In my opinion, education falls into one of two buckets: either you espouse to the Social Security mentality in which someone else is "solving the problem" or you are proactively engaged in "solving the problem" for yourself. It's unfortunate that at a societal level the evaluation of an individual's of education operates out of a black box not dissimilar to the evaluation of an individual's credit score. The solution isn't necessarily to make it easier to validate input/output from the black box. Rather, we can employ other methodologies for validating individual aptitude.
The question is fundamentally about hiring. It is true that the process of studying and obtaining a degree from specific institutions for specific fields has a measurable, objective, and positive outcome for a limited number of students; however, this is by far the edge case. With limited exceptions, doctors, lawyers and politicians climb into careers without formal training and nationally accepted stamps of approval on degrees. But this is the edge. In reality, there is very little business value in even including a degree criteria for job positioning/hiring. It deters those who are qualified but do not hold a degree, and it does nothing to guarantee even a low bar for the work ethic, aptitude or drive of the applicant.
Nothing matters more than the answers to these questions: "What do you know?", "How long have you known it?" and "How have you employed that knowledge?". While Stanford's experiment is great, it is no better than than the Khan Academy or any other resource which disseminates knowledge--and the output is the same: the individual's who devote themselves to the task of learning will derive benefit, but that outcome is wholly unquantifiable to employers evaluating applicants.
His genetic heritage "selected" him for survival. As millions of scientists simultaneously exposed themselves to vast arrays of chemicals in lab environments (with either no regard for common knowledge safety recommendations or that basic distrust of other scientists exhibiting the occasional evil laugh) and produced offspring; it was a matter of when, not if, Alex would be born. Naturally selected to survive both explosion and immersion in a primordial stew of chemicals, he then received the genetic code of the swamp "horizontally", as it were, thus simultaneously being the fittest and taking the fittest.
I think Swamp Thing has a lesson for us all.
It stores a local copy of all your data on your primary computer and each computer you connect with it. For example, if I use laptop A to store file X, file X will always physically reside on laptop A; and when I store File Z on desktop B, that file is always backed up locally to that machine. They keep a full backup of all files on their central servers; and your files are essentially torrented into the cloud of all other users.
It's as efficient a way that I've found so far to sync files between multiple computers and VMs. It would be nice to see it either open-sourced or available to install on an internal/private or alternate public network.
For what it is, I think it works remarkably well. The legal issue of having unlicensed content from other users stored on your drive seems a bit overblown. From my understanding, which could be wrong, individuals couldn't be held responsible for files (and much more likely file fragments) which they did not seek out, solicit and about which they have no knowledge. I can't be charged for pirating movies if a pirate runs through the open doors of my house in his attempt to flee the law. The same rule *seems* like it ought to apply here: allowing open traffic across your device/network shouldn't implicate you in any crime should it be part of that traffic. Could be wrong.
At the very least, services like Wuala drive innovation forward and make it easier for the next startup to get closer to target.
Exactly, and this rule applies to all products produced in country x and sold in country z. A comparison of any consumer hardware: televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles--will reveal the same trend. The cost of shipping, providing documentation, R&D, testing product on the target demographic and support are enormous.
Google Docs keeps a revision history, perhaps Zoho does as well (don't know). OpenOffice has a GDocs plugin that will sync back to your GDocs account, and Google Gears gets you offline access.
I use Notepad++ and the GDocs Sidebar extension for Firefox to keep my workflow going. Of course, I only work in SQL and XML, so it's not really programming.
It seems to me though, if you can find a way to either sync it back to GDocs or find an API implementation that will give you code friendly editing in browser, you could be set.
Because the idea exists, the solution must exist. If the solution exists, it must have been implemented. Because the solution had been implemented, the problem can no longer exist; and because the problem doesn't exist--this idea isn't really relevant.
The salesperson I spoke to was friendly enough, but it seemed to be his first week on the job. All of my questions were proceeded by lengthy waits for answers from his supervisor, with whom I eventually spoke; and it could just be that at the end of the day, after dealing with a thousand similar cases this particular store didn't bend over backwards to help me. My experience doesn't seem to match the experience of several others, who received quite a bit more help than I did.
In this case, removing the discount wasn't possible as the account has an odd configuration. AT&T has the discounted line associated with a business account--and of that detail, I'm not completely certain. I did speak to the AT&T customer support team, and after a pleasant explanation of their view on it, it couldn't be resolved in store without the party with the discount present. So, that road led no where.
The frustration of the matter is simply this:
You have product + I have money = I can't purchase product.
The irony seemed relevant to me as the hurdle of closed source software on the phone meets the obstacle of restricted access to the device itself.
Perhaps its not an apt comparison.
Don't you find some dark irony in the situation? Two stores next door to each other, one with iPhones on the shelf, one without. Neither can sell you a phone.
This seems to parallel the dilemma of DRM and the proven success of OSS--when you try to restrict and regulate the how's, where's and when's of the end user's access to your product--the only people that are really affected are the one's trying to use the product legitimately.
I suppose I should have paid more attention to the specifics of the complaints on launch, but I put off a closer inspection because I didn't have time to wait in line to buy one.
You're correct to point out the workarounds for the problem, but the deeper issue seems (to me) to be the resolution on the part of Apple to more tightly self-regulate the sale of its product.
My internal sense of oughtness says the product should be available for anyone to purchase and let the user worry about the hurdles of operating it outside the terms of Apple's EULA. But that's just my grievance.
I had my first experience being denied the privilege to purchase a product yesterday. I called the Apple store at the nearest mall to verify they had units in stock, which they did. I then drove the two hours to said mall, in all eagerness to buy the product. After 30 minutes in line, and 20 minutes in angry negotiation with the Apple employee, I walked out of the store without an iPhone.
They were in stock; I am an AT&T customer with an existing iPhone and eligible for an upgrade; and my account is in good standing. Unfortunately for me, there is a mysterious IFU tag on my account, which AT&T later explained means one of lines has a discount or special promotion on it, rendering me ineligible to purchase in an Apple store.
As Apple refused to sell me the phone, I asked if I could bring an AT&T employee from their kiosk (literally a few dozen meters from the Apple store) to assist with the purchase. Impossible, said Apple. I asked if they could sell the unit to the AT&T kiosk to let AT&T then sell it to me or arrange some such similar inventory transfer. Impossible, Apple said. I asked if there were any way to broker a deal in the Apple store by including an AT&T employee. No, they said, and they asked me to leave. I was, admittedly, very angry.
It's the prerogative of the company to choose how and to whom they sell their products, but it seems in infinitely bad taste to do either in so far as you are able. In fact, it seems like unmitigated arrogance to deny such a sale based on some vainglorious corporate policy to lock your device to a vendor and a service provider.
I've never been disappointed by Apple before now in my last 2 years of Apple fanboydom. But.. hot apple sauce. I still can't believe I don't currently own an iPhone 3G.
As a terrorist and an active member of several terrorist organizations, I applaud this and similar measures to capture me, preventing (what I hope will be) my inevitable destruction of the American way of life. To be sure, most of my illicit hate speech against the American infidels (die, pigs, die!) sounds like carefree banter about recent viewings of the Daily Show and a casual contempt for recent Hollywood movies; but the astute listeners behind these wired and wireless conversations see their true meaning: I hate all that God created and his appointed leader on earth, G.W. Bush. My desire to overthrow Holy Land 2 is transparent, and I can only hope that I will be caught soon and rendered justice. Listen on, fearless protectors of freedom. Heed not my seemingly innocent affection for puppies--canines form the basis of our linguistic code-speak for destruction.
When I lived in Germany, if I drove the exact speed limit (no more, no less) and if conditions were largely normal, I would rarely encounter stop lights in transit through the city. Traveling above or below the speed limit, which is to say breaking the rules, yielded different results.
I'm no advocate of Internet regulation.
However. In an *ideal* environment, in which the regulatory body constantly revises its rules to match real world parameters AND fosters independent, third party groups to design faster, safer and more reliable methods of transit--traffic CAN flow *more* efficiently. Traffic is traffic, whether by bit or car; and for a country to achieve safe and reliable speeds of 300 Kph on their autobahn, something must be right.
Of course, accidents happen (inevitably). The rules (implicit or explicit) are broken by select individuals with radar detectors and jammers, drunks, or the careless. The existence of the rule has no causal relationship to its enforcement.
*If*, however, a regulatory system were divinely crafted; and *if* transport methodology were improved...
Well, that's a big if.
At least someone, somewhere, somehow is taking a stab at the tofu. I applaud the sentiment, if not the practicality.
I agree with all of that--they did seem to strike a chord with minidisc, though. It's still heavily used in radio broadcasting; but Sony never actively pushed it toward that market. One of those awkward successes from a painfully bad marketing campaign. I would also beg to differ with 8mm. It never did take off; but some very interesting things were done on it. It did usher in the age of home movies, Super-8, eventually camcorders and finally digital video (not that Sony walked us through those transitions, of course).
I agree with everything else, of course.
Not to be nit-picky, but old growth trees produce the most oxygen. Young trees, saplings, short-lived but fast growing trees breathe more CO2 than their old growth counterparts. The old trees don't breathe in as much as they breathe out and the reverse for the young trees. Managing a balance of each is important.
Absolutely not. In the first, no engine exists which can "search" anything beyond text. Most searches against images, sound, video or the other require some sort of textual tagging in order to deliver results; but this is outside the scope of my intended observation.
Far more is written, filmed, recorded and observed than can possibly be usefully organized (currently). This is as true now as it has been historically. YouTube buries as many (if not more) videos than it escalates. The diaries of the century before us are now accessible via blog, but it is as difficult now to read about the life of an Alaskan fisherman as it was 10 or 100 years ago. There is too much information to process it meaningfully; and as we produce more content, it becomes easier to loose, harder to track and more difficult to maintain.
The loss of information--films, ideas, words, data and/or/but etc. is inevitable and healthy.
Hypothesis: it can be as important to lose data as it is to retain it. If all knowledge were preserved, the human specie would be incapable of processing it (with our current technology) in a meaningful way. The problem becomes more advanced when you change 'knowledge' to 'data'. Natural selection occurs as fundamentally in our pursuit of knowledge, our collections of art, and our collective memories as it does in the survival of species. Data must be sacrificed for information to be gained.
That we desire to preserve as much as possible is as admirable and honorable a goal as any, and that pursuit should continue unhindered; however, milk will be spilled, movies lost, and species vanished. Without a way to meaningfully index all of the data in all the genres of all the mediums present to date, the goal of preservation is somewhat hollow. This Utopian world in which the Library of Alexandria is preserved is without virtue unless I can find "What Would Jesus Wear to a Funeral on Thursdays?" in a timely fashion.
Bravo. Beyond that, there is the very real psychological desire to mentally "mute" that which you do not wish to experience. This occurs visually with online advertising--as one learns where ads appear, one begins to ignore them and the space they occupy. Personally, I sometimes cannot find things on a website if they occupy a space normally habited by ads. The same is true for signs and posters and the like. People get accustomed to ignoring that which annoys them. The great danger of this new system is that, inevitably, folks would train themselves to block out the sounds of strangers and that the true cry for warning, "Hey, watch out for the bus!" or "Fire!" or "Rape!" would go unheard and unnoticed. We've learned to block out the sounds of the city and traffic and business, but should we begin to block out the sounds of humanity?
If visual advertisement no longer works, would it not be as effective to repair the visual medium as it would to invade others?
Even The Onion sometimes suffers its own game--the headline being the most amusing portion of the article and the body attempting to hold enough words to resemble an article. Don't get me wrong, I love The Onion and I love satire; but sometimes you strike a headline or catch phrase that's too good to follow through on. If the writer is guilty of anything, it's of writing slightly too much; but can you really dock him for that? It is what it is, and you know what it is from the headline. Just my two and a half cents.
If I remember correctly, AOL died not from their service speeds but rather from their service. Dial-up would have died eventually anyways, but by overselling their bandwidth, overcharging their customers and underproviding customer support--customers flocked elsewhere to those who were offering better service, faster speeds, shorter wait times.
Comcast could stretch out their lifespan indefinitely if they spent more energy helping customers use their bandwidth as their customers wanted, as opposed to trying to thwart their customers.
I'm on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I hate Microsoft with a reverence of the Buddhist order. On the other, I love Access. I would never have learned the 5th normal form without Access. I'm old for this generation, and at 27, I'm 14 years behind the learning curve; but I thought the GUI interface for Access made my transition into SQL blissfully smooth. If it's not the heart of SQL you're after, Access is just another hundred or many more MB of wasted space. As a guide into the world of relational databases, I think Access serves a mighty role. A GUI look at 3rd normal form databases vs. 5th normal form databases helps enormously.
I'm sure there are other, infinitely superior tools out there that I didn't know about. I'll bash MS on every other front, but I'll always have my fondness for Access.
Backtrack a second. I'm not a "customer" until I swipe my card at the checkout line. Prior to that, I'm occupying space and am merely potential.
Customers are those who purchase. Everyone else is simply unconverted potential. Step back and approach your disdain from that vantage point.
I was interested by this line:
"He said there was little option available other than seeking permissions directly from the songwriters."
What if a concerted group actually did this? I'd be willing to do it in tandem with other like minded individuals willing to expend time for the sake of proving a point.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion, education falls into one of two buckets: either you espouse to the Social Security mentality in which someone else is "solving the problem" or you are proactively engaged in "solving the problem" for yourself. It's unfortunate that at a societal level the evaluation of an individual's of education operates out of a black box not dissimilar to the evaluation of an individual's credit score. The solution isn't necessarily to make it easier to validate input/output from the black box. Rather, we can employ other methodologies for validating individual aptitude. The question is fundamentally about hiring. It is true that the process of studying and obtaining a degree from specific institutions for specific fields has a measurable, objective, and positive outcome for a limited number of students; however, this is by far the edge case. With limited exceptions, doctors, lawyers and politicians climb into careers without formal training and nationally accepted stamps of approval on degrees. But this is the edge. In reality, there is very little business value in even including a degree criteria for job positioning/hiring. It deters those who are qualified but do not hold a degree, and it does nothing to guarantee even a low bar for the work ethic, aptitude or drive of the applicant. Nothing matters more than the answers to these questions: "What do you know?", "How long have you known it?" and "How have you employed that knowledge?". While Stanford's experiment is great, it is no better than than the Khan Academy or any other resource which disseminates knowledge--and the output is the same: the individual's who devote themselves to the task of learning will derive benefit, but that outcome is wholly unquantifiable to employers evaluating applicants.
No? Well, shit.
His genetic heritage "selected" him for survival. As millions of scientists simultaneously exposed themselves to vast arrays of chemicals in lab environments (with either no regard for common knowledge safety recommendations or that basic distrust of other scientists exhibiting the occasional evil laugh) and produced offspring; it was a matter of when, not if, Alex would be born. Naturally selected to survive both explosion and immersion in a primordial stew of chemicals, he then received the genetic code of the swamp "horizontally", as it were, thus simultaneously being the fittest and taking the fittest. I think Swamp Thing has a lesson for us all.
It stores a local copy of all your data on your primary computer and each computer you connect with it. For example, if I use laptop A to store file X, file X will always physically reside on laptop A; and when I store File Z on desktop B, that file is always backed up locally to that machine. They keep a full backup of all files on their central servers; and your files are essentially torrented into the cloud of all other users. It's as efficient a way that I've found so far to sync files between multiple computers and VMs. It would be nice to see it either open-sourced or available to install on an internal/private or alternate public network. For what it is, I think it works remarkably well. The legal issue of having unlicensed content from other users stored on your drive seems a bit overblown. From my understanding, which could be wrong, individuals couldn't be held responsible for files (and much more likely file fragments) which they did not seek out, solicit and about which they have no knowledge. I can't be charged for pirating movies if a pirate runs through the open doors of my house in his attempt to flee the law. The same rule *seems* like it ought to apply here: allowing open traffic across your device/network shouldn't implicate you in any crime should it be part of that traffic. Could be wrong. At the very least, services like Wuala drive innovation forward and make it easier for the next startup to get closer to target.
Exactly, and this rule applies to all products produced in country x and sold in country z. A comparison of any consumer hardware: televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles--will reveal the same trend. The cost of shipping, providing documentation, R&D, testing product on the target demographic and support are enormous.
Google Docs keeps a revision history, perhaps Zoho does as well (don't know). OpenOffice has a GDocs plugin that will sync back to your GDocs account, and Google Gears gets you offline access. I use Notepad++ and the GDocs Sidebar extension for Firefox to keep my workflow going. Of course, I only work in SQL and XML, so it's not really programming. It seems to me though, if you can find a way to either sync it back to GDocs or find an API implementation that will give you code friendly editing in browser, you could be set.
Because the idea exists, the solution must exist. If the solution exists, it must have been implemented. Because the solution had been implemented, the problem can no longer exist; and because the problem doesn't exist--this idea isn't really relevant.
The salesperson I spoke to was friendly enough, but it seemed to be his first week on the job. All of my questions were proceeded by lengthy waits for answers from his supervisor, with whom I eventually spoke; and it could just be that at the end of the day, after dealing with a thousand similar cases this particular store didn't bend over backwards to help me. My experience doesn't seem to match the experience of several others, who received quite a bit more help than I did.
Oh, all the shoulds and coulds and woulds. I didn't. I was a fool, and now I'll have to wait my 10-21 days for AT&T to fill my order.
In this case, removing the discount wasn't possible as the account has an odd configuration. AT&T has the discounted line associated with a business account--and of that detail, I'm not completely certain. I did speak to the AT&T customer support team, and after a pleasant explanation of their view on it, it couldn't be resolved in store without the party with the discount present. So, that road led no where. The frustration of the matter is simply this: You have product + I have money = I can't purchase product. The irony seemed relevant to me as the hurdle of closed source software on the phone meets the obstacle of restricted access to the device itself. Perhaps its not an apt comparison.
Don't you find some dark irony in the situation? Two stores next door to each other, one with iPhones on the shelf, one without. Neither can sell you a phone. This seems to parallel the dilemma of DRM and the proven success of OSS--when you try to restrict and regulate the how's, where's and when's of the end user's access to your product--the only people that are really affected are the one's trying to use the product legitimately.
I suppose I should have paid more attention to the specifics of the complaints on launch, but I put off a closer inspection because I didn't have time to wait in line to buy one. You're correct to point out the workarounds for the problem, but the deeper issue seems (to me) to be the resolution on the part of Apple to more tightly self-regulate the sale of its product. My internal sense of oughtness says the product should be available for anyone to purchase and let the user worry about the hurdles of operating it outside the terms of Apple's EULA. But that's just my grievance.
I had my first experience being denied the privilege to purchase a product yesterday. I called the Apple store at the nearest mall to verify they had units in stock, which they did. I then drove the two hours to said mall, in all eagerness to buy the product. After 30 minutes in line, and 20 minutes in angry negotiation with the Apple employee, I walked out of the store without an iPhone. They were in stock; I am an AT&T customer with an existing iPhone and eligible for an upgrade; and my account is in good standing. Unfortunately for me, there is a mysterious IFU tag on my account, which AT&T later explained means one of lines has a discount or special promotion on it, rendering me ineligible to purchase in an Apple store. As Apple refused to sell me the phone, I asked if I could bring an AT&T employee from their kiosk (literally a few dozen meters from the Apple store) to assist with the purchase. Impossible, said Apple. I asked if they could sell the unit to the AT&T kiosk to let AT&T then sell it to me or arrange some such similar inventory transfer. Impossible, Apple said. I asked if there were any way to broker a deal in the Apple store by including an AT&T employee. No, they said, and they asked me to leave. I was, admittedly, very angry. It's the prerogative of the company to choose how and to whom they sell their products, but it seems in infinitely bad taste to do either in so far as you are able. In fact, it seems like unmitigated arrogance to deny such a sale based on some vainglorious corporate policy to lock your device to a vendor and a service provider. I've never been disappointed by Apple before now in my last 2 years of Apple fanboydom. But.. hot apple sauce. I still can't believe I don't currently own an iPhone 3G.
As a terrorist and an active member of several terrorist organizations, I applaud this and similar measures to capture me, preventing (what I hope will be) my inevitable destruction of the American way of life. To be sure, most of my illicit hate speech against the American infidels (die, pigs, die!) sounds like carefree banter about recent viewings of the Daily Show and a casual contempt for recent Hollywood movies; but the astute listeners behind these wired and wireless conversations see their true meaning: I hate all that God created and his appointed leader on earth, G.W. Bush. My desire to overthrow Holy Land 2 is transparent, and I can only hope that I will be caught soon and rendered justice. Listen on, fearless protectors of freedom. Heed not my seemingly innocent affection for puppies--canines form the basis of our linguistic code-speak for destruction.
When I lived in Germany, if I drove the exact speed limit (no more, no less) and if conditions were largely normal, I would rarely encounter stop lights in transit through the city. Traveling above or below the speed limit, which is to say breaking the rules, yielded different results. I'm no advocate of Internet regulation. However. In an *ideal* environment, in which the regulatory body constantly revises its rules to match real world parameters AND fosters independent, third party groups to design faster, safer and more reliable methods of transit--traffic CAN flow *more* efficiently. Traffic is traffic, whether by bit or car; and for a country to achieve safe and reliable speeds of 300 Kph on their autobahn, something must be right. Of course, accidents happen (inevitably). The rules (implicit or explicit) are broken by select individuals with radar detectors and jammers, drunks, or the careless. The existence of the rule has no causal relationship to its enforcement. *If*, however, a regulatory system were divinely crafted; and *if* transport methodology were improved... Well, that's a big if. At least someone, somewhere, somehow is taking a stab at the tofu. I applaud the sentiment, if not the practicality.
I agree with all of that--they did seem to strike a chord with minidisc, though. It's still heavily used in radio broadcasting; but Sony never actively pushed it toward that market. One of those awkward successes from a painfully bad marketing campaign. I would also beg to differ with 8mm. It never did take off; but some very interesting things were done on it. It did usher in the age of home movies, Super-8, eventually camcorders and finally digital video (not that Sony walked us through those transitions, of course). I agree with everything else, of course.
Not to be nit-picky, but old growth trees produce the most oxygen. Young trees, saplings, short-lived but fast growing trees breathe more CO2 than their old growth counterparts. The old trees don't breathe in as much as they breathe out and the reverse for the young trees. Managing a balance of each is important.
Absolutely not. In the first, no engine exists which can "search" anything beyond text. Most searches against images, sound, video or the other require some sort of textual tagging in order to deliver results; but this is outside the scope of my intended observation. Far more is written, filmed, recorded and observed than can possibly be usefully organized (currently). This is as true now as it has been historically. YouTube buries as many (if not more) videos than it escalates. The diaries of the century before us are now accessible via blog, but it is as difficult now to read about the life of an Alaskan fisherman as it was 10 or 100 years ago. There is too much information to process it meaningfully; and as we produce more content, it becomes easier to loose, harder to track and more difficult to maintain. The loss of information--films, ideas, words, data and/or/but etc. is inevitable and healthy.
Hypothesis: it can be as important to lose data as it is to retain it. If all knowledge were preserved, the human specie would be incapable of processing it (with our current technology) in a meaningful way. The problem becomes more advanced when you change 'knowledge' to 'data'. Natural selection occurs as fundamentally in our pursuit of knowledge, our collections of art, and our collective memories as it does in the survival of species. Data must be sacrificed for information to be gained. That we desire to preserve as much as possible is as admirable and honorable a goal as any, and that pursuit should continue unhindered; however, milk will be spilled, movies lost, and species vanished. Without a way to meaningfully index all of the data in all the genres of all the mediums present to date, the goal of preservation is somewhat hollow. This Utopian world in which the Library of Alexandria is preserved is without virtue unless I can find "What Would Jesus Wear to a Funeral on Thursdays?" in a timely fashion.
Bravo. Beyond that, there is the very real psychological desire to mentally "mute" that which you do not wish to experience. This occurs visually with online advertising--as one learns where ads appear, one begins to ignore them and the space they occupy. Personally, I sometimes cannot find things on a website if they occupy a space normally habited by ads. The same is true for signs and posters and the like. People get accustomed to ignoring that which annoys them. The great danger of this new system is that, inevitably, folks would train themselves to block out the sounds of strangers and that the true cry for warning, "Hey, watch out for the bus!" or "Fire!" or "Rape!" would go unheard and unnoticed. We've learned to block out the sounds of the city and traffic and business, but should we begin to block out the sounds of humanity? If visual advertisement no longer works, would it not be as effective to repair the visual medium as it would to invade others?
Even The Onion sometimes suffers its own game--the headline being the most amusing portion of the article and the body attempting to hold enough words to resemble an article. Don't get me wrong, I love The Onion and I love satire; but sometimes you strike a headline or catch phrase that's too good to follow through on. If the writer is guilty of anything, it's of writing slightly too much; but can you really dock him for that? It is what it is, and you know what it is from the headline. Just my two and a half cents.
If I remember correctly, AOL died not from their service speeds but rather from their service. Dial-up would have died eventually anyways, but by overselling their bandwidth, overcharging their customers and underproviding customer support--customers flocked elsewhere to those who were offering better service, faster speeds, shorter wait times. Comcast could stretch out their lifespan indefinitely if they spent more energy helping customers use their bandwidth as their customers wanted, as opposed to trying to thwart their customers.
I'm on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I hate Microsoft with a reverence of the Buddhist order. On the other, I love Access. I would never have learned the 5th normal form without Access. I'm old for this generation, and at 27, I'm 14 years behind the learning curve; but I thought the GUI interface for Access made my transition into SQL blissfully smooth. If it's not the heart of SQL you're after, Access is just another hundred or many more MB of wasted space. As a guide into the world of relational databases, I think Access serves a mighty role. A GUI look at 3rd normal form databases vs. 5th normal form databases helps enormously.
I'm sure there are other, infinitely superior tools out there that I didn't know about. I'll bash MS on every other front, but I'll always have my fondness for Access.
Backtrack a second. I'm not a "customer" until I swipe my card at the checkout line. Prior to that, I'm occupying space and am merely potential. Customers are those who purchase. Everyone else is simply unconverted potential. Step back and approach your disdain from that vantage point.
I was interested by this line: "He said there was little option available other than seeking permissions directly from the songwriters." What if a concerted group actually did this? I'd be willing to do it in tandem with other like minded individuals willing to expend time for the sake of proving a point.