I bet that if this "multitasking" were included as part of the driving test in order to get a license, about 80% of the people would fail on that alone.
Well, actually, it is- especially if you drive a car with a standard transmission. But adding a cellphone to the mix will surely up the ante. I've seen too many people blabbing on cell phones while driving as though they were the only car on the road.
What makes you think this isn't on the agenda? Few people will buy the idea outright, but if you ease them toward it a step at a time, something like this won't seem like such a big deal when it eventually ends up a reality.
One of the biggest dangers to freedom is ignorance. Have you ever spoken to a Bush supporter who didn't know what RFID was, or what a National Security Letter was? I have.
I'm guessing (and hoping) that US programmers are more intelligent than this. Just after reading about FogCreek Software's up-and-coming documentary (12 Geeks, 12 weeks), I started to wonder about the ethical side. "Give us the best you've got, and if we like what we see, we may keep you around." In the fine print (I'm guessing), "even if we don't, we we'll keep your code and/or reuse the ideas in any manner we please." If there's any merit to this, suddenly, these kind of efforts don't sound all that attractive any more.
I wonder what it would cost to put together an open-source consortium to design the thing from the ground up. These things aren't exactly rocket science, and I bet that most of it could be done with off-the-shelf components. As for the software - I don't see that as a terrifically complicated piece, and I'm willing to bet that a few good coders could put the likes of Diebold to shame.
1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression.
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this. Without rules, there is still no fair election, because all it means is that people with money will buy political influence. It's like having special shares of stock in a corporation where your vote counts as two, but everyone else's counts as one. Give every one ONE and ONLY ONE vote, and an equal opportunity to make an informed decision, and THEN you will have a fair system. The only way people can have an equal opportunity to make an informed decision is when they don't have one particular candidate that can outspend the others.
The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations.
These are closely tied together. One will likely beget the other. Let me ask you...without the extra money, what have we lost?
I'm not sure on that - I was merely suggesting that there is a lot of faulty reasoning that in one way or another, contributes to the negative outcome of software projects.
Along with this goes the mentality that "the bigger the company, the better the results." Accenture just got shot down by the state of Colorado after $1.5 million had already been spent on a voter registration system that was obviously not going work as required. The contract was for $10 million.
I wonder which politician was in bed with them at the time...after all, Rumsfeld did the nearly the same thing with GD Searle, who at the time was trying to get Nutrasweet approved.
I don't need a moral compass. I certainly don't need someone to tell me that they're looking out for me, then restricting my choice to what they think is realistic, or appropriate, or whatever.
Dude...get a grip.
This has nothing to do with morality. It's a simple recognition of the cheap tactics used by some companies to manipulate their target audience. If you dislike being manipulated, then by all means, take it up with the game producer, or play something else. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine too, but there's no reason that anyone should pretend that this kind of manipulation doesn't exist, or that it's not happening.
It's the motivation behind it. It's unending drive to titilate (no pun intended) the target audience- to manipulate them into making a purchase based on little more than prurient interest. Yes, the game might be good anyhow, but if it's good, then why rely on such cheap sales tactics? As an example, the leaflet that comes with Lineage ][ comes very close to soft porn. Does this add any real value? No, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt sales.
You might find this particular passage of interest:
A few years ago at a party, I asked a CEO of a major label why this practice seemed so prevalent at the top executive levels of the music & film industries and the response was astounding. He said, "What you have to understand about the decisions to hire executives at that level, is that very often the boards of the company hiring them are much more comfortable with someone who's already had the position and done the job regardless of their past track record than someone they don't know regardless of their ability!"
This problem is endemic not just in the music industry, but in almost every sector. With all the fat perks, it's almost set up so that bad performance is completely inconsequential.
Interesting observation. I have to say that US execs/CEOS, by comparison, act like spoiled little children...they deny responsibility, take as much as they can get away with, constantly inflate their worth (read, delusional - what is so magic about a CEO that the salary has to keep climbing in proportion to the amount everyone else in the company is paid?), etc.
"Look Ma! I led a company into a miserable state, fired 3,000 employees because of it, and gave myself a 10% raise! Wow I must be good!"
It's nothing different than many large companies that would rather settle a claim for wrongdoing out of court (and out of the public eye), because it's actually cheaper than making the necessary changes to fix the problem. Only when someone is held accountable, do things start to change- this is one reason you see such huge damage awards for some injury cases...often times it's to penalize a company for a history of willful disregard for the well-being of others. They'll probably change their tune after losing a lawsuit or two.
Your post is testament to the fact that these kinds of patents are nasty, and can only create a huge drain on resources that would otherwise be spent on trying out new ideas. Creative tries something, their implementation sucks, and consumers don't go for it. Apple tries something similar, but gets it "right" - according to the sales numbers at least - and Creative gets all bent because Apple used "their IP".
This is exactly why patents will kill innovation. Consumers will either be tied to an IP "owner", who could easily be producing an inferior product, or pay a premium to a competitor who uses the idea (licensing it from the "owner"), but makes a far better product. In this scenario, both producers and consumers are penalized for making and buying superior products, and companies that can't quite pull it off, are rewarded. This has "half-assed backward" written all over it.
Case in point: Mr. "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" whines that the EFF won't be able to get a US judge to rule that anonymous travel on eminently hijackable aircraft is a fundamental right
I'm thinking that most people don't have a problem with "non-anonymous travel on an eminently hijackable aircraft," it's that once said aircraft lands safely, what happens to all of that information? It's the unending extension of stated objectives that start to worry people.
I was rather awestruck to find this comment in the article:
The U.S. Supreme Court said in two cases, U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo, that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they're driving on a public street.
The Supreme Court has decided that "privacy" only applies to your presence in places that are "non-public". I think this is a gross misinterpretation of the intent of the 4th Amendment. When this was written, there was no concept at all of anything related to being able to observe someone without their knowledge, and without the observer's physical, corporeal presence. As such, there were obvious limitations to just how much observation could actually happen. This is a good thing, because it meant that observation (even in "public" areas) was a costly endeavor, and something to be used wisely. They had no other choice.
Today, however, all that's required is the installation of a few electronic components that can take the place of any number of physical observers. The fact that there are no salaries to pay, no benefits, and no retirement plans to worry about, in addition to the fact that they are available 24/7, make them a very inexpensive proposition. Now, you have "public" areas that can be under constant surveillance, watching. Watching for speeders, watching for red-light runners, potentially watching for road use, potentially watching for -- pretty much anything. The number of potential infractions will only grow, because observation can be done efficiently, and there is money attached (the fines/taxes you pay associated with the various points of observation). The number of ways that you can not only be inadvertently ID'd, but also profiled is growing at what some might consider an alarming rate.
Knowing the potential for government abuse, I have a hard time believing that this is what the framers of the U.S. Consitution had in mind- that "public" area means you have no expection to be LEFT THE HELL ALONE if you are not already suspected of having committed a crime.
I'm thinking in particular of distribution to "friends", and thence to their "friends" and so on, until a new track/e-book/game/whatever has suddenly spread across the whole Internet.,
I don't believe this has ever been an aspect of "fair use". I believe that people who do it want to believe that it's fair use, but it's not, and I don't believe it ever has been. I also don't see how anyone could rationally justify this as "fair use," because there's nothing really fair about it.
Progress. As you may have noticed, what we are asking of computer programs has become insanely complex, and one way to deal with this complexity is to rely on layers of abstraction. While abstraction can make "stacking the blocks" a little easier, it does come with its own set of challenges. Perhaps one of the most salient is understanding exactly what those blocks are doing, and the requirements necessary for them to work together.
I believe there are still creations that are genuine(from the heart), and completely contrived manufactured (anything that comes out of hollywood these days). This trailer reminds be a little of Startup.com, which I thought was a reasonably good documentary. It wasn't just about the coding, or the business, it was about the people. That's what I think may very well make this effort every bit as interesting.
Interesting you mention this, because a disputed ticket was exactly the reason this whole thing came to light. The authority responsible for sending out tickets didn't drop a single charge over the entire year. Some people, however, are claiming that they have been falsely accused.
A discussion about this with a suburban police officer seemed to indicate that they believe there's no way the camera can lie- but worse, since this is the overriding persumption, proving your innocence (even when you are), can be nearly impossible.
I found a recent article about red-light cameras that had been installed at various local intersections. The article made interesting mention of the fact that some of the yellow lights were timed as low as three seconds, which unquestionably does not provide enough notice to bring the vehicle to safe stop. You have two choices: slam on the breaks and hope there is noone in back of you, or continue, which will most likely have you entering the intersection on a red light.
This provides an excellent revenue source for both the city, and insurance companies- the city can impose a fine, and the insurance company can raise your rates. In fact, one of our local interstates generated over $13,000,000 in speeding fines (from cameras). Ethics aside (there don't appear to be any in this business) do you honestly think local governments are going to think very highly of a device that will deny it such a substantial source of revenue?
Interesting example. Even so, a week lead time for an information request would have made much more difference than MONTHS of no communication at all. If they can't get the information in a week, then there are more serious problems. If these are not fixed first, they will have an adverse impact on the design of the new system, quite possibly leading to a repeat of the $170 million money-sucking black hole that preceded it. Except this time, after all cost overruns are figured in, it will probably be twice that. And just like last time, watch even the slightest hint of accountability evaporate right into the political ether.
Slashdot Mirror
Hats off to the website owner - there's a lot of work there.
I bet that if this "multitasking" were included as part of the driving test in order to get a license, about 80% of the people would fail on that alone.
Well, actually, it is- especially if you drive a car with a standard transmission. But adding a cellphone to the mix will surely up the ante. I've seen too many people blabbing on cell phones while driving as though they were the only car on the road.
What makes you think this isn't on the agenda? Few people will buy the idea outright, but if you ease them toward it a step at a time, something like this won't seem like such a big deal when it eventually ends up a reality.
One of the biggest dangers to freedom is ignorance. Have you ever spoken to a Bush supporter who didn't know what RFID was, or what a National Security Letter was? I have.
I'm guessing (and hoping) that US programmers are more intelligent than this. Just after reading about FogCreek Software's up-and-coming documentary (12 Geeks, 12 weeks), I started to wonder about the ethical side. "Give us the best you've got, and if we like what we see, we may keep you around." In the fine print (I'm guessing), "even if we don't, we we'll keep your code and/or reuse the ideas in any manner we please." If there's any merit to this, suddenly, these kind of efforts don't sound all that attractive any more.
I wonder what it would cost to put together an open-source consortium to design the thing from the ground up. These things aren't exactly rocket science, and I bet that most of it could be done with off-the-shelf components. As for the software - I don't see that as a terrifically complicated piece, and I'm willing to bet that a few good coders could put the likes of Diebold to shame.
1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression.
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this. Without rules, there is still no fair election, because all it means is that people with money will buy political influence. It's like having special shares of stock in a corporation where your vote counts as two, but everyone else's counts as one. Give every one ONE and ONLY ONE vote, and an equal opportunity to make an informed decision, and THEN you will have a fair system. The only way people can have an equal opportunity to make an informed decision is when they don't have one particular candidate that can outspend the others.
The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations.
These are closely tied together. One will likely beget the other. Let me ask you...without the extra money, what have we lost?
I'm not sure on that - I was merely suggesting that there is a lot of faulty reasoning that in one way or another, contributes to the negative outcome of software projects.
Along with this goes the mentality that "the bigger the company, the better the results." Accenture just got shot down by the state of Colorado after $1.5 million had already been spent on a voter registration system that was obviously not going work as required. The contract was for $10 million.
I wonder which politician was in bed with them at the time...after all, Rumsfeld did the nearly the same thing with GD Searle, who at the time was trying to get Nutrasweet approved.
It's those individuals who make stupid decisions. When businesses suffer, everyone loses, except the ones who probably deserve to lose the most.
I don't need a moral compass. I certainly don't need someone to tell me that they're looking out for me, then restricting my choice to what they think is realistic, or appropriate, or whatever.
Dude...get a grip.
This has nothing to do with morality. It's a simple recognition of the cheap tactics used by some companies to manipulate their target audience. If you dislike being manipulated, then by all means, take it up with the game producer, or play something else. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine too, but there's no reason that anyone should pretend that this kind of manipulation doesn't exist, or that it's not happening.
It's the motivation behind it. It's unending drive to titilate (no pun intended) the target audience- to manipulate them into making a purchase based on little more than prurient interest. Yes, the game might be good anyhow, but if it's good, then why rely on such cheap sales tactics? As an example, the leaflet that comes with Lineage ][ comes very close to soft porn. Does this add any real value? No, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt sales.
No, today when a U.S. exec screws up bigtime, he gets a fat bonus and maybe a nice golden parachute.
f ile=article&sid=3906
Here's an article that focuses on these very kinds of problems in the music industry: http://www.indie-music.com/modules.php?name=News&
You might find this particular passage of interest:
A few years ago at a party, I asked a CEO of a major label why this practice seemed so prevalent at the top executive levels of the music & film industries and the response was astounding. He said, "What you have to understand about the decisions to hire executives at that level, is that very often the boards of the company hiring them are much more comfortable with someone who's already had the position and done the job regardless of their past track record than someone they don't know regardless of their ability!"
This problem is endemic not just in the music industry, but in almost every sector. With all the fat perks, it's almost set up so that bad performance is completely inconsequential.
Interesting observation. I have to say that US execs/CEOS, by comparison, act like spoiled little children...they deny responsibility, take as much as they can get away with, constantly inflate their worth (read, delusional - what is so magic about a CEO that the salary has to keep climbing in proportion to the amount everyone else in the company is paid?), etc.
"Look Ma! I led a company into a miserable state, fired 3,000 employees because of it, and gave myself a 10% raise! Wow I must be good!"
It's nothing different than many large companies that would rather settle a claim for wrongdoing out of court (and out of the public eye), because it's actually cheaper than making the necessary changes to fix the problem. Only when someone is held accountable, do things start to change- this is one reason you see such huge damage awards for some injury cases...often times it's to penalize a company for a history of willful disregard for the well-being of others. They'll probably change their tune after losing a lawsuit or two.
Your post is testament to the fact that these kinds of patents are nasty, and can only create a huge drain on resources that would otherwise be spent on trying out new ideas. Creative tries something, their implementation sucks, and consumers don't go for it. Apple tries something similar, but gets it "right" - according to the sales numbers at least - and Creative gets all bent because Apple used "their IP".
This is exactly why patents will kill innovation. Consumers will either be tied to an IP "owner", who could easily be producing an inferior product, or pay a premium to a competitor who uses the idea (licensing it from the "owner"), but makes a far better product. In this scenario, both producers and consumers are penalized for making and buying superior products, and companies that can't quite pull it off, are rewarded. This has "half-assed backward" written all over it.
Make Microsoft ship Windows with an option to install Linux.
Case in point: Mr. "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" whines that the EFF won't be able to get a US judge to rule that anonymous travel on eminently hijackable aircraft is a fundamental right
I'm thinking that most people don't have a problem with "non-anonymous travel on an eminently hijackable aircraft," it's that once said aircraft lands safely, what happens to all of that information? It's the unending extension of stated objectives that start to worry people.
I was rather awestruck to find this comment in the article:
The U.S. Supreme Court said in two cases, U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo, that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they're driving on a public street.
The Supreme Court has decided that "privacy" only applies to your presence in places that are "non-public". I think this is a gross misinterpretation of the intent of the 4th Amendment. When this was written, there was no concept at all of anything related to being able to observe someone without their knowledge, and without the observer's physical, corporeal presence. As such, there were obvious limitations to just how much observation could actually happen. This is a good thing, because it meant that observation (even in "public" areas) was a costly endeavor, and something to be used wisely. They had no other choice.
Today, however, all that's required is the installation of a few electronic components that can take the place of any number of physical observers. The fact that there are no salaries to pay, no benefits, and no retirement plans to worry about, in addition to the fact that they are available 24/7, make them a very inexpensive proposition. Now, you have "public" areas that can be under constant surveillance, watching. Watching for speeders, watching for red-light runners, potentially watching for road use, potentially watching for -- pretty much anything. The number of potential infractions will only grow, because observation can be done efficiently, and there is money attached (the fines/taxes you pay associated with the various points of observation). The number of ways that you can not only be inadvertently ID'd, but also profiled is growing at what some might consider an alarming rate.
Knowing the potential for government abuse, I have a hard time believing that this is what the framers of the U.S. Consitution had in mind- that "public" area means you have no expection to be LEFT THE HELL ALONE if you are not already suspected of having committed a crime.
I'm thinking in particular of distribution to "friends", and thence to their "friends" and so on, until a new track/e-book/game/whatever has suddenly spread across the whole Internet.,
I don't believe this has ever been an aspect of "fair use". I believe that people who do it want to believe that it's fair use, but it's not, and I don't believe it ever has been. I also don't see how anyone could rationally justify this as "fair use," because there's nothing really fair about it.
Progress. As you may have noticed, what we are asking of computer programs has become insanely complex, and one way to deal with this complexity is to rely on layers of abstraction. While abstraction can make "stacking the blocks" a little easier, it does come with its own set of challenges. Perhaps one of the most salient is understanding exactly what those blocks are doing, and the requirements necessary for them to work together.
I believe there are still creations that are genuine(from the heart), and completely contrived manufactured (anything that comes out of hollywood these days). This trailer reminds be a little of Startup.com, which I thought was a reasonably good documentary. It wasn't just about the coding, or the business, it was about the people. That's what I think may very well make this effort every bit as interesting.
Interesting you mention this, because a disputed ticket was exactly the reason this whole thing came to light. The authority responsible for sending out tickets didn't drop a single charge over the entire year. Some people, however, are claiming that they have been falsely accused.
A discussion about this with a suburban police officer seemed to indicate that they believe there's no way the camera can lie- but worse, since this is the overriding persumption, proving your innocence (even when you are), can be nearly impossible.
I don't think these will last very long.
I found a recent article about red-light cameras that had been installed at various local intersections. The article made interesting mention of the fact that some of the yellow lights were timed as low as three seconds, which unquestionably does not provide enough notice to bring the vehicle to safe stop. You have two choices: slam on the breaks and hope there is noone in back of you, or continue, which will most likely have you entering the intersection on a red light.
This provides an excellent revenue source for both the city, and insurance companies- the city can impose a fine, and the insurance company can raise your rates. In fact, one of our local interstates generated over $13,000,000 in speeding fines (from cameras). Ethics aside (there don't appear to be any in this business) do you honestly think local governments are going to think very highly of a device that will deny it such a substantial source of revenue?
Interesting example. Even so, a week lead time for an information request would have made much more difference than MONTHS of no communication at all. If they can't get the information in a week, then there are more serious problems. If these are not fixed first, they will have an adverse impact on the design of the new system, quite possibly leading to a repeat of the $170 million money-sucking black hole that preceded it. Except this time, after all cost overruns are figured in, it will probably be twice that. And just like last time, watch even the slightest hint of accountability evaporate right into the political ether.