes, most of your early payments are interest and, therefore, "wasted". Of course, 100% of your apartment rent is wasted. Your assumption is based on the idea that you can rent for less than a mortgage so there is excess to invest.
The mortgage on my 2-bedroom house is under $800 a month. A two-bedroom apartment around here is in excess of $1000 a month. With utilities it comes out about the same. With appreciation on the house (8.8% last year), plus the tax deduction for the mortgage interest I'm coming out ahead. As rents go up each year I keep coming out farther ahead.
Like you said, "do the math". There are many large cities where buying makes a lot more sense than renting.
One key item to remember... your mortgage payment is (basically) fixed. It won't go up. Around here apartment rents having been climbing 10% a year.
Only if you put 20% down. There are many services for new home buyers that allow you to put 5% (or even less) down on a home.
The median home price is a bit misleading too. Median prices in my area are around $200k. I bought a 2-bedroom, 1-bath house with a 2-car garage in a great neighborhood for $125k. It's not the latest McDevelopement, but it's a safe area, lots of big trees (since the houses were built in the late 1940s), and close to all those places the people in the far-flung suburbs have to spend 30 minutes driving to.
I thought no houses existed in my price range until I got a realtor. There were a lot of houses, but they'll never show up in the newspaper or on the web MLS listings.
Adjusted for inflation, $100,000 today was about $53,000 in 1982.
As to whether most current 50 year olds had $50k in investments back then, I do not know. I'd imagine that a lot of them had been relying on corporate pensions.
I agree with you about copyright extensions.
Marketing is a science. :-)
Perhaps you should read the whole document. What did the authors mean when they said there shall be no law "abriding the freedom of speech or of the press"? Do you really think they meant that you can say and write whatever you want? Are they allowing slander? Libel? Are they allowing you to copy anyone else's work? No.
In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.
Not that I think the current tactic is good, but in libraries with the little card anyone could see what books you had checked out.