This sounds like a case of company A saying something about company B, so company A sues company B. It sounds like Wikipedia was just the venue and that the person who made the edit was just an employee. In other words, this sounds more like business law than anything that has to do with the freedom of speech.
While you are probably mostly correct about people only ever seeing the part of the net that is in their own language, I find a disproportionate number of the sites that I visit to be in English, German, and Japanese. The English part is easily explained (I'm an English speaker in an English speaking nation, who uses English services), but the German and Japanese part isn't so easy to explain. This leads me to believe that there are dominant languages on the net, English is one of the and that probably explains why Baidu wants to improve their English language results.
(To go to that cocktail party analogy, people mostly cluster according to their language but they use a dominant language when they want to talk to other clusters.)
I tend to think of these things in rather simplistic, though hopefully realistic terms:
We are trying to come to terms with a very real paradigm shift.
In the past, life was easy. The written word was the written word. Broadcast TV was broadcast TV. A CD was a CD. You can replace each technology with what you wish (as long as it was available at the tie), but the equation was always the same.
Things these days aren't so simple though. Words can be in print or on the screen. When on the screen, they can be in innumerable formats. Same goes for video, which currently comes in a multitude of formats (from DVDs to files to streaming). It used to be relatively hard to store, so you could choose broadcast or cable or even VHS, but the reality is that recording on VHS usually cost a significant portion of buying on VHS so the former didn't make a huge difference. Cheap people could do what we call time-shifting today, but it was usually more convenient to buy what you wanted to keep (both because of the time and effort as well as the quality of the result) and time-shifting doesn't really matter (even to people in the industry). Music was a bit different, albeit not hugely different. It was certainly a lot cheaper to copy individual songs that you liked from albums in the audio cassette era, to create mixes, but that was mostly because individual songs stood alone yet it was cheaper to sell them in compilations. Life is more complex today though, since it is easy to sell singles in an industry that used to thrive on compilations. But that's their fault. What isn't really their fault is how we think about those singles. Once upon a time we used to think a cassette would work in a car or a stereo or a walkman. That worked for us. That worked for the industry. Thing is though, we think in easily copyable files these days, while the industry still thinks in terms of media that you carry around. The cassette may have been playable in all of those places, but there was only one copy. The audio file may be playable in all of those places, but there are multiple copies. And when there are multiple copies, they can be used concurrently. That is a problem for the recording industry, and I think that it is legit.
How do we fix that problem, I dunno. They don't know either, and most consumers don't care because they feel entitled. And as much as I disagree with the publisher's feelings of entitlement, I also disagree with the consumer's feelings of entitlement.
Space exploration may be a technological feat, but it is also a wonder of human intellect. By abandoning the shuttle, that human intellect is being dumped on the streets with nothing but promises for the future. Promises to the nation, though there will be very few promised to the people who will be pursuing other careers.
Even if things did start up again: within a year, most of those people would need to refresh their training. Within a decade, you would be training most of the workforce from scratch. Within 50 years, even most of the documentation would be lost or incomprehensible.
Don't believe me, just look at Apollo.
If you're a Canuck and don't believe me, look at the Avro Arrow.
Nations loose technical capabilities because those capabilities depend upon the people behind them.
The article was quite clear that they were expecting a blackout of social media website. That means that it extends beyond Facebook and Twitter. It even includes forwarding emails and SMS. In other words, they're talking about technologies that have an immediacy and reach comparable to television and radio. It is quite different from a lot of last minute campaigning that could be done. If there are regulations regarding last minute campaigning using television and radio, it is extremely different all of the last minute campaigning that could be done.
It would constitute censorship under very limited circumstances. It would constitute censorship if new information was discovered in the final hours of the election, and it was prevented from inadvertently reaching the voter due to the blackout.
But the reality is that new information rarely pops up in those final hours. Because of that, most of the campaigning done would have more to do with manipulating the political process (e.g. presenting misinformation that the other parties cannot respond to). That sort of situation is far more dangerous to democracy than something that a few people could interpret as censorship because they see the world in black-and-white terms.
While the majority of passengers use jets, it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of the planes in the air use that "darn near extinct" technology. You just won't see many of them at a typical international airport for reasons of economy.
(Where are they used: flights that serve smaller communities, short haul flights, transporting goods or doing exploration in remote areas, etc..)
People seem to use Skype with family and close friends.
People seem to use Facebook with acquaintances.
Their uses are mostly incompatible.
Something tells me that this is going to be a nice feature to have, but that it isn't going to beef up Skype's or Facebook's userbase (as TFA suggests).
The assumption isn't submitting to assholes, it is an acknowlegement of reality.
Personal anecdote, so treat it as you will, but one of the most important acknowlegements in my life was that of "personal" and "public" spaces. We cannot expect privacy when we say something publically, and we shoud expect priacay in our personal communications.
Unfortunately, the internet was developed as a public space. Even psudo-private discussions aren't much more private than chatting with a friend on the bus. So, if you say something in plain text (e.g. email) you should expect that someone else can overhear it. Of course, you should expect privacy if you encrypt those communications (since that is more akin to chatting to someone in your home or via mail in a sealed envelope).
Moral of the story: plain text is public, encryption ensures a limited degree of privacy. Plain text is like a post card, encryption is more like letter mail. So when you talk, choose your medium wisely.
The point is that the summary is horribly misleading because it is very selective about the information that it provides.
In that respect it is even more misleading than my post since 0.05*365.242199 is closer to 18.2621099 days. You may also wish to note that there are similar rounding errors (though I'd prefer to call them conversational conveniences) in all of the figures that I presented.
Thus my credibility is entirely destroyed and my original post should probably earn a score of "0, flame-bait" because I completely disregarded the Slashdot mantra of precision over accuracy.
If you want to keep your data and apps on your own computer, then you are free to do so. If someone else wants to keep their data and apps in the cloud, they have that option too. Or, better yet, pick and choose based upon the situation. After all, both standalone and cloud computing have their benefits and drawbacks.
... is that more than 18 days of downtime results in a complete refund, 4 to 18 days of downtime results in a 50% refund, and 8 hours to 4 days of downtime results in a 25% refund. (Calculations are assuming 1 year of service, though I don't know how Microsoft does it.)
This is not what I would call excellent, but it is several orders of magnitude better than the summary suggested.
Of course people are interested in how both sides are funded. But as soon as you jump into conspiracy theories you run the risk of losing ears.
Contrast two conspiracy theories:
Exxon funds climate change skeptic. We are talking about a very well known company that is even better known for the damage they have caused to the environment. Regulations around climate change are against their best interests. Plausible conspiracy.
Some agency that noone has even heard of funds an actvist group that noone even knows, but the agency is lead by well known enironmentalists and (get this!) it's done with tax-payer's money. Red flag 1: unrelated information makes the argument immediately suspect. Red flag 2: collusion between two groups that few people have ever heard of makes the argument look concocted. Red flag 3: dropping well known names in relation to one of those groups sounds like an attempt to create legitimacy without actually providing evidence.
So which conspiracy theory do you think that people are going to accept? Really, honestly, truely, deep down inside of you, which conspiracy theory would you accept if you weren't already committed to one? Because the sad fact of the matter is, people like simple relationships that use stuff that they already know. They don't want to get their neurons into a knot trying to understand what someone is saying, and they don't want to spend time researching something to verify it's true.
Well, it is of interest to people who are interested in supercomputers.
People who develop software for those beasts like to know how things are changing. They may not need to know the intimate details since compilers and libraries will handle most of that, but they may want to throw together a small cluster to test emerging technologies. (This is particularly true in recent years since small clusters based upon AMD/Intel CPUs and AMD/Nvidia GPUs are within reach of individuals.)
Stockholders though couldn't care less. The number of units is too small and the prestige counts for nothing unless it translates into sales in other markets.
Not really. Libraries are increasingly ditching subscriptions to print journals. They may not want to do so, but the realities of purchasing, storing, and maintaining print collections leave them with very little choice. They are also reluctant to provide access to electronic journals to outside users, either due to agreements with the publisher or cost-per-access. (They can do that because individual articles are still subject to copyright.)
So no, it's not convenience they're charging for. They're simply trying to redefine how people access their products to maximize their revenues.
You could be right. You could also be wrong. You see, the difference between your comments and this study is that a group of researchers took the time to develop and conduct a study that examined particular aspects of human behaviour. Your comments are based upon what you think is true about the world, but you didn't take the time to do the research to affirm or disprove your own theory. Of course, that doesn't mean that you're wrong. It simply means that you cannot prove that you are correct.
For home and office needs, we have been well beyond the upper limit for well over a decade.
For most business needs, we have been well beyond the upper limit for some time. But that does not consider the needs of all businesses.
For scientific, engineering, and military needs -- well, we have a bloody long way to go. Supercomputers aren't built for national prestige or any of that other nonsense, simply because they are too expensive and become obsolete too quickly. These computers are built to address current and pressing needs. As a scientist, I can point to processing the immense amounts of data that we currently create or the development of more sophisticated models of physical systems. Engineers would face similar issues. The military too, plus they have intelligence applications. So Intel will find ready customers if they are the leaders at that point of time.
I think their point is that very little wearable technology has found success in the marketplace, outside of watches (which many people treat as a fashion accessory). Everything else has pretty much been an accessory that you carry in your purse or, if you wore it, you looked like a dork.
That's not likely to change very soon either. I've seen USB flash drives formed into jewellery, but that is the exception because it is small enough to be a subtle fashion accessory without making you look like a dork. I've seen some stuff integrated into clothing, but mostly it has been by geeks who have zero sense of style.
The scientists' work has already been published. They can't revoke those publications no matter how much you threaten them. You may discourage them from publishing more work, but that doesn't take back what has already been said. On the other hand, you may also make them more zealous in defending their cause. This isn't only bad for you, but it's bad for science. Either way it's a lose-lose situation, so use your conscience and don't make threats.
The comment about your collection collecting dust should be offer a hint as to its future. If it's not a priority, it will be one of the first things to go when you need the space, are moving, etc..
That being said, I don't think that books are going to die. I do anticipate the types of book that we see in print will change dramatically. The stuff that people come back to again and again will probably remain in print. The stuff that they read once then toss in the closet will probably be the domain of the ereader.
The answer is murky and it depends upon how you define a personal computer. If you're talking about computers in the home, then it was probably the Apple/Commodore/Tandy triad who deserves credit. If you are talking about a standalone desktop computer, it looks like the IBM 5100 is a runner (1975). Then, of course, there are all of the people who include hobbiest machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Blogger and Picasa are good names: concise, searchable, and trademarkable.
But I guess that Google's marketing department wants headlines to reverberate their name in the tech and business media.
I will adjust, but I still think that the decision sucks.
This sounds like a case of company A saying something about company B, so company A sues company B. It sounds like Wikipedia was just the venue and that the person who made the edit was just an employee. In other words, this sounds more like business law than anything that has to do with the freedom of speech.
While you are probably mostly correct about people only ever seeing the part of the net that is in their own language, I find a disproportionate number of the sites that I visit to be in English, German, and Japanese. The English part is easily explained (I'm an English speaker in an English speaking nation, who uses English services), but the German and Japanese part isn't so easy to explain. This leads me to believe that there are dominant languages on the net, English is one of the and that probably explains why Baidu wants to improve their English language results.
(To go to that cocktail party analogy, people mostly cluster according to their language but they use a dominant language when they want to talk to other clusters.)
I tend to think of these things in rather simplistic, though hopefully realistic terms:
We are trying to come to terms with a very real paradigm shift.
In the past, life was easy. The written word was the written word. Broadcast TV was broadcast TV. A CD was a CD. You can replace each technology with what you wish (as long as it was available at the tie), but the equation was always the same.
Things these days aren't so simple though. Words can be in print or on the screen. When on the screen, they can be in innumerable formats. Same goes for video, which currently comes in a multitude of formats (from DVDs to files to streaming). It used to be relatively hard to store, so you could choose broadcast or cable or even VHS, but the reality is that recording on VHS usually cost a significant portion of buying on VHS so the former didn't make a huge difference. Cheap people could do what we call time-shifting today, but it was usually more convenient to buy what you wanted to keep (both because of the time and effort as well as the quality of the result) and time-shifting doesn't really matter (even to people in the industry). Music was a bit different, albeit not hugely different. It was certainly a lot cheaper to copy individual songs that you liked from albums in the audio cassette era, to create mixes, but that was mostly because individual songs stood alone yet it was cheaper to sell them in compilations. Life is more complex today though, since it is easy to sell singles in an industry that used to thrive on compilations. But that's their fault. What isn't really their fault is how we think about those singles. Once upon a time we used to think a cassette would work in a car or a stereo or a walkman. That worked for us. That worked for the industry. Thing is though, we think in easily copyable files these days, while the industry still thinks in terms of media that you carry around. The cassette may have been playable in all of those places, but there was only one copy. The audio file may be playable in all of those places, but there are multiple copies. And when there are multiple copies, they can be used concurrently. That is a problem for the recording industry, and I think that it is legit.
How do we fix that problem, I dunno. They don't know either, and most consumers don't care because they feel entitled. And as much as I disagree with the publisher's feelings of entitlement, I also disagree with the consumer's feelings of entitlement.
Space exploration may be a technological feat, but it is also a wonder of human intellect. By abandoning the shuttle, that human intellect is being dumped on the streets with nothing but promises for the future. Promises to the nation, though there will be very few promised to the people who will be pursuing other careers.
Even if things did start up again: within a year, most of those people would need to refresh their training. Within a decade, you would be training most of the workforce from scratch. Within 50 years, even most of the documentation would be lost or incomprehensible.
Don't believe me, just look at Apollo.
If you're a Canuck and don't believe me, look at the Avro Arrow.
Nations loose technical capabilities because those capabilities depend upon the people behind them.
The article was quite clear that they were expecting a blackout of social media website. That means that it extends beyond Facebook and Twitter. It even includes forwarding emails and SMS. In other words, they're talking about technologies that have an immediacy and reach comparable to television and radio. It is quite different from a lot of last minute campaigning that could be done. If there are regulations regarding last minute campaigning using television and radio, it is extremely different all of the last minute campaigning that could be done.
It would constitute censorship under very limited circumstances. It would constitute censorship if new information was discovered in the final hours of the election, and it was prevented from inadvertently reaching the voter due to the blackout.
But the reality is that new information rarely pops up in those final hours. Because of that, most of the campaigning done would have more to do with manipulating the political process (e.g. presenting misinformation that the other parties cannot respond to). That sort of situation is far more dangerous to democracy than something that a few people could interpret as censorship because they see the world in black-and-white terms.
Very few people will even understand the word "turboprop", so writers end up using terms that their readers will understand.
While the majority of passengers use jets, it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of the planes in the air use that "darn near extinct" technology. You just won't see many of them at a typical international airport for reasons of economy.
(Where are they used: flights that serve smaller communities, short haul flights, transporting goods or doing exploration in remote areas, etc..)
People seem to use Skype with family and close friends.
People seem to use Facebook with acquaintances.
Their uses are mostly incompatible.
Something tells me that this is going to be a nice feature to have, but that it isn't going to beef up Skype's or Facebook's userbase (as TFA suggests).
The assumption isn't submitting to assholes, it is an acknowlegement of reality.
Personal anecdote, so treat it as you will, but one of the most important acknowlegements in my life was that of "personal" and "public" spaces. We cannot expect privacy when we say something publically, and we shoud expect priacay in our personal communications.
Unfortunately, the internet was developed as a public space. Even psudo-private discussions aren't much more private than chatting with a friend on the bus. So, if you say something in plain text (e.g. email) you should expect that someone else can overhear it. Of course, you should expect privacy if you encrypt those communications (since that is more akin to chatting to someone in your home or via mail in a sealed envelope).
Moral of the story: plain text is public, encryption ensures a limited degree of privacy. Plain text is like a post card, encryption is more like letter mail. So when you talk, choose your medium wisely.
The point is that the summary is horribly misleading because it is very selective about the information that it provides.
In that respect it is even more misleading than my post since 0.05*365.242199 is closer to 18.2621099 days. You may also wish to note that there are similar rounding errors (though I'd prefer to call them conversational conveniences) in all of the figures that I presented.
Thus my credibility is entirely destroyed and my original post should probably earn a score of "0, flame-bait" because I completely disregarded the Slashdot mantra of precision over accuracy.
If you want to keep your data and apps on your own computer, then you are free to do so. If someone else wants to keep their data and apps in the cloud, they have that option too. Or, better yet, pick and choose based upon the situation. After all, both standalone and cloud computing have their benefits and drawbacks.
... is that more than 18 days of downtime results in a complete refund, 4 to 18 days of downtime results in a 50% refund, and 8 hours to 4 days of downtime results in a 25% refund. (Calculations are assuming 1 year of service, though I don't know how Microsoft does it.)
This is not what I would call excellent, but it is several orders of magnitude better than the summary suggested.
Of course people are interested in how both sides are funded. But as soon as you jump into conspiracy theories you run the risk of losing ears.
Contrast two conspiracy theories:
Exxon funds climate change skeptic. We are talking about a very well known company that is even better known for the damage they have caused to the environment. Regulations around climate change are against their best interests. Plausible conspiracy.
Some agency that noone has even heard of funds an actvist group that noone even knows, but the agency is lead by well known enironmentalists and (get this!) it's done with tax-payer's money. Red flag 1: unrelated information makes the argument immediately suspect. Red flag 2: collusion between two groups that few people have ever heard of makes the argument look concocted. Red flag 3: dropping well known names in relation to one of those groups sounds like an attempt to create legitimacy without actually providing evidence.
So which conspiracy theory do you think that people are going to accept? Really, honestly, truely, deep down inside of you, which conspiracy theory would you accept if you weren't already committed to one? Because the sad fact of the matter is, people like simple relationships that use stuff that they already know. They don't want to get their neurons into a knot trying to understand what someone is saying, and they don't want to spend time researching something to verify it's true.
Well, it is of interest to people who are interested in supercomputers.
People who develop software for those beasts like to know how things are changing. They may not need to know the intimate details since compilers and libraries will handle most of that, but they may want to throw together a small cluster to test emerging technologies. (This is particularly true in recent years since small clusters based upon AMD/Intel CPUs and AMD/Nvidia GPUs are within reach of individuals.)
Stockholders though couldn't care less. The number of units is too small and the prestige counts for nothing unless it translates into sales in other markets.
Not really. Libraries are increasingly ditching subscriptions to print journals. They may not want to do so, but the realities of purchasing, storing, and maintaining print collections leave them with very little choice. They are also reluctant to provide access to electronic journals to outside users, either due to agreements with the publisher or cost-per-access. (They can do that because individual articles are still subject to copyright.)
So no, it's not convenience they're charging for. They're simply trying to redefine how people access their products to maximize their revenues.
You could be right. You could also be wrong. You see, the difference between your comments and this study is that a group of researchers took the time to develop and conduct a study that examined particular aspects of human behaviour. Your comments are based upon what you think is true about the world, but you didn't take the time to do the research to affirm or disprove your own theory. Of course, that doesn't mean that you're wrong. It simply means that you cannot prove that you are correct.
For home and office needs, we have been well beyond the upper limit for well over a decade.
For most business needs, we have been well beyond the upper limit for some time. But that does not consider the needs of all businesses.
For scientific, engineering, and military needs -- well, we have a bloody long way to go. Supercomputers aren't built for national prestige or any of that other nonsense, simply because they are too expensive and become obsolete too quickly. These computers are built to address current and pressing needs. As a scientist, I can point to processing the immense amounts of data that we currently create or the development of more sophisticated models of physical systems. Engineers would face similar issues. The military too, plus they have intelligence applications. So Intel will find ready customers if they are the leaders at that point of time.
I think their point is that very little wearable technology has found success in the marketplace, outside of watches (which many people treat as a fashion accessory). Everything else has pretty much been an accessory that you carry in your purse or, if you wore it, you looked like a dork.
That's not likely to change very soon either. I've seen USB flash drives formed into jewellery, but that is the exception because it is small enough to be a subtle fashion accessory without making you look like a dork. I've seen some stuff integrated into clothing, but mostly it has been by geeks who have zero sense of style.
To the people making threats:
The scientists' work has already been published. They can't revoke those publications no matter how much you threaten them. You may discourage them from publishing more work, but that doesn't take back what has already been said. On the other hand, you may also make them more zealous in defending their cause. This isn't only bad for you, but it's bad for science. Either way it's a lose-lose situation, so use your conscience and don't make threats.
The comment about your collection collecting dust should be offer a hint as to its future. If it's not a priority, it will be one of the first things to go when you need the space, are moving, etc..
That being said, I don't think that books are going to die. I do anticipate the types of book that we see in print will change dramatically. The stuff that people come back to again and again will probably remain in print. The stuff that they read once then toss in the closet will probably be the domain of the ereader.
Radio amateurs have been designing, building, and launching satellites for years. (Well, they contract out the launching.) It is called AMSAT.
And a single line display (?) would have made for a mighty exciting game of pong!
The answer is murky and it depends upon how you define a personal computer. If you're talking about computers in the home, then it was probably the Apple/Commodore/Tandy triad who deserves credit. If you are talking about a standalone desktop computer, it looks like the IBM 5100 is a runner (1975). Then, of course, there are all of the people who include hobbiest machines.