Amber MacArthur did a nice interview with the creator of Pandora. The creator explains his motivation, and the strengths behind his methodology. It may not be the "ideal" solution, but I personally don't think there is such a thing. The two most salient elements of the Pandora service include: a) Since it was created by someone who was a member of one of those "new" bands pining for recognition, he understands the importance of what he's doing. b)Just as you might suspect, once these kinds of services start becoming popular, you've got the RIAA offering cash in exchange for bias (the same kind of garbage now regularly undertaken by radio stations). He has stated that he wants no part of this...his mission is to allow people to discover new music, not to "present" them whatever happens to be in a queue of someone else's making.
It seems to me that whatever shortfalls Pandora might have, it comes much closer to fulfilling its stated objective - that of allowing users to discover new music - than services relying on others recommendations, since "recommendations" can be tainted in any number of ways.
But surely this is good as it'll result in a better, more secure product in the end?
Not necessarily. First you have the security flaw, then you have the endless meetings between various groups as they decide who gets to fix it, what else might be affected, etc. After that you have the specification drawn up to determine what resources will be required, and finally, someone decides if fixing it will result in a reasonable ROI. In this case, the "ROI" translates to "people at risk". This is the downside to proprietary software- everything is based on cost/benefit.
And is it really any surprise that a congressman was outed as a liar? Isn't that the one thing that politicians do best?
Just the same, I am satisfied not only that this issue came to light, but that, at least with Wikipedia, there is a record of it. That strange sensation Vogel is dealing with- I know it's very rare in political circles, but I think it's referred to everywhere else as accountability.
What's so awesome about wikipedia is that even after editing, the original information is still available. That being the case, part of one's research (especially when dealing with people of the political persuasion), should include past versions. At least this way, those seeking information can get the whole story, regardless of any sanitizing efforts by those in office.
You have just pointed out what I believe is one of the THE major issues with information. Once someone has it, there is no telling, or even controlling, who else may acquire it, or otherwise gain access to it.
Since they can't have what doesn't exist, the best protection is to avoid producing it in the first place. Affording oneself greater protection isn't difficult, but it *is* a matter of shedding some of the conveniences to which people have grown so accustomed. "Dangerously easy", or "inconveniently safer" - take your pick.
And just think....all of the open source projects currently being developed, and not one of them deals with voting. That would be an awesome way to put this issue to rest. Diebold wouldn't have to worry about their proprietary crap, because (hopefully) nobody would be using it.
Many companies have started doing similar things, as linking rewards to success is far more profitable for everyone.
First, they shouldn't be rewarding "effort" so much as "results". Effort doesn't cut it- ability does. Second, there has been a growing trend such that executives are compensated in such a way as that, from their perspective, makes it less consequential one way or the other if the company doesn't do well under their leadership. If they get canned, they often still walk out the door with a fat chunk of change- more than most people will make in their entire lives. If they stay on, they get paid their rediculously high salaries along with whatever perks they've managed to include. For the CEO, it's a no-lose proposition, while the company, shareholders, and employees stand to lose a great deal.
I believe there is such a disconnect between CEO compensation, the rest of the company, and company performance in general, we're quite aways off from the true, results-based compensation that gets so much lip service these days.
It seems to me that *AA is taking more liberties with its current position in the market. There is a very dangerous assumpion, here however, which is that people will continue to view their offerings in the same light that they do now. Instead of every hardware manufacturer asking "How high?" every times *AA says "Jump!" they could easily do an about-face and say, "This is our hardware, if you'd like to make your content available in a compatible format, feel free. If not, that's fine too. Thanks for playing, have a nice day." There would be a small period of "market adjustment", but overall, I think things might sort themselves out pretty quick.
All of the job postings that require four-year degrees, and this is what employers are getting for it. Nobody said doing what's best is easy, and in this case, it certainly isn't.
I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights.
He never will, either. He thinks he has the authority to do what he did. He somehow believes that Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (which is worrisome enough by itself) somehow equates to Commander in Chief of the United States, and therefore, puts him above the law. Nixon and others have suffered from similar delusional thinking.
Apple, on the other hand, is notorious for being overly optimistic in their speed comparisons
This is actually what steered me away from being a Mac zealot. I'm sure there were others to step in and take my place, but there was just something about seeing these products hyped to the max, only to find that the real deal was noticeably less impressive. It left a bad taste in my mouth that I still haven't quite gotten rid of (and it has been several years now). Meanwhile, I'm quite happy with what the OS community has managed, and the fact that I can get a reasonably fast PC to run it, for a very reasonable price.
A reporter uncovers some corruption, with ties to the government, and all people can do is whine that one party got more attention than the other. As long as the information in her reporting was factual and pertinent, people should be thankful that the press is doing its job. The people who are complaining come across like a bunch of five-year-olds.
If you happen to be a Republican whose ass is all chapped because more attention wasn't paid to democrats, consider hiring your own damn reporter.
Ultimately, you get what you pay for is a fundamental law of life.
It may be, but it carries a risk of its own. Companies can (and do) pay large sums of money for certain services and still get screwed. Money in and of itself isn't answer...money helps, but competence is what gets the job done.
I'm not sure I even care if it is a back door, so much as I care if it can be used as a back door. If the answer to the second circumstance is "yes," then it would seem that what we're seeing in this debate is little more than semanting quibbling.
If my users can switch to a similar project in the future with a less strict license than mine, then I'll loose them.
I'm not sure most user will care- they'll treat your software just like they treat other copyright/licensing issues. The real threat might be to other programmers (maybe your project a library of some kind), but as for users...they'll go with whatever allows them to get what they want, licenses or copyrights notwithstanding.
I think this is a very valid point...the "model" being used here (by Google) can't be that much different than any other company that has managed to position itself at the headwater in a particular industry. We have power companies, telcos, cable companies, and corporate giants that own large numbers of subsidiaries. They are all in a position to artificially inflate value by dictating the terms under which that value will be administered. If the only practical access you have to a certain resources is through another entity (via the money that is paid for that access), this would seem to invite all kinds of issues that start to detract from the overall viability.
This is how they sell a new monetary cashless system.
Funny you should mention this - I stopped into gas station not to long ago and they would not accept my cash. I've posted about this before, but this experience just sent shivers up my spine. I will not buy from anyone if they do no accept cash. It is the last bastion of any sense of dignity that we have left. It is the one kind of transaction that cannot be stored, profiled, abused, and otherwise attached to your identity for all eternity.
All joking aside, this is one appliance that might benefit from that kind of control - however, I find the variation that I get (sometimes light, sometimes dark) far more interesting than if I'd get the same, exact, cookie-cutter result every single time. Perfection is boring.
Maybe Steve has had a few missteps, but I believe his intentions are honorable. When you sit down and calculate how much money that various worms and viruses have cost people, I'd rather see someone a little too careful, than a mass of idiots without a clue.
Another point: Hindsight is always 20/20. We only know that raw sockets didn't affect anything because they haven't affected anything. At the time, we had no way of knowing whether or not they would actually be a threat (unless someone has a crystal ball they aren't telling us about).
It probably wasn't a business decision. It was probably a This is what I'm comfortable with decision. Sometimes comfort can be very expensive, if not downright unproductive.
Back when computers were first put into use, their primary function was highly math-intensive - in fact, that's about all they did. I'd argue that much of what computers do today have little to do with math- much of the effort is focused on "e"-izing procedures that were formerly manual, or that require restructuring to accommodate a changing bsuiness climate. To be sure, there are still specialized pockets that rely on heavy math (like weather forecasting, statistical analysis, graphics, etc), but a degree in math certianly isn't a requirement in order to write a halfway decent business-related web app.
Slashdot Mirror
Amber MacArthur did a nice interview with the creator of Pandora. The creator explains his motivation, and the strengths behind his methodology. It may not be the "ideal" solution, but I personally don't think there is such a thing. The two most salient elements of the Pandora service include:
a) Since it was created by someone who was a member of one of those "new" bands pining for recognition, he understands the importance of what he's doing.
b)Just as you might suspect, once these kinds of services start becoming popular, you've got the RIAA offering cash in exchange for bias (the same kind of garbage now regularly undertaken by radio stations). He has stated that he wants no part of this...his mission is to allow people to discover new music, not to "present" them whatever happens to be in a queue of someone else's making.
It seems to me that whatever shortfalls Pandora might have, it comes much closer to fulfilling its stated objective - that of allowing users to discover new music - than services relying on others recommendations, since "recommendations" can be tainted in any number of ways.
But surely this is good as it'll result in a better, more secure product in the end?
Not necessarily. First you have the security flaw, then you have the endless meetings between various groups as they decide who gets to fix it, what else might be affected, etc. After that you have the specification drawn up to determine what resources will be required, and finally, someone decides if fixing it will result in a reasonable ROI. In this case, the "ROI" translates to "people at risk". This is the downside to proprietary software- everything is based on cost/benefit.
And is it really any surprise that a congressman was outed as a liar? Isn't that the one thing that politicians do best?
Just the same, I am satisfied not only that this issue came to light, but that, at least with Wikipedia, there is a record of it. That strange sensation Vogel is dealing with- I know it's very rare in political circles, but I think it's referred to everywhere else as accountability.
What's so awesome about wikipedia is that even after editing, the original information is still available. That being the case, part of one's research (especially when dealing with people of the political persuasion), should include past versions. At least this way, those seeking information can get the whole story, regardless of any sanitizing efforts by those in office.
First, the good...
The intent is to address the growing problem of youth obesity.
Now, the bad...
The games, which will run on Microsoft Xboxes...
Nothing like shoving more taxpayer money into Microsoft's coffers.
You have just pointed out what I believe is one of the THE major issues with information. Once someone has it, there is no telling, or even controlling, who else may acquire it, or otherwise gain access to it.
Since they can't have what doesn't exist, the best protection is to avoid producing it in the first place. Affording oneself greater protection isn't difficult, but it *is* a matter of shedding some of the conveniences to which people have grown so accustomed. "Dangerously easy", or "inconveniently safer" - take your pick.
So is this any surprise?
And just think....all of the open source projects currently being developed, and not one of them deals with voting. That would be an awesome way to put this issue to rest. Diebold wouldn't have to worry about their proprietary crap, because (hopefully) nobody would be using it.
Many companies have started doing similar things, as linking rewards to success is far more profitable for everyone.
First, they shouldn't be rewarding "effort" so much as "results". Effort doesn't cut it- ability does. Second, there has been a growing trend such that executives are compensated in such a way as that, from their perspective, makes it less consequential one way or the other if the company doesn't do well under their leadership. If they get canned, they often still walk out the door with a fat chunk of change- more than most people will make in their entire lives. If they stay on, they get paid their rediculously high salaries along with whatever perks they've managed to include. For the CEO, it's a no-lose proposition, while the company, shareholders, and employees stand to lose a great deal.
I believe there is such a disconnect between CEO compensation, the rest of the company, and company performance in general, we're quite aways off from the true, results-based compensation that gets so much lip service these days.
Firefox: File->Close Tab
It seems to me that *AA is taking more liberties with its current position in the market. There is a very dangerous assumpion, here however, which is that people will continue to view their offerings in the same light that they do now. Instead of every hardware manufacturer asking "How high?" every times *AA says "Jump!" they could easily do an about-face and say, "This is our hardware, if you'd like to make your content available in a compatible format, feel free. If not, that's fine too. Thanks for playing, have a nice day." There would be a small period of "market adjustment", but overall, I think things might sort themselves out pretty quick.
All of the job postings that require four-year degrees, and this is what employers are getting for it. Nobody said doing what's best is easy, and in this case, it certainly isn't.
I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights.
He never will, either. He thinks he has the authority to do what he did. He somehow believes that Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (which is worrisome enough by itself) somehow equates to Commander in Chief of the United States, and therefore, puts him above the law. Nixon and others have suffered from similar delusional thinking.
Apple, on the other hand, is notorious for being overly optimistic in their speed comparisons
This is actually what steered me away from being a Mac zealot. I'm sure there were others to step in and take my place, but there was just something about seeing these products hyped to the max, only to find that the real deal was noticeably less impressive. It left a bad taste in my mouth that I still haven't quite gotten rid of (and it has been several years now). Meanwhile, I'm quite happy with what the OS community has managed, and the fact that I can get a reasonably fast PC to run it, for a very reasonable price.
A reporter uncovers some corruption, with ties to the government, and all people can do is whine that one party got more attention than the other. As long as the information in her reporting was factual and pertinent, people should be thankful that the press is doing its job. The people who are complaining come across like a bunch of five-year-olds.
If you happen to be a Republican whose ass is all chapped because more attention wasn't paid to democrats, consider hiring your own damn reporter.
Ultimately, you get what you pay for is a fundamental law of life.
It may be, but it carries a risk of its own. Companies can (and do) pay large sums of money for certain services and still get screwed. Money in and of itself isn't answer...money helps, but competence is what gets the job done.
I'm not sure I even care if it is a back door, so much as I care if it can be used as a back door. If the answer to the second circumstance is "yes," then it would seem that what we're seeing in this debate is little more than semanting quibbling.
If my users can switch to a similar project in the future with a less strict license than mine, then I'll loose them.
I'm not sure most user will care- they'll treat your software just like they treat other copyright/licensing issues. The real threat might be to other programmers (maybe your project a library of some kind), but as for users...they'll go with whatever allows them to get what they want, licenses or copyrights notwithstanding.
Yes it does.
I think this is a very valid point...the "model" being used here (by Google) can't be that much different than any other company that has managed to position itself at the headwater in a particular industry. We have power companies, telcos, cable companies, and corporate giants that own large numbers of subsidiaries. They are all in a position to artificially inflate value by dictating the terms under which that value will be administered. If the only practical access you have to a certain resources is through another entity (via the money that is paid for that access), this would seem to invite all kinds of issues that start to detract from the overall viability.
This is how they sell a new monetary cashless system.
Funny you should mention this - I stopped into gas station not to long ago and they would not accept my cash. I've posted about this before, but this experience just sent shivers up my spine. I will not buy from anyone if they do no accept cash. It is the last bastion of any sense of dignity that we have left. It is the one kind of transaction that cannot be stored, profiled, abused, and otherwise attached to your identity for all eternity.
Wrappers don't work in the toaster either.
All joking aside, this is one appliance that might benefit from that kind of control - however, I find the variation that I get (sometimes light, sometimes dark) far more interesting than if I'd get the same, exact, cookie-cutter result every single time. Perfection is boring.
Maybe Steve has had a few missteps, but I believe his intentions are honorable. When you sit down and calculate how much money that various worms and viruses have cost people, I'd rather see someone a little too careful, than a mass of idiots without a clue.
Another point: Hindsight is always 20/20. We only know that raw sockets didn't affect anything because they haven't affected anything. At the time, we had no way of knowing whether or not they would actually be a threat (unless someone has a crystal ball they aren't telling us about).
Interesting business decisions...
It probably wasn't a business decision. It was probably a This is what I'm comfortable with decision. Sometimes comfort can be very expensive, if not downright unproductive.
Back when computers were first put into use, their primary function was highly math-intensive - in fact, that's about all they did. I'd argue that much of what computers do today have little to do with math- much of the effort is focused on "e"-izing procedures that were formerly manual, or that require restructuring to accommodate a changing bsuiness climate. To be sure, there are still specialized pockets that rely on heavy math (like weather forecasting, statistical analysis, graphics, etc), but a degree in math certianly isn't a requirement in order to write a halfway decent business-related web app.