Data isn't like that. If the connection is present, it costs no more for the internet provider to transmit at maximum bandwidth versus transmitting nothing at all, for a given period of time. You might as well use it. The only limitation is bandwidth, since the "pipe" is only so big, so if everyone is trying to transmit/receive data at the same time, they're going to be limited as they have to share.
Can you cite this? I'm not entirely convinced. Is it because the bandwidth is of a constant fixed size?
Why is charging by bit the wrong model? You pay for electricity and gas by the amount you use. You even pay more during 'peak' times (evening for electricity, low oil supply for gas). Why not charge people more during peak times for bandwidth use?
Journalists are getting paid by relying on scarcity of information? Where did you come up with that? The point of the article is that journalists are creating content and having it blatantly infringed upon. Whether or not information is scarce is a non-issue.
But software patents and patents in general are insane for a different reason. Patents often cover a multitude of ideas rather than a single implementation. There are many versions of Avatar: Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully; they are all the same idea with different copywritten implementations. This is what makes copyrights OK and patents insane.
The developer is dealing with the problem the only way they can. They are trying to get word out that their app had been approved multiple times and is only now being rejected. What else do you expect?
How can a company be prepared to invest into a platform that can change at any time, cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action but to whine on some no-name blog
You picked the right option. I've seen this countless times. When the naughty apps were pulled from the store while the big names were left up, like Sports Illustrated Swimsuit.
It is Apple's shameful approval process which destroys competition from small name developers who don't have the backing of a larger corporation. What if a small developer wanted to make a swimsuit app? Tough luck, you're no Sports Illustrated, kiddo.
You're left with two options: complain and hope people notice (you're in luck!) or try to get the backing of a major corporation.
And yet computer developers have survived with equivalent or worse issues for years now. Seriously, people need to stop complaining about things as trivial as different screen sizes, hardware capabilities, input methods, and software versions.
Still want your app to run on Android 1.2? Then target the lowest common denominator or make separate binaries for versions where APIs are/are not available. Want it to be usable on different screen sizes? Use layouts. Different input methods? Your app should be usable with different inputs.
Real developers deal with these issues. Everyone else runs to the iPhone.
And therein lies the issue: far too many people look to science as a way to deny religion. They are manufacturing a discord when, apparently, even many top scientists don't have a problem doing both. It's pure bologna, and that's the entire point of the study.
People need something to believe in. They need a sense of place in the world. It's no surprise that in an increasingly information age people turn to science to make sense of the world rather than religion.
It's not the non-religious who create this discord you're talking about -- it's the religious ones who are afraid of losing their power. Science has never been about power, it's about truth. Yes science can be used in powerful ways but it's fundamentally about observing in concluding, whereas religion seeks to make your conclusions for you.
They've had DRM on battle.net for years and years now. I remember Diablo II having DRM where two people with the same disc key can't play online at the same time. Saying the game doesn't have DRM is a blatant lie. It is DRM and it always has been.
Now not only are you tracked when playing online on battle.net, but you also must activate your game online. What does that sound like?
Lesson learned: add amazing multiplayer to your games and people will stop complaining about your DRM.
Before you get on that train, take a look at web technologies. They are a black art filled with platform inconsistency and trick after trick to get things working. It's ridiculous. The only good thing about them is that they are generally open and that's about it. I'd take a controlled (not necessarily closed), consistent, and free platform any day over something like HTML/CSS.
Wait, Jack and Juliet were involved?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Can someone explain this to me? I watched the whole series and I still don't get it. Maybe I forgot something.
In the final episode in the waiting room flash-sideways in the hospital we find out that Jack's ex-wife and mother of his son is Juliet. I don't remember Jack and Juliet ever being together or mentioning being separated while on the Island. How then are they somehow together in the waiting room? I thought that the waiting room corresponded with what their lives were like as if the Island never happened.
The first thing I said after wasting 15 minutes on Pac-Man was "I wonder if you could calculate how much money this game cost corporations around the world in wasted time?"
Not to mention that if a program/plug-in/app crashes an OS then it's the OS's problem. The process shouldn't have had the critical error but that doesn't mean your OS is allowed to crash.
/.ers are able to ignore the distortion field most of the time but we all know the general public goes on believing whatever they hear. That worries me.
I already patented doing stuff based on other stuff. With my invention, if certain stuff is greater than a threshold some stuff will happen. It uses heuristics to calculate the optimal time to do stuff, including information which may or may not comprise of stuff A, stuff B, stuff C, or stuff alphabet. My invention also works with signal types such as signal A, signal B, or any other signal or ascertain can possibly apply to this invention.
Furthermore I don't even have a working model of this stuff happening. However if my stuff invention is made by anyone else, I own it.
There were plenty of social networking sites before Facebook. What I think Facebook brought to the table were two things: it was initially exclusive and it was not very customizable.
Exclusivity to universities and colleges made it gain popularity amongst those groups very quickly. Eventually everyone else was longing to join as well. All that was left to do was open the floodgates.
A lot of the other sites had way too much customization. Nothing was standardized because everyone had to create their 'own' drastically different MySpace page. While it's great for the computer literate, not everyone else likes that kind of thing.
People drove standard vehicles without power steering, ABS, and many other simplifying features found in modern models for decades too. People weren't doing just fine with those vehicles much like people aren't doing just fine with real computers today. Some users need those simplifications.
Like it or not, some people are going to use tablet form factor devices as their main computing platform.
I agree that people will revolt against Apple's obsessive control because in the end it is irrelevant. Their control isn't what makes the system usable. Tablet form factors isn't even a part of it. It's a platform that encourages simplicity rather than interoperability gone haywire.
My definition of 'everything' is pretty much the same as yours, which is: to use the apps and services that I'm interested in on the platform I choose.
Freedom for me just means no arbitrary restrictions. I'll be able to use a command prompt only if one is available or I choose to make one, and no overlord is going to tell me whether or not I can use it.
For me, "everything" at the moment consists of web surfing, email, music, marine navigation charts, plus the occasional e-magazine or ebook, in a form factor much more convenient than a notebook. I have not run into any arbitrary restriction that limits my "freedom."
I really dislike this whole tossing about the idea that a device which you are free to buy or not restricts one's "freedom."
That's a bit different. There's capability: I can buy a car that can drive on roads but I don't expect it to be able to drive to the island without a bridge; Then there's freedom: I can buy a car and I have the freedom to go to Burger King, the local shawarma house (yum!), or any other place I choose. With Apple, the product they sold me is perfectly capable of going to both restaurants however they're telling me I can have my Burger King but not my shawarma. That's restriction of freedom.
I'm sure that you've already wanted apps that aren't available purely because Apple disallowed them. Hell I got an iPod Touch and found that Apple had already removed the very app from the store that I had bought the damn thing for.
I think you're missing the point though. Apple made a computing device that's easy to use by the computing illiterate. But their control over the system isn't what makes it usable. It's the apps that make is usable, just like the apps on PCs make them usable. Apple is right that a lot of people don't want to worry about files, system settings, and app integration with the system. But control over the system isn't part of that. Anyone could make a computer without the filesytem and all those extra goodies, but with freedom. Give it some time and Android and WebOS will be on tablets without the draconian control.
People want usability but they also want freedom. Apple is trying to tell them that they can't have usability with freedom. Problem is, they're wrong.
The first part he mentions: vendors have the right to enforce things on their platform. OK, I'll agree with that. Otherwise all gaming platforms would be in trouble.
The second part about user experience is bullshit though. What does this do to ensure a quality user experience? Nothing. The "user experience" is nothing other than Apple saying what apps can/cannot run. That's not a user experience, that's a prison.
And the final part is pretentious BS too. Those who haven't accomplished what you have aren't allowed to criticize you? OK. Then every iPhone and iPad review is meaningless according to Jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Data isn't like that. If the connection is present, it costs no more for the internet provider to transmit at maximum bandwidth versus transmitting nothing at all, for a given period of time. You might as well use it. The only limitation is bandwidth, since the "pipe" is only so big, so if everyone is trying to transmit/receive data at the same time, they're going to be limited as they have to share.
Can you cite this? I'm not entirely convinced. Is it because the bandwidth is of a constant fixed size?
I don't know how this got modded insightful. Insightful does not mean "I agree" or "I hate AT&T's new plan."
Landline phone plans. Electricity. Natural gas. Automotive gas. Nearly any other product is pay per use. QED
Why is charging by bit the wrong model? You pay for electricity and gas by the amount you use. You even pay more during 'peak' times (evening for electricity, low oil supply for gas). Why not charge people more during peak times for bandwidth use?
Look what happened to X-Men Wolverine.
Journalists are getting paid by relying on scarcity of information? Where did you come up with that? The point of the article is that journalists are creating content and having it blatantly infringed upon. Whether or not information is scarce is a non-issue.
But software patents and patents in general are insane for a different reason. Patents often cover a multitude of ideas rather than a single implementation. There are many versions of Avatar: Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully; they are all the same idea with different copywritten implementations. This is what makes copyrights OK and patents insane.
The developer is dealing with the problem the only way they can. They are trying to get word out that their app had been approved multiple times and is only now being rejected. What else do you expect?
How can a company be prepared to invest into a platform that can change at any time, cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action but to whine on some no-name blog
You picked the right option. I've seen this countless times. When the naughty apps were pulled from the store while the big names were left up, like Sports Illustrated Swimsuit.
It is Apple's shameful approval process which destroys competition from small name developers who don't have the backing of a larger corporation. What if a small developer wanted to make a swimsuit app? Tough luck, you're no Sports Illustrated, kiddo.
You're left with two options: complain and hope people notice (you're in luck!) or try to get the backing of a major corporation.
And yet computer developers have survived with equivalent or worse issues for years now. Seriously, people need to stop complaining about things as trivial as different screen sizes, hardware capabilities, input methods, and software versions.
Still want your app to run on Android 1.2? Then target the lowest common denominator or make separate binaries for versions where APIs are/are not available. Want it to be usable on different screen sizes? Use layouts. Different input methods? Your app should be usable with different inputs.
Real developers deal with these issues. Everyone else runs to the iPhone.
And therein lies the issue: far too many people look to science as a way to deny religion. They are manufacturing a discord when, apparently, even many top scientists don't have a problem doing both. It's pure bologna, and that's the entire point of the study.
People need something to believe in. They need a sense of place in the world. It's no surprise that in an increasingly information age people turn to science to make sense of the world rather than religion.
It's not the non-religious who create this discord you're talking about -- it's the religious ones who are afraid of losing their power. Science has never been about power, it's about truth. Yes science can be used in powerful ways but it's fundamentally about observing in concluding, whereas religion seeks to make your conclusions for you.
They've had DRM on battle.net for years and years now. I remember Diablo II having DRM where two people with the same disc key can't play online at the same time. Saying the game doesn't have DRM is a blatant lie. It is DRM and it always has been.
Now not only are you tracked when playing online on battle.net, but you also must activate your game online. What does that sound like?
Lesson learned: add amazing multiplayer to your games and people will stop complaining about your DRM.
If it was just for stat counting then why do they only allow one disc key to play online at a time? It's DRM.
But the PIN should prevent you from getting that far. Unless this part of the memory is meant to be unprotected.
Before you get on that train, take a look at web technologies. They are a black art filled with platform inconsistency and trick after trick to get things working. It's ridiculous. The only good thing about them is that they are generally open and that's about it. I'd take a controlled (not necessarily closed), consistent, and free platform any day over something like HTML/CSS.
Can someone explain this to me? I watched the whole series and I still don't get it. Maybe I forgot something.
In the final episode in the waiting room flash-sideways in the hospital we find out that Jack's ex-wife and mother of his son is Juliet. I don't remember Jack and Juliet ever being together or mentioning being separated while on the Island. How then are they somehow together in the waiting room? I thought that the waiting room corresponded with what their lives were like as if the Island never happened.
The first thing I said after wasting 15 minutes on Pac-Man was "I wonder if you could calculate how much money this game cost corporations around the world in wasted time?"
Not to mention that if a program/plug-in/app crashes an OS then it's the OS's problem. The process shouldn't have had the critical error but that doesn't mean your OS is allowed to crash.
/.ers are able to ignore the distortion field most of the time but we all know the general public goes on believing whatever they hear. That worries me.
If I hear him say magical at this announcement then it damn well better be able to cast a level 5 ice bolt!
I already patented doing stuff based on other stuff. With my invention, if certain stuff is greater than a threshold some stuff will happen. It uses heuristics to calculate the optimal time to do stuff, including information which may or may not comprise of stuff A, stuff B, stuff C, or stuff alphabet. My invention also works with signal types such as signal A, signal B, or any other signal or ascertain can possibly apply to this invention.
Furthermore I don't even have a working model of this stuff happening. However if my stuff invention is made by anyone else, I own it.
you must stop looking backward.
There were plenty of social networking sites before Facebook. What I think Facebook brought to the table were two things: it was initially exclusive and it was not very customizable.
Exclusivity to universities and colleges made it gain popularity amongst those groups very quickly. Eventually everyone else was longing to join as well. All that was left to do was open the floodgates.
A lot of the other sites had way too much customization. Nothing was standardized because everyone had to create their 'own' drastically different MySpace page. While it's great for the computer literate, not everyone else likes that kind of thing.
People drove standard vehicles without power steering, ABS, and many other simplifying features found in modern models for decades too. People weren't doing just fine with those vehicles much like people aren't doing just fine with real computers today. Some users need those simplifications.
Like it or not, some people are going to use tablet form factor devices as their main computing platform.
I agree that people will revolt against Apple's obsessive control because in the end it is irrelevant. Their control isn't what makes the system usable. Tablet form factors isn't even a part of it. It's a platform that encourages simplicity rather than interoperability gone haywire.
My definition of 'everything' is pretty much the same as yours, which is: to use the apps and services that I'm interested in on the platform I choose.
Freedom for me just means no arbitrary restrictions. I'll be able to use a command prompt only if one is available or I choose to make one, and no overlord is going to tell me whether or not I can use it.
For me, "everything" at the moment consists of web surfing, email, music, marine navigation charts, plus the occasional e-magazine or ebook, in a form factor much more convenient than a notebook. I have not run into any arbitrary restriction that limits my "freedom."
I really dislike this whole tossing about the idea that a device which you are free to buy or not restricts one's "freedom."
That's a bit different. There's capability: I can buy a car that can drive on roads but I don't expect it to be able to drive to the island without a bridge; Then there's freedom: I can buy a car and I have the freedom to go to Burger King, the local shawarma house (yum!), or any other place I choose. With Apple, the product they sold me is perfectly capable of going to both restaurants however they're telling me I can have my Burger King but not my shawarma. That's restriction of freedom.
I'm sure that you've already wanted apps that aren't available purely because Apple disallowed them. Hell I got an iPod Touch and found that Apple had already removed the very app from the store that I had bought the damn thing for.
I think you're missing the point though. Apple made a computing device that's easy to use by the computing illiterate. But their control over the system isn't what makes it usable. It's the apps that make is usable, just like the apps on PCs make them usable. Apple is right that a lot of people don't want to worry about files, system settings, and app integration with the system. But control over the system isn't part of that. Anyone could make a computer without the filesytem and all those extra goodies, but with freedom. Give it some time and Android and WebOS will be on tablets without the draconian control.
People want usability but they also want freedom. Apple is trying to tell them that they can't have usability with freedom. Problem is, they're wrong.
The first part he mentions: vendors have the right to enforce things on their platform. OK, I'll agree with that. Otherwise all gaming platforms would be in trouble.
The second part about user experience is bullshit though. What does this do to ensure a quality user experience? Nothing. The "user experience" is nothing other than Apple saying what apps can/cannot run. That's not a user experience, that's a prison.
And the final part is pretentious BS too. Those who haven't accomplished what you have aren't allowed to criticize you? OK. Then every iPhone and iPad review is meaningless according to Jobs.