(of course he was a racist pig and a cancer-inducing chronic smoker who slept when London burned).
A man who saved his country and fought successfully against a vastly superior opponent should be derided simply because he was an asshole and *gasp* a smoker? Dude, sort out your priorities.
He racially profiled people: USA does the same under Truman, FDR and Bush. UK does it explicitly. Hell churchill was an exponent of freedom for all, but vehemently (and violently) denied the same to British Colonies.
Look, I get that you hate Churchill, but there have been a few Prime Ministers and party changes since his day.
Wow! Our brave Hurriance pilots, the brave lonely men in Bombers who did not return home, the men who braved Omaha and Gallipoli, and the countless WACs who wept when their men died will all be happy to learn this.
Kindly, they ARE happy to know this: There's still a country left to fight over, their children are alive, and as screwed up as things are now, at least there's something left to be screwed up.
In any organic process, there will be a systemic error rate. These are people we're dealing with, not machines. People get confused, they make mistakes, they get angry and other people allow those mistakes to stand, sometimes they do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons. Voting is a right, but nobody ever said it's done right. That said, the goal is to make that error rate less over time, to make continuous improvements in voter education, in process control, and in effective auditing, all the while knowing that perfection is a direction not a goal.
The problem as presented here is that the error rate grossly exceeds what previous methods had, and that this is attributable to systemic flaws, rather than the inherently higher initial error rate that would be present in the early use of any new system.
Robots visited mars first for a reason, and they worked quite nicely. Manned space exploration is a romantic 20th century leftover. Until a whole slew of new technology is invented, robots are smaller, faster, cheaper, and safer.
And when they can think for themselves and adapt to unforseen events, you might have something. The first moon landing would have biffed if there hadn't been a human being at the controls. Something about a large rock in the descent path that a computer-controlled landing couldn't have adjusted for in two seconds.
Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.
Your initial post suggested that humans would be a better choice, and you attempted to back your thesis with examples from Minnesota,
Thesis is a big word for such a small idea, which is this: Humans can do it now. Robots cannot. It's unlikely given economic pressures already in place that robots will be created anytime soon to do this affordably. Therefore, humans are the best option because they can do it. Robots are a nice theoretical fluffy bunny.
Do you have any concept of which you are speaking?
Minneapolis/St.Paul metropolitan area is rapidly becoming snarled in traffic jams. We've recently deployed a light-rail transit system, serving approximately a dozen stops. It was wildly successful and there are plans to expand it, with the next leg going over the recently rebuilt 35E bridge that (as you might recall) fell into the river a year ago. Our public transit system though, bluntly stated, has the suck. Really, unless your destination is downtown, or your transportation is within minneapolis/st.paul proper, you'll be spending hours riding and waiting. Which means that in Minnesota, as soon as you can afford it -- you buy a car. Insurance, by the way, is mandatory. We have a relatively high cost of living index as well. Not only that, but our traffic system is already being pushed beyond capacity. Experiments in "high occupancy vehicle lanes" to secure federal tax dollars have frustrated commuters because it's being used largely as a toll system for the upper-class to bypass traffic snarls, especially along 394 and the 35E (burnsville)->94(minneapolis) corridor.
Why on earth (lol) would you want to further automate road construction in Minnesota? Human labor on this planet is pretty cheap, even if it is unionized.
Presently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has a budget of approximately 2.2 billion dollars per year. We just biffed a few hundred million on reconstructing a bridge that fell into the river (oops), so we're kinda tight on funding right now. There are redesigns planned for most major freeway/freeway interchanges inside the 694/494 beltway, and we are already at capacity -- with average commute times of over 45 minutes. The budget has grown annually perhaps 5-9%, while the usage patterns indicate at least 15-23% (depending on who you ask) rises over the same period. In short, we're not keeping up. Adding insult to injury -- unlike California where temperatures are relatively constant and weather-related road repairs are at a minimum, leading to highway lifespans of 50 years or more... Up here in Minnesota, we need to resurface the roads perhaps every 5-7 years, and rebuild them entirely every 20 years or so due to high temperature variations and constant humidity and weathering. Concrete roads, common throughout most of the country, are not used here except for overpasses and select areas because they fall apart too quickly under weather conditions -- necessitating the use of less-robust black-top. So our per-mile maintenance costs are higher. As well, unlike in other parts of the world, we have at least a third of the year in which we can't build roads -- because the ground is frozen!
In short, labor is more expensive up here, the build times are shorter, the demand is rising faster than supply, and alternatives simply don't exist. Why robots? Because they can work at -40 temperatures, doing 16 hour shifts. Because human labor is damned expensive up here, and because automation means we can do more work for our dollars spent. That is, if such technology existed. But it doesn't. Every mile of road we build takes a team of twenty people working at least a couple days. And it's crap work that nobody wants to do, and only a small subset of the population is physically capable OF doing -- which is why, regardless of how well it pays, there's going to remain a shortage.
If robots could be used in construction this complex, they already would. Right up here in Minnesota, there is a huge need for road repair and construction. If there was any way to automate the process more than it already is, it would be done by now. Any robot that could withstand the punishment of construction work would need to be very heavy, and also have a lot of redundancy built into it. It's one thing to make a little mini-rover with a camera and some sampling equipment. It's quite another to put a Caterpillar, cement truck, and support equipment up there, and expect it not to break. Sorry, but human beings need to be there... There are some things robots just can't do -- like repair themselves automatically. And I mean that in practical real-world terms, not in the laboratory.
Build it on Earth first and make it work, then we'll talk about the moon.
If you do things right you can track your advertising impact. Many ads have 'click codes' embedded in the URL, on sites I've worked on we registered in the DB when someone clicked in from an ad site, we kept that info in a cookie and tracked it as they viewed products, and added it to the invoice when they made purchases, we could directly link the number of people who clicked that ad, browsed the product catalog, and purchased items from the website.
Which isn't much different than people coming in with clipped-out coupons. Yes, there's some information available. I'm not arguing that, there are ways to estimate, there is data available, but what I am saying is that these are edge cases. I don't think many people would suggest using that as their sole source of information to gauge the success of a campaign. The process is simply too organic... It's measured with margins of error and includes soft factors like "consumer confidence". I can't say with certainty ahead of time that a given advertisement, if viewed by 10,000 people, will attract 30 new sales, or 300 new sales. Retrospectively, I can estimate from available data that maybe 10-50 new sales were generated. Disclaimer: These numbers though are purely demonstrative, they have no empirical foundation.
It has a touch interface, weighs a little less than two pounds, detachable, stand-alone, and the whole package.... Mmm, nothing about the length. Oh, wait... It's for a tablet PC. Damn.
What does a digital age have to do with anything? As time has gone by our ability to communicate has always improved and yet civilization has so far continued marching along.
In short, everything.
For everything that anyone has ever said about you that has been created, translated, transported, or in some way has gone through a digital process,it is very likely now accessible in milliseconds from anywhere, world-wide, largely anonymously. Whereas before, people had to make a phone call, or sign a form, or do something else that took a measurable amount of time and energy, now they can find answers in seconds, no questions asked and no person to shy away from. You wouldn't think of asking a potential girlfriend to sign a release form authorizing a background check, because that would be rude. But if you can do it online, without having to ask anyone for anything, let alone knowing that nobody will know you looked... Now what are your chances?
Here's the problems. First, there's this idea that people who excercise their fifth amendment rights are guilty. Then there's this idea that anonymous speakers are "evil". Nevermind arguments about the 4th amendment, or about privacy and other things -- this all points to a systemic and popular change of opinion in the general public that excercising one's rights is synonymous with abusing them. This is very dangerous -- those rights were enacted to precisely and explicitly to protect innocent people who might otherwise be snared by ambiguous testimony, false witnesses, or procedural mistakes (amongst other flaws in the justice system that hang innocent people).
But that aside, the crux of the matter is, should anonymous speech be entitled the same protections as non-anonymous speech? If you're tempted to answer yes, consider that an "anonymous poster" stating that a pharmaceutical company is engaging in price fixing doesn't carry the same weight as a former accountant of the company in question stating it. Who you are does indeed matter when it comes to credibility. Just a talking point here. Here's the other problem -- people often post anonymously precisely because they have more to lose because of who they are, yet wish to perform a public service by drawing attention to a problem. Anyone remember F*ckedCompany during the dotcom bubble burst? The court fails to address these questions.
And the argument could be made they should not address them. Our court system is based on the concept that everything should be public, unless of course it has anything to do with terrorism, the government, or some government official's nuts in the vice, in which case it's Uber-Super-Double-Top-Secret. This is a problem for people found not guilty because public mentality is that even an accusation means you did something wrong. People's lives are ruined daily by false accusation, false witnesses, etc., because the system declares that everything should be public -- not just those found guilty, but also those found not guilty, or even innocent!
And in a digital age, I don't know that we can afford this anymore. The needs of the many (the public's need to know) is NOT outweighed by the individuals needs (for privacy) any longer, and a foundational aspect of our justice system now needs reform. Specifically, court actions should not be made public until the case is finalized and no longer appealable. Yes, that does mean the public gets less information. In my opinion... Deal with it. If this dynamic were the case, then the collateral damage in involving legal action against anonymous posters would be reduced a hundred-fold. Doing this eliminates the "chilling effect" that these actions provide.
Okay, first a disclaimer: I'm not a marketing expert with five hundred years experience and zero percent APR. I am a graphic designer, however. Here's the thing about advertising revenue. There's payment for the ad to be displayed, and there's a return on investment. The cost to run an advertising campaign can be from a few hundred dollars to ten million dollars, depending on medium, placement, demographic, etc. And almost always, the revenue stream does grow from a well-done marketing campaign. But there is never a way to prove causation. That is to say, an external factor could have accounted for all the extra business that cannot be accounted for. There is not, and never has been, a direct link between advertising and improved revenue. Of course, there will be people who try to tell you otherwise -- and it's conventional wisdom that it does help. What nobody can predict though is impact. I can't say with a much confidence that if I invest 1 million dollars in a marketing campaign I will see a 3 million dollar increase in gross revenues over the next 12 months. Improve, yes, how much -- who knows.
My point is this -- nobody who knows what they're talking about will quote numbers, not this way at any rate. A billion dollars is a pipe dream.
And I see you are a pompous bastard, who thinks that anyone with an opinion contrary to the current prevailing thinking should be publicly flogged, rather than thanked for trying to provide a very necessary discourse on such ideology. I recommend arguing a position other than what you favor for a couple years, minimum. Maybe it'll teach you some respect.
The problem is when you introduce two separate institutions that were never really meant to interoperate. There is a perception by the general public that doctors should be like House, or Scrubs, or a dozen other TV shows out there where everyone is a genius, and the cure can be found in a 1 hour episode with just a few tests, a quick flip through a book, and some snarky commentary. It's the same with criminal investigations -- the so-called "CSI effect". Juries now want "DNA evidence" to prove someone was at a scene (or not), something that's both impractical and often unnecessary, and cases have been lost simply because the evidence was "too boring".
The truth is doctors aren't geniuses. They sat next to you in high school. Some of them copied your answers on the math test. They are average everyday people that have been trained (hopefully well) to do a specific job. When the justice system (and the general public's expectations) meet the medical establishment, it's not pretty. Evidence is poorly understood, and when people don't understand something intellectually they fall back on their gut feelings, their emotions. As horrible as that sounds (and sometimes is), what can we really expect from Joe Average? A carefully-weighed judgment, with full knowledge and understanding of the evidence? Please.
Here's a hard truth to swallow: All that stuff about a "jury of your peers", and being judged by people who are well versed in the law (but not necessarily the material issue at hand), doesn't work in modern society. Our method of voting and elections are horribly outdated as well, and there are dozens of systems which (at least statistically) would provide "better" results. But we as individuals want to believe we understand things well enough. We want to believe that we are righteous, and just, and overall good people. And we very well may be, but that means exactly dick in the larger equation. Just as we have specialists in medicine, technology, and elsewhere, we need a justice system, a political system, and other institutions to mirror society in it's specializations -- judges who have IT training, or medicine, etc. Politicians who make decisions about, say, telecommunications who have worked in the industry. Because society has become too complicated for us to have just judges, or just lawyers, or outdated concepts like a "jury of our peers"... Who's only qualifications were that they registered to vote in your county.
If you want change, start by choosing the right people for the job, because contrary to popular belief in this country, not just anyone can do these things.
And Sharepoint works fine in non-IE browsers, including the javascript and stuff. There's a few integration features with office that require ActiveX, but if its used as a website, those wouldn't matter.
This isn't the first time Netflix has canned a popular feature in favor of an inferior solution for unfathomable reasons. Anyone remember being able to have multiple queues on your (shared) account with someone? Thrown out, in the name of "efficiency" to much booing. Now they're signing up with Microsoft to force Silverlight onto the world, reminding me of Medica's website -- which is completely inaccessible in anything but Internet Exploiter thanks to them deploying Sharepoint for everything. Ironic, for a company that's federally mandated to be accessible to the disabled. If your accessibility software isn't "Microsoft Compatible", I guess you're S.O.L. Sorry, a little off topic there... point is... Yeah, it's underhanded, but not intentionally so.
Here's what really happened:
1. Management got a phone call from Microsoft, or an MSCE Certified Bonehead, who said "Switch to Silverlight, they will wuv you 4ever!" 2. Management, knowing absolutely jack fricking crap about their tech infrastructure, says "We can't go wrong with Microsoft, make it so!" 3. The developers get the order From On High, and beg and plead with their supervisors... "please god, don't do it." 4. God (aka the department manager) says to the developers "So it is written, and so shall it be... for I like my job, and fear retribution." 5. The developers rolled out a crap implementation (beta) and it pleased Management, who decreed it shall become the Law of the Website. 6. The change was implemented half-arsed, rushed through testing, and the web developers and database people really didn't want to spend a lot of time revamping the entire
engine just to support the latest management whim, so the "undo" bit was left off. Minor oops! 7. The users came forth on the Anointed Day and screamed and flailed, and conspiracy and deceit was cried throughout the Thousand Forums. 8. Management... hears nothing. 9. The poor bastards making $10 an hour in Support do though, and several take up the habit of smoking (what? Well, whatever was convenient, of course).
Epilogue:
10. In about 4 weeks, enough meetings from stressed Support managers will percolate to the board room that "there's a problem of some kind." 11. Management will spend another two weeks in meetings, phone calls, emails, and putting their thumbs up their arse. 12. A decree will come down... "Fix it." It will be vague, badly-defined, and cause all who hoped for resolution to cringe. 13. In the end, a lone Developer will smote the demon upon the mountain-side, adding an "undo" feature... and probably getting fired later for not getting approval. But it will save thousands of complaints and hundreds of cancelled accounts.
Well, he didn't really succeed at it. I think he folded up shop after a couple of years.
Not exactly. Someone tried to execute a power play to liquidate his assets and freeze him out on decisions, but he caught wind of it and closed shop amidst serious fraud between a partner of his and the leasing agency. His business methods were sound, as were his observations. Also, it was more than "a couple" years... try about seven.
Just because an article was written to refute my points doesn't invalidate them. And the article was about what one person said or didn't say, and what one journalist did, or didn't, interpret those comments to be. Sorry if being a bit more broad in my analysis than the dick waving between a journalist and a self-styled expert has irritated you in some fashion. The iPhone's market share in Japan supports my assertion better than all the articles thus far submitted -- and my source is a bit less biased than "Apple Insider"... citation.
I go to an obscure reference; Acts of Gord, specifically the Book of Chronicles, Chapter 1, wherein the great Gord spake thusly:
The public does NOT buy a system unless they feel it will give them lots of new games down the road. Look at MS. They are screaming "Xbox has developers! Honest! More than we can fit into a bus!" which is the right approach. Joe Average will NOT buy a system if he feels that there won't be lots of new stuff coming out. And Nintendo burned a lot of bridges with their barren N64 release schedule for good games. They need to come out and say "hey! Hundreds of games are coming out!" except that would be a lie.
I highly encourage you all to go read Acts of Gord, not only because it's hilarious but because it's written by a guy who actually RAN a video game store. For several years. The bottom line is this: You screw the developers and no games get put out. No games = no consumer interest.
But they don't use it either. Here's the facts: The phone market for Japan is the tightest in the world. Frankly, the phones sold there are generations ahead of what's sold elsewhere in the world. These phones do video teleconferencing, can be used to do wireless credit card transactions, digital TV, some of them can be used as train/bus passes, and even interface with vending machines (just point and click, and viola). The "iphone" frankly has a poor feature set, and oh yes -- it is not a flip phone. The japanese love their flip phones from everything I've read. But as I'm sure there's someone who actually lives in japan around on the forums, please post back and tell us what the real story is... I only talk to people online.
So no, Japan doesn't hate the iphone, there is no conspiracy, Apple is simply behind the times in that country. But hey, if it makes you feel any better -- I doubt Comcast is making any inroads there either.;)
Maybe financial institutions are catching on to the idea that open source provides a far greater degree of security, accountability, and maintainability than closed source? Just a thought. Because part of the reason why this situation arose is because of black-box money transfers that didn't have any oversight, and were largely automated. This way, financial institutions can get a far better picture of risk exposure -- and know that everyone else is doing the transactions in the same fashion. In short, everybody knows the rules of the game and who the teams are, unlike before where the rules weren't known until a referee called a foul.
Slashdot Mirror
(of course he was a racist pig and a cancer-inducing chronic smoker who slept when London burned).
A man who saved his country and fought successfully against a vastly superior opponent should be derided simply because he was an asshole and *gasp* a smoker? Dude, sort out your priorities.
He racially profiled people: USA does the same under Truman, FDR and Bush. UK does it explicitly. Hell churchill was an exponent of freedom for all, but vehemently (and violently) denied the same to British Colonies.
Look, I get that you hate Churchill, but there have been a few Prime Ministers and party changes since his day.
Wow! Our brave Hurriance pilots, the brave lonely men in Bombers who did not return home, the men who braved Omaha and Gallipoli, and the countless WACs who wept when their men died will all be happy to learn this.
Kindly, they ARE happy to know this: There's still a country left to fight over, their children are alive, and as screwed up as things are now, at least there's something left to be screwed up.
There is an *allowed* number??
In any organic process, there will be a systemic error rate. These are people we're dealing with, not machines. People get confused, they make mistakes, they get angry and other people allow those mistakes to stand, sometimes they do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the right reasons. Voting is a right, but nobody ever said it's done right. That said, the goal is to make that error rate less over time, to make continuous improvements in voter education, in process control, and in effective auditing, all the while knowing that perfection is a direction not a goal.
The problem as presented here is that the error rate grossly exceeds what previous methods had, and that this is attributable to systemic flaws, rather than the inherently higher initial error rate that would be present in the early use of any new system.
Robots visited mars first for a reason, and they worked quite nicely. Manned space exploration is a romantic 20th century leftover. Until a whole slew of new technology is invented, robots are smaller, faster, cheaper, and safer.
And when they can think for themselves and adapt to unforseen events, you might have something. The first moon landing would have biffed if there hadn't been a human being at the controls. Something about a large rock in the descent path that a computer-controlled landing couldn't have adjusted for in two seconds.
Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything, using bank accounts in countries like Switzerland, and doing everything possible to minimize the data collected on you. Of course, you'll be labeled a terrorist for going "off grid", but if you want privacy anymore these days, you need to control your exposure. You. Personally.
Your initial post suggested that humans would be a better choice, and you attempted to back your thesis with examples from Minnesota,
Thesis is a big word for such a small idea, which is this: Humans can do it now. Robots cannot. It's unlikely given economic pressures already in place that robots will be created anytime soon to do this affordably. Therefore, humans are the best option because they can do it. Robots are a nice theoretical fluffy bunny.
Does anyone else think that if you have that much navel lint, you've got bigger problems than justifying your research?
Do you have any concept of which you are speaking?
Minneapolis/St.Paul metropolitan area is rapidly becoming snarled in traffic jams. We've recently deployed a light-rail transit system, serving approximately a dozen stops. It was wildly successful and there are plans to expand it, with the next leg going over the recently rebuilt 35E bridge that (as you might recall) fell into the river a year ago. Our public transit system though, bluntly stated, has the suck. Really, unless your destination is downtown, or your transportation is within minneapolis/st.paul proper, you'll be spending hours riding and waiting. Which means that in Minnesota, as soon as you can afford it -- you buy a car. Insurance, by the way, is mandatory. We have a relatively high cost of living index as well. Not only that, but our traffic system is already being pushed beyond capacity. Experiments in "high occupancy vehicle lanes" to secure federal tax dollars have frustrated commuters because it's being used largely as a toll system for the upper-class to bypass traffic snarls, especially along 394 and the 35E (burnsville)->94(minneapolis) corridor.
Why on earth (lol) would you want to further automate road construction in Minnesota? Human labor on this planet is pretty cheap, even if it is unionized.
Presently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has a budget of approximately 2.2 billion dollars per year. We just biffed a few hundred million on reconstructing a bridge that fell into the river (oops), so we're kinda tight on funding right now. There are redesigns planned for most major freeway/freeway interchanges inside the 694/494 beltway, and we are already at capacity -- with average commute times of over 45 minutes. The budget has grown annually perhaps 5-9%, while the usage patterns indicate at least 15-23% (depending on who you ask) rises over the same period. In short, we're not keeping up. Adding insult to injury -- unlike California where temperatures are relatively constant and weather-related road repairs are at a minimum, leading to highway lifespans of 50 years or more... Up here in Minnesota, we need to resurface the roads perhaps every 5-7 years, and rebuild them entirely every 20 years or so due to high temperature variations and constant humidity and weathering. Concrete roads, common throughout most of the country, are not used here except for overpasses and select areas because they fall apart too quickly under weather conditions -- necessitating the use of less-robust black-top. So our per-mile maintenance costs are higher. As well, unlike in other parts of the world, we have at least a third of the year in which we can't build roads -- because the ground is frozen!
In short, labor is more expensive up here, the build times are shorter, the demand is rising faster than supply, and alternatives simply don't exist. Why robots? Because they can work at -40 temperatures, doing 16 hour shifts. Because human labor is damned expensive up here, and because automation means we can do more work for our dollars spent. That is, if such technology existed. But it doesn't. Every mile of road we build takes a team of twenty people working at least a couple days. And it's crap work that nobody wants to do, and only a small subset of the population is physically capable OF doing -- which is why, regardless of how well it pays, there's going to remain a shortage.
If robots could be used in construction this complex, they already would. Right up here in Minnesota, there is a huge need for road repair and construction. If there was any way to automate the process more than it already is, it would be done by now. Any robot that could withstand the punishment of construction work would need to be very heavy, and also have a lot of redundancy built into it. It's one thing to make a little mini-rover with a camera and some sampling equipment. It's quite another to put a Caterpillar, cement truck, and support equipment up there, and expect it not to break. Sorry, but human beings need to be there... There are some things robots just can't do -- like repair themselves automatically. And I mean that in practical real-world terms, not in the laboratory.
Build it on Earth first and make it work, then we'll talk about the moon.
If you do things right you can track your advertising impact. Many ads have 'click codes' embedded in the URL, on sites I've worked on we registered in the DB when someone clicked in from an ad site, we kept that info in a cookie and tracked it as they viewed products, and added it to the invoice when they made purchases, we could directly link the number of people who clicked that ad, browsed the product catalog, and purchased items from the website.
Which isn't much different than people coming in with clipped-out coupons. Yes, there's some information available. I'm not arguing that, there are ways to estimate, there is data available, but what I am saying is that these are edge cases. I don't think many people would suggest using that as their sole source of information to gauge the success of a campaign. The process is simply too organic... It's measured with margins of error and includes soft factors like "consumer confidence". I can't say with certainty ahead of time that a given advertisement, if viewed by 10,000 people, will attract 30 new sales, or 300 new sales. Retrospectively, I can estimate from available data that maybe 10-50 new sales were generated. Disclaimer: These numbers though are purely demonstrative, they have no empirical foundation.
It has a touch interface, weighs a little less than two pounds, detachable, stand-alone, and the whole package.... Mmm, nothing about the length. Oh, wait... It's for a tablet PC. Damn.
What does a digital age have to do with anything? As time has gone by our ability to communicate has always improved and yet civilization has so far continued marching along.
In short, everything.
For everything that anyone has ever said about you that has been created, translated, transported, or in some way has gone through a digital process,it is very likely now accessible in milliseconds from anywhere, world-wide, largely anonymously. Whereas before, people had to make a phone call, or sign a form, or do something else that took a measurable amount of time and energy, now they can find answers in seconds, no questions asked and no person to shy away from. You wouldn't think of asking a potential girlfriend to sign a release form authorizing a background check, because that would be rude. But if you can do it online, without having to ask anyone for anything, let alone knowing that nobody will know you looked... Now what are your chances?
Pretty good, I'd wager.
Here's the problems. First, there's this idea that people who excercise their fifth amendment rights are guilty. Then there's this idea that anonymous speakers are "evil". Nevermind arguments about the 4th amendment, or about privacy and other things -- this all points to a systemic and popular change of opinion in the general public that excercising one's rights is synonymous with abusing them. This is very dangerous -- those rights were enacted to precisely and explicitly to protect innocent people who might otherwise be snared by ambiguous testimony, false witnesses, or procedural mistakes (amongst other flaws in the justice system that hang innocent people).
But that aside, the crux of the matter is, should anonymous speech be entitled the same protections as non-anonymous speech? If you're tempted to answer yes, consider that an "anonymous poster" stating that a pharmaceutical company is engaging in price fixing doesn't carry the same weight as a former accountant of the company in question stating it. Who you are does indeed matter when it comes to credibility. Just a talking point here. Here's the other problem -- people often post anonymously precisely because they have more to lose because of who they are, yet wish to perform a public service by drawing attention to a problem. Anyone remember F*ckedCompany during the dotcom bubble burst? The court fails to address these questions.
And the argument could be made they should not address them. Our court system is based on the concept that everything should be public, unless of course it has anything to do with terrorism, the government, or some government official's nuts in the vice, in which case it's Uber-Super-Double-Top-Secret. This is a problem for people found not guilty because public mentality is that even an accusation means you did something wrong. People's lives are ruined daily by false accusation, false witnesses, etc., because the system declares that everything should be public -- not just those found guilty, but also those found not guilty, or even innocent!
And in a digital age, I don't know that we can afford this anymore. The needs of the many (the public's need to know) is NOT outweighed by the individuals needs (for privacy) any longer, and a foundational aspect of our justice system now needs reform. Specifically, court actions should not be made public until the case is finalized and no longer appealable. Yes, that does mean the public gets less information. In my opinion... Deal with it. If this dynamic were the case, then the collateral damage in involving legal action against anonymous posters would be reduced a hundred-fold. Doing this eliminates the "chilling effect" that these actions provide.
Okay, first a disclaimer: I'm not a marketing expert with five hundred years experience and zero percent APR. I am a graphic designer, however. Here's the thing about advertising revenue. There's payment for the ad to be displayed, and there's a return on investment. The cost to run an advertising campaign can be from a few hundred dollars to ten million dollars, depending on medium, placement, demographic, etc. And almost always, the revenue stream does grow from a well-done marketing campaign. But there is never a way to prove causation. That is to say, an external factor could have accounted for all the extra business that cannot be accounted for. There is not, and never has been, a direct link between advertising and improved revenue. Of course, there will be people who try to tell you otherwise -- and it's conventional wisdom that it does help. What nobody can predict though is impact. I can't say with a much confidence that if I invest 1 million dollars in a marketing campaign I will see a 3 million dollar increase in gross revenues over the next 12 months. Improve, yes, how much -- who knows.
My point is this -- nobody who knows what they're talking about will quote numbers, not this way at any rate. A billion dollars is a pipe dream.
And I see you are a pompous bastard, who thinks that anyone with an opinion contrary to the current prevailing thinking should be publicly flogged, rather than thanked for trying to provide a very necessary discourse on such ideology. I recommend arguing a position other than what you favor for a couple years, minimum. Maybe it'll teach you some respect.
The problem is when you introduce two separate institutions that were never really meant to interoperate. There is a perception by the general public that doctors should be like House, or Scrubs, or a dozen other TV shows out there where everyone is a genius, and the cure can be found in a 1 hour episode with just a few tests, a quick flip through a book, and some snarky commentary. It's the same with criminal investigations -- the so-called "CSI effect". Juries now want "DNA evidence" to prove someone was at a scene (or not), something that's both impractical and often unnecessary, and cases have been lost simply because the evidence was "too boring".
The truth is doctors aren't geniuses. They sat next to you in high school. Some of them copied your answers on the math test. They are average everyday people that have been trained (hopefully well) to do a specific job. When the justice system (and the general public's expectations) meet the medical establishment, it's not pretty. Evidence is poorly understood, and when people don't understand something intellectually they fall back on their gut feelings, their emotions. As horrible as that sounds (and sometimes is), what can we really expect from Joe Average? A carefully-weighed judgment, with full knowledge and understanding of the evidence? Please.
Here's a hard truth to swallow: All that stuff about a "jury of your peers", and being judged by people who are well versed in the law (but not necessarily the material issue at hand), doesn't work in modern society. Our method of voting and elections are horribly outdated as well, and there are dozens of systems which (at least statistically) would provide "better" results. But we as individuals want to believe we understand things well enough. We want to believe that we are righteous, and just, and overall good people. And we very well may be, but that means exactly dick in the larger equation. Just as we have specialists in medicine, technology, and elsewhere, we need a justice system, a political system, and other institutions to mirror society in it's specializations -- judges who have IT training, or medicine, etc. Politicians who make decisions about, say, telecommunications who have worked in the industry. Because society has become too complicated for us to have just judges, or just lawyers, or outdated concepts like a "jury of our peers"... Who's only qualifications were that they registered to vote in your county.
If you want change, start by choosing the right people for the job, because contrary to popular belief in this country, not just anyone can do these things.
... or they could just conform to open standards.
"open"... "standards"... Two words that should really only see each other every now and then, and always with court-ordered supervision. -_-
Uhh, citation needed? There's no evidence of a cash exchange in this decision. As much as I'd love to say Microsoft is doing so, there's no proof.
And Sharepoint works fine in non-IE browsers, including the javascript and stuff. There's a few integration features with office that require ActiveX, but if its used as a website, those wouldn't matter.
O RLY?
They reverted that decision after the public outcry. We still have multiple queues on our account.
I just searched on this and you are correct. Thanks.
This isn't the first time Netflix has canned a popular feature in favor of an inferior solution for unfathomable reasons. Anyone remember being able to have multiple queues on your (shared) account with someone? Thrown out, in the name of "efficiency" to much booing. Now they're signing up with Microsoft to force Silverlight onto the world, reminding me of Medica's website -- which is completely inaccessible in anything but Internet Exploiter thanks to them deploying Sharepoint for everything. Ironic, for a company that's federally mandated to be accessible to the disabled. If your accessibility software isn't "Microsoft Compatible", I guess you're S.O.L. Sorry, a little off topic there... point is... Yeah, it's underhanded, but not intentionally so.
Here's what really happened:
1. Management got a phone call from Microsoft, or an MSCE Certified Bonehead, who said "Switch to Silverlight, they will wuv you 4ever!"
2. Management, knowing absolutely jack fricking crap about their tech infrastructure, says "We can't go wrong with Microsoft, make it so!"
3. The developers get the order From On High, and beg and plead with their supervisors... "please god, don't do it."
4. God (aka the department manager) says to the developers "So it is written, and so shall it be... for I like my job, and fear retribution."
5. The developers rolled out a crap implementation (beta) and it pleased Management, who decreed it shall become the Law of the Website.
6. The change was implemented half-arsed, rushed through testing, and the web developers and database people really didn't want to spend a lot of time revamping the entire
engine just to support the latest management whim, so the "undo" bit was left off. Minor oops!
7. The users came forth on the Anointed Day and screamed and flailed, and conspiracy and deceit was cried throughout the Thousand Forums.
8. Management... hears nothing.
9. The poor bastards making $10 an hour in Support do though, and several take up the habit of smoking (what? Well, whatever was convenient, of course).
Epilogue:
10. In about 4 weeks, enough meetings from stressed Support managers will percolate to the board room that "there's a problem of some kind."
11. Management will spend another two weeks in meetings, phone calls, emails, and putting their thumbs up their arse.
12. A decree will come down... "Fix it." It will be vague, badly-defined, and cause all who hoped for resolution to cringe.
13. In the end, a lone Developer will smote the demon upon the mountain-side, adding an "undo" feature... and probably getting fired later for not getting approval. But it will save thousands of complaints and hundreds of cancelled accounts.
Isn't Real Life fun?
Well, he didn't really succeed at it. I think he folded up shop after a couple of years.
Not exactly. Someone tried to execute a power play to liquidate his assets and freeze him out on decisions, but he caught wind of it and closed shop amidst serious fraud between a partner of his and the leasing agency. His business methods were sound, as were his observations. Also, it was more than "a couple" years... try about seven.
Just because an article was written to refute my points doesn't invalidate them. And the article was about what one person said or didn't say, and what one journalist did, or didn't, interpret those comments to be. Sorry if being a bit more broad in my analysis than the dick waving between a journalist and a self-styled expert has irritated you in some fashion. The iPhone's market share in Japan supports my assertion better than all the articles thus far submitted -- and my source is a bit less biased than "Apple Insider"... citation.
I go to an obscure reference; Acts of Gord, specifically the Book of Chronicles, Chapter 1, wherein the great Gord spake thusly:
The public does NOT buy a system unless they feel it will give them lots of new games down the road. Look at MS. They are screaming "Xbox has
developers! Honest! More than we can fit into a bus!" which is the right approach. Joe Average will NOT buy a system if he feels that there won't be lots of new stuff coming out. And Nintendo burned a lot of bridges with their barren N64 release schedule for good games. They need to come out and say "hey! Hundreds of games are coming out!" except that would be a lie.
I highly encourage you all to go read Acts of Gord, not only because it's hilarious but because it's written by a guy who actually RAN a video game store. For several years. The bottom line is this: You screw the developers and no games get put out. No games = no consumer interest.
But they don't use it either. Here's the facts: The phone market for Japan is the tightest in the world. Frankly, the phones sold there are generations ahead of what's sold elsewhere in the world. These phones do video teleconferencing, can be used to do wireless credit card transactions, digital TV, some of them can be used as train/bus passes, and even interface with vending machines (just point and click, and viola). The "iphone" frankly has a poor feature set, and oh yes -- it is not a flip phone. The japanese love their flip phones from everything I've read. But as I'm sure there's someone who actually lives in japan around on the forums, please post back and tell us what the real story is... I only talk to people online.
So no, Japan doesn't hate the iphone, there is no conspiracy, Apple is simply behind the times in that country. But hey, if it makes you feel any better -- I doubt Comcast is making any inroads there either. ;)
Maybe financial institutions are catching on to the idea that open source provides a far greater degree of security, accountability, and maintainability than closed source? Just a thought. Because part of the reason why this situation arose is because of black-box money transfers that didn't have any oversight, and were largely automated. This way, financial institutions can get a far better picture of risk exposure -- and know that everyone else is doing the transactions in the same fashion. In short, everybody knows the rules of the game and who the teams are, unlike before where the rules weren't known until a referee called a foul.