If you're taking functionality out of a car, don't be surprised when people are willing to pay less for it. So whatever increase in profits you expect to make from this, subtract that. And account for bad PR too. "Family DIES when their car shuts down in the middle of the autobahn." You're going to have to spend a lot on PR to compensate for that. Make sure you subtract that from your expected profit as well. And subtract developing this too.
Now, Renault, look at your spreadsheet after you've adjusted it. Does it still seem like a good idea? I'd be surprised, but I could be wrong.
Your post is nothing but cynicism about events which haven't taken place yet. +5 informative?
Well, two can play at that game. This will probably be modded down into oblivion and some homeless guy is probably about to come up and stab me to death, and no one will come to my funeral.
If you're trying to get your grandmother onto linux AND onto a smartphone AND onto cyanogenmod, either your grandma is smart enough to handle it, or you're being way too ambitious and your grandmother is going to give up and simply bake cookies rather than send you chain e-mails or call you to bother you to get a girlfriend... which actually doesn't sound like a bad plan...
I'm curious as to why people heap abuse on environmentalists. It seems like if you dare to admit you're trying to make a positive change and don't succeed, you are labeled an asshole. Meanwhile, industries that willfully externalize their costs in the form of carbon or whatever, they get a free pass because "they're not a charity."
Greenpeace is and was full of crazy people who are obnoxious, and quite possibly hypocrites, but they're about as relevant as the Jersey Shore cast. They didn't kill off nuclear, they didn't keep us on coal, and they didn't cause climate change. I don't know who to blame for it, I don't think there's much point in finding exactly who to point fingers at now that it's already upon us. But if you're going to, at least blame people who had actual power rather than PETA types. If you just want to hate on them, go ahead, but don't mix it up with them actually causing climate change.
Why should it be generalized to whole fields rather than based on what you are studying?
If I'm publishing that drug X does not increase the incidence of spontaneous human combustion, there ought to be a lot of zeroes in that P value. If I'm publishing that "As expected, Protein X does job Y in endangered species Z, which is not surprising given that protein X does job Y in every other species tested, and why the hell did we even do this experiment" then maybe you don't need such a high standard.
On the what people want, that's fair, but I think what people end up wanting in terms of food is driven more by what people have to sell than you're giving credit. Advertising and creating demand. Americans didn't have an unusual craving for corn and high fructose corn syrup until someone realized that corn subsidies meant corn was really cheap to make.
If you make foods that can be grown cheaply in the desert, I'm sure someone will come along and find out how to make people want to eat it. And you can likely make foods already well suited for the desert cheaper than you can foods that are not, like a tomato.
When I said push back with equal determination in the opposite direction, I didn't mean violence. I meant go to extremes in the state secrets vs no secrets spectrum. I'm arguing there should be no secrets "to protect security" or anything else. The danger I was referring to is our "enemies" catching wind of our methods of detecting terrorists and avoiding them. I'm saying I'd rather risk that scenario than risk too many secrets and spying. Not "lets kill people to oppose the police state" or "lets rebel." Absolutely no Rambo here.
They teach it to you before they teach you what allegiance actually means. You say it every day without knowing what you are saying. I think I was in fourth grade when I finally understood that I was making a fairly big (if vague) promise. Creepy is pretty accurate.
Maybe, but the people who sell their games in bundles don't really seem to be that concerned with maximizing profit. If you're putting your games in the bundle, you're accepting the possibility that many people might give you literally a penny for your game, or donate everything to charity or the humble bundle team rather than you. I suspect people who participate in the bundles have their own reasons, like wanting to generate PR. EA got people to start using origin with their bundle (they at least got one person to use it occasionally: me). They might put the previous games in the series up to drum up interest for the newest sequel. So I'm guessing the reasons people put their games into bundles won't be changed.
As far as steam or origin go, I also doubt it. I'm guessing that if someone puts their game for sale on humble bundle store, it will also be discounted on steam. That seems to happen a lot when I compare games on sale on GOG with the price on steam: they're usually close in price.
What irks me is people's reactionary "teh guv'ment's tryin' to take away mah freedomz!" to every discussion presented about government surveillance and/or intelligence activities. They have to know that it's necessary at some level, but they reduce this wide breadth of space from no surveillance to police society to a binary. I don't understand why so many people engage in black and white thinking when the problem so obviously isn't as clear cut as the overwhelmingly vast majority of people argue it is.
I'd suggest the overreaction is caused by the government's actions. Looking at the level of lying going on with NSA, and how many abuses the war on terror has been used to justified, I can't fathom how anyone would make a "lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater." They've justified an overreaction toward the side of freedom rather than security. I think at this point it's only safe to assume the worst of the government.
It seems pretty black and white to them. There seem to be alarmingly few voices inside the government expressing concern over moving to a police state. Those few that do seem to be expelled through groupthink, see Snowden and Manning for examples. Even very high government officials who voiced opposition were subject to backlash. Ashcroft decided stellar wind went too far. Bush sent people to harass him in the hospital trying to get him to cave. The attorney general, they did this to. And Bush went around him anyway. There seems to be no line the government isn't willing to cross.
Partisan politics as of late have also convinced me that the only way to fight determined zealots is with equally determination in the opposite direction. When you try to be reasonable with such stubbornness, you don't arrive at a middle ground that's a good balance for all, you end up being pushed backwards more and more. So if the government is willing to go full throttle towards police state, the only response is for us to go full throttle... whatever the opposite is. No state secrets. Ever. Oh, that will potentially endanger people? I'm dubious. There's two giant oceans between us and most people who would harm us, we have enough military might to literally kill everyone on earth, and anyone who would attack us is too dumb to cause any real damage. Moreover, we've faced bigger threats before without spying on everyone. You can't tell me we need the NSA spy program to defeat a bunch of islamic cultists but we DIDN'T need it to defeat the Nazis or get through the Cold War.
Even if it does endanger some people, I can live with that on my conscience better than I can live with allowing big brother to develop.
Sure, but there are still going to be benefits to this. A lot of people do have broadband (be that broadband in the true sense or broadband as defined by ISPs.) If you don't have broadband, you likely aren't playing games online anyway. And I'd rather have one less bottleneck. If it's just my connection limiting game performance rather than my console, that's at least one less barrier to more advanced games.
(That said, I'm not going to be buying a console anytime soon, do not have broadband, and don't have time to be playing console games anyway.)
If HR is paying people to go through your friends' photos on facebook and find ones you aren't tagged in, that's a major red flag you should get out of that company. For one thing, what kind of company goes to such lengths to spy on their employees? For another, that's just wasteful spending.
Not trying to commit a just world fallacy, I think privacy even in untagged photos is a concern, just that specific example doesn't strike me as very good.
I think the sheep metaphor should probably be dropped. What's wrong with being a follower rather than a leader when things are going pretty well? For that matter, what better about being a dog than a sheep?
Our society places a lot of value on being leaders, being independent. Which is fine, but everything in balance. Sheep following each other work better as a group than a group of animals which are independent (hence the metaphor of herding cats.) Teaching everyone that they are a unique little snowflake who should reject all authority is good in moderation, but I suspect we're going a little overboard, telling people they need to question anything they hear and accept none of it, be it doctors telling them they need to get vaccinated, be it people saying "Hey, uh, taxes are kind of necessary for nice things" or be it "don't act like a fucking asshole in public."
At a minimum, why do we need to compare people to animals. Leaders vs followers is not a terribly complex concept. I don't think we need a metaphor, all it seems to do is make being a follower seem unattractive compared to being, I dunno, a wolf or sheepdog or tiger other animal you'd rather be compared to.
Personally I suspect that anyone who has amassed such riches is a selfish person. It's not like you wake up one day and suddenly are a multimillionaire. I don't know any millionaires personally though, so who knows.
It's clearly meant to be fun and engage people in scientific research, not replace reading actual journal articles. The main benefit might be getting researchers to think about how to present their ideas in different ways. It's an issue with many scientists.
If I asked a friend how his research was going, he would start rattling off gene name acronyms and abbreviations for experiments and I would get totally lost a minute into it.
Interkin3tic: "Hey man, how's the research going?"
Friend:"Well we did a co-ip of MAD when conjugated at the kinetochore of a meiosis haploid culture with GFP tail swap nup52 and then quantified pixel intensity based on subresolution microscopy on the spinning disc and found the number was 410 instead of 320."
Interkin3tic: "Uh... oh. You still work on plants, right?"
That sounds like something like he would say and I would get out of it about as much as you got out of it. And I was familiar with his research: I proofread his papers and discussed it with him regularly. We're not the best communicators, we get way too technical way too quick. Making us communicate without technical terms is a good way to encourage better communication. And without communication, there's little point to science.
That said, I would never want to see him dance anything, let alone plant molecular biology.
I vaguely recall an instance where protesters or activists were arrested by police over trumped up charges of pirating Windows. I can't find anything on google, or recall any more details like whether it was in Russia or here, so take that as you will.
Personally, I get a sort of satisfaction out of rooting my phone when samsung or whoever clearly doesn't want me to. Same with jailbreaking. After installing cyanogenmod on my samsung, and after jailbreaking, I really didn't do much with either. If I wasn't flipping the bird to someone telling me how to use my stuff, it became a lot more boring.
Actually, for most people it's cheaper, since the big networks don't give you a discount for buying your own phone. If you're talking about switching from AT&T or verizon, then sure it would be cheaper, but staying within those two as most people do, no, it's cheaper to subsidize a phone, since you pay the same price anyway.
That's samsungs very annoying way of telling you to root it, I suppose. Or buy another phone. You can get titaniumbackup and freeze those programs once you do. I was annoyed by this too on my S2.
I'm sure she's taking a lot more shit in the press than your average Secretary does, especially when you consider the ACA battle. Not saying feel sorry for her, just that she probably thought it would be a cushy job, and she instead deals with a lot of outrage, both manufactured and real. Maybe she means accountable for her expectations, not accountable as in what you or I would consider accountable.
Just to be clear, I think that's a function of online services, not google specifically, and not android. Facebook is worse. It keeps asking me where I work, where I went to high school etc. It clearly has enough information to guess, as it makes suggestions which are pretty spot on based on my friends' data.
My android phone, I never get nuisances like that. My ipad is actually worse. It keeps asking me to sign in with gamecenter.
Not to say that google is superior, just that online services you use for "free" will always pester you like virtual paparazzi.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're taking functionality out of a car, don't be surprised when people are willing to pay less for it. So whatever increase in profits you expect to make from this, subtract that. And account for bad PR too. "Family DIES when their car shuts down in the middle of the autobahn." You're going to have to spend a lot on PR to compensate for that. Make sure you subtract that from your expected profit as well. And subtract developing this too.
Now, Renault, look at your spreadsheet after you've adjusted it. Does it still seem like a good idea? I'd be surprised, but I could be wrong.
Your post is nothing but cynicism about events which haven't taken place yet. +5 informative?
Well, two can play at that game. This will probably be modded down into oblivion and some homeless guy is probably about to come up and stab me to death, and no one will come to my funeral.
If you're trying to get your grandmother onto linux AND onto a smartphone AND onto cyanogenmod, either your grandma is smart enough to handle it, or you're being way too ambitious and your grandmother is going to give up and simply bake cookies rather than send you chain e-mails or call you to bother you to get a girlfriend... which actually doesn't sound like a bad plan...
I'm curious as to why people heap abuse on environmentalists. It seems like if you dare to admit you're trying to make a positive change and don't succeed, you are labeled an asshole. Meanwhile, industries that willfully externalize their costs in the form of carbon or whatever, they get a free pass because "they're not a charity."
Greenpeace is and was full of crazy people who are obnoxious, and quite possibly hypocrites, but they're about as relevant as the Jersey Shore cast. They didn't kill off nuclear, they didn't keep us on coal, and they didn't cause climate change. I don't know who to blame for it, I don't think there's much point in finding exactly who to point fingers at now that it's already upon us. But if you're going to, at least blame people who had actual power rather than PETA types. If you just want to hate on them, go ahead, but don't mix it up with them actually causing climate change.
Why should it be generalized to whole fields rather than based on what you are studying?
If I'm publishing that drug X does not increase the incidence of spontaneous human combustion, there ought to be a lot of zeroes in that P value. If I'm publishing that "As expected, Protein X does job Y in endangered species Z, which is not surprising given that protein X does job Y in every other species tested, and why the hell did we even do this experiment" then maybe you don't need such a high standard.
On the what people want, that's fair, but I think what people end up wanting in terms of food is driven more by what people have to sell than you're giving credit. Advertising and creating demand. Americans didn't have an unusual craving for corn and high fructose corn syrup until someone realized that corn subsidies meant corn was really cheap to make.
If you make foods that can be grown cheaply in the desert, I'm sure someone will come along and find out how to make people want to eat it. And you can likely make foods already well suited for the desert cheaper than you can foods that are not, like a tomato.
When I said push back with equal determination in the opposite direction, I didn't mean violence. I meant go to extremes in the state secrets vs no secrets spectrum. I'm arguing there should be no secrets "to protect security" or anything else. The danger I was referring to is our "enemies" catching wind of our methods of detecting terrorists and avoiding them. I'm saying I'd rather risk that scenario than risk too many secrets and spying. Not "lets kill people to oppose the police state" or "lets rebel." Absolutely no Rambo here.
Now THERE'S a pledge I could get behind!
(PS. Only kidding. That's gross.)
They teach it to you before they teach you what allegiance actually means. You say it every day without knowing what you are saying. I think I was in fourth grade when I finally understood that I was making a fairly big (if vague) promise. Creepy is pretty accurate.
Maybe, but the people who sell their games in bundles don't really seem to be that concerned with maximizing profit. If you're putting your games in the bundle, you're accepting the possibility that many people might give you literally a penny for your game, or donate everything to charity or the humble bundle team rather than you. I suspect people who participate in the bundles have their own reasons, like wanting to generate PR. EA got people to start using origin with their bundle (they at least got one person to use it occasionally: me). They might put the previous games in the series up to drum up interest for the newest sequel. So I'm guessing the reasons people put their games into bundles won't be changed.
As far as steam or origin go, I also doubt it. I'm guessing that if someone puts their game for sale on humble bundle store, it will also be discounted on steam. That seems to happen a lot when I compare games on sale on GOG with the price on steam: they're usually close in price.
I'm saying browsing through untagged pictures of you on facebook seems like a red flag relative even to normal HR behavior.
What irks me is people's reactionary "teh guv'ment's tryin' to take away mah freedomz!" to every discussion presented about government surveillance and/or intelligence activities. They have to know that it's necessary at some level, but they reduce this wide breadth of space from no surveillance to police society to a binary. I don't understand why so many people engage in black and white thinking when the problem so obviously isn't as clear cut as the overwhelmingly vast majority of people argue it is.
I'd suggest the overreaction is caused by the government's actions. Looking at the level of lying going on with NSA, and how many abuses the war on terror has been used to justified, I can't fathom how anyone would make a "lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater." They've justified an overreaction toward the side of freedom rather than security. I think at this point it's only safe to assume the worst of the government.
It seems pretty black and white to them. There seem to be alarmingly few voices inside the government expressing concern over moving to a police state. Those few that do seem to be expelled through groupthink, see Snowden and Manning for examples. Even very high government officials who voiced opposition were subject to backlash. Ashcroft decided stellar wind went too far. Bush sent people to harass him in the hospital trying to get him to cave. The attorney general, they did this to. And Bush went around him anyway. There seems to be no line the government isn't willing to cross.
Partisan politics as of late have also convinced me that the only way to fight determined zealots is with equally determination in the opposite direction. When you try to be reasonable with such stubbornness, you don't arrive at a middle ground that's a good balance for all, you end up being pushed backwards more and more. So if the government is willing to go full throttle towards police state, the only response is for us to go full throttle... whatever the opposite is. No state secrets. Ever. Oh, that will potentially endanger people? I'm dubious. There's two giant oceans between us and most people who would harm us, we have enough military might to literally kill everyone on earth, and anyone who would attack us is too dumb to cause any real damage. Moreover, we've faced bigger threats before without spying on everyone. You can't tell me we need the NSA spy program to defeat a bunch of islamic cultists but we DIDN'T need it to defeat the Nazis or get through the Cold War.
Even if it does endanger some people, I can live with that on my conscience better than I can live with allowing big brother to develop.
I've found swiftkey to be shitty in comparison to swype. You might try that.
Sure, but there are still going to be benefits to this. A lot of people do have broadband (be that broadband in the true sense or broadband as defined by ISPs.) If you don't have broadband, you likely aren't playing games online anyway. And I'd rather have one less bottleneck. If it's just my connection limiting game performance rather than my console, that's at least one less barrier to more advanced games.
(That said, I'm not going to be buying a console anytime soon, do not have broadband, and don't have time to be playing console games anyway.)
If HR is paying people to go through your friends' photos on facebook and find ones you aren't tagged in, that's a major red flag you should get out of that company. For one thing, what kind of company goes to such lengths to spy on their employees? For another, that's just wasteful spending.
Not trying to commit a just world fallacy, I think privacy even in untagged photos is a concern, just that specific example doesn't strike me as very good.
I think the sheep metaphor should probably be dropped. What's wrong with being a follower rather than a leader when things are going pretty well? For that matter, what better about being a dog than a sheep?
Our society places a lot of value on being leaders, being independent. Which is fine, but everything in balance. Sheep following each other work better as a group than a group of animals which are independent (hence the metaphor of herding cats.) Teaching everyone that they are a unique little snowflake who should reject all authority is good in moderation, but I suspect we're going a little overboard, telling people they need to question anything they hear and accept none of it, be it doctors telling them they need to get vaccinated, be it people saying "Hey, uh, taxes are kind of necessary for nice things" or be it "don't act like a fucking asshole in public."
At a minimum, why do we need to compare people to animals. Leaders vs followers is not a terribly complex concept. I don't think we need a metaphor, all it seems to do is make being a follower seem unattractive compared to being, I dunno, a wolf or sheepdog or tiger other animal you'd rather be compared to.
Personally I suspect that anyone who has amassed such riches is a selfish person. It's not like you wake up one day and suddenly are a multimillionaire. I don't know any millionaires personally though, so who knows.
I feel like you could apply this as a meta argument: not every godwin instance is bad.
It's clearly meant to be fun and engage people in scientific research, not replace reading actual journal articles. The main benefit might be getting researchers to think about how to present their ideas in different ways. It's an issue with many scientists.
If I asked a friend how his research was going, he would start rattling off gene name acronyms and abbreviations for experiments and I would get totally lost a minute into it.
Interkin3tic: "Hey man, how's the research going?"
Friend:"Well we did a co-ip of MAD when conjugated at the kinetochore of a meiosis haploid culture with GFP tail swap nup52 and then quantified pixel intensity based on subresolution microscopy on the spinning disc and found the number was 410 instead of 320."
Interkin3tic: "Uh... oh. You still work on plants, right?"
That sounds like something like he would say and I would get out of it about as much as you got out of it. And I was familiar with his research: I proofread his papers and discussed it with him regularly. We're not the best communicators, we get way too technical way too quick. Making us communicate without technical terms is a good way to encourage better communication. And without communication, there's little point to science.
That said, I would never want to see him dance anything, let alone plant molecular biology.
I vaguely recall an instance where protesters or activists were arrested by police over trumped up charges of pirating Windows. I can't find anything on google, or recall any more details like whether it was in Russia or here, so take that as you will.
Personally, I get a sort of satisfaction out of rooting my phone when samsung or whoever clearly doesn't want me to. Same with jailbreaking. After installing cyanogenmod on my samsung, and after jailbreaking, I really didn't do much with either. If I wasn't flipping the bird to someone telling me how to use my stuff, it became a lot more boring.
It's nerdy and ineffective, I know.
Actually, for most people it's cheaper, since the big networks don't give you a discount for buying your own phone. If you're talking about switching from AT&T or verizon, then sure it would be cheaper, but staying within those two as most people do, no, it's cheaper to subsidize a phone, since you pay the same price anyway.
That's samsungs very annoying way of telling you to root it, I suppose. Or buy another phone. You can get titaniumbackup and freeze those programs once you do. I was annoyed by this too on my S2.
I'm sure she's taking a lot more shit in the press than your average Secretary does, especially when you consider the ACA battle. Not saying feel sorry for her, just that she probably thought it would be a cushy job, and she instead deals with a lot of outrage, both manufactured and real. Maybe she means accountable for her expectations, not accountable as in what you or I would consider accountable.
Just to be clear, I think that's a function of online services, not google specifically, and not android. Facebook is worse. It keeps asking me where I work, where I went to high school etc. It clearly has enough information to guess, as it makes suggestions which are pretty spot on based on my friends' data.
My android phone, I never get nuisances like that. My ipad is actually worse. It keeps asking me to sign in with gamecenter.
Not to say that google is superior, just that online services you use for "free" will always pester you like virtual paparazzi.