You could hire them to work on it full-time, though, which I think would be a fine idea and would satisfy everyone. Then it could be made into an official product with quality control standards managed by Lego.
Or they could fork it into an official product using their own developers.
Making it official would make the name a cute play on words Lego could trademark.
And you don't even get a detached house (I just looked at Daly City, which is the only OK Bay Area neighborhood I could remember off the top of my head). They start at a bit over $300k. In contrast, homes in a similarly mediocre neighborhood, Culver City, range from $230k.
You can get a pretty impressive castle in Woodside for $8,900,000, though. That's not much different from a similar castle in Malibu.
Curiously enough, you can get a prestigeous 94062 zip code (Woodside) for as little as $399,950, even if the name on the envelope is Redwood City. Being an outsider, I can't figure that one out, especially since I went all the way up to $1,650,000 and saw some very nice looking houses, but no Woodside. Last time I looked, entry level in Woodside was something like $ 560,000, but that kind of house probably doesn't go on the market that often and is most likely snapped up immediately when it does. My snap judgement from looking is that if anything, Woodside real estate is continuing to go up; I found nothing in Woodside under US$ 1.6 million or so, while last time I looked there were maybe ten or so properties cheaper. Or have they renamed half the place Redwood City? I'm a bit confused.
Ah well. No doubt someone will be willing to straighten me out.
While reading the article, I left the mouse in the main browser window and used the keyboard to scroll. So if their system was used, it would make it appear that I was not reading the article, even though I did in fact read it.
Really, if you stay on a page for more than a few seconds, you're probably reading it. And that would surely be simple enough to determine, although you'd have to figure out a bulletproof way to put up an invisible frame in order to send the information to the mother ship. It would probably be easiest done in Java, which can do that without pulling up a web page, but many people have non-working Java, so even that's not foolproof.
Unfortunately for the people who created this model, once people become aware of how it works, it will no longer function. People who would formerly hover the mouse over a link would simply refrain from doing so and therefore give the system no useful data. I also suspect individual personal styles are going to be different enough to stymie them in the end. I am not convinced that people only visit links directly if they have been to the site before, for example.
For the person who said a scroll mouse would defeat this system, I'm sure signals from the scroll wheel can be read as well.
When I am hesitating between multiple items, I will often put them in my cart, look at the total and then remove the one that makes the total too high, or that I'm unsure about. Anything I put in my cart and took out, and any abandoned shopping cart contents, would be a ripe selling weapon that can already be used without relying on this technique.
I think this one's too flaky for practical use. But as always, we'll see.
Getting rid of the command line isn't evil, it just blocks out a lot of useful stuff. I use a Mac with both 9.x and MacOS X. Curiously, in OS9 I rarely (but sometimes) miss the command line, but in X, I use it for everything. Part of the reason is that the new Finder is still a bit slug-like, but even in Windows I use the command line for most things.
They didn't get rid of it, not even in XP. You have to look to find it, but it's in there, buried.
Actually, just check out the properties of a pretty Windows icon, or even an ugly one, and you'll find a command line right there. CMD.EXE isn't going away any time soon.
I wrote a Visual Basic application some years back, and kept on struggling with getting the user interface right. Even something as simple as getting all the buttons to line up consumed amazing amounts of time.
Now I write C code that spits out HTML tables, and the alignment is perfect every time. If there's a problem, it's usually easy to fix - usually as simple as forgetting "<td valign = top>".
And if I'm asked to, say, change the background colour of the page, or switch a whole bunch of elements from the left side of the screen to the right, I can do it, easily.
The only development tools I need are emacs, gcc, and a dose or two of common sense. Not bad, not bad at all.
If you think text, as I do, you are way better off writing programs that spit out text, instead of programs that manually position every pixel on the screen. In my experience, I'm far more productive and create much more attractive applications by spitting out HTML and letting the web browser worry about the pixel by pixel stuff you do with a GUI.
But if you think visually, as I think most people do, the GUI's probably going to work better. It's certainly mind-numbingly difficult to translate a bunch of numbers into a page prototype in my head. But, perhaps, not yours - and that's why we all need different tools.
I'm a right-wing nut (libertarian, actually), but I agree with the principles behind this suit. If the company implies that you can download music from the CD, you should be able to and without restrictions.
Right-wing nuts believe in honesty in business, and that's what this case amounts to.
I'm wondering whether anyone caught the allusion to Warren Buffett who once called Berkshire Hathaway's private jet "The Indefensible". Since the Berkshire share price has done - ahem - modestly well, from some $2,000 during the early 80s to somewhere in the mid to high five figures today (and no, I'm not kidding!), I don't think shareholders begrudge him the perk.
Warren Buffet subsequently became a major convert to corporate aviation, later relabeling his jet the "Semi-Defensible" while using it during a particularly vicious takeover battle. In the end, he wound up becoming a customer of a company called Executive Jet, which lets him timeshare his favourite luxury. He subsequently bought the company, so in the end he has managed to make a substantial profit off of his weakness for private aviation. So it went from indulgence to profit center with him, something that I'm sure is pretty typical of the way he operates, and the reason he holds the title of the world's richest investor.
Well, in my case, I actually had a need to fly across the country, and it looks likely to be an increasing need over the next few months. So naturally I concentrated on that area, which makes the jet look good.
The small private plane looks real good to get to Vegas, just as you say.
I'm developing a software product right now, and I've found that the most intense discussion between me and my future customers is not about the functionality of the thing, which they love, but the colours that are being used.
In that context, sending out a private jet to pick potential customers up seems like a bloody good idea. And I'm sure there are plenty of PHB-type customers all over the place.
Not, of course, meant as any implied criticism of your team, which I'm sure does a great job. But, surprising as it may seem to technical people, that's not how things are sold. Big-ticket items are normally sold based on relationships between people, and if a jet ride or two can bond even one or two accounts to the company, it will have paid for itself.
Interesting, since I checked the costs associated with the timeshare jet and was horrified - you might be better off simply hiring a jet charter service whenever you needed one.
Anyone know about the pros and cons of that?
D
(Amusingly enough, I think the original parent to this discussion is my most popular Slashdot post ever. Obviously a lot of people are interested in corporate jets. This says some really unpleasant things about commercial aviation which, alas, I think are entirely justified).
I strongly suspect the improved mood helps more than the possibility of a stronger audit hurts.
I know I'd be ready to savage a company if I got there through a standard full economy-class flight. Just as a way to prevent that from happening, the corporate jet probably paid for itself.
I would still consider Apple a major turnaround, even if the stock doesn't reflect that at this point. Just look at them compared to, say, the equivalent PC makers. They are making money where everyone else is losing their shirts. Since we're in a downturn, the stock isn't doing great, but for the mid to long term, I'd count Apple as a better bet than its competition.
And quite honestly, I think that's worth a jet. Did you know Steve has to pay for his own maintenance? That surprised me a bit, since that's one of the most beneficial things to have under a corporate umbrella.
You are correct; I found this to be the case in my friend's Mooney - you can beat commercial aviation in a 180knot plane if you're going on short hops up to, say, about a third of the way across the country.
But the interior resembles an early 1980s Subaru - the same cramped cabin, the same lousy seats and the same flimsy feel. (If you push your finger on the skin of a Mooney, it will flex underneath).
The King Air would be a lot more comfortable, but as you well know, there's something dead sexy about a jet. However, I should probably consider the Citation X over the Gulfstream V, even if Larry and Steve swear by the latter. It's a bit faster and should be far cheaper to run.
Well, yes. But this was covered in the $8,500 per flight hour or $60,000 per round trip flight that I covered above. Those are figures that you can bank on; if you don't own a jet, and want to use one for a bit, that's what you're charged.
It probably costs somewhat less per flight hour if you own your jet and use it enough (over 400 flight hours a year, or about three coast to coast round trips a month).
Most of us would be way better off biting the bullet and flying First Class commercial, but there is definitely something very attractive about jet ownership. And, even if you compare it to first class, you will still save a lot of time. As I grow older and wiser, I start to appreciate that more (not, sad to say, that I am even vaguely close to being able to afford $60,000 flights just yet).
I seem to remember Bill flew in Coach class until his well-known appearance made that a non-starter, so I don't think Bill's that great a candidate.
Larry Ellison, on the other hand, will buy the first one available, the microsecond it comes up. And Warren Buffet will buy a few for his Executive Jet fleet.
You can charter a Gulfstream V for $8,500 per flight hour, which means a transcontinental flight would cost about $ 38,000. Skyjet.com reports round trip charters on an IV at $60,000 for the same flight. Ownership is, of course, mind-bendingly expensive; a Gulfstream V is in the $45 million range, and the Citation X (fastest bizjet around, but less luxurious and with half the passenger capacity) is $18m. You also need a full-time pilot and copilot, together with very expensive maintenance, all of which amounts to an overhead of tens of thousands of dollars a month.
After being squeezed in like a sausage in the USAIR tourist class cabin, I can very much see the appeal of having your own jet. I'm sure that if I was as rich as Bill or Larry, a jet would be one of the first things I'd get. Bear in mind that the Gulfstream has a top speed of Mach.80 and you can get up to Mac.93 on a Cessna Citation X. So it might not be worth the extra money to go supersonic unless you're doubling or tripling the speed of sound (as you do with the Concorde). The long and thin design also might not be as comfortable as the Gulfstream.
The aforementioned Citation X is about 100 knots (or 25%) faster than a typical commercial flight, and you can arrive at a general aviation airport about 15 minutes before takeoff. Since general aviation airports are most likely a lot closer to you than commercial ones, you can save literally hours by just getting there in ten minutes and taking off almost immediately instead of taking an hour to get to the airport and taking off an hour later. This speed and flexibility is the jet's main advantage compared to, say, simply buying a first-class ticket on a scheduled airline.
In other words, if your time is worth a lot, you probably want a jet. And if you can fill it to capacity, it's not that much more expensive than first-class airfare. A Gulfstream IV can fit 19 people; first-class airfare coast to coast is about $3,068 for a non-stop flight. So if you're paying $60,000 for your round trip flight, you're paying $3,157 per person instead of $ 3,068 for first class; not too shabby.
(I spent quite a bit of time flying with a friend who owned a small propeller plane, so I can attest first-hand to the ease and convenience of general aviation airports. Sadly, I have yet to fly on a private jet).
Slashdot Mirror
You could hire them to work on it full-time, though, which I think would be a fine idea and would satisfy everyone. Then it could be made into an official product with quality control standards managed by Lego.
Or they could fork it into an official product using their own developers.
Making it official would make the name a cute play on words Lego could trademark.
D
And you don't even get a detached house (I just looked at Daly City, which is the only OK Bay Area neighborhood I could remember off the top of my head). They start at a bit over $300k. In contrast, homes in a similarly mediocre neighborhood, Culver City, range from $230k.
You can get a pretty impressive castle in Woodside for $8,900,000, though. That's not much different from a similar castle in Malibu.
Curiously enough, you can get a prestigeous 94062 zip code (Woodside) for as little as $399,950, even if the name on the envelope is Redwood City. Being an outsider, I can't figure that one out, especially since I went all the way up to $1,650,000 and saw some very nice looking houses, but no Woodside. Last time I looked, entry level in Woodside was something like $ 560,000, but that kind of house probably doesn't go on the market that often and is most likely snapped up immediately when it does. My snap judgement from looking is that if anything, Woodside real estate is continuing to go up; I found nothing in Woodside under US$ 1.6 million or so, while last time I looked there were maybe ten or so properties cheaper. Or have they renamed half the place Redwood City? I'm a bit confused.
Ah well. No doubt someone will be willing to straighten me out.
D
While reading the article, I left the mouse in the main browser window and used the keyboard to scroll. So if their system was used, it would make it appear that I was not reading the article, even though I did in fact read it.
Really, if you stay on a page for more than a few seconds, you're probably reading it. And that would surely be simple enough to determine, although you'd have to figure out a bulletproof way to put up an invisible frame in order to send the information to the mother ship. It would probably be easiest done in Java, which can do that without pulling up a web page, but many people have non-working Java, so even that's not foolproof.
Unfortunately for the people who created this model, once people become aware of how it works, it will no longer function. People who would formerly hover the mouse over a link would simply refrain from doing so and therefore give the system no useful data. I also suspect individual personal styles are going to be different enough to stymie them in the end. I am not convinced that people only visit links directly if they have been to the site before, for example.
For the person who said a scroll mouse would defeat this system, I'm sure signals from the scroll wheel can be read as well.
When I am hesitating between multiple items, I will often put them in my cart, look at the total and then remove the one that makes the total too high, or that I'm unsure about. Anything I put in my cart and took out, and any abandoned shopping cart contents, would be a ripe selling weapon that can already be used without relying on this technique.
I think this one's too flaky for practical use. But as always, we'll see.
D
In this case, he was using an IP address to conceal that it was Goatse. Thus my warning.
D
Getting rid of the command line isn't evil, it just blocks out a lot of useful stuff. I use a Mac with both 9.x and MacOS X. Curiously, in OS9 I rarely (but sometimes) miss the command line, but in X, I use it for everything. Part of the reason is that the new Finder is still a bit slug-like, but even in Windows I use the command line for most things.
D
They didn't get rid of it, not even in XP. You have to look to find it, but it's in there, buried.
Actually, just check out the properties of a pretty Windows icon, or even an ugly one, and you'll find a command line right there. CMD.EXE isn't going away any time soon.
D
I wrote a Visual Basic application some years back, and kept on struggling with getting the user interface right. Even something as simple as getting all the buttons to line up consumed amazing amounts of time.
Now I write C code that spits out HTML tables, and the alignment is perfect every time. If there's a problem, it's usually easy to fix - usually as simple as forgetting "<td valign = top>".
And if I'm asked to, say, change the background colour of the page, or switch a whole bunch of elements from the left side of the screen to the right, I can do it, easily.
The only development tools I need are emacs, gcc, and a dose or two of common sense. Not bad, not bad at all.
If you think text, as I do, you are way better off writing programs that spit out text, instead of programs that manually position every pixel on the screen. In my experience, I'm far more productive and create much more attractive applications by spitting out HTML and letting the web browser worry about the pixel by pixel stuff you do with a GUI.
But if you think visually, as I think most people do, the GUI's probably going to work better. It's certainly mind-numbingly difficult to translate a bunch of numbers into a page prototype in my head. But, perhaps, not yours - and that's why we all need different tools.
D
Nice try. Don't bother clicking on the link, folks; it's goatse.cx time.
D
I'm a right-wing nut (libertarian, actually), but I agree with the principles behind this suit. If the company implies that you can download music from the CD, you should be able to and without restrictions.
Right-wing nuts believe in honesty in business, and that's what this case amounts to.
D
But then you would simply not buy the CD, thus saving yourself considerable heartache.
I think the suit has an excellent point - you were told that you could download it, and you couldn't. Easy case; they win.
But, as someone else said, what damages do you get? $14.99?
D
I detest Microsoft.
[10,000 pages of rant deleted on grounds that you've already heard it before].
Would splitting it up, with Gates on one side and Ballmer on the other, really do much in the way of good?
Just wondering.
D
That one gave me a laugh.
You'd arrive at the airport you'd be departing from 15 minutes before takeoff, of course. I'm sure you knew that already, though.
D
I'm wondering whether anyone caught the allusion to Warren Buffett who once called Berkshire Hathaway's private jet "The Indefensible". Since the Berkshire share price has done - ahem - modestly well, from some $2,000 during the early 80s to somewhere in the mid to high five figures today (and no, I'm not kidding!), I don't think shareholders begrudge him the perk.
Warren Buffet subsequently became a major convert to corporate aviation, later relabeling his jet the "Semi-Defensible" while using it during a particularly vicious takeover battle. In the end, he wound up becoming a customer of a company called Executive Jet, which lets him timeshare his favourite luxury. He subsequently bought the company, so in the end he has managed to make a substantial profit off of his weakness for private aviation. So it went from indulgence to profit center with him, something that I'm sure is pretty typical of the way he operates, and the reason he holds the title of the world's richest investor.
D
I like Larry. At least he has a bit of fun with his money. I'm not sure if Bill knows the meaning of the word.
D
Is there any way to get onboard Internet access on your private jet? What sort of systems are there?
I suppose at a bare minimum there should be Inmarsat B, a worldwide but incredibly pricey system.
D
Ah, that must be why most jets don't have company logos on them - it makes it impossible for them to be chartered without giving the game away.
D
Well, in my case, I actually had a need to fly across the country, and it looks likely to be an increasing need over the next few months. So naturally I concentrated on that area, which makes the jet look good.
The small private plane looks real good to get to Vegas, just as you say.
D
I'm developing a software product right now, and I've found that the most intense discussion between me and my future customers is not about the functionality of the thing, which they love, but the colours that are being used.
In that context, sending out a private jet to pick potential customers up seems like a bloody good idea. And I'm sure there are plenty of PHB-type customers all over the place.
Not, of course, meant as any implied criticism of your team, which I'm sure does a great job. But, surprising as it may seem to technical people, that's not how things are sold. Big-ticket items are normally sold based on relationships between people, and if a jet ride or two can bond even one or two accounts to the company, it will have paid for itself.
D
Interesting, since I checked the costs associated with the timeshare jet and was horrified - you might be better off simply hiring a jet charter service whenever you needed one.
Anyone know about the pros and cons of that?
D
(Amusingly enough, I think the original parent to this discussion is my most popular Slashdot post ever. Obviously a lot of people are interested in corporate jets. This says some really unpleasant things about commercial aviation which, alas, I think are entirely justified).
I strongly suspect the improved mood helps more than the possibility of a stronger audit hurts.
I know I'd be ready to savage a company if I got there through a standard full economy-class flight. Just as a way to prevent that from happening, the corporate jet probably paid for itself.
D
Whoops, sorry, the spec sheet does say .88. Cruising speed is .80, which is probably why I made that error.
:-(.
What's the difference between the V and V-SP? The V-SP's spec sheet isn't available as HTML yet
D
I would still consider Apple a major turnaround, even if the stock doesn't reflect that at this point. Just look at them compared to, say, the equivalent PC makers. They are making money where everyone else is losing their shirts. Since we're in a downturn, the stock isn't doing great, but for the mid to long term, I'd count Apple as a better bet than its competition.
And quite honestly, I think that's worth a jet. Did you know Steve has to pay for his own maintenance? That surprised me a bit, since that's one of the most beneficial things to have under a corporate umbrella.
D
You are correct; I found this to be the case in my friend's Mooney - you can beat commercial aviation in a 180knot plane if you're going on short hops up to, say, about a third of the way across the country.
But the interior resembles an early 1980s Subaru - the same cramped cabin, the same lousy seats and the same flimsy feel. (If you push your finger on the skin of a Mooney, it will flex underneath).
The King Air would be a lot more comfortable, but as you well know, there's something dead sexy about a jet. However, I should probably consider the Citation X over the Gulfstream V, even if Larry and Steve swear by the latter. It's a bit faster and should be far cheaper to run.
D
Well, yes. But this was covered in the $8,500 per flight hour or $60,000 per round trip flight that I covered above. Those are figures that you can bank on; if you don't own a jet, and want to use one for a bit, that's what you're charged.
It probably costs somewhat less per flight hour if you own your jet and use it enough (over 400 flight hours a year, or about three coast to coast round trips a month).
Most of us would be way better off biting the bullet and flying First Class commercial, but there is definitely something very attractive about jet ownership. And, even if you compare it to first class, you will still save a lot of time. As I grow older and wiser, I start to appreciate that more (not, sad to say, that I am even vaguely close to being able to afford $60,000 flights just yet).
D
I seem to remember Bill flew in Coach class until his well-known appearance made that a non-starter, so I don't think Bill's that great a candidate.
.80 and you can get up to Mac .93 on a Cessna Citation X. So it might not be worth the extra money to go supersonic unless you're doubling or tripling the speed of sound (as you do with the Concorde). The long and thin design also might not be as comfortable as the Gulfstream.
Larry Ellison, on the other hand, will buy the first one available, the microsecond it comes up. And Warren Buffet will buy a few for his Executive Jet fleet.
You can charter a Gulfstream V for $8,500 per flight hour, which means a transcontinental flight would cost about $ 38,000. Skyjet.com reports round trip charters on an IV at $60,000 for the same flight. Ownership is, of course, mind-bendingly expensive; a Gulfstream V is in the $45 million range, and the Citation X (fastest bizjet around, but less luxurious and with half the passenger capacity) is $18m. You also need a full-time pilot and copilot, together with very expensive maintenance, all of which amounts to an overhead of tens of thousands of dollars a month.
After being squeezed in like a sausage in the USAIR tourist class cabin, I can very much see the appeal of having your own jet. I'm sure that if I was as rich as Bill or Larry, a jet would be one of the first things I'd get. Bear in mind that the Gulfstream has a top speed of Mach
The aforementioned Citation X is about 100 knots (or 25%) faster than a typical commercial flight, and you can arrive at a general aviation airport about 15 minutes before takeoff. Since general aviation airports are most likely a lot closer to you than commercial ones, you can save literally hours by just getting there in ten minutes and taking off almost immediately instead of taking an hour to get to the airport and taking off an hour later. This speed and flexibility is the jet's main advantage compared to, say, simply buying a first-class ticket on a scheduled airline.
In other words, if your time is worth a lot, you probably want a jet. And if you can fill it to capacity, it's not that much more expensive than first-class airfare. A Gulfstream IV can fit 19 people; first-class airfare coast to coast is about $3,068 for a non-stop flight. So if you're paying $60,000 for your round trip flight, you're paying $3,157 per person instead of $ 3,068 for first class; not too shabby.
(I spent quite a bit of time flying with a friend who owned a small propeller plane, so I can attest first-hand to the ease and convenience of general aviation airports. Sadly, I have yet to fly on a private jet).
D