You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer.
But isn't it realistic to assume that any person, wanting to program for an Android handset, with the skills to program would have a computer? On the other hand, many people who own iPhones (in fact, chances are, most of them) and many people with skills to program don't own Macs. In fact, if you -really- needed a computer, you could probably boot a library computer from a USB key and develop for Android and pay, what, $7 for the USB stick? Good luck finding a public library that lets their patrons use Macs for free...
The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.
But the machine is already purchased. The machine doesn't decrease with use. Most of the things that kill computers aren't determined by use but rather by fate. Once a computer is out of warranty, it can have expensive repairs if it is turned on for 24 hours a day every day, 1 hour every day, or even if it is rarely used.
If something was purchased for a non-business use and is used in the business, realistically it can't be considered part of the costs when it can be used for work and play. For example, if I bought a shirt in 2007 and wore it to work in 2010 to start up my business, it really didn't cost anything more because I still owned it, I still would have worn it and it doesn't really decrease all that much in use.
So dock the cleanup costs out of their pay, suddenly they'll be a LOT more careful about what they trust.
Yeah, and that is going to work just as well as those 40-something 'businessmen' who think everything is going to ruin their hardware. Surely you've met a few, you know, the people who buy the $2,000 Sony computers with Core i7s but won't run anything more than IE, their corporate e-mail because it might 'damage' their computer? When people are afraid to use technology, productivity will drop -far- below when they use it for whatever. A re-image takes, what, 5, 10 minutes? An employee scared to use technology takes out many, many, hours of work.
Good luck getting everyone to learn OS X, hiring -good- OS X admins, hardware support, and setting up the VM.
For a small business, Macs are generally more harm than good, after all, most have one or two admins at most and most admins simply aren't good with people. Everything is different for the computer illiterate on a Mac. While a geek will be able to easily navigate between OS X, Unix, Linux, Windows, etc. your average employee (yeah, the one that thinks he deleted the internet one time when he removed the shortcut to IE) is going to need a month or more of training before it becomes second nature.
Macs are also a pain to upgrade. While its pretty easy to buy ~20 cheap Dell PCs for $400 and just replace components, its a lot harder to do with a Mac Mini. CD drive goes out on the Dell? Just swap in a cheap $15 drive. CD drive goes out on the Mini? You need to find a specific model otherwise it isn't going to work right with the case.
If you have a tech-based shop, yeah it might make sense to transition to Macs, for the average small business? Its just too much expense. Just get a PC, keep RAID servers, back up everything onto the servers and be good. If you -really- want to, install Linux to remove the virus problem. But Macs aren't cost effective for most small businesses.
Because people are generally more productive when they don't have things on their mind? I know for sure that if I have my personal e-mail/social networking sites/phone out I don't have to worry about missing important events, etc. and generally I'm more productive. I don't check it every 5 minutes or anything but it does help to allow me to focus without thinking about what I could be missing. Without the ability to check personal things, generally my mind tends to wander to them and I lose focus on work. I guess I'm just a tasklist type of person, I want to be -done- with everything, to be up-to-date on my e-mails, etc. Some people aren't. Some people would spend all day on Facebook and get nothing done, some people's minds just don't wander to other tasks, but in general mine does. If my work decided to block all the outside internet, I have little doubt my productivity would suffer because my mind would constantly be elsewhere.
Um, Apple requires a -lot- more overhead than Android ever will. Lets see, if you don't have a Mac, it costs, what? $500-600 for the most basic Mac desktop? Compared to the fact you can program for Android on just about anything? Plus add in the fee to be an Apple 'developer' and you are looking at about $650ish for development hardware alone. Lets add in the price for an iPod touch (cheapest thing that runs iPhone OS) and you have a $800 total investment or so. A powerful Android phone costs $530 unlocked that you can use with almost any carrier without contract. So the total invested for Android -at most- would be $530 or so. At the very least it would cost $800 to develop for the iPhone.
The main reason why Android is less appealing to program for is because things are certain. Apple may randomly decide to give someone a monopoly and refuse any competing products leaving you as the sole provider. Such things don't happen on Android so people are free to compete, naturally if its a basic app, someone with spare time will code a free version. If its polished, no one is going to spend the time usually giving you still lots of profit.
Crap apps become free on Android. Crap apps on the iPhone generally have small monopolies.
Ah. New regulations to the rescue. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.
How is it a new regulation? The definition of a contract is:
a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contract . How can you agree to something if you don't know what it is? It stops being an agreement. If I agree to pay you $50, we both have an agreement I will give you $50. If I change that to paying you $25 and show up with $25 when you expect $50, chances are you won't be too happy because the agreement is broken. Its not a new regulation, it simply keeps the definition of contract and agreement together.
Its still fraud though and fraud is fraud. The entire point of having a government is not to 'bail out' large businesses, send millions of dollars in aid to Africa, or pay for a life-sized painting of George Bush, it is to prevent fraud and force. If the government sees fraud happening, its their job to stop it. I think we can all agree that changing user agreements that much without warning is fraud. If its not fraud, then why is bait and switch prohibited? Surely the customer should be knowledgeable enough not to go for the switch, but many do.
The entire point of governments is to prevent fraud and force. Those are really the only two that make perfect sense. Yet why do we think that we need all these programs that the government has proven to be incompetent at, while neglecting the two reasons we don't have the freedom of anarchy.
The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.
This is -fraud- and must be eliminated. Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed. You should have a right to demand a refund. (And that example wasn't too far out there, look at Sony and the PS3...) and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change. If you aren't informed of the change, you didn't agree to it therefore the contract should be voided.
Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal. A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.
Microsoft never 'won' the console market, the other competitors simply lost. Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless. Nintendo found a recipe to make lots of money: make crap 'innovative' games to appeal to untapped markets. While the move worked really well for Nintendo, it alienated most real gamers. The 360 was the only real option for most people. On the other hand, Google is not failing at the moment and does not look to fail anytime soon and Bing just doesn't cut it.
Such as? I hardly consider myself ignorant of other search engines, I simply prefer Google. There was a site (I can't find at the moment) that let you see 3 search engines without knowing which one and to pick your favorite, then it would reveal the one you preferred. I almost always picked Google.
So, you mean that if you were one day disconnected from your entire family for a day you wouldn't have any feelings of distress? Especially if you were used to seeing them/talking to them every day? Your mind would -never- wander to your parents with failing health, your siblings, etc? While such things may be common if you don't talk to your parents much or both you and your family are totally independent, but for many people, they would be distressed.
You wouldn't have any negative feelings of not seeing or talking to your girlfriend/wife/kids if you talk to them daily?
They don't click their lights on and off to generate dopamine from it.
But they are distressed when its taken away.
But some do get it from some flash game or hitting refresh on Slashdot.
And so do people who check the news or play sports. Yet we think these are 'normal' and if its online its 'abnormal'. When the average middle aged person has coffee while reading the latest copy of the newspaper we think its normal, when we see someone spending an hour on/. who refreshes to get the latest news and to comment its abnormal. Why is it that 'water cooler' chat is considered to be normal and spending the same time on a forum or discussion board as abnormal? Things aren't additions but simply pastimes. If I'm bored and theres a lake nearby and fishing poles I'll go fishing most every day. If theres a high speed internet connection I'll go online. If there is a large collection of interesting books I'll read. Its just that computers and internet access are common so bored people go online. Give them something else and they will prefer that if its more interesting for nearly -all- internet 'addictions' so long as basic human needs (to communicate, etc) are met. Give a crack addict crack or something really interesting to do and they will... still do crack. Give an internet 'addict' internet or something they are otherwise interesting and they will usually choose something interesting.
If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating. The only time imitation works is when the current product becomes crappy. Take for instance the Xbox 360, it didn't get ahead because it was great, but rather got ahead because the competition was crappy. The Wii had (has) a shortage of good games and the PS3 was (and still almost is) far too expensive.
Google isn't getting any worse and Bing just isn't innovating in any meaningful way. Trying to promote Bing is like promoting alternate keyboard layouts, even if it -is- better, any benefits will be lost in the fact that people have to re-learn something. Google isn't just a search engine, its a bookmarking engine. Its a lot easier to remember "nexus one review" than http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/04/nexus-one-review/
And that still doesn't prove an addiction, it just shows different priorities. What about people who sell all their possessions and go to a foreign country to spread Christianity? Are they 'addicted' to Jesus? Or do they simply have different priorities.
Look, by this definition people are addicted to their family, their spouse/girlfriend, and an infinite number of things. Are you addicted to electricity? Would you not feel as happy if you had to live without air conditioning in 100 degree weather? Should we all live like cavemen because we are 'addicted' to various conveniences? The internet is simply one of those conveniences.
It may end up the same with file-sharers. Eventually the law will catch up with what they are doing, chase them down, and make the potential cost of sharing too much higher than the cost of music/movies. That's clearly what these guys are trying to do.
It won't happen. Whereas in the '80s or '90s there were perhaps a few thousand hackers, in 2010 there are millions. Public perception is changing, the vast majority of teenagers see that there really isn't anything wrong with file-sharing. Governments get their power from the people, eventually, we will have to have more relaxed copyright laws. Perhaps not in 2010, perhaps not in 2015, but soon.
Computer literacy was much, much, lower in the '80s or '90s, it was really reasonable that someone didn't have a computer or internet/BBS access at their house. Today? Almost everyone has access to a computer and knows how to use it. File sharing is going to continue to grow as long as bandwidth speed continues to grow and media size doesn't increase too much before internet speed.
Hacking (cracking) also violated the basic rights of others in that it could cause damage, disrupt or destroy computer systems. While in the vast majority of cases it didn't, the media could easily control a fearful, computer-illiterate world of the 'dangers' of crackers. Today, artists are on the web, facts have been released, its cheaper than ever to get out a product. Its becoming more and more clear that P2P is -helping- artists, not harming them. Its becoming clearer and clearer that artists produce albums not to make millions off of them (they rarely do) but rather to promote live concerts, something that filesharing can never replicate. The 'traditional' media is failing and new media is taking over.
Its becoming more and more clear to the general person that if an artist is good at what they do, they can make a living one only needs to look at Homestar Runner to see that, or Xkcd, or any number of sites that survive on ad revenue/donations. The public is realizing this, the more this happens, the more laws will need to change.
So, no. Filesharing will not die out over time like cracking did. Its really hard to justify cracking (in most cases) while in most cases P2P helps the artist.
I wish that movies/music/software "sharing" was separated from movie/music/software counterfeiting and fake medicine and goods of course, but either way the American public needs to be protected from those threats.
They used to be. It used to be that the entire point of a trademark is to make sure customers got what they ordered. And such things make sense and are -beneficial- to customers. Imagine the confusion if we had 5 different products known as the "Nintendo Wii" and a parent heard their kid wanting a Nintendo Wii so they go in and ask for a Nintendo Wii and they get http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/miwi_wii_knock_off.jpg instead. With trademarks if it says Nintendo Wii it (should) be a Nintendo Wii.
Patents also used to be beneficial to the public. It used to be that guilds would control trade and monopolize the market effectively with "trade secrets" that would stay in the guild. Patents helped change this because the guild would disclose information while granted a temporary monopoly to use it (after all, someone who left one shop could have taken the trade secret to another and it would have been legal) and the public would get valuable information. Unfortunately, we've gone beyond that to theoretical, common-knowledge patents that prevent work-arounds. It used to be that if Joe Inc. had a patent on, say, a black and white CRT monitor, you could create a color CRT monitor and compete with Joe Inc. However, now, Joe Inc. would hold a patent on the ability to make CRT displays work, thus cutting out access to any work-arounds.
Copyright was also seen as a compromise, especially when it was sane. The author would be compensated for his work, the public wasn't offended (after all, no one was stopping hand-written copies, it was only if you owned a printing press that it mattered) and it gave the work to the public in a timely manner. However, ironically the company who depends the most on the public domain (Disney) has lobbied for effectively infinite copyright that harms the artist and the public.
Counterfeit goods should not be judged on IP issues (after all, if there was an iPhone clone that -really was- just like an iPhone no one is being harmed it simply increases competition for Apple) but rather for fraud. Quite honestly, I'd like to see a few of the Chinese knockoff phones and MP3 players appear in stores for disposable, feature-filled items.
There are a few things that don't really work with this scenario. First thing is the less people who are on the site the less useful it is. The reason why Facebook is so popular is because -everyone- is on it. Who wants to join a social networking site where you know 5 people on it? As for privacy, is it -really- that big of a deal? Generally all social networking sites will do with your info is target some ads or perhaps make it search-able. Is it -really- that terrible for the world to know that you like Star Trek and want a Core i7 CPU? Mix this all in with plausible denial if it somehow really harms you (is John Smith on FB -really- you who are John Smith?) and you have a situation where it doesn't really matter all that much. Aside from the "creepy" factor, will the information on FB really harm you all that much? Eventually employers will realize that we all have pasts, lives outside of work and it doesn't affect our work in the least. Really, if you get drunk every Friday night with friends and Monday you show up to work on time and do your work does it matter that you got drunk on Friday?
If you don't want something on FB, don't post it. Its as simple as that.
What is there on someone's FB profile (not messages or chat) that is -really- that terrible if the world knows?
Randomly generated dungeons are fine and generally fun because the entire point is to explore. Randomly generated Mario levels are going to be more frustrating than anything else because the AI is going to have very little knowledge of difficulty let alone themes and re-playability.
The entire point of Mario is consistent levels with well timed jumps to reach secrets. I'm not sure if I want levels generated by computers. 50 quality levels are better than 100 AI generated levels.
Look, if I'm paying for power, in a government granted monopoly (as most power companies are) I'd better be able to use it how I wish, while paying for it with a reasonable fee based on what I use. If they can't provide what I'm paying for they should either A) Improve the service, B) allow other competitors C) be sued by their "customers". If we had -choice- in power companies, this might not be so bad, but sure, we have an override button in 2010... but in 2020 will we?
It is the most basic of rights to be able to use what you pay for. In many cases, if you don't like what a company wants you to do, you have action, you can A) change to a competitor or B) go without it. If I don't like Sony's policies on firmware updates for the PS3, I can just as easily buy a 360, Wii, or even decide not to buy a game console. But when it comes to electricity, theres no other providers and its just about impossible to go without electricity in 2010 (even most Amish will have electricity in their outbuildings).
'These are going to be like the Mona Lisa,' says space historian John Logsdon
Not really. Despite how much we like to think that we've advanced since 1969, we really haven't. I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end. Perhaps things would be different if America actually had a vision of space, but since the cold war ended we've had the worst of all worlds. Lack of willingness for the government to fund public spaceflights and lack of government cooperation for private spaceflight. Apollo will be remembered like the Mona Lisa, it was a large achievement in spaceflight. The shuttle? Unless something -major- comes out of the development of it, I think we will remember it more for Challenger and Columbia than anything else.
The crusades weren't fought over religion, they were fought over land. But how do you convince people in the 1100s to fight? Say that you are doing it in the name of God and grant them forgiveness of any sins. It was a way of getting people to fight, propaganda. It would be like saying today fight to "keep America free", we aren't fighting for our freedom in our wars (there would be no way that Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam would threaten the security of the US in a mass scale and any terrorist group could attack wars in Afghanistan or not) yet its good for rallying mass support. Same thing with the crusades, it was just a way of convincing people to fight.
Religion is simply something people generally hold in esteem, anything that people esteem they will fight for. It isn't any problems of religion that the Crusades take place, they could have rallied an atheist population by saying they can get gold, fame, sex, etc. Look at the holocaust, fought in the name of "science", the Soviet prison camps fought in the name of state, etc.
The wars in Iraq and Iran were small attempts at stopping Islamic terrorism. It failed mostly because the initial strikes were weak and failed to apprehend the main leaders of terrorism.
There are a few franchises though that really benefit(ed) from expansions and sequels. Imagine Super Mario Bros if it never evolved past Super Mario Bros. for the NES. We'd get basically "Lost Levels-esque" expansions year after year instead of the superb Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World. Similarly, there are a lot of games that improve as technology improves even when the basic concept remains the same. Open-ended adventure games are one genre. For example, Fable on the original Xbox was good, but felt limited. Fable II is better (though short) and when Fable III comes out, it will probably be better still even when the basic premise doesn't change, the technology will.
Now, of course there are a lot of games that -don't- benefit from sequels and spin offs and re-releases, such as all those sports games who get people to pay $60 since the late 80s for the "best" in football, baseball, etc. But for a lot of games, sequels and expansions are great ways to improve on a great formula.
Unfortunately, the invisible hand seems to think that job stability is a stupid, backward 20th Century concept. After all, who doesn't like looking for a new job every 2 to 6 years?? In an environment like this, even the big guys are going to have trouble holding onto employees.
Job stability doesn't work when the -industry- is changing. Advancements in hardware allow for new software concepts. 15 years ago if someone came up with the idea for Google Maps it would be shot down for a number of reasons. Number one because of the lack of high-resolution satellites and number two because of the fact the average person could never download such a large file over the (then) current technology. Today, Google Maps is a large part of Google and similar things are used on other sites.
Other industries are rather stagnant without any huge innovations. For example, while farming has changed a lot, the basic principles are the same, plant, irrigate, fertilize, and harvest, the same that farming has had for several hundred years. On the other hand, the best IT skills from a few years ago don't transfer, especially when it comes to practical skills. Other than legacy systems, no one has a need for DOS anymore, someone who spent their entire lives making DOS programs and working with DOS must adapt or die, something that isn't seen in many other industries.
A company can not be stable when an industry is unstable, employment can not be stable when companies are unstable. And honestly, the "stable" companies are the ones that have changed the most. Look at Apple, a few years ago they were producing no phones and no iPods. Then suddenly they are producing music players and now cell phones! The industry is changing.
which will conversely bring OSS more users, testers and developers
Not really. most people who test/develop OSS software already do it, or will do when they have free time. As for users, there are about 4 types of users for any Windows program.
A) The person who uses whatever something that is forced on them. Such people will blindly use IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever as long as a boss says they must use it or it comes pre-installed.
B) The person who thinks that they get what they pay for. These are the weird people who we see -buying- boxed software, thinking that for some odd reason if they spend $30 on an obscure paint program they will get a better experience than The GIMP (note that a lot of these people wouldn't, say, buy Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, but rather buy things like Lotus Notes and Correl Paint)
C) The specialist. Generally these are people with high skills who -need- a certain program and know it. These people may have tried OSS alternatives and found them lacking or need obscure programs that OSS doesn't offer.
and finally, very, very, very few people fall into the last category which is people who use the "best" programs and are average users.
This is not going to convert the other 3 types of users which are the majority. Until Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. all start making OSS be default, people in group A aren't going to use OSS. Person B isn't going to think the program is any good if they don't spend money which defeats the purpose of OSS. And people in group C aren't going to use OSS because there is some things that are so obscure that no OSS developer would develop or use.
Slashdot Mirror
You carefully document the costs to buy a mac, but assume that an Android developer would already have some computer.
But isn't it realistic to assume that any person, wanting to program for an Android handset, with the skills to program would have a computer? On the other hand, many people who own iPhones (in fact, chances are, most of them) and many people with skills to program don't own Macs. In fact, if you -really- needed a computer, you could probably boot a library computer from a USB key and develop for Android and pay, what, $7 for the USB stick? Good luck finding a public library that lets their patrons use Macs for free...
The cost of the machine should be prorated based on additional uses. Thus, the Mac will still cost more than the already owned machine, but it isn't free.
But the machine is already purchased. The machine doesn't decrease with use. Most of the things that kill computers aren't determined by use but rather by fate. Once a computer is out of warranty, it can have expensive repairs if it is turned on for 24 hours a day every day, 1 hour every day, or even if it is rarely used.
If something was purchased for a non-business use and is used in the business, realistically it can't be considered part of the costs when it can be used for work and play. For example, if I bought a shirt in 2007 and wore it to work in 2010 to start up my business, it really didn't cost anything more because I still owned it, I still would have worn it and it doesn't really decrease all that much in use.
So dock the cleanup costs out of their pay, suddenly they'll be a LOT more careful about what they trust.
Yeah, and that is going to work just as well as those 40-something 'businessmen' who think everything is going to ruin their hardware. Surely you've met a few, you know, the people who buy the $2,000 Sony computers with Core i7s but won't run anything more than IE, their corporate e-mail because it might 'damage' their computer? When people are afraid to use technology, productivity will drop -far- below when they use it for whatever. A re-image takes, what, 5, 10 minutes? An employee scared to use technology takes out many, many, hours of work.
Good luck getting everyone to learn OS X, hiring -good- OS X admins, hardware support, and setting up the VM.
For a small business, Macs are generally more harm than good, after all, most have one or two admins at most and most admins simply aren't good with people. Everything is different for the computer illiterate on a Mac. While a geek will be able to easily navigate between OS X, Unix, Linux, Windows, etc. your average employee (yeah, the one that thinks he deleted the internet one time when he removed the shortcut to IE) is going to need a month or more of training before it becomes second nature.
Macs are also a pain to upgrade. While its pretty easy to buy ~20 cheap Dell PCs for $400 and just replace components, its a lot harder to do with a Mac Mini. CD drive goes out on the Dell? Just swap in a cheap $15 drive. CD drive goes out on the Mini? You need to find a specific model otherwise it isn't going to work right with the case.
If you have a tech-based shop, yeah it might make sense to transition to Macs, for the average small business? Its just too much expense. Just get a PC, keep RAID servers, back up everything onto the servers and be good. If you -really- want to, install Linux to remove the virus problem. But Macs aren't cost effective for most small businesses.
Because people are generally more productive when they don't have things on their mind? I know for sure that if I have my personal e-mail/social networking sites/phone out I don't have to worry about missing important events, etc. and generally I'm more productive. I don't check it every 5 minutes or anything but it does help to allow me to focus without thinking about what I could be missing. Without the ability to check personal things, generally my mind tends to wander to them and I lose focus on work. I guess I'm just a tasklist type of person, I want to be -done- with everything, to be up-to-date on my e-mails, etc. Some people aren't. Some people would spend all day on Facebook and get nothing done, some people's minds just don't wander to other tasks, but in general mine does. If my work decided to block all the outside internet, I have little doubt my productivity would suffer because my mind would constantly be elsewhere.
Um, Apple requires a -lot- more overhead than Android ever will. Lets see, if you don't have a Mac, it costs, what? $500-600 for the most basic Mac desktop? Compared to the fact you can program for Android on just about anything? Plus add in the fee to be an Apple 'developer' and you are looking at about $650ish for development hardware alone. Lets add in the price for an iPod touch (cheapest thing that runs iPhone OS) and you have a $800 total investment or so. A powerful Android phone costs $530 unlocked that you can use with almost any carrier without contract. So the total invested for Android -at most- would be $530 or so. At the very least it would cost $800 to develop for the iPhone.
The main reason why Android is less appealing to program for is because things are certain. Apple may randomly decide to give someone a monopoly and refuse any competing products leaving you as the sole provider. Such things don't happen on Android so people are free to compete, naturally if its a basic app, someone with spare time will code a free version. If its polished, no one is going to spend the time usually giving you still lots of profit.
Crap apps become free on Android. Crap apps on the iPhone generally have small monopolies.
Ah. New regulations to the rescue. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.
How is it a new regulation? The definition of a contract is:
a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contract . How can you agree to something if you don't know what it is? It stops being an agreement. If I agree to pay you $50, we both have an agreement I will give you $50. If I change that to paying you $25 and show up with $25 when you expect $50, chances are you won't be too happy because the agreement is broken. Its not a new regulation, it simply keeps the definition of contract and agreement together.
Its still fraud though and fraud is fraud. The entire point of having a government is not to 'bail out' large businesses, send millions of dollars in aid to Africa, or pay for a life-sized painting of George Bush, it is to prevent fraud and force. If the government sees fraud happening, its their job to stop it. I think we can all agree that changing user agreements that much without warning is fraud. If its not fraud, then why is bait and switch prohibited? Surely the customer should be knowledgeable enough not to go for the switch, but many do.
The entire point of governments is to prevent fraud and force. Those are really the only two that make perfect sense. Yet why do we think that we need all these programs that the government has proven to be incompetent at, while neglecting the two reasons we don't have the freedom of anarchy.
The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.
This is -fraud- and must be eliminated. Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed. You should have a right to demand a refund. (And that example wasn't too far out there, look at Sony and the PS3...) and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change. If you aren't informed of the change, you didn't agree to it therefore the contract should be voided.
Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal. A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.
Microsoft never 'won' the console market, the other competitors simply lost. Sony thought that -everyone- who had a PS2 would be thrilled to have a console that cost $500, had no PS2 support, and had a lot of expensive features... that were mostly useless. Nintendo found a recipe to make lots of money: make crap 'innovative' games to appeal to untapped markets. While the move worked really well for Nintendo, it alienated most real gamers. The 360 was the only real option for most people. On the other hand, Google is not failing at the moment and does not look to fail anytime soon and Bing just doesn't cut it.
Such as? I hardly consider myself ignorant of other search engines, I simply prefer Google. There was a site (I can't find at the moment) that let you see 3 search engines without knowing which one and to pick your favorite, then it would reveal the one you preferred. I almost always picked Google.
You wouldn't have any negative feelings of not seeing or talking to your girlfriend/wife/kids if you talk to them daily?
They don't click their lights on and off to generate dopamine from it.
But they are distressed when its taken away.
But some do get it from some flash game or hitting refresh on Slashdot.
And so do people who check the news or play sports. Yet we think these are 'normal' and if its online its 'abnormal'. When the average middle aged person has coffee while reading the latest copy of the newspaper we think its normal, when we see someone spending an hour on /. who refreshes to get the latest news and to comment its abnormal. Why is it that 'water cooler' chat is considered to be normal and spending the same time on a forum or discussion board as abnormal? Things aren't additions but simply pastimes. If I'm bored and theres a lake nearby and fishing poles I'll go fishing most every day. If theres a high speed internet connection I'll go online. If there is a large collection of interesting books I'll read. Its just that computers and internet access are common so bored people go online. Give them something else and they will prefer that if its more interesting for nearly -all- internet 'addictions' so long as basic human needs (to communicate, etc) are met. Give a crack addict crack or something really interesting to do and they will... still do crack. Give an internet 'addict' internet or something they are otherwise interesting and they will usually choose something interesting.
If Microsoft wants to get ahead, stop trying to imitate and start innovating. The only time imitation works is when the current product becomes crappy. Take for instance the Xbox 360, it didn't get ahead because it was great, but rather got ahead because the competition was crappy. The Wii had (has) a shortage of good games and the PS3 was (and still almost is) far too expensive.
Google isn't getting any worse and Bing just isn't innovating in any meaningful way. Trying to promote Bing is like promoting alternate keyboard layouts, even if it -is- better, any benefits will be lost in the fact that people have to re-learn something. Google isn't just a search engine, its a bookmarking engine. Its a lot easier to remember "nexus one review" than http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/04/nexus-one-review/
And that still doesn't prove an addiction, it just shows different priorities. What about people who sell all their possessions and go to a foreign country to spread Christianity? Are they 'addicted' to Jesus? Or do they simply have different priorities.
Look, by this definition people are addicted to their family, their spouse/girlfriend, and an infinite number of things. Are you addicted to electricity? Would you not feel as happy if you had to live without air conditioning in 100 degree weather? Should we all live like cavemen because we are 'addicted' to various conveniences? The internet is simply one of those conveniences.
It may end up the same with file-sharers. Eventually the law will catch up with what they are doing, chase them down, and make the potential cost of sharing too much higher than the cost of music/movies. That's clearly what these guys are trying to do.
It won't happen. Whereas in the '80s or '90s there were perhaps a few thousand hackers, in 2010 there are millions. Public perception is changing, the vast majority of teenagers see that there really isn't anything wrong with file-sharing. Governments get their power from the people, eventually, we will have to have more relaxed copyright laws. Perhaps not in 2010, perhaps not in 2015, but soon.
Computer literacy was much, much, lower in the '80s or '90s, it was really reasonable that someone didn't have a computer or internet/BBS access at their house. Today? Almost everyone has access to a computer and knows how to use it. File sharing is going to continue to grow as long as bandwidth speed continues to grow and media size doesn't increase too much before internet speed.
Hacking (cracking) also violated the basic rights of others in that it could cause damage, disrupt or destroy computer systems. While in the vast majority of cases it didn't, the media could easily control a fearful, computer-illiterate world of the 'dangers' of crackers. Today, artists are on the web, facts have been released, its cheaper than ever to get out a product. Its becoming more and more clear that P2P is -helping- artists, not harming them. Its becoming clearer and clearer that artists produce albums not to make millions off of them (they rarely do) but rather to promote live concerts, something that filesharing can never replicate. The 'traditional' media is failing and new media is taking over.
Its becoming more and more clear to the general person that if an artist is good at what they do, they can make a living one only needs to look at Homestar Runner to see that, or Xkcd, or any number of sites that survive on ad revenue/donations. The public is realizing this, the more this happens, the more laws will need to change.
So, no. Filesharing will not die out over time like cracking did. Its really hard to justify cracking (in most cases) while in most cases P2P helps the artist.
I wish that movies/music/software "sharing" was separated from movie/music/software counterfeiting and fake medicine and goods of course, but either way the American public needs to be protected from those threats.
They used to be. It used to be that the entire point of a trademark is to make sure customers got what they ordered. And such things make sense and are -beneficial- to customers. Imagine the confusion if we had 5 different products known as the "Nintendo Wii" and a parent heard their kid wanting a Nintendo Wii so they go in and ask for a Nintendo Wii and they get http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/miwi_wii_knock_off.jpg instead. With trademarks if it says Nintendo Wii it (should) be a Nintendo Wii.
Patents also used to be beneficial to the public. It used to be that guilds would control trade and monopolize the market effectively with "trade secrets" that would stay in the guild. Patents helped change this because the guild would disclose information while granted a temporary monopoly to use it (after all, someone who left one shop could have taken the trade secret to another and it would have been legal) and the public would get valuable information. Unfortunately, we've gone beyond that to theoretical, common-knowledge patents that prevent work-arounds. It used to be that if Joe Inc. had a patent on, say, a black and white CRT monitor, you could create a color CRT monitor and compete with Joe Inc. However, now, Joe Inc. would hold a patent on the ability to make CRT displays work, thus cutting out access to any work-arounds.
Copyright was also seen as a compromise, especially when it was sane. The author would be compensated for his work, the public wasn't offended (after all, no one was stopping hand-written copies, it was only if you owned a printing press that it mattered) and it gave the work to the public in a timely manner. However, ironically the company who depends the most on the public domain (Disney) has lobbied for effectively infinite copyright that harms the artist and the public.
Counterfeit goods should not be judged on IP issues (after all, if there was an iPhone clone that -really was- just like an iPhone no one is being harmed it simply increases competition for Apple) but rather for fraud. Quite honestly, I'd like to see a few of the Chinese knockoff phones and MP3 players appear in stores for disposable, feature-filled items.
There are a few things that don't really work with this scenario. First thing is the less people who are on the site the less useful it is. The reason why Facebook is so popular is because -everyone- is on it. Who wants to join a social networking site where you know 5 people on it? As for privacy, is it -really- that big of a deal? Generally all social networking sites will do with your info is target some ads or perhaps make it search-able. Is it -really- that terrible for the world to know that you like Star Trek and want a Core i7 CPU? Mix this all in with plausible denial if it somehow really harms you (is John Smith on FB -really- you who are John Smith?) and you have a situation where it doesn't really matter all that much. Aside from the "creepy" factor, will the information on FB really harm you all that much? Eventually employers will realize that we all have pasts, lives outside of work and it doesn't affect our work in the least. Really, if you get drunk every Friday night with friends and Monday you show up to work on time and do your work does it matter that you got drunk on Friday?
If you don't want something on FB, don't post it. Its as simple as that.
What is there on someone's FB profile (not messages or chat) that is -really- that terrible if the world knows?
Randomly generated dungeons are fine and generally fun because the entire point is to explore. Randomly generated Mario levels are going to be more frustrating than anything else because the AI is going to have very little knowledge of difficulty let alone themes and re-playability.
The entire point of Mario is consistent levels with well timed jumps to reach secrets. I'm not sure if I want levels generated by computers. 50 quality levels are better than 100 AI generated levels.
Look, if I'm paying for power, in a government granted monopoly (as most power companies are) I'd better be able to use it how I wish, while paying for it with a reasonable fee based on what I use. If they can't provide what I'm paying for they should either A) Improve the service, B) allow other competitors C) be sued by their "customers". If we had -choice- in power companies, this might not be so bad, but sure, we have an override button in 2010... but in 2020 will we?
It is the most basic of rights to be able to use what you pay for. In many cases, if you don't like what a company wants you to do, you have action, you can A) change to a competitor or B) go without it. If I don't like Sony's policies on firmware updates for the PS3, I can just as easily buy a 360, Wii, or even decide not to buy a game console. But when it comes to electricity, theres no other providers and its just about impossible to go without electricity in 2010 (even most Amish will have electricity in their outbuildings).
'These are going to be like the Mona Lisa,' says space historian John Logsdon
Not really. Despite how much we like to think that we've advanced since 1969, we really haven't. I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end. Perhaps things would be different if America actually had a vision of space, but since the cold war ended we've had the worst of all worlds. Lack of willingness for the government to fund public spaceflights and lack of government cooperation for private spaceflight. Apollo will be remembered like the Mona Lisa, it was a large achievement in spaceflight. The shuttle? Unless something -major- comes out of the development of it, I think we will remember it more for Challenger and Columbia than anything else.
The crusades weren't fought over religion, they were fought over land. But how do you convince people in the 1100s to fight? Say that you are doing it in the name of God and grant them forgiveness of any sins. It was a way of getting people to fight, propaganda. It would be like saying today fight to "keep America free", we aren't fighting for our freedom in our wars (there would be no way that Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam would threaten the security of the US in a mass scale and any terrorist group could attack wars in Afghanistan or not) yet its good for rallying mass support. Same thing with the crusades, it was just a way of convincing people to fight.
Religion is simply something people generally hold in esteem, anything that people esteem they will fight for. It isn't any problems of religion that the Crusades take place, they could have rallied an atheist population by saying they can get gold, fame, sex, etc. Look at the holocaust, fought in the name of "science", the Soviet prison camps fought in the name of state, etc.
The wars in Iraq and Iran were small attempts at stopping Islamic terrorism. It failed mostly because the initial strikes were weak and failed to apprehend the main leaders of terrorism.
There are a few franchises though that really benefit(ed) from expansions and sequels. Imagine Super Mario Bros if it never evolved past Super Mario Bros. for the NES. We'd get basically "Lost Levels-esque" expansions year after year instead of the superb Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World. Similarly, there are a lot of games that improve as technology improves even when the basic concept remains the same. Open-ended adventure games are one genre. For example, Fable on the original Xbox was good, but felt limited. Fable II is better (though short) and when Fable III comes out, it will probably be better still even when the basic premise doesn't change, the technology will.
Now, of course there are a lot of games that -don't- benefit from sequels and spin offs and re-releases, such as all those sports games who get people to pay $60 since the late 80s for the "best" in football, baseball, etc. But for a lot of games, sequels and expansions are great ways to improve on a great formula.
Unfortunately, the invisible hand seems to think that job stability is a stupid, backward 20th Century concept. After all, who doesn't like looking for a new job every 2 to 6 years?? In an environment like this, even the big guys are going to have trouble holding onto employees.
Job stability doesn't work when the -industry- is changing. Advancements in hardware allow for new software concepts. 15 years ago if someone came up with the idea for Google Maps it would be shot down for a number of reasons. Number one because of the lack of high-resolution satellites and number two because of the fact the average person could never download such a large file over the (then) current technology. Today, Google Maps is a large part of Google and similar things are used on other sites.
Other industries are rather stagnant without any huge innovations. For example, while farming has changed a lot, the basic principles are the same, plant, irrigate, fertilize, and harvest, the same that farming has had for several hundred years. On the other hand, the best IT skills from a few years ago don't transfer, especially when it comes to practical skills. Other than legacy systems, no one has a need for DOS anymore, someone who spent their entire lives making DOS programs and working with DOS must adapt or die, something that isn't seen in many other industries.
A company can not be stable when an industry is unstable, employment can not be stable when companies are unstable. And honestly, the "stable" companies are the ones that have changed the most. Look at Apple, a few years ago they were producing no phones and no iPods. Then suddenly they are producing music players and now cell phones! The industry is changing.
which will conversely bring OSS more users, testers and developers
Not really. most people who test/develop OSS software already do it, or will do when they have free time. As for users, there are about 4 types of users for any Windows program.
A) The person who uses whatever something that is forced on them. Such people will blindly use IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever as long as a boss says they must use it or it comes pre-installed.
B) The person who thinks that they get what they pay for. These are the weird people who we see -buying- boxed software, thinking that for some odd reason if they spend $30 on an obscure paint program they will get a better experience than The GIMP (note that a lot of these people wouldn't, say, buy Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, but rather buy things like Lotus Notes and Correl Paint)
C) The specialist. Generally these are people with high skills who -need- a certain program and know it. These people may have tried OSS alternatives and found them lacking or need obscure programs that OSS doesn't offer.
and finally, very, very, very few people fall into the last category which is people who use the "best" programs and are average users.
This is not going to convert the other 3 types of users which are the majority. Until Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. all start making OSS be default, people in group A aren't going to use OSS. Person B isn't going to think the program is any good if they don't spend money which defeats the purpose of OSS. And people in group C aren't going to use OSS because there is some things that are so obscure that no OSS developer would develop or use.