It's been said elsewhere on this thread, but an IPO will turn Google into a short-term profit chasing company. It will destroy their R&D work and they will no longer be able to make decisions for the benefit of their users. Watch for obnoxious (and less effective) advertising. Watch for pay for placement. Watch for the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Ask the (ex)president of any good customer focused company that went IPO more than a few years ago. After a brief thrill the fun will be over. Their "value" will shoot up, bringing about a great feeling of success. Then features will slowly be reduced. Then they'll find ways to milk more money out of their customers. From every metric aside from market capitalization they will have failed.
And Google -- perhaps the greatest commercial tool on the internet -- will be no more.
So, here's my vote. As a non-stock owning USER of Google, as someone who has spent money on thier excellent advertising, and who has clicked through on their ads I vote that Google does not go public.
I agree that your example of the traffic computer would signify intelligence... I guess I disagree that you'll see that behavior before you see some limited sense of self:)
My favorite book on this topic is "Godel, Escher, Bach"... which gives the most compelling description I've ever read about how intelligent behavior can emerge from a machine (i.e., the mind).
I thought we had already realized that processing power has nothing to do with intelligence. It's about self awareness -- which is a function of being able to adaptively model the world around you (including yourself) through some type of sense.
It always bugs me when they imply that another few Ghz and suddenly computers will start writing poetry. Someday they will, but we'll learn a lot more about conciousness before then.
As a switcher myself, I had a hard time letting go of managing my own mp3's. Under Windows and Linux I had to do all the organizing myself, which was a total pain in the ass -- but I didn't trust any of the crappy programs to do it for me.
When I first started using iTunes I was skeptical -- but really -- after a few weeks, you will treat iTunes like a black box and never look in your music folder again. The interface is highly optimized and customizable for organizing music. Your OS's navigation (Explorer, command line, whatever) is not. It's better. Really. Let iTunes do it's thing.
And best of all, it does it in a way that actually makes sense -- if you look into the iTunes folder things are well organized and very human readable. Better (but different) than I was used to organizing them.
I'm very happy so far with iTunes for windows. It works well on my 450Mhz PIII, all the features are there, the interface is pretty slick, and it shares music on my home lan with the macs.
In comparison to what? On a purely theoretical level, I agree with you. There were plenty of bugs and bits of weirdness. But even 10.0 seemed more polished than any Windows or Linux release I've used. And I'm not Mac zealot or apologist either -- I still use all these operating systems daily and think Apple makes loads of boneheaded decisions.
I do wish there was an even _more_ polished OS, but isn't OSX the best there is for the time being?
Cheers.
(Oh -- and interesting about the volume/balance thing... I never knew why that happened sometimes!)
I made some games for the C64 under the name "Blud Red" -- about halfway down the page. You can download them and play them on a decent emulator as I recently pulled them onto my PC to relive the fun. The games more or less suck, but man were they fun to make.
I loved my C64. It was a big part of my life from ages 14 to 18 or so. It's how I learned to "hack" or "code" -- or whatever it is I get paid for these days. It was so limited that you had to use real creativity to milk fun out of it. It was more fun coding that thing than the superpower machines I work with now...
I did have some fun writing a java applet video game (on that same page) which I sort of limited to a C64 level of complexity.
focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.
Nice idea, but the current US administration has made it clear that not holding hands is an invitation for attack. Who's next?
I swear that the PIV 2.4 Ghz machines I've used are no faster that some of the P III 1 Ghz boxes I've used. We upgraded all our development boxes at work this way and there was hardly any notable improvement... yes, the memory is tricked out so we're not having swapping issues. But you run apache, mysql, and X on one of them and it just doesn't seem like an improvement.
Are they doing a direct trade off where they ramp up the clockspeed and break the instructions down so that less is getting done per clock or something?
To stretch my lame metaphor further, I would say that the task of not hitting your head is much easier with eyes; something standard C does not provide.
The C appologists can say "just be careful" all they want, but the fact remains that even the most careful programmers make these mistakes _all_the_time_ because the language encourages them.
I'm no expert in C, but it seems to me like it's just a matter of writing a better stdlib that makes it easy to do things the safe way. Then if people want to code close to the metal and risk banging their head, that's fine. But right now the official way to code involves managing memory by hand, and people have proven over the past twenty years to be absolutely horrible at it, while computers have proved to be quite good (with a little performance overhead).
Cleaner, more readable code is probably loaded with bugs or lacking in features because it hasn't been around long enough to have all the disgusting hacks and patches applied to it that are required for extended use in the real world.
Those kids database experience doesn't extend past an address book.
In general this may be true, but I currently manage the MySQL DB for a site that does in excess of 5 mil/mo in sales. You can go a lot further than you might think with OSS solutions. We are in the process of setting up replication/load balancing for future growth.
With our revenue, one might wonder why we'd balk at picking up Oracle or someother. The answer is that we started on the cheap three years ago and haven't found any compelling reason to switch. No religion -- just feel that we've got the right tool for the job.
And yes, coding for bad data in the application layer seems more robust in the long term than relying on the DB to keep things clean. Just my 2 cents on the ACID issue.
Realize I'm more or less on your side, but here's my devil's advocate response:
Geeks tend to realize that those shows are devoid of any intellect and have no bearing on Real Life(tm).
Those same geeks should realize that most of the things they do prattle on about also have no bearing on real life either. In fact, since prattling on is just a way to build camaraderie, and networking has distinct advantages in real life, it is probably smarter to stay in touch with the so-called mindless masses than to discard them and play it as an outcast.
Most would agree that the/. zombies have a higher group intellect than the average person watching American Idol.
Well, comparing our group intellect to the average individual is hardly fair. If you take it one-on-one I do not think you would find that the people here are particularly more effective at real life than the AI watchers.
So, if we, as a/. zombie genetic pool, are bred seperatly for 200 years (ignoring the inbreeding due to only one female), would our progeny not be much better mentally than the progeny of the drooling masses?
Absolutely not. Supergroups are bullshit -- seriously. We need the level of divirsity that got us this far. Without the environment the individual is nothing. This is true on larger frames of reference as well: without the social environment, the geek subgroup would be nothing.
Separated out all our worst traits would overlap creating social diseases (a social analog to the genetic inbreeding problems).
As David Brin says, IAAMOAC (I am a member of a civilization). Don't underestimate the value of that.
This reply is not for the AC, but for anyone who might think he's got a valid point:
In my post I indicated that I'd be happy to pay for the upgrade, if offered. So what you're really saying is "Apple doesn't need my money". That's a funny thing to claim a corporation doesn't need.
I also said that if they offered the upgrade for free (like other mp3 makers have) that they'd increase customer satisfaction. Another thing Apple needs, as this usually leads to more money as well.
And how could anyone who purchased an iPod six months ago (20GB, no less) be a "free-leading butt chunk" in Apple's eyes? Do you work for Apple? Is this how they percieve their customers?
They're floundering because their business is not making them any money. The "profit" you speak of is from interest on the "money in the bank". But their core of selling computers and software is losing money and has been for a while.
That said, I expect this to turn around if they keep up the good work. But Apple should be a little less stiff about these things, IMO.
We don't expect Nissan to say "bring your car in and we'll 'upgrade' to all the new features for free".
No, but you'd expect it to be possible to pay a fair price for new speakers and install them. If the new features on the iPod were somehow beyond the abilities of the old machine nobody would feel slighted.
If apple offered the new software for a fair price ($20?) most people would be fine with that. But as it is they are not providing the customers what they want at a price the customer accepts when it is obviously possible to do so.
Their motivation is to try to get more money from the customers than they are willing to spend. Does Apple have the right to do this? Of course. But it's stupid of them.
I would be glad to give them $20 for this, but instead I give them nothing. And if I had gotten the upgrade (for pay or free) I'd be unlikely to even consider another type of mp3 player in the future. As it is I will check my options, since I know that other companies give you goodies like firmware upgrades.
the reasons he gave for this were:
1. Push new iPods - because Apple likes money.
Oh well, I guess that's why Apple is always just struggling along. Unhappy customers are less likely to spend money. Make them euphoric about their purchases and they'll keep opening their wallet.
I don't think Apple should update indefinitely, but if you give a customer a little more than they expected (at minimal expense to Apple) it builds trust -- something Apple sorely needs after a decade of floundering.
It's just like dating: desperation is a turn off. You try to force them to play it your way and you won't get nearly as much action.
I just don't get this sentiment... I guess if you're looking for the smallest thing you can, then it is. But many people (myself included) want a laptop that's comfortable to _use_, not just carry. I lug mine to and from work every day on the train and walk 15 minutes with it on my shoulder.
I had the 15 inch for almost 2 years and just updated to the 17. It's a great size. Not much larger... a tad heavier... and a _lot_ more pleasant to work on. It's a great form factor IMO. And I'm not a big guy or anything. My 5'3" wife loves it too:) It's our favorite computer in the house now... we just lounge around with it:)
Oh come on - you know exactly what I mean. Even people who like "disrespectful" sex know what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm one of them -- what do you know?
Consenting adults can do whatever they want with each other, and I encourage that. But younger children have a very hard time understanding why someone would want to be hurt or degraded. Exposing them to that type of sexuality at a young age is certain to confuse and trouble them. Kids are resilient, and most of them will probably turn out fine anyways, but that doesn't excuse the idiots who are _broadcasting_ these regulated materials.
The "everything is subjective" mentality can only be practically applied so far.
Gotcha:) The lectures do tend to make one feel dirty for having natural feelings, which is a shame.
I guess I got sort of a mixed response -- getting caught by my dad meant I'd get sort of a knowing smile and a friendly "come on now son, you're not old enough yet". Whereas my mom would give me the "this stuff is highly dangerous!"
Anyways, I ended up loving porn, but also respecting my wife. And I got a wife who's okay with the porn to boot!
Not sure what the point of all that was -- but it's interesting what kids take away from their "teachings":)
I don't think there are many people here claiming that "sexuality entails shame". I think the issue is that the stuff being sent is beyond sexual -- it's often morbid.
Personally I think I will let my children see nudity and respectful sexuality (in movies) as it comes up. But beastiality, bukkake, and double penetration closeups are another issue entirely. Sure, the kids will find that eventually -- but hopefully not until they're ready. If someone is broadcasting that type of content, they should held liable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been said elsewhere on this thread, but an IPO will turn Google into a short-term profit chasing company. It will destroy their R&D work and they will no longer be able to make decisions for the benefit of their users. Watch for obnoxious (and less effective) advertising. Watch for pay for placement. Watch for the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg.
Ask the (ex)president of any good customer focused company that went IPO more than a few years ago. After a brief thrill the fun will be over. Their "value" will shoot up, bringing about a great feeling of success. Then features will slowly be reduced. Then they'll find ways to milk more money out of their customers. From every metric aside from market capitalization they will have failed.
And Google -- perhaps the greatest commercial tool on the internet -- will be no more.
So, here's my vote. As a non-stock owning USER of Google, as someone who has spent money on thier excellent advertising, and who has clicked through on their ads I vote that Google does not go public.
Cheers.
I agree that your example of the traffic computer would signify intelligence... I guess I disagree that you'll see that behavior before you see some limited sense of self :)
My favorite book on this topic is "Godel, Escher, Bach"... which gives the most compelling description I've ever read about how intelligent behavior can emerge from a machine (i.e., the mind).
Cheers!
I thought we had already realized that processing power has nothing to do with intelligence. It's about self awareness -- which is a function of being able to adaptively model the world around you (including yourself) through some type of sense.
It always bugs me when they imply that another few Ghz and suddenly computers will start writing poetry. Someday they will, but we'll learn a lot more about conciousness before then.
Cheers.
As a switcher myself, I had a hard time letting go of managing my own mp3's. Under Windows and Linux I had to do all the organizing myself, which was a total pain in the ass -- but I didn't trust any of the crappy programs to do it for me.
When I first started using iTunes I was skeptical -- but really -- after a few weeks, you will treat iTunes like a black box and never look in your music folder again. The interface is highly optimized and customizable for organizing music. Your OS's navigation (Explorer, command line, whatever) is not. It's better. Really. Let iTunes do it's thing.
And best of all, it does it in a way that actually makes sense -- if you look into the iTunes folder things are well organized and very human readable. Better (but different) than I was used to organizing them.
I'm very happy so far with iTunes for windows. It works well on my 450Mhz PIII, all the features are there, the interface is pretty slick, and it shares music on my home lan with the macs.
Very very cool.
Every OS X release has been rather half-baked
In comparison to what? On a purely theoretical level, I agree with you. There were plenty of bugs and bits of weirdness. But even 10.0 seemed more polished than any Windows or Linux release I've used. And I'm not Mac zealot or apologist either -- I still use all these operating systems daily and think Apple makes loads of boneheaded decisions.
I do wish there was an even _more_ polished OS, but isn't OSX the best there is for the time being?
Cheers.
(Oh -- and interesting about the volume/balance thing... I never knew why that happened sometimes!)
I made some games for the C64 under the name "Blud Red" -- about halfway down the page. You can download them and play them on a decent emulator as I recently pulled them onto my PC to relive the fun. The games more or less suck, but man were they fun to make.
I loved my C64. It was a big part of my life from ages 14 to 18 or so. It's how I learned to "hack" or "code" -- or whatever it is I get paid for these days. It was so limited that you had to use real creativity to milk fun out of it. It was more fun coding that thing than the superpower machines I work with now...
I did have some fun writing a java applet video game (on that same page) which I sort of limited to a C64 level of complexity.
Cheers.
focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.
Nice idea, but the current US administration has made it clear that not holding hands is an invitation for attack. Who's next?
Cheers (from the US)
I swear that the PIV 2.4 Ghz machines I've used are no faster that some of the P III 1 Ghz boxes I've used. We upgraded all our development boxes at work this way and there was hardly any notable improvement... yes, the memory is tricked out so we're not having swapping issues. But you run apache, mysql, and X on one of them and it just doesn't seem like an improvement.
Are they doing a direct trade off where they ramp up the clockspeed and break the instructions down so that less is getting done per clock or something?
Cheers.
To stretch my lame metaphor further, I would say that the task of not hitting your head is much easier with eyes; something standard C does not provide.
The C appologists can say "just be careful" all they want, but the fact remains that even the most careful programmers make these mistakes _all_the_time_ because the language encourages them.
I'm no expert in C, but it seems to me like it's just a matter of writing a better stdlib that makes it easy to do things the safe way. Then if people want to code close to the metal and risk banging their head, that's fine. But right now the official way to code involves managing memory by hand, and people have proven over the past twenty years to be absolutely horrible at it, while computers have proved to be quite good (with a little performance overhead).
Cheers.
Imagine if the human body was designed such that your head fell off -- unless you took the time to "easily find information to avoid".
It's time to fix C or move on.
Cheers.
Cleaner, more readable code is probably loaded with bugs or lacking in features because it hasn't been around long enough to have all the disgusting hacks and patches applied to it that are required for extended use in the real world.
At least in my experience, anyways.
Cheers!
Those kids database experience doesn't extend past an address book.
In general this may be true, but I currently manage the MySQL DB for a site that does in excess of 5 mil/mo in sales. You can go a lot further than you might think with OSS solutions. We are in the process of setting up replication/load balancing for future growth.
With our revenue, one might wonder why we'd balk at picking up Oracle or someother. The answer is that we started on the cheap three years ago and haven't found any compelling reason to switch. No religion -- just feel that we've got the right tool for the job.
And yes, coding for bad data in the application layer seems more robust in the long term than relying on the DB to keep things clean. Just my 2 cents on the ACID issue.
Cheers.
Realize I'm more or less on your side, but here's my devil's advocate response:
/. zombies have a higher group intellect than the average person watching American Idol.
/. zombie genetic pool, are bred seperatly for 200 years (ignoring the inbreeding due to only one female), would our progeny not be much better mentally than the progeny of the drooling masses?
Geeks tend to realize that those shows are devoid of any intellect and have no bearing on Real Life(tm).
Those same geeks should realize that most of the things they do prattle on about also have no bearing on real life either. In fact, since prattling on is just a way to build camaraderie, and networking has distinct advantages in real life, it is probably smarter to stay in touch with the so-called mindless masses than to discard them and play it as an outcast.
Most would agree that the
Well, comparing our group intellect to the average individual is hardly fair. If you take it one-on-one I do not think you would find that the people here are particularly more effective at real life than the AI watchers.
So, if we, as a
Absolutely not. Supergroups are bullshit -- seriously. We need the level of divirsity that got us this far. Without the environment the individual is nothing. This is true on larger frames of reference as well: without the social environment, the geek subgroup would be nothing.
Separated out all our worst traits would overlap creating social diseases (a social analog to the genetic inbreeding problems).
As David Brin says, IAAMOAC (I am a member of a civilization). Don't underestimate the value of that.
Cheers
If space and time are one, and you can't precisely pinpoint a position, why would one be able to pinpoint a time?
Disclaimer: I only have a pop understanding of this stuff.
This reply is not for the AC, but for anyone who might think he's got a valid point:
In my post I indicated that I'd be happy to pay for the upgrade, if offered. So what you're really saying is "Apple doesn't need my money". That's a funny thing to claim a corporation doesn't need.
I also said that if they offered the upgrade for free (like other mp3 makers have) that they'd increase customer satisfaction. Another thing Apple needs, as this usually leads to more money as well.
And how could anyone who purchased an iPod six months ago (20GB, no less) be a "free-leading butt chunk" in Apple's eyes? Do you work for Apple? Is this how they percieve their customers?
Cheers
Thank you!
They're floundering because their business is not making them any money. The "profit" you speak of is from interest on the "money in the bank". But their core of selling computers and software is losing money and has been for a while.
That said, I expect this to turn around if they keep up the good work. But Apple should be a little less stiff about these things, IMO.
Cheers
We don't expect Nissan to say "bring your car in and we'll 'upgrade' to all the new features for free".
No, but you'd expect it to be possible to pay a fair price for new speakers and install them. If the new features on the iPod were somehow beyond the abilities of the old machine nobody would feel slighted.
If apple offered the new software for a fair price ($20?) most people would be fine with that. But as it is they are not providing the customers what they want at a price the customer accepts when it is obviously possible to do so.
Their motivation is to try to get more money from the customers than they are willing to spend. Does Apple have the right to do this? Of course. But it's stupid of them.
I would be glad to give them $20 for this, but instead I give them nothing. And if I had gotten the upgrade (for pay or free) I'd be unlikely to even consider another type of mp3 player in the future. As it is I will check my options, since I know that other companies give you goodies like firmware upgrades.
Cheers.
the reasons he gave for this were:
1. Push new iPods - because Apple likes money.
Oh well, I guess that's why Apple is always just struggling along. Unhappy customers are less likely to spend money. Make them euphoric about their purchases and they'll keep opening their wallet.
I don't think Apple should update indefinitely, but if you give a customer a little more than they expected (at minimal expense to Apple) it builds trust -- something Apple sorely needs after a decade of floundering.
It's just like dating: desperation is a turn off. You try to force them to play it your way and you won't get nearly as much action.
Cheers.
Excellent reply. You're obviously a good bit smarter than the original poster ;)
It's too damned big.
:) It's our favorite computer in the house now... we just lounge around with it :)
I just don't get this sentiment... I guess if you're looking for the smallest thing you can, then it is. But many people (myself included) want a laptop that's comfortable to _use_, not just carry. I lug mine to and from work every day on the train and walk 15 minutes with it on my shoulder.
I had the 15 inch for almost 2 years and just updated to the 17. It's a great size. Not much larger... a tad heavier... and a _lot_ more pleasant to work on. It's a great form factor IMO. And I'm not a big guy or anything. My 5'3" wife loves it too
"Respectful" is a highly subjective term.
Oh come on - you know exactly what I mean. Even people who like "disrespectful" sex know what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm one of them -- what do you know?
Consenting adults can do whatever they want with each other, and I encourage that. But younger children have a very hard time understanding why someone would want to be hurt or degraded. Exposing them to that type of sexuality at a young age is certain to confuse and trouble them. Kids are resilient, and most of them will probably turn out fine anyways, but that doesn't excuse the idiots who are _broadcasting_ these regulated materials.
The "everything is subjective" mentality can only be practically applied so far.
Gotcha :) The lectures do tend to make one feel dirty for having natural feelings, which is a shame.
:)
I guess I got sort of a mixed response -- getting caught by my dad meant I'd get sort of a knowing smile and a friendly "come on now son, you're not old enough yet". Whereas my mom would give me the "this stuff is highly dangerous!"
Anyways, I ended up loving porn, but also respecting my wife. And I got a wife who's okay with the porn to boot!
Not sure what the point of all that was -- but it's interesting what kids take away from their "teachings"
I don't think there are many people here claiming that "sexuality entails shame". I think the issue is that the stuff being sent is beyond sexual -- it's often morbid.
Personally I think I will let my children see nudity and respectful sexuality (in movies) as it comes up. But beastiality, bukkake, and double penetration closeups are another issue entirely. Sure, the kids will find that eventually -- but hopefully not until they're ready. If someone is broadcasting that type of content, they should held liable.
this would be easier to explain if I had a boy
;)
Or if you were married to a man