Because our place in history makes computer technology looks much more varied and chaotic than it will inevitably look once it becomes as tried, tested and mundane as filing tax returns or delivering water or gas to peoples houses?
Probably because nobody's seriously talking about creating a regulatory framework for them like physicians, lawyers, engineers, and (IIRC) accountants have. Any software project that is going to fuck up somebody's life or property in a bad way if it fails probably already has a physician, lawyer, engineer or accountant signing off on it so that somebody can officially take the blame if there's a problem.
I can't help thinking that some IT accountability (or basic professionalism) would have helped the UK Government avoid at least some of it's recent disastrous projects.
I think it's more likely though, that the fields with regulatory frameworks in place, are those fields which have to a large extent finished the rapid phase of their evolution.
Perhaps when we finish with all X-as-a-service and web2.0 style innovations and actually enter a period of relative stability, such a framework will become useful?
Do note that I didn't state that publicly funded arts cannot create good material - rather that, at best, CBC is able only to put out 24 hours worth of material per channel per day.
Even if you have the 'best' bureaucracy in the world, the decision making process which decides what to cut is going to be less adaptable than something like YouTube, where each item of material is it's own channel and the creator can scale production according to popularity (possibly also via ad revenue).
I'm thinking something more along the original vision of the BBC and the CBC, where they are socialized and exist for the purpose of promoting creativity, culture and the arts. That's a lot more realistic. A lot of the objections to these structures is that they are elitist, and it's generally been a valid point. But if the administration were done using a democratic process, like the Free Government [slashdot.org] project, well, that could overcome those objections for the most part.
Is this related to the media project you were talking about last year?
The problem I see with a bureaucracy of any kind when dealing with creative arts is that it is not scalable and cannot rapidly react to new material. People get in the way.
While I'd like to see less of this, clicks are inherently democratic. As increasing numbers of people continue to spend more time watching content online than on television, advertising (hopefully more discreet) will become a viable way to democratically fund content creation from blogs to whole shows to movies.
Assuming those who opt-out by ad-blocking, don't share in remuneration, then it becomes a self-sustaining ecosystem.
So I don't agree with the GP that all content will inevitably become product placement.
In my mind, there's almost a mutual assured destruction attitude among providers of products and services. "We have to advertise or else!"
I think that's a pretty accurate description - without outlawing advertisements (and even then - where to draw the line?!), it will remain that way without a limiting factor.
Adwords is that limiting at least for me - whilst I've blocked other advertisement sources (usually for flashy annoying flash), I keep adwords because I occasionally find it useful.
I'm sure I've seen thousands of ads for Cheer in my life, but I always buy Tide. Probably because that's what we had in my house 45 years ago when I was a kid.
Ah - but on the day you go to the store needing to buy detergent and they're all out apart from the "Cheer" and "Super Wonder Happiness" brands.. which do you choose?
The problem is, the advertisers are making the ads more annoying. The people who don't hate ads now will start hating them when the advertisers make them jump around the screen playing bad music.
Really? I thought part of Googles success was the fact that the adwords it displays in search results are mostly unobtrusive, but usually relevant if you take the time to look at them.
Advertisements have become more annoying over my lifetime, but the problem with most forms of advertising is that you can't measure annoyance, you can only measure sales -- and these aren't always mutually exclusive factors to the individual.
Compare Google and Yahoo! - the latter was dominant at that time (April 1999), but the lack of clutter/animated gifs helped (along with relevant data) popularise the newcomer.
That's the beauty of adblockers and online advertising - you can now link annoyance to sales - and market forces seem to be pushing away from annoying your customer.
Cost-per-Click is effectively a commission per purchase. All the advertiser requests of the advertising broker is to drive traffic to the advertisers site. How does bulk ordering affect that?
You assume that everyone hates advertising as much as you do and thus, in the future, the trend will extend to the extreme. You can't magically extrapolate trends like that, unfortunately.
If the people who really hate advertisements, and who would never (consciously) use them to make a purchasing decision, continue to block them -- then that would seem to increase the value of each successfully delivered advertisement?
Meh - if you shift 3 billion units/month, and still can't turn a profit, then you deserve to go out of business. Blaming Google for it is misleading at best; suggesting an imminent internet economy collapse because of ones own failure is projecting at its worst.
Seconded. Learning basic was fun because you could get results quickly, even though it was a slow language. PyGame removes the latter obstacle.
C is a foundational language if you want to progress as a programmer, but if you want to create interest in the first place - the ability to get interesting (graphical not command line) results is important.
Well, as long as we're admitting that "readable" is an entirely subjective experience.. I'd have to say that I would find that notation less intuitive than the "} else {" construct.
It's too similar to consecutive 'if' statements which of course, breaks the logic.
Also, extending your notation logic fully results in:
Making a task harder does not necessarily limit production, especially if the new difficulty level still lies within the skill level of the individuals involved.
Isn't the real problem that you're fighting against market forces which create a demand for the vulnerabilities in the first place?
The thing is that while security through obscurity is a fools game it can also hurt your users to publish exact details of the security vulnerabilities you've found in your own product before many of your users have had a chance to patch the problem.
Surely though, the people who are looking to take advantage of security vulnerabilities, are generally the ones who already have a financial motivation to do so? The people who already have their own dark networks to share or buy and sell vulnerabilities?
Won't they still do this even if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? The only thing changing then, is that it'll take longer for regular users to see the danger.
Now there is no reason to give you half my paycheck. However If I had to and I had a desire of maintaining my current standard of living I would probably need to readjust my career path less technical more managerial with the possibility moving to a different location that has overall higher wages for my skill sets. So yes you apology is correct. But there is no reason to give you half my paycheck even if I could in time innovate myself a way to make double pay as if I was making double pay and still giving you half my paycheck I would be making the same as I would before 2x/2 = x.However if other actions has caused me to need more money I could think of a way to do so. However I am relatively happy at my current standard of living. So I am not motivated to do so.
That, I believe, was the point and the joke, respectively.
My logic makes sense it is your political views that you emotionally disagree with that clouds it. Remember we are talking about innovation here only innovation not politics, religion, or ethics. We invent as we have a problem to solve. if we there is already a good solution then we tend to copy it. copying isn't innovation improving on the design is. The more you have to improve the more you have to innovate.
Evolution is almost all copying with a tiny amount of mutation.
The freedom to experiment and recombine ideas is the fuel of technological innovation. It's also the fuel of science. This is not an emotional point, a political point, religious or ethical.
In the universe of which you inhabit, scientists would not share results or methods with each other, as the best way to get new science would be to start from scratch each time they run an experiment.
I'm not debating the point which you keep reiterating that evolution has the ability to overcome barriers in its path. I do think, however, that we are wasting both limited resources and potential by throwing artificial barriers in the path of technological evolution as not to inconvenience individual or corporate entities.
Listen, having ideas, and having ideas and then actually implementing them - that is the difference between dreamers and innovators
You seem to be twisting definitions to suit your own aesthetic preference. If you want to have a discussion about which is more innovative - the iPhone with a nice GUI or a completely open hardware + software phone platform.. then that's a discussion I'm happy to have.
Nowhere have I bashed Apple for their ability to turn good ideas into attractive products. I have stated my opinion that the majority of the innovation in Apple, however, is the force which derives the direction the technology should take (high-tech for non-geeks), rather than the how-to details of implementation.
And patting your back for having an idea after somebody else already implemented it is...
... a good definition of the broken patent system mess and artificial restrictions to innovation and technological evolution which Apple are now manipulating to take down Psystar?
Of course at the time your geeks talked about "wouldn't it be cool if", the features were present in the test models of the iPhone - while they are still in the "wouldn't it be cool" phase for OpenMoko.
We're talking about whether the ideas themselves are innovative, not whether Apple is able to put ideas together in a mass consumer friendly fashion.
You appear to have mistaken this for the "let's bash OpenMoko" thread.
I'd agree - but the user interface is determined by the intended demographic. Microsoft only caught on late in the game to the fact that non-professionals might enjoy using a computer - with Apple, it was their premise.
Heck being so tight and closed helped invovation because the people who need to copy their method will need to do so in a way it doesn't get them sued so they find new and different sometimes better solutions to the same problem.
No. Innovation occurred despite the artificial restrictions placed upon the advancement of technological progress, not because of them.
You go on to say: "Apple make great products - but they are nothing without their 'brand', which is why they so fiercely defend it." The only quibble I have with that statement is the "they are nothing" part. Apple is nothing without the great products; the brand is a result of that
Okay - but the brand is an identity unique to Apple, "great products" aren't.
That's what breaks the chicken and egg comparison, and why I pick 'brand' as the current (perhaps not historic) root.
100% of Apple's success is due to their brand, not because they make good products. Obviously!
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the flagship application areas for OSX would not be serviced in some form on Windows/Linux in a universe without Apple?
The reason why those applications you mention aren't ported and sold for Windows or Linux? Because it would dilute the brand.
The brand helps maintain the niche which they have developed through reputation, and is self-sustaining in that regard. Apple make great products - but they are nothing without their 'brand', which is why they so fiercely defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has always charged less in developing nations with weak or fragile economies.
Because our place in history makes computer technology looks much more varied and chaotic than it will inevitably look once it becomes as tried, tested and mundane as filing tax returns or delivering water or gas to peoples houses?
Probably because nobody's seriously talking about creating a regulatory framework for them like physicians, lawyers, engineers, and (IIRC) accountants have. Any software project that is going to fuck up somebody's life or property in a bad way if it fails probably already has a physician, lawyer, engineer or accountant signing off on it so that somebody can officially take the blame if there's a problem.
I can't help thinking that some IT accountability (or basic professionalism) would have helped the UK Government avoid at least some of it's recent disastrous projects.
I think it's more likely though, that the fields with regulatory frameworks in place, are those fields which have to a large extent finished the rapid phase of their evolution.
Perhaps when we finish with all X-as-a-service and web2.0 style innovations and actually enter a period of relative stability, such a framework will become useful?
Do note that I didn't state that publicly funded arts cannot create good material - rather that, at best, CBC is able only to put out 24 hours worth of material per channel per day.
Even if you have the 'best' bureaucracy in the world, the decision making process which decides what to cut is going to be less adaptable than something like YouTube, where each item of material is it's own channel and the creator can scale production according to popularity (possibly also via ad revenue).
I'm thinking something more along the original vision of the BBC and the CBC, where they are socialized and exist for the purpose of promoting creativity, culture and the arts. That's a lot more realistic. A lot of the objections to these structures is that they are elitist, and it's generally been a valid point. But if the administration were done using a democratic process, like the Free Government [slashdot.org] project, well, that could overcome those objections for the most part.
Is this related to the media project you were talking about last year?
The problem I see with a bureaucracy of any kind when dealing with creative arts is that it is not scalable and cannot rapidly react to new material. People get in the way.
While I'd like to see less of this, clicks are inherently democratic. As increasing numbers of people continue to spend more time watching content online than on television, advertising (hopefully more discreet) will become a viable way to democratically fund content creation from blogs to whole shows to movies.
Assuming those who opt-out by ad-blocking, don't share in remuneration, then it becomes a self-sustaining ecosystem.
So I don't agree with the GP that all content will inevitably become product placement.
In my mind, there's almost a mutual assured destruction attitude among providers of products and services. "We have to advertise or else!"
I think that's a pretty accurate description - without outlawing advertisements (and even then - where to draw the line?!), it will remain that way without a limiting factor.
Adwords is that limiting at least for me - whilst I've blocked other advertisement sources (usually for flashy annoying flash), I keep adwords because I occasionally find it useful.
I'm sure I've seen thousands of ads for Cheer in my life, but I always buy Tide. Probably because that's what we had in my house 45 years ago when I was a kid.
Ah - but on the day you go to the store needing to buy detergent and they're all out apart from the "Cheer" and "Super Wonder Happiness" brands.. which do you choose?
The problem is, the advertisers are making the ads more annoying. The people who don't hate ads now will start hating them when the advertisers make them jump around the screen playing bad music.
Really? I thought part of Googles success was the fact that the adwords it displays in search results are mostly unobtrusive, but usually relevant if you take the time to look at them.
Advertisements have become more annoying over my lifetime, but the problem with most forms of advertising is that you can't measure annoyance, you can only measure sales -- and these aren't always mutually exclusive factors to the individual.
Compare Google and Yahoo! - the latter was dominant at that time (April 1999), but the lack of clutter/animated gifs helped (along with relevant data) popularise the newcomer.
That's the beauty of adblockers and online advertising - you can now link annoyance to sales - and market forces seem to be pushing away from annoying your customer.
Cost-per-Click is effectively a commission per purchase. All the advertiser requests of the advertising broker is to drive traffic to the advertisers site. How does bulk ordering affect that?
I don't buy much online, period. But I have clicked the occasional "sponsored link" when I've been searching for a specific product or service.
If you mean seeing a banner ad for random product and thinking "gosh, I need that", then no.
But then, I've purchased items from ThinkGeek, based upon an internal reputation meter they've generated through their consistent marketing/branding.
So yes?
You assume that everyone hates advertising as much as you do and thus, in the future, the trend will extend to the extreme. You can't magically extrapolate trends like that, unfortunately.
If the people who really hate advertisements, and who would never (consciously) use them to make a purchasing decision, continue to block them -- then that would seem to increase the value of each successfully delivered advertisement?
Meh - if you shift 3 billion units/month, and still can't turn a profit, then you deserve to go out of business. Blaming Google for it is misleading at best; suggesting an imminent internet economy collapse because of ones own failure is projecting at its worst.
Seconded. Learning basic was fun because you could get results quickly, even though it was a slow language. PyGame removes the latter obstacle.
C is a foundational language if you want to progress as a programmer, but if you want to create interest in the first place - the ability to get interesting (graphical not command line) results is important.
True - but at least it keeps thousands of otherwise dangerous PHP developers safely occupied.
Well, as long as we're admitting that "readable" is an entirely subjective experience.. I'd have to say that I would find that notation less intuitive than the "} else {" construct.
It's too similar to consecutive 'if' statements which of course, breaks the logic.
Also, extending your notation logic fully results in:
if ( condition )
{
statement1;
}
else
{
statement2;
}
Which, although a waste of lines, is less confusing than your example.
I'm the one twisting definitions.
Yes, and I'm glad that you finally recognise it, too.
Isn't the real problem that you're fighting against market forces which create a demand for the vulnerabilities in the first place?
The thing is that while security through obscurity is a fools game it can also hurt your users to publish exact details of the security vulnerabilities you've found in your own product before many of your users have had a chance to patch the problem.
Surely though, the people who are looking to take advantage of security vulnerabilities, are generally the ones who already have a financial motivation to do so? The people who already have their own dark networks to share or buy and sell vulnerabilities?
Won't they still do this even if it becomes harder to decipher changelogs? The only thing changing then, is that it'll take longer for regular users to see the danger.
Now there is no reason to give you half my paycheck. However If I had to and I had a desire of maintaining my current standard of living I would probably need to readjust my career path less technical more managerial with the possibility moving to a different location that has overall higher wages for my skill sets. So yes you apology is correct. But there is no reason to give you half my paycheck even if I could in time innovate myself a way to make double pay as if I was making double pay and still giving you half my paycheck I would be making the same as I would before 2x/2 = x.However if other actions has caused me to need more money I could think of a way to do so. However I am relatively happy at my current standard of living. So I am not motivated to do so.
That, I believe, was the point and the joke, respectively.
My logic makes sense it is your political views that you emotionally disagree with that clouds it. Remember we are talking about innovation here only innovation not politics, religion, or ethics. We invent as we have a problem to solve. if we there is already a good solution then we tend to copy it. copying isn't innovation improving on the design is. The more you have to improve the more you have to innovate.
Evolution is almost all copying with a tiny amount of mutation.
The freedom to experiment and recombine ideas is the fuel of technological innovation. It's also the fuel of science. This is not an emotional point, a political point, religious or ethical.
In the universe of which you inhabit, scientists would not share results or methods with each other, as the best way to get new science would be to start from scratch each time they run an experiment.
I'm not debating the point which you keep reiterating that evolution has the ability to overcome barriers in its path. I do think, however, that we are wasting both limited resources and potential by throwing artificial barriers in the path of technological evolution as not to inconvenience individual or corporate entities.
Listen, having ideas, and having ideas and then actually implementing them - that is the difference between dreamers and innovators
You seem to be twisting definitions to suit your own aesthetic preference. If you want to have a discussion about which is more innovative - the iPhone with a nice GUI or a completely open hardware + software phone platform.. then that's a discussion I'm happy to have.
Nowhere have I bashed Apple for their ability to turn good ideas into attractive products. I have stated my opinion that the majority of the innovation in Apple, however, is the force which derives the direction the technology should take (high-tech for non-geeks), rather than the how-to details of implementation.
And patting your back for having an idea after somebody else already implemented it is ...
... a good definition of the broken patent system mess and artificial restrictions to innovation and technological evolution which Apple are now manipulating to take down Psystar?
These restrictions can help move the process of innovation along
Hmm. Yes. Your logic is quite astoundingly retarded. Wow.
How about you mail me half your paycheck every month, in order to encourage yourself to innovate within your career earning potential?
Think about it - you could end up with a salary double what it is now!
Of course at the time your geeks talked about "wouldn't it be cool if", the features were present in the test models of the iPhone - while they are still in the "wouldn't it be cool" phase for OpenMoko.
We're talking about whether the ideas themselves are innovative, not whether Apple is able to put ideas together in a mass consumer friendly fashion.
You appear to have mistaken this for the "let's bash OpenMoko" thread.
I'd agree - but the user interface is determined by the intended demographic. Microsoft only caught on late in the game to the fact that non-professionals might enjoy using a computer - with Apple, it was their premise.
Heck being so tight and closed helped invovation because the people who need to copy their method will need to do so in a way it doesn't get them sued so they find new and different sometimes better solutions to the same problem.
No. Innovation occurred despite the artificial restrictions placed upon the advancement of technological progress, not because of them.
You go on to say: "Apple make great products - but they are nothing without their 'brand', which is why they so fiercely defend it." The only quibble I have with that statement is the "they are nothing" part. Apple is nothing without the great products; the brand is a result of that
Okay - but the brand is an identity unique to Apple, "great products" aren't.
That's what breaks the chicken and egg comparison, and why I pick 'brand' as the current (perhaps not historic) root.
100% of Apple's success is due to their brand, not because they make good products. Obviously!
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the flagship application areas for OSX would not be serviced in some form on Windows/Linux in a universe without Apple?
The reason why those applications you mention aren't ported and sold for Windows or Linux? Because it would dilute the brand.
The brand helps maintain the niche which they have developed through reputation, and is self-sustaining in that regard. Apple make great products - but they are nothing without their 'brand', which is why they so fiercely defend it.