The public has been trying to educate the movie industry for 15+ YEARS that the current model sucks.
Why are we having "more of the same" shoved down our necks when clearly the current model doesn't work (not for us, not for them)??!
Someone in the movie industry wake up and smell the roses. piracy will always be there. most people will pay for stuff but only what they see value in. people will not bother with your stuff if the pirated stuff is: (a) more convenient or (b) better value. And this move is really just making the divide bigger, meaning that the pirate copies provide EVEN BETTER value than before.
Do you think people LIKE downloading torrents that could contain malware, waiting for hours, sometimes days for things to finish downloading, just to watch footage shot from a camcorder?
No, its just that that's ALL THEY CAN GET in many cases, because most of your delivery mechanism is broken and outdated.
so in order for this gene to be passed on, the host needs to mate with another who doesn't have the gene. The gene needs to be dominant enough that the offspring also contain it. The gene then only spreads through that one bloodline, thus taking quite some time to propogate....but in time we might see a reasonable population carrying this new gene.
However, I have a problem.
At some point, the apes split into 2 lines, a line that lead to modern apes, and a line that lead to humans (and others)...and so on.
For this to happen, there must have been some reason why apes would not mate with apes who had this new gene, otherwise we'd still only have 1 family, not 2. Yet we know there are 2 distinct families here, and there are no hybrids, no in-betweens, etc. So the lineage must have split quite dramatically. It cannot have been the mutation causing apes to not mate with the new apes, because otherwise the new ape carrying the gene would not have mated, and the gene would've died out.
in other words, how do we have long distinct branches all over the evolution tree, and not more and more branches at every step of the way? how do we have distinct branches at all?
if a gene mutation was so disruptive that it was the start of a new species, how would that new animal breed with anything? and if it did breed, why wouldn't there be many many hybrid creatures? and if there were enough hybrid creatures, the permeation of the new gene would eventually take over the entire population anyway, and you'd be left with 1 species again, not 2.
Anyone shed some light on this? the explanations I've found online are far too simplistic and jump from a simple definition of mutations to "and then fast-forward to today and here we are" - as if that was enough to fill in the (many) gaps.
I remember having to type +this +that in altavista (or was it AND this AND that?) just to make sure that the search results contained what I was actually searching for!
Google came along and suddenly the default was "search for pages containing ALL words" (not ANY words) and guess what? it gave better search results.
Add to that the fact it seemed lite when everything else was getting more and more "busy", and they had a winner. Also, it was cool to use Google back then. It still is to some degree, but the tide has shifted to other things a bit these days.
Doesn't "perl -c" catch these issues you're talking about?
I believe python does similar, but I'm not sure as I have been caught out by exactly what you're referring to in the past. I haven't had that with perl though.
Python is my favoured language these days, but I'm currently most fluent in perl.
I do have 2-3 years commercial experience with C++ though, and would continue to use that for products that need to be super-reliable (for the reasons you mentioned) or fast.
yeah, whatever the truth is, I'm still in the dark (no pun intended).
I find it difficult to relate evolution to what I see. In my mind intelligence requires intelligence.
Can the inanimate produce the animate? Can non-life produce life? can it do so without a cause?
So many questions. These will not be answered for me by science because even if they were, I wouldn't understand the answer enough to be convicted of its truth. Taking someone else's word for it sounds too much like "blind faith" to me.
So I'm left with requiring other "proofs" to convince me of the Bible's truth, and those other proofs are still prophecy. I've read many fors and against, and I have to say almost all "rebuttals" I've seen stem from either misreading or misquoting or misunderstanding what the Bible is actually saying.
The balance still tips in favour of Bible prophecy being infallible, as far as my worldview is concerned.
Do you evaluate every car on the market before you buy one? What about every phone?
Linux is no different. You might compare the ones you've heard of - but even for me (I've been using linux as my sole desktop since the late 90's) that's only about 5-10.
Most users have only heard of 1-3 different distros, and I'm pretty sure that its not that difficult to figure out which is best. Each one only takes 30 mins or so to install, so at most it would take only a few days to evaluate all 3. Most can run off a cd nowadays, so there really is no barrier to trying them out to find out which is best for you.
Linux just has a stigma, and so people will keep repeating this stuff forever regardless of whether it is true.
Wrong. perhaps you meant "not as widespread as it could be" - that would be a fair point.
But it has nothing to do with how mighty it can be, unless you assume that if the devs weren't working on mandriva they would spend the same time and resources on the likes of ubuntu, fedora or opensuse? Very unlikely.
people always judge God (or their own interpretation of) from a human viewpoint, but I dont know if they've thought it out well. If God really does exist, and created everything, then I'm pretty sure he can do what he likes, and is not answerable to us.
The fact that God defines evil as "stuff he doesn't like" it kind of clears him of being evil. Although the Bible clearly states that God creates both good and evil. Isaiah 45:7.
You either follow the rules, and you get the reward, or you follow your own path, and God leaves you alone. Provided "follow your own path" does not involve actively standing in the way of God's plan, this is generally how it works.
This isn't about "app revenues". Its about someone who is a prior customer of a third party, attempting to do business with that third party, and apple trying to get more money simply because they got there using apple's browser.
Whether they are or not, it just doesn't seem right or fair. Not from where I'm sitting.
In Australia, Apple seem to require every retailer to sell their stuff at exactly the same price. This is different to the practice of setting the RRP and allowing the retailer to set their own price as is usually done. I'm not sure how Apple get away with it.
They just seem to have all of these rules that fundamentally go against the spirit of competition laws everywhere. I'm not saying they are actually against the law, but certainly its not in keeping with the spirit of the law.
If Apple were considered a monopoly - things would likely be different.
I've used siri a few times on my wife's iphone but it seems to have a lot of trouble understanding me (and others who have a go). I'm in australia so maybe different accents pose a problem (in which case there should be opportunity to "train" her).
Its also mostly a novelty at the moment - "hey lets see what siri says about this"...
I do think siri has real-world potential though, and wont be disappearing any time soon.
As a personal assistant, siri is great. Setting reminders, doing math, navigation (can she do navigation?) - these are all very useful.
I really dont think siri will replace Google. Siri is not a replacement for search technology and AFAIK contains no new technology for search. Therefore, the article is wrong in saying we wont get hundreds of irrelevant search results. I'd say we'll get the same search results but they'll be spoken instead of "written".
huh? you want people to build their own electric cars?
I dont know what could possibly go wrong with that...
Re solar - we can get it fully installed for about $2K for like 1.5Kw, which would hardly cover a thing. A 5kw system is like $30K.
I pay about $1200 a year on my electricity. Assuming I could cover ALL of it with solar, it would take a LONG time to just break even.
And solar panels dont last forever. I'm told good ones last 15 years. Then they have to be thrown out or maybe they can be "recycled" somehow?
I would suspect the "cost" of manufacturing and installing them kind of takes away from the whole "greenness" of them...though its probably still a net gain overall.
But the bottom line is, they are still not financially viable. fossil fuels are still cheaper.
I agree - but I dont think he's getting the 5M. I think the 5M is to cover everyone who goes through the same thing. It allows them all to "get their money back".
It isn't clear whether his daughter had the password, but still I know plenty of parents who would reluctantly hand it over without knowing the full implications.
Consider that the password is needed to download FREE apps as well, not just paid ones, and a parent will get tired of constantly being asked for the password.
Also, kids are pretty good at reading over your shoulder and figuring out how to get this sort of info from you.
Its just a big lesson for the parent. I dont really see this as Apple's "fault", but now that its in the open, Apple should really do something to make the situation better.
Do you have any idea what its like for those who grew up without computers to live in today's world?
I'm not in that group, but I know plenty of people who are. They are not "huge retards" as you might claim. They just dont know any better. And why should they? they've managed to get by just fine without all this stuff.
Most of them have only a vague idea of the different ways a credit card can be used.
yeah we have all this great technology but can the average person afford it? no, they cant.
we have solar here in australia. the govt provides a rebate which kind of makes it seem attractive, but the truth is that the panels will often need replacing before you've broken even on the cost.
as far as cars go, many people buy second hand cars because that's all they can afford. I suppose if people buying new cars start targetting more efficient / hybrid / greener cars then eventually the situation will change.
but so far "green" cars carry a fairly substantial tax (ie. higher purchase price compared to equivalent petrol/diesel car) which often outweighs any cost benefit you get from it.
The only thing we can deduce is that eventually the cost of petrol/diesel will climb to the point where these other technologies are cheaper...and then people will start to switch.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you offering to pay $10K or more for this hypothetical near-perfect software?
or will you pay $200 and accept that there may be bugs (and that the company will offer fixes for major security issues for x years) ?
It all comes down to economics at some point.
Educate the public? this is backwards!
The public has been trying to educate the movie industry for 15+ YEARS that the current model sucks.
Why are we having "more of the same" shoved down our necks when clearly the current model doesn't work (not for us, not for them)??!
Someone in the movie industry wake up and smell the roses. piracy will always be there. most people will pay for stuff but only what they see value in.
people will not bother with your stuff if the pirated stuff is: (a) more convenient or (b) better value. And this move is really just making the divide bigger, meaning that the pirate copies provide EVEN BETTER value than before.
Do you think people LIKE downloading torrents that could contain malware, waiting for hours, sometimes days for things to finish downloading, just to watch footage shot from a camcorder?
No, its just that that's ALL THEY CAN GET in many cases, because most of your delivery mechanism is broken and outdated.
heh, in my case its almost always right, so I beg to differ.
someone help me out here:
so in order for this gene to be passed on, the host needs to mate with another who doesn't have the gene.
The gene needs to be dominant enough that the offspring also contain it. The gene then only spreads through that one bloodline, thus taking quite some time to propogate....but in time we might see a reasonable population carrying this new gene.
However, I have a problem.
At some point, the apes split into 2 lines, a line that lead to modern apes, and a line that lead to humans (and others)...and so on.
For this to happen, there must have been some reason why apes would not mate with apes who had this new gene, otherwise we'd still only have 1 family, not 2.
Yet we know there are 2 distinct families here, and there are no hybrids, no in-betweens, etc. So the lineage must have split quite dramatically.
It cannot have been the mutation causing apes to not mate with the new apes, because otherwise the new ape carrying the gene would not have mated, and the gene would've died out.
in other words, how do we have long distinct branches all over the evolution tree, and not more and more branches at every step of the way? how do we have distinct branches at all?
if a gene mutation was so disruptive that it was the start of a new species, how would that new animal breed with anything? and if it did breed, why wouldn't there be many many hybrid creatures? and if there were enough hybrid creatures, the permeation of the new gene would eventually take over the entire population anyway, and you'd be left with 1 species again, not 2.
Anyone shed some light on this? the explanations I've found online are far too simplistic and jump from a simple definition of mutations to "and then fast-forward to today and here we are" - as if that was enough to fill in the (many) gaps.
I remember having to type +this +that in altavista (or was it AND this AND that?) just to make sure that the search results contained what I was actually searching for!
Google came along and suddenly the default was "search for pages containing ALL words" (not ANY words) and guess what? it gave better search results.
Add to that the fact it seemed lite when everything else was getting more and more "busy", and they had a winner. Also, it was cool to use Google back then. It still is to some degree, but the tide has shifted to other things a bit these days.
Doesn't "perl -c" catch these issues you're talking about?
I believe python does similar, but I'm not sure as I have been caught out by exactly what you're referring to in the past. I haven't had that with perl though.
Python is my favoured language these days, but I'm currently most fluent in perl.
I do have 2-3 years commercial experience with C++ though, and would continue to use that for products that need to be super-reliable (for the reasons you mentioned) or fast.
yeah, whatever the truth is, I'm still in the dark (no pun intended).
I find it difficult to relate evolution to what I see. In my mind intelligence requires intelligence.
Can the inanimate produce the animate?
Can non-life produce life? can it do so without a cause?
So many questions. These will not be answered for me by science because even if they were, I wouldn't understand the answer enough to be convicted of its truth.
Taking someone else's word for it sounds too much like "blind faith" to me.
So I'm left with requiring other "proofs" to convince me of the Bible's truth, and those other proofs are still prophecy. I've read many fors and against, and I have to say almost all "rebuttals" I've seen stem from either misreading or misquoting or misunderstanding what the Bible is actually saying.
The balance still tips in favour of Bible prophecy being infallible, as far as my worldview is concerned.
Do you evaluate every car on the market before you buy one? What about every phone?
Linux is no different. You might compare the ones you've heard of - but even for me (I've been using linux as my sole desktop since the late 90's) that's only about 5-10.
Most users have only heard of 1-3 different distros, and I'm pretty sure that its not that difficult to figure out which is best. Each one only takes 30 mins or so to install, so at most it would take only a few days to evaluate all 3. Most can run off a cd nowadays, so there really is no barrier to trying them out to find out which is best for you.
Linux just has a stigma, and so people will keep repeating this stuff forever regardless of whether it is true.
Wrong. perhaps you meant "not as widespread as it could be" - that would be a fair point.
But it has nothing to do with how mighty it can be, unless you assume that if the devs weren't working on mandriva they would spend the same time and resources on the likes of ubuntu, fedora or opensuse? Very unlikely.
this seems like fair reasoning to me.
people always judge God (or their own interpretation of) from a human viewpoint, but I dont know if they've thought it out well. If God really does exist, and created everything, then I'm pretty sure he can do what he likes, and is not answerable to us.
The fact that God defines evil as "stuff he doesn't like" it kind of clears him of being evil. Although the Bible clearly states that God creates both good and evil. Isaiah 45:7.
You either follow the rules, and you get the reward, or you follow your own path, and God leaves you alone. Provided "follow your own path" does not involve actively standing in the way of God's plan, this is generally how it works.
This isn't about "app revenues". Its about someone who is a prior customer of a third party, attempting to do business with that third party, and apple trying to get more money simply because they got there using apple's browser.
This is just plain wrong.
Are the "rules" even legal?
Whether they are or not, it just doesn't seem right or fair. Not from where I'm sitting.
In Australia, Apple seem to require every retailer to sell their stuff at exactly the same price. This is different to the practice of setting the RRP and allowing the retailer to set their own price as is usually done. I'm not sure how Apple get away with it.
They just seem to have all of these rules that fundamentally go against the spirit of competition laws everywhere. I'm not saying they are actually against the law, but certainly its not in keeping with the spirit of the law.
If Apple were considered a monopoly - things would likely be different.
Not necessarily true.
The sun may well have existed prior to the first day of creation. Same goes for earth and any other planetary bodies.
Day 4 was when the sun and moon etc were positioned, but its open to interpretation.
Anywho Gen 1 is not written from a scientific perspective, and is actually more like a "summary" or "parable" of the formation of earth.
The days themselves are only representative. The sun and moon weren't positioned until day 4, so what was a "day" before that?
Well if you know that, then you'll also know what finger I'm holding up.
just kidding - I used "math" figuring I was addressing non-australians, since those in australia would probably already know what I was saying.
How would this benefit me?
Why should I trust you?
What have you got to lose if you betray my trust?
What is your track record like?
I can answer all of these (for myself) for Google - but not for you.
I've used siri a few times on my wife's iphone but it seems to have a lot of trouble understanding me (and others who have a go). I'm in australia so maybe different accents pose a problem (in which case there should be opportunity to "train" her).
Its also mostly a novelty at the moment - "hey lets see what siri says about this"...
I do think siri has real-world potential though, and wont be disappearing any time soon.
As a personal assistant, siri is great. Setting reminders, doing math, navigation (can she do navigation?) - these are all very useful.
I really dont think siri will replace Google. Siri is not a replacement for search technology and AFAIK contains no new technology for search. Therefore, the article is wrong in saying we wont get hundreds of irrelevant search results. I'd say we'll get the same search results but they'll be spoken instead of "written".
sorry, price was a bit old.
5kw is around 8-10K.
no its not dirt cheap. solar is just expensive.
solar definitely doesn't last 25 years here.
Good ones will be like 15 years, and crappy ones less than 10 years.
How long did you say it would take to break even again? hmm.
huh? you want people to build their own electric cars?
I dont know what could possibly go wrong with that...
Re solar - we can get it fully installed for about $2K for like 1.5Kw, which would hardly cover a thing.
A 5kw system is like $30K.
I pay about $1200 a year on my electricity. Assuming I could cover ALL of it with solar, it would take a LONG time to just break even.
And solar panels dont last forever. I'm told good ones last 15 years. Then they have to be thrown out or maybe they can be "recycled" somehow?
I would suspect the "cost" of manufacturing and installing them kind of takes away from the whole "greenness" of them...though its probably still a net gain overall.
But the bottom line is, they are still not financially viable. fossil fuels are still cheaper.
I agree - but I dont think he's getting the 5M. I think the 5M is to cover everyone who goes through the same thing. It allows them all to "get their money back".
It isn't clear whether his daughter had the password, but still I know plenty of parents who would reluctantly hand it over without knowing the full implications.
Consider that the password is needed to download FREE apps as well, not just paid ones, and a parent will get tired of constantly being asked for the password.
Also, kids are pretty good at reading over your shoulder and figuring out how to get this sort of info from you.
Its just a big lesson for the parent. I dont really see this as Apple's "fault", but now that its in the open, Apple should really do something to make the situation better.
Do you have any idea what its like for those who grew up without computers to live in today's world?
I'm not in that group, but I know plenty of people who are. They are not "huge retards" as you might claim. They just dont know any better. And why should they? they've managed to get by just fine without all this stuff.
Most of them have only a vague idea of the different ways a credit card can be used.
Thanks for that - I'm sure I came across official documentation from Apple saying you must have one.
This would've been handy to know - but better late than never I guess.
I lol'd - that made my day. :)
explosions are cool
yeah we have all this great technology but can the average person afford it? no, they cant.
we have solar here in australia. the govt provides a rebate which kind of makes it seem attractive, but the truth is that the panels will often need replacing before you've broken even on the cost.
as far as cars go, many people buy second hand cars because that's all they can afford. I suppose if people buying new cars start targetting more efficient / hybrid / greener cars then eventually the situation will change.
but so far "green" cars carry a fairly substantial tax (ie. higher purchase price compared to equivalent petrol/diesel car) which often outweighs any cost benefit you get from it.
The only thing we can deduce is that eventually the cost of petrol/diesel will climb to the point where these other technologies are cheaper...and then people will start to switch.