Then I should get a part of that since they're selling *my* eyeballs.
It's double dipping plain and simple. Here in Australia, when cable TV first came out, there were actually next to no advertisements on it. I mean like really, nothing. Over time, they started to slip in some minor advertising between shows. Then one day, they stuck in a few ads in the middle of tv shows. Then some more. The way it currently is, short of a few exceptions such as the movie only channels, where there is advertising between movies, just about every channel has a large amount of advertising for utterly everything in it.
Pay TV was supposed to work with a "consumer pays for lack of advertising" structure - hence the name, Pay TV. However, as networks got greedier and greedier, they turned it into "consumer pays for additional channels of advertising funded TV".
Frankly, it just seems once you get big enough, you don't have to play nice or by any rules anymore.
I think this technology for copyright enforcement should be placed into prosthetics that sits inside the eyeballs of everyone who wants permission to view video. These prosthetic devices could similarly verify the authenticity of videos frame by frame, check for an approved license, and send out signals to law enforcement if pirated video is detected. Approved prosthetics should be compulsory to obtaining permission to view all videos.
Wow. I think you could have an amazing future with the RIAA as well as many studio thinktanks if you wanted it. In the meantime, please stop posting such information - they already have all the insane ideas they need to continue making consumerism more difficult and annoying for the average user.
RTFA.....they are testing a collision detection system to see if potential injuries can be prevented
Blimey, you MUST be new here. I can see you have a high number, so just a quick FYI. People on/. don't actually read articles. They read the summary and run with that if you are lucky. Telling people here to RTFA is like telling...
Braille? Text to speech? Any one of the other multitude of ways that visually impaired people deal with daily to get through life meant for people with vision?
"I see! I see!!" said the blind man, but everyone knew he was full of shit.
Until now when he CAN actually say it and follow it up with high fives to everyone.
Every time I get cranky about all the dumb shit that we do in this day and age, I also think about all the cool and fantastic things we can do. It's a funny balance.
Your surprise (and assumption the rest of us are surprised) is a result of cultural conditioning. Open source developers are (in popular culture where I live) unshaven, smelly, poor, obese, socially awkward, annoying, nerdy, pimple ridden, inferior beasts dungeoned in their mother's basements because they are incapable of anything else.
While I hate to bag my fellow developers, sadly, the ones who really champion open source do tend to display more of those traits than my other developer friends. Actually, a good mate of mine, who does a bunch of work with.Net and for the most part loves MS has got to be one of the best dressed folks I know. Also, he is fit as a fiddle, goes surfing almost daily and has a lovely wife.
I hate stereotypes, but really, the one you describe is somehow apt for my exposure to this world:)
I wonder who our anon poet is, have being seeing a lot of this stuff on here of late. Sure, it's offtopic, but it's sort of cool actually. To me, it's sort of like bumping into a stranger at a coffee shop, who says something really amazing, or insightful, but then walks away quickly and you never get to speak to them again.
As funny as it is, I would love to know why this person picked this, of all places to post to over something like deviantart or one of the countless others, whether they come back to check if anyone has replied to their posts.
Lastly, cheer up, your stuff has been rather sad of late.
If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.
You can't go to some third world pesthole, print up a bunch of books and then import them into the US.
Read the backstory properly. You are way off the mark here. What this is about is basically this (Using roughly your example):
CompanyA prints books. They do so in the US and also in thirdWorldPesthole.
CompanyB sells books in the US bought from CompanyA.
CompanyB finds CompanyC that buys the books from CompanyA that are printed in thirdWorldPesthole, and CompanyB buys these books from CompanyC and also sells them in the US.
Becuase CompanyA sells the books much cheaper in thirdWorldPesthole, CompanyA now takes CompanyB to court because it says it controls the product US, no matter where it came from - even a legal sale such as this. This is where CompanyB (the seller) argues this with first sale doctrine. It bought the books legally. It has the legal right to do what it wants with them - such as selling them cheaper than the US printed books sell for.
Thanks for flying Fluffeh airways, always happy to take you back on course with the thread.
To compete with a market leader, you can expect to lose some money to start with. How much you need to factor in to "lose" at the start will be defined by three things:
1) Your flat operating costs - in this case, how much bandwidth you need to crawl the web to index things. The cost of employing staff to maintain, write and keep your search engine alive.
2) Your variable operating costs - in this case, how much extra bandwidth you need to supply your results to users, how many servers you need to keep that sort of thing.
3) Your marketing investment - which is also a variable and how much you spend will depend on how quickly you want to catch the market leader with your own product. How much do you need to advertise and market your product for people to say, "Well, I might try to bing this search rather than google it." The more users you want quickly, the larger the campaign you need to invest in to get these users quickly.
The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it. That means that while the money is being sunk into point 3 above, it's not retaining those users, so much more needs to be spent to get them to try it again.
To really compete with a market leader on a world stage such as this, you really do need a great product - so many people wouldn't be using google if any kid with a garage could write a better search engine - and you need to invest a LOT of money into an advertising campaign - unless you aren't worried about the length of time it takes to reach the market leader in terms of share. You can grow slowly, through word of mouth, through organic growth - or you can grow through buying other search engines, redirecting searches, striking deals to have users sent to your platform over competitor products. The more customers you want, and the quicker, the more pricey it gets. Just be sure that you aren't throwing money hand over fist into GETTING those customers if you aren't going to keep them.
Really, if you want a first post, subscribe to the site. You will get your silly kicks, and the rest of us will at least know you are making a valuable contribution to the site by paying the rest of the users to be silly.
You can bet that the lobbyists within the US weren't behind this decision.
There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.
Actually, if I was betting on the outcome of a contest between two people, I would sure as hell care if they were fixing the outcome and I wouldn't say I am stupid.
Oh, I get it, you just wanted a first post and had nothing better to post than racism. Guess who looks stupid now?
I happened to be visiting family in Northern Ireland in the 80s during the troubles.
I was with some other teens when a bomb went off a few blocks down. I didn't run fast enough and was knocked down by a British solder because I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Right, so the British soldier didn't just shoot you?
I was shortly let go but I understand how errors can happen even when I was the target of that error. I was lucky that I wasn't hurt too bad but yes I could have been dead for no other reason than I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I will assume that your "wrong place" is inferring the reactions of the soldiers, not the initial bomb blast itself. You aren't dead however because of the soldier's choice not to shoot you and all the others fleeing from the scene. I am quite sure that there were more than a few people that may have been "suspicious" in terms of running away from the scene. Those guys probably also weren't shot on sight.
That's the difference here which you seem to be missing.
Do accidents happen? Of course. Once you see an accident should you be mournful and apologize for making that mistake? Certainly. Personally I don't think too much attention was paid here to make sure it wasn't one by the soldiers involved. For the argument however, lets they did in fact think that this was an actual combatant somehow attacking them.
What excuse do you have for the soldiers when they shot the van that came into view to help. This is a civilian area, there are few markings on any vehicle. Given the soldiers themselves said it looked like they were helping the wounded man, how can you possible excuse their actions there?
Lastly, and most importantly, how can you excuse the intelligence agencies who said that this footage didn't exist, who refused and lied after FOI requests for this footage by an international news agency who had reporters killed in this incident?
Well, sort of. I read that article, and there was little (read: no) mention that the footage was requested by Reuters under FOI and rejected, that the Wikileaks site had been harassed by the military prior to posting this or much else really, save for quotes taken from the 2007 review done by the military, which runs along the lines of "We did nothing wrong, soldiers are working hard for our freedoms, war is dangerous...." and that sort of rhetoric.
A step in the right direction, but certainly posting a "version with a spin" on their site.
To clarify. Has anyone seen any coverage from a MAJOR news outlet on this. There are hundreds of hits on blogs, on niche sites etc, but I am looking for coverage on the major networks. The sort of reading that Joe Average will see.
Sorry to (half) hijack this thread here, but I am very very curious to see a followup to this story and am wondering if there has been any major fallout over this release already in the general media? Having read about half the posts in this article (Yes, that's a LOT of posts) I am really wanting to know what will follow this, from Reuters, from the US and generally from other involved parties.
It seems like the US went to a LOT of trouble to cover this up and make it go away - which worked for a few years, but now the cats out of the bag so to speak. What is the outcome of this leak?
Sadly, if there is no major outcry and demanding of answers, it's almost as if the thing should have been left buried.
Each time a gladiator stepped into The Colosseum (or other gladiatorial arena), they had a 50/50 chance of never seeing the next day.
What utter rubbish. Learn some history. Gladiators were a very expensive commodity - especially the ones that made it to Rome. The whole "always fight to the death" concept is horribly wrong. A bought in the arena where a gladiator died was actually somewhat rare for the most part, short of a few incidents when emperors really wanted to wow the crowd. Did people get hurt and injured? Yes, did those injuries lead to death? Sometimes. Did gladiators actually kill one another on the arena floor? Rarely.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I should get a part of that since they're selling *my* eyeballs.
It's double dipping plain and simple. Here in Australia, when cable TV first came out, there were actually next to no advertisements on it. I mean like really, nothing. Over time, they started to slip in some minor advertising between shows. Then one day, they stuck in a few ads in the middle of tv shows. Then some more. The way it currently is, short of a few exceptions such as the movie only channels, where there is advertising between movies, just about every channel has a large amount of advertising for utterly everything in it.
Pay TV was supposed to work with a "consumer pays for lack of advertising" structure - hence the name, Pay TV. However, as networks got greedier and greedier, they turned it into "consumer pays for additional channels of advertising funded TV".
Frankly, it just seems once you get big enough, you don't have to play nice or by any rules anymore.
Hmmm, that's a really interesting point of view on the argument.
I tip my hat to you for that insight and wish I had mod points today.
I think this technology for copyright enforcement should be placed into prosthetics that sits inside the eyeballs of everyone who wants permission to view video. These prosthetic devices could similarly verify the authenticity of videos frame by frame, check for an approved license, and send out signals to law enforcement if pirated video is detected. Approved prosthetics should be compulsory to obtaining permission to view all videos.
Wow. I think you could have an amazing future with the RIAA as well as many studio thinktanks if you wanted it. In the meantime, please stop posting such information - they already have all the insane ideas they need to continue making consumerism more difficult and annoying for the average user.
RTFA.....they are testing a collision detection system to see if potential injuries can be prevented
Blimey, you MUST be new here. I can see you have a high number, so just a quick FYI. People on /. don't actually read articles. They read the summary and run with that if you are lucky. Telling people here to RTFA is like telling...
*OH BOY! A BUTTERFLY!!!*
Wait wut?
Braille? Text to speech? Any one of the other multitude of ways that visually impaired people deal with daily to get through life meant for people with vision?
Not to be blunt, but seriously...
"I see! I see!!" said the blind man, but everyone knew he was full of shit.
Until now when he CAN actually say it and follow it up with high fives to everyone.
Every time I get cranky about all the dumb shit that we do in this day and age, I also think about all the cool and fantastic things we can do. It's a funny balance.
Your surprise (and assumption the rest of us are surprised) is a result of cultural conditioning. Open source developers are (in popular culture where I live) unshaven, smelly, poor, obese, socially awkward, annoying, nerdy, pimple ridden, inferior beasts dungeoned in their mother's basements because they are incapable of anything else.
While I hate to bag my fellow developers, sadly, the ones who really champion open source do tend to display more of those traits than my other developer friends. Actually, a good mate of mine, who does a bunch of work with .Net and for the most part loves MS has got to be one of the best dressed folks I know. Also, he is fit as a fiddle, goes surfing almost daily and has a lovely wife.
:)
I hate stereotypes, but really, the one you describe is somehow apt for my exposure to this world
Yes m'lord for pimple popping developers?
I wonder who our anon poet is, have being seeing a lot of this stuff on here of late. Sure, it's offtopic, but it's sort of cool actually. To me, it's sort of like bumping into a stranger at a coffee shop, who says something really amazing, or insightful, but then walks away quickly and you never get to speak to them again.
As funny as it is, I would love to know why this person picked this, of all places to post to over something like deviantart or one of the countless others, whether they come back to check if anyone has replied to their posts.
Lastly, cheer up, your stuff has been rather sad of late.
I bet you can BING some awesome reviews and success stories about this tablet anyhow.
*snicker*
If I own a company and sell a product to another company, I don't have any realistic expectation to control what that company does. My part of the business deal has concluded.
Seriously Apple. Get real.
You can't go to some third world pesthole, print up a bunch of books and then import them into the US.
Read the backstory properly. You are way off the mark here. What this is about is basically this (Using roughly your example):
CompanyA prints books. They do so in the US and also in thirdWorldPesthole.
CompanyB sells books in the US bought from CompanyA.
CompanyB finds CompanyC that buys the books from CompanyA that are printed in thirdWorldPesthole, and CompanyB buys these books from CompanyC and also sells them in the US.
Becuase CompanyA sells the books much cheaper in thirdWorldPesthole, CompanyA now takes CompanyB to court because it says it controls the product US, no matter where it came from - even a legal sale such as this.
This is where CompanyB (the seller) argues this with first sale doctrine. It bought the books legally. It has the legal right to do what it wants with them - such as selling them cheaper than the US printed books sell for.
Thanks for flying Fluffeh airways, always happy to take you back on course with the thread.
To compete with a market leader, you can expect to lose some money to start with. How much you need to factor in to "lose" at the start will be defined by three things:
1) Your flat operating costs - in this case, how much bandwidth you need to crawl the web to index things. The cost of employing staff to maintain, write and keep your search engine alive.
2) Your variable operating costs - in this case, how much extra bandwidth you need to supply your results to users, how many servers you need to keep that sort of thing.
3) Your marketing investment - which is also a variable and how much you spend will depend on how quickly you want to catch the market leader with your own product. How much do you need to advertise and market your product for people to say, "Well, I might try to bing this search rather than google it." The more users you want quickly, the larger the campaign you need to invest in to get these users quickly.
The problem is here that from what the community at large is saying, while some have tried it, they haven't been happy with the product to continue using it. That means that while the money is being sunk into point 3 above, it's not retaining those users, so much more needs to be spent to get them to try it again.
To really compete with a market leader on a world stage such as this, you really do need a great product - so many people wouldn't be using google if any kid with a garage could write a better search engine - and you need to invest a LOT of money into an advertising campaign - unless you aren't worried about the length of time it takes to reach the market leader in terms of share. You can grow slowly, through word of mouth, through organic growth - or you can grow through buying other search engines, redirecting searches, striking deals to have users sent to your platform over competitor products. The more customers you want, and the quicker, the more pricey it gets. Just be sure that you aren't throwing money hand over fist into GETTING those customers if you aren't going to keep them.
After a week of losing millions every day, airlines are starting to ask why we can't do better.
Airlines: We want open airspace.
ICAO: Sure, you guys fund the study.
Airlines: ????
ICAO: *Profit*
Sounds pretty open and shut to me on a serious note. Red Tape at it's best.
Close, but no cigar.
Really, if you want a first post, subscribe to the site. You will get your silly kicks, and the rest of us will at least know you are making a valuable contribution to the site by paying the rest of the users to be silly.
I always request the budget for a small unit of scantily clad maidens from management in addition to the team beer budget.
One day.... one day....
You can bet the US wasn't behind this decision.
You can bet that the lobbyists within the US weren't behind this decision.
There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.
"You're grumpy" *beep* OOOh...Sick burn!
I am not *motherfucker*! *Cockbag*! Shit!
Oh my goodness, I don't ever recall speaking like that before. Must have been the scanner!
Actually, if I was betting on the outcome of a contest between two people, I would sure as hell care if they were fixing the outcome and I wouldn't say I am stupid.
Oh, I get it, you just wanted a first post and had nothing better to post than racism. Guess who looks stupid now?
I happened to be visiting family in Northern Ireland in the 80s during the troubles.
I was with some other teens when a bomb went off a few blocks down. I didn't run fast enough and was knocked down by a British solder because I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Right, so the British soldier didn't just shoot you?
I was shortly let go but I understand how errors can happen even when I was the target of that error. I was lucky that I wasn't hurt too bad but yes I could have been dead for no other reason than I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I will assume that your "wrong place" is inferring the reactions of the soldiers, not the initial bomb blast itself. You aren't dead however because of the soldier's choice not to shoot you and all the others fleeing from the scene. I am quite sure that there were more than a few people that may have been "suspicious" in terms of running away from the scene. Those guys probably also weren't shot on sight.
That's the difference here which you seem to be missing.
Do accidents happen? Of course. Once you see an accident should you be mournful and apologize for making that mistake? Certainly. Personally I don't think too much attention was paid here to make sure it wasn't one by the soldiers involved. For the argument however, lets they did in fact think that this was an actual combatant somehow attacking them.
What excuse do you have for the soldiers when they shot the van that came into view to help. This is a civilian area, there are few markings on any vehicle. Given the soldiers themselves said it looked like they were helping the wounded man, how can you possible excuse their actions there?
Lastly, and most importantly, how can you excuse the intelligence agencies who said that this footage didn't exist, who refused and lied after FOI requests for this footage by an international news agency who had reporters killed in this incident?
Mistakes happen. Cover-up's DON'T just happen.
Hmmm, I wonder who left this lying around here.
I think this is where Wikileaks comes into it again with some anon posted data :)
Well, sort of. I read that article, and there was little (read: no) mention that the footage was requested by Reuters under FOI and rejected, that the Wikileaks site had been harassed by the military prior to posting this or much else really, save for quotes taken from the 2007 review done by the military, which runs along the lines of "We did nothing wrong, soldiers are working hard for our freedoms, war is dangerous...." and that sort of rhetoric.
A step in the right direction, but certainly posting a "version with a spin" on their site.
To clarify. Has anyone seen any coverage from a MAJOR news outlet on this. There are hundreds of hits on blogs, on niche sites etc, but I am looking for coverage on the major networks. The sort of reading that Joe Average will see.
Sorry to (half) hijack this thread here, but I am very very curious to see a followup to this story and am wondering if there has been any major fallout over this release already in the general media? Having read about half the posts in this article (Yes, that's a LOT of posts) I am really wanting to know what will follow this, from Reuters, from the US and generally from other involved parties.
It seems like the US went to a LOT of trouble to cover this up and make it go away - which worked for a few years, but now the cats out of the bag so to speak. What is the outcome of this leak?
Sadly, if there is no major outcry and demanding of answers, it's almost as if the thing should have been left buried.
Each time a gladiator stepped into The Colosseum (or other gladiatorial arena), they had a 50/50 chance of never seeing the next day.
What utter rubbish. Learn some history. Gladiators were a very expensive commodity - especially the ones that made it to Rome. The whole "always fight to the death" concept is horribly wrong. A bought in the arena where a gladiator died was actually somewhat rare for the most part, short of a few incidents when emperors really wanted to wow the crowd. Did people get hurt and injured? Yes, did those injuries lead to death? Sometimes. Did gladiators actually kill one another on the arena floor? Rarely.