I hate the subsidies as much as the next person, but it seems like super-anything is a disaster in the making. We're still seeing the rather prolific effects associated with the failure of a "superbank" or two. These superfarms can often wield disproportionate amounts of influence in the political arena, and this can be very dangerous when pitting what's best for consumers, vs what's best for MegaAg's bottom line (which basically translates into the salary and benefits received by a few people at the top).
The domain is really secondary to content, because when people search, the search looks at pretty much everything other than the domain name. Silly (criminally rich) bankers.
It's all part of the scumbag chain of finance. The people on Wall St. who take home obscene salaries and bonuses for completely F*CKING UP our economy need to spend their money on something, so why not this junk? It's about as superficial as their understanding of integrity and humility, which makes it a perfect match.
I agree- There is a lot of room for improvement. For example, in the Android realm, when you download a new app, it tells you which permissions it wants - if you click the OK button, you've granted all those permissions. This is backward. It ought to be that you tell an app which of the requested permissions you'll allow. Second, there is no firewall on Android devices, unless you decide to root your tablet or phone. This should be standard. Finally, it's missing some other key tools that make for a more secure environment - for one, more control over things like Javascript.
Absolutely - the cesspool of conflicting interests that exists today is nothing less than the mark of corruption. These positions have become little more than a conduit for self-indulgence that whittles away at the foundation of our government.
Absolutely true - and in the presence of what we now call the "media," which is a far cry from the journalistic focus that once was, 'leaks is a viable alternative source of information.
It doesn't matter if it's their data. There is an implicit trust between the company and the customer, and selling this information to anyone who will pay is a violation of that trust. It pretty much sucks to know that nearly everything you do with a credit card these days is tantamount to making it a public record - all for a little extra revenue. That said, people need to realize that the interest being charged is only the first way you get raped by credit companies. The second is the nickel and dime service charges that occur, and the third is wholesale pimping of everything you've done.
I agree with all your points. However, being off the radar, they (the people engaging in illegal stalking/spying) may not even know that you exist, so to speak. If you really want to give them something to stew about, you can engage in "trackable" things only occasionally. Then they'll get their panties in a wad about what else you might be doing that they don't know about. This method tends to be a little more satisfying for those being illegally surveilled.
There has been considerable talk about using private services to house prisoners. Private prisons run about half the cost of government-run prisons. However, in order to be profitable, they need prisoners. Consider what kind of lobbying might take place to not only make laws more strict, but to allow more ways to catch people breaking the law. If this sounds far-fetched, it has already happened with immigration.
Apple has had quality problems all the way back to the original Macintosh. Ask yourself why Apple doesn't offer AppleCare for the iPod Touch? Why are there businesses that make decent revenue off of repairing things like crappy headphone jacks?
...they can't FORCE anyone to buy stuff. When the RIAA and MPAA become extensions of the government, then I'll worry. Until that time, they can be quietly and effectively be compelled to adopt a sane approach to the current market, or simply cease to exist. A policy of don't buy don't steal doesn't require any laws, and there is absolutely no legal recourse.
There is one form of backlash that is completely legal, and is beyond the reach of any copyright law, no matter how draconian. It's called, "Don't buy, don't steal." Consumers could quite literally bring these companies to their knees - legally. The only thing these little skirmishes are going to accomplish is justification for more laws, and even more excuses for government to continue expanding its encroachment into our daily lives.
I can't believe Google releases some of the stuff it does, in the condition it's in. Who EVER thought that presenting a screen with a search field, and then jarringly changing the ENTIRE LAYOUT as soon as a user types the first letter, was a good idea? The concept is interesting and may have value, but the execution is horrible.
I know of an HOA that installed security cameras- apparently the objective was not to have them monitored by a security company, but to hand out the cameras' IP so that homeowner who knew about it could do their own security. I guess it never dawned on anyone that the cameras could be used just as easily to *commit* a crime, rather than prevent it.
The result is the're both still in big trouble, with Motorola resuscitated by Google's Android as compared to cash rich Apple, who clearly have a strategy that brings in more money and focuses on innovation much more...
As for Apple - innovation, somewhat, marketing definitely, but there is far too often a design or quality problem of some kind or another.
It's an issue I take to heart in the legal profession, when I see baseless accusations of fraud (or inequitable conduct in patent law, fortunately not first-hand) made without consideration of the damage it does.
I think a case could be made that the reason software patents are now an (unfortunately) accepted norm is due to one single liberal interpretation of a single case, followed by one opportunistic attorney who decided that the outcome of this case opened the door wide open for all software-related patents. Not only was there no effort to correct this by the government, it is my opinion that the effort to do so, at least in part, has been affected by the fact that the revenue being generated by the large swell in patent application fees is quite significant.
And now we have a mess- for everyone- the patent office, the software industry, and consumers. The patent office could easily fix this returning to the former rules - no software patents. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate the subsidies as much as the next person, but it seems like super-anything is a disaster in the making. We're still seeing the rather prolific effects associated with the failure of a "superbank" or two. These superfarms can often wield disproportionate amounts of influence in the political arena, and this can be very dangerous when pitting what's best for consumers, vs what's best for MegaAg's bottom line (which basically translates into the salary and benefits received by a few people at the top).
Apple are concerned that the product may be used to mock Jobs in public
A legitimate concern. It's not like he doesn't give people enough to work with..."...you're just holding it wrong..."
The domain is really secondary to content, because when people search, the search looks at pretty much everything other than the domain name. Silly (criminally rich) bankers.
It's all part of the scumbag chain of finance. The people on Wall St. who take home obscene salaries and bonuses for completely F*CKING UP our economy need to spend their money on something, so why not this junk? It's about as superficial as their understanding of integrity and humility, which makes it a perfect match.
I agree- There is a lot of room for improvement. For example, in the Android realm, when you download a new app, it tells you which permissions it wants - if you click the OK button, you've granted all those permissions. This is backward. It ought to be that you tell an app which of the requested permissions you'll allow. Second, there is no firewall on Android devices, unless you decide to root your tablet or phone. This should be standard. Finally, it's missing some other key tools that make for a more secure environment - for one, more control over things like Javascript.
Absolutely - the cesspool of conflicting interests that exists today is nothing less than the mark of corruption. These positions have become little more than a conduit for self-indulgence that whittles away at the foundation of our government.
I'd so mod this up if I had points.
Absolutely true - and in the presence of what we now call the "media," which is a far cry from the journalistic focus that once was, 'leaks is a viable alternative source of information.
It doesn't matter if it's their data. There is an implicit trust between the company and the customer, and selling this information to anyone who will pay is a violation of that trust. It pretty much sucks to know that nearly everything you do with a credit card these days is tantamount to making it a public record - all for a little extra revenue. That said, people need to realize that the interest being charged is only the first way you get raped by credit companies. The second is the nickel and dime service charges that occur, and the third is wholesale pimping of everything you've done.
I agree with all your points. However, being off the radar, they (the people engaging in illegal stalking/spying) may not even know that you exist, so to speak. If you really want to give them something to stew about, you can engage in "trackable" things only occasionally. Then they'll get their panties in a wad about what else you might be doing that they don't know about. This method tends to be a little more satisfying for those being illegally surveilled.
Most of these are marketing innovations, not hardware innovations.
There has been considerable talk about using private services to house prisoners. Private prisons run about half the cost of government-run prisons. However, in order to be profitable, they need prisoners. Consider what kind of lobbying might take place to not only make laws more strict, but to allow more ways to catch people breaking the law. If this sounds far-fetched, it has already happened with immigration.
This kind of story makes me laugh when I see/hear anecdotes that have management talking about metrics like LoC.
why did Officer Bubbles have to stick his nose in it?
It wasn't his nose, it was his wiener. Tell me his behavior didn't have testosterone written all over it.
Ask yourself why Apple doesn't offer AppleCare for the iPod Touch?
I meant to say the iPod Touch 3G.
Apple has had quality problems all the way back to the original Macintosh. Ask yourself why Apple doesn't offer AppleCare for the iPod Touch? Why are there businesses that make decent revenue off of repairing things like crappy headphone jacks?
...art with entertainment. Art is about passion, entertainment is about money.
...they can't FORCE anyone to buy stuff. When the RIAA and MPAA become extensions of the government, then I'll worry. Until that time, they can be quietly and effectively be compelled to adopt a sane approach to the current market, or simply cease to exist. A policy of don't buy don't steal doesn't require any laws, and there is absolutely no legal recourse.
There is one form of backlash that is completely legal, and is beyond the reach of any copyright law, no matter how draconian. It's called, "Don't buy, don't steal." Consumers could quite literally bring these companies to their knees - legally. The only thing these little skirmishes are going to accomplish is justification for more laws, and even more excuses for government to continue expanding its encroachment into our daily lives.
Good point - I'm trying to think of the possible mispronunciations...
liber ...
libra
library
libber
libby
larabee
le bree
libberee
I think it's because Aiplex is located in Bangalore.
I can't believe Google releases some of the stuff it does, in the condition it's in. Who EVER thought that presenting a screen with a search field, and then jarringly changing the ENTIRE LAYOUT as soon as a user types the first letter, was a good idea? The concept is interesting and may have value, but the execution is horrible.
I know of an HOA that installed security cameras- apparently the objective was not to have them monitored by a security company, but to hand out the cameras' IP so that homeowner who knew about it could do their own security. I guess it never dawned on anyone that the cameras could be used just as easily to *commit* a crime, rather than prevent it.
The result is the're both still in big trouble, with Motorola resuscitated by Google's Android as compared to cash rich Apple, who clearly have a strategy that brings in more money and focuses on innovation much more...
As for Apple - innovation, somewhat, marketing definitely, but there is far too often a design or quality problem of some kind or another.
It's an issue I take to heart in the legal profession, when I see baseless accusations of fraud (or inequitable conduct in patent law, fortunately not first-hand) made without consideration of the damage it does.
I think a case could be made that the reason software patents are now an (unfortunately) accepted norm is due to one single liberal interpretation of a single case, followed by one opportunistic attorney who decided that the outcome of this case opened the door wide open for all software-related patents. Not only was there no effort to correct this by the government, it is my opinion that the effort to do so, at least in part, has been affected by the fact that the revenue being generated by the large swell in patent application fees is quite significant.
And now we have a mess- for everyone- the patent office, the software industry, and consumers. The patent office could easily fix this returning to the former rules - no software patents. Period.