I'm a stagehand in NYC. I've seen and worked for/with plenty of artists both famous and unknown in the last decade. I've never met one that struggled for years and years and then suddenly took off because of some piece they did years in the past.
Pretty much every artist who creates works in a tangible medium sees their "old" work become valuable only AFTER their "overnight" success. Nobody creates a work and then has it magically become successful 10 years after the fact, but very, very few people see the value of their first works recognized by the market until later in their career. When someone's third novel is a blockbuster, people go back and buy the first two, even if they weren't as accomplished artistically. The idea that the writer shouldn't see any of the money from those first two is, to me, just obnoxious and shortsighted. I can guarantee such ridiculous policies would discourage many of the professionals I know (and me), and the audience is who would suffer most. You may as well go get a real job with a 401k and health insurance if you can't even profit in the long term from your own success and hard work.
Name one artist who was stupid enough to create a personal corporation. I'll wait.
Um, what? Pretty much every professional artist creates an S Corp to handle their business as soon as they're doing anything more than selling doodles on napkins. Why, pray tell, do you think it is a bad idea for a small business owner to limit personal liability?
Any "artist" who is still trying to hawk 5 year old goods isn't gonna make it anyhow.
Great, so if someone sits down to write the Great American Novel, and it takes them a few years due to working a day job to support their family, you think the first chapter should be public domain before they even have a chance to print the book?
Talk about a disincentive to creativity -- "if you can't make a profit from day one, go fuck yourself and work at McDonalds!"
Sure, your random movie either fails or succeeds within a few months/years of release, but the vast, vast majority of successful, professional musicians and writers and visual artists spend a decade or more building up that "critical mass" of an audience, at which point their whole body of work suddenly achieves its true value and they can finally afford to do it full-time.
As in the old truism, most "overnight successes", aren't. Codifying the expectation that they SHOULD be into law wouldn't do anything but stop most creative people from ever becoming professionals, which would certainly be a net loss to our culture.
you have to remember that Sweden, _successfully_ , switched from driving on the left side of the street to driving on the right side of the street on one day
Well, that's not really the kind of thing you can do a little at a time...
It therefore follows that if there is an subsidy of $40 that doesn't have any contingencies, then the supportable price will rise by $40.
Yes, if people are choosing to buy something and then are given some free money, they'll be willing to spend a bit more on that something.
But people aren't going out and buying converter boxes because they want one and are excited about their new toy, they're buying one because they're forced to, and the ideal one will be completely invisible and free.
Assuming their are no supply issues, the company that will make the most money off converter boxes will be the one selling them for exactly $40 -- people walk in, hand over their coupon, and walk out, having spent no money. Of course, selling them for less has no competitive benefit, but if they can wholesale them for significantly less, then stores will compete for the customers' coupons by offering "free" stuff in exchange for buying the $40 converter box.
The idea that customers will simply have to pony up the exact same amount of money out of pocket assumes that the people selling the item are either in collusion or don't care about getting more customers than their competitors (which is certainly true for some markets, but not consumer electronics, and this will be the easiest consumer electronic device to sell in history, assuming it's $40 at retail).
why in gods name would anyone want to carry 3000 mp3's with them anyway?
because not everyone is able to update their iPod every day with new music. I just spent two weeks in a hospital, i was sure glad to have a 40 gig ipod and not be stuck with a nano or something where i would have been listening to the same couple hundred songs over and over.
Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!
Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?
You obviously wouldn't be overwriting any data already stored on the drive
No, but the wear-leveling routines in the drive will happily move around your existing data so that rarely written sectors are available for heavy writing operations.
Seriously, this "issue" comes up in every discussion about SSDs, and it seems like people are just unwilling or unable to accept that what was once a huge problem with the technology is now not even remotely an issue. Any SSD you buy today should outlive a spinning disk, regardless of the operating conditions or use pattern. It is no longer 1989, engineers have solved these problems.
hey, you're the one who claimed the person deleting it was to specifically targeting that message to try and cover up the incredibly top-secret sensitive content. I think it was just a typically overzealous admin deleting messages that weren't on-topic.
You're right, Apple's forum policies suck. They've always sucked, they've always been ridiculously restrictive, and they're pretty much typical for an official corporate message boards (Dell's are actually pretty free-wheeling at times, but they still bat people down if they get overly negative about Dell products). I'm not defending their policies, just stating what they are. If you post a message there that isn't politely asking for or offering user to user support, there's a really good chance it will get deleted. That's why most users don't use Apple's official boards (or any company's official boards).
And yes, even if you have a legitimate post topic, if it is worded inappropriately (ie "My fucking iDisk page doesn't have a logout button you goddamn retards!") it will be deleted on pretty much any official corporate message board on Earth.
I feel genuine pity for all the mods who thought cynical surrender to hopelessness was "insightful".
Yes, yes, all men are evil, nothing anyone does will ever have any positive effect on any of humanity, all effort is wasted and we each die alone and miserable. Do you do Bar Mitzvahs?
Once you start making up rules that certain groups (which you don't happen to like) are not allowed to edit entries about themselves
That has ALWAYS been one of the rules of Wikipedia -- that people and organizations don't edit their own entries. This isn't some one-sided rule made up only to oppress the poor, defenseless US Marines.
Slashdot has run plenty of stories decrying self-editing of wikipedia pages by various companies and congressional offices on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't recall anyone (other than probably some supervisors!) complaining about the CIA employees editing the Buffy the Vampire Slayer wikipedia page, because that's wasn't a conflict of interest.
No one is saying that a forum admin should evaluate the validity of the issue.
That's precisely what you're saying, otherwise Apple should just pay it's security team to be the forum administrators so that nothing is missed. You can't tell someone to forward some things and not others without asking them to evaluate the messages to determine which need forwarding. In order to evaluate which need forwarding, you need technical knowledge about what is being discussed.
Also you are creating a silly red herring. This particular security problem is independent of hardware or software. The problem and fix lie in a *web* interface
So because it's a web interface it isn't software? It doesn't require any technical knowledge to evaluate? That doesn't even make any sense. There's no difference between a web interface and a standalone application interface in terms of telling a security issue from someone just bitching or being an idiot.
Another silly red herring. There are qualified people between the forum admin and the developers. Isolating developers from the noise is a common thing in many organizations. If your silly scenario were true, if a forum guy could directly contact a developer then that would be yet another example of where a shortcoming may lie. Misrepresenting my position will not revive your failed logic.
Nor will misrepresenting mine. Triage is one of the most important and time-consuming parts of dealing with bugs and security issues, and if you think Apple's finest programmers are running the first-line triage on the bug database, you're crazy. They have a whole staff with actual technical training and resources available whose sole job it is to do that triage, and basically what you're suggesting is that every single Apple employee should be trained in those skills and have those resources, or that the triage team should take over every form of communication "just in case".
Because unless every Apple employee from the janitor to the shipping clerk knows as much as the triage team, they DON'T have the skills necessary to know what does and doesn't need to be reported to the triage team (hi, I'm a catch-22, nice to meet you!).
You can try all the diversion tactics you want, but at the end of the day the post was DELETED to remove the public announcement of a vulnerability!!! So, whoever deleted the post must have done it for a reason?
Yes, perhaps because it was offtopic for the forum, inappropriately worded, etc? But perhaps you're right, and it wasn't something simple like a person deleting offtopic posts -- it was probably a conspiracy!
if forum admin don't have the necessary technical skills to evaluate which report are security issues, why are they deleting them so that noone else can? or pointing those users to the correct place to report such issues?
The forum administrator's job is pretty straightforward -- deleting any messages that aren't on-topic for the forum, which is polite, user-to-user support. You're right, it might be appropriate for message posters to be given a link to bugreporter before posting, I'm pretty sure they're given a link to the knowledge base.
Apple's.Mac team screwed up by not offering a logout button. Apple's forum team did not screw up.
Forum administrators are not required to have the technical skills to evaluate which posts could be a genuine security issue real and which ones are user error. The secretaries answering the main switchboard don't have that capability, either. Their delivery truck drivers don't have the ability to evaluate security issues. Neither do the guys who clean the toilets. If you really believe that security is a corporate priority that literally any externally-available person should be responsible for, your company must have the most highly trained garbagemen on earth.
You claim that what forum admins do is unrelated to security. That is mistaken. Either a forum admin failed to report a security issue or they forum admin reported it and no one felt the need to update a *web interface* in a timely manner. Either scenario indicates that something is lacking at Apple.
Or it indicates that user forums are not the place to report security flaws, and that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers. If you think every forum post should simply be echoed to the bug tracker, that's your prerogative, but it seems to be a great way to waste a lot of the qualified bug-squashers' time.
If their security folks weren't lax and/or lazy there would be a well known and well understood process within Apple for all the divisions to follow when a possibly security flaw was reported. The process should include tracking, reporting, and escalation procedures to ensure that big things don't get categorized as small things and overlooked.
There is a well known and well understood process, it's called bugreporter.apple.com. The process does include tracking, reporting, and escalation procedures to ensure that big things don't get categorized as small things and overlooked.
What you're complaining about is that random forum administrators don't have the responsibility, time or technical ability to personally evaluate every forum post for whether it contains a bug or a security flaw as opposed to a stupid user error.
On XP, I click start, help, type 'bluetooth' and hit enter.... What's the equivalent on Linux?
Well, first you have to find out that the guy who wrote the Bluetooth driver was dating a girl named Bernice, and she had a cat with allergies. So that's why the command is called "blernball". Just "man blernball" and there you'll discover the utility was later enhanced by someone from China, so all of the command line options are based on appropriate mythological deities which are easily referenced on this babelfish table.
Or tries the exact same operation four times, thinking it will work the fourth time!
It will work the fourth time if closing and reopening clears the cache that is causing the problem. Or if it's supposed to synchronize with a network resource and needs a "push" to get back on track. Or any of a hundred other reasons, including just verifying that what you suspect is the issue is really the issue by causing it to happen in a predictable manner.
The other chiefs and the legal department trust THEIR secretaries with their passwords, too. Secretaries know pretty much everything at the high level of a large organization, they have to in order to do their jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much every artist who creates works in a tangible medium sees their "old" work become valuable only AFTER their "overnight" success. Nobody creates a work and then has it magically become successful 10 years after the fact, but very, very few people see the value of their first works recognized by the market until later in their career. When someone's third novel is a blockbuster, people go back and buy the first two, even if they weren't as accomplished artistically. The idea that the writer shouldn't see any of the money from those first two is, to me, just obnoxious and shortsighted. I can guarantee such ridiculous policies would discourage many of the professionals I know (and me), and the audience is who would suffer most. You may as well go get a real job with a 401k and health insurance if you can't even profit in the long term from your own success and hard work.
Um, what? Pretty much every professional artist creates an S Corp to handle their business as soon as they're doing anything more than selling doodles on napkins. Why, pray tell, do you think it is a bad idea for a small business owner to limit personal liability?
Great, so if someone sits down to write the Great American Novel, and it takes them a few years due to working a day job to support their family, you think the first chapter should be public domain before they even have a chance to print the book?
Talk about a disincentive to creativity -- "if you can't make a profit from day one, go fuck yourself and work at McDonalds!"
Sure, your random movie either fails or succeeds within a few months/years of release, but the vast, vast majority of successful, professional musicians and writers and visual artists spend a decade or more building up that "critical mass" of an audience, at which point their whole body of work suddenly achieves its true value and they can finally afford to do it full-time.
As in the old truism, most "overnight successes", aren't. Codifying the expectation that they SHOULD be into law wouldn't do anything but stop most creative people from ever becoming professionals, which would certainly be a net loss to our culture.
Well, that's not really the kind of thing you can do a little at a time...
Yes, if people are choosing to buy something and then are given some free money, they'll be willing to spend a bit more on that something.
But people aren't going out and buying converter boxes because they want one and are excited about their new toy, they're buying one because they're forced to, and the ideal one will be completely invisible and free.
Assuming their are no supply issues, the company that will make the most money off converter boxes will be the one selling them for exactly $40 -- people walk in, hand over their coupon, and walk out, having spent no money. Of course, selling them for less has no competitive benefit, but if they can wholesale them for significantly less, then stores will compete for the customers' coupons by offering "free" stuff in exchange for buying the $40 converter box.
The idea that customers will simply have to pony up the exact same amount of money out of pocket assumes that the people selling the item are either in collusion or don't care about getting more customers than their competitors (which is certainly true for some markets, but not consumer electronics, and this will be the easiest consumer electronic device to sell in history, assuming it's $40 at retail).
why in gods name would anyone want to carry 3000 mp3's with them anyway?
because not everyone is able to update their iPod every day with new music. I just spent two weeks in a hospital, i was sure glad to have a 40 gig ipod and not be stuck with a nano or something where i would have been listening to the same couple hundred songs over and over.
Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!
Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?
No, but the wear-leveling routines in the drive will happily move around your existing data so that rarely written sectors are available for heavy writing operations.
Seriously, this "issue" comes up in every discussion about SSDs, and it seems like people are just unwilling or unable to accept that what was once a huge problem with the technology is now not even remotely an issue. Any SSD you buy today should outlive a spinning disk, regardless of the operating conditions or use pattern. It is no longer 1989, engineers have solved these problems.
Thats an awesome definition, I think i'm going to start using this word, it goes great with truthiness.
Wow, that's even better -- civil rights activists are in it for the lucrative online advertising revenue! LOL
hey, you're the one who claimed the person deleting it was to specifically targeting that message to try and cover up the incredibly top-secret sensitive content. I think it was just a typically overzealous admin deleting messages that weren't on-topic.
You're right, Apple's forum policies suck. They've always sucked, they've always been ridiculously restrictive, and they're pretty much typical for an official corporate message boards (Dell's are actually pretty free-wheeling at times, but they still bat people down if they get overly negative about Dell products). I'm not defending their policies, just stating what they are. If you post a message there that isn't politely asking for or offering user to user support, there's a really good chance it will get deleted. That's why most users don't use Apple's official boards (or any company's official boards).
And yes, even if you have a legitimate post topic, if it is worded inappropriately (ie "My fucking iDisk page doesn't have a logout button you goddamn retards!") it will be deleted on pretty much any official corporate message board on Earth.
I feel genuine pity for all the mods who thought cynical surrender to hopelessness was "insightful".
Yes, yes, all men are evil, nothing anyone does will ever have any positive effect on any of humanity, all effort is wasted and we each die alone and miserable. Do you do Bar Mitzvahs?
That has ALWAYS been one of the rules of Wikipedia -- that people and organizations don't edit their own entries. This isn't some one-sided rule made up only to oppress the poor, defenseless US Marines.
Slashdot has run plenty of stories decrying self-editing of wikipedia pages by various companies and congressional offices on both sides of the political spectrum. I don't recall anyone (other than probably some supervisors!) complaining about the CIA employees editing the Buffy the Vampire Slayer wikipedia page, because that's wasn't a conflict of interest.
Yeah, there's a lot of money in pro bono work these days...
Does anyone speak Ranting Lunatic who can translate this into something coherent?
That's precisely what you're saying, otherwise Apple should just pay it's security team to be the forum administrators so that nothing is missed. You can't tell someone to forward some things and not others without asking them to evaluate the messages to determine which need forwarding. In order to evaluate which need forwarding, you need technical knowledge about what is being discussed.
So because it's a web interface it isn't software? It doesn't require any technical knowledge to evaluate? That doesn't even make any sense. There's no difference between a web interface and a standalone application interface in terms of telling a security issue from someone just bitching or being an idiot.
Nor will misrepresenting mine. Triage is one of the most important and time-consuming parts of dealing with bugs and security issues, and if you think Apple's finest programmers are running the first-line triage on the bug database, you're crazy. They have a whole staff with actual technical training and resources available whose sole job it is to do that triage, and basically what you're suggesting is that every single Apple employee should be trained in those skills and have those resources, or that the triage team should take over every form of communication "just in case".
Because unless every Apple employee from the janitor to the shipping clerk knows as much as the triage team, they DON'T have the skills necessary to know what does and doesn't need to be reported to the triage team (hi, I'm a catch-22, nice to meet you!).
Yes, perhaps because it was offtopic for the forum, inappropriately worded, etc? But perhaps you're right, and it wasn't something simple like a person deleting offtopic posts -- it was probably a conspiracy!
The forum administrator's job is pretty straightforward -- deleting any messages that aren't on-topic for the forum, which is polite, user-to-user support. You're right, it might be appropriate for message posters to be given a link to bugreporter before posting, I'm pretty sure they're given a link to the knowledge base.
Apple's .Mac team screwed up by not offering a logout button. Apple's forum team did not screw up.
Forum administrators are not required to have the technical skills to evaluate which posts could be a genuine security issue real and which ones are user error. The secretaries answering the main switchboard don't have that capability, either. Their delivery truck drivers don't have the ability to evaluate security issues. Neither do the guys who clean the toilets. If you really believe that security is a corporate priority that literally any externally-available person should be responsible for, your company must have the most highly trained garbagemen on earth.
I don't think you know very much about Apple history, or the design effort they put into their hardware and software.
For example, your "Apple doesn't even try" example was called OpenDoc, and it was hardly a secret.
Or it indicates that user forums are not the place to report security flaws, and that user forum administrators are in no way able to evaluate what is a stupid user error vs what is an actual security issue across the hundreds of different hardware and software combinations Apple offers. If you think every forum post should simply be echoed to the bug tracker, that's your prerogative, but it seems to be a great way to waste a lot of the qualified bug-squashers' time.
There is a well known and well understood process, it's called bugreporter.apple.com. The process does include tracking, reporting, and escalation procedures to ensure that big things don't get categorized as small things and overlooked.
What you're complaining about is that random forum administrators don't have the responsibility, time or technical ability to personally evaluate every forum post for whether it contains a bug or a security flaw as opposed to a stupid user error.
On XP, I click start, help, type 'bluetooth' and hit enter. ...
What's the equivalent on Linux?
Well, first you have to find out that the guy who wrote the Bluetooth driver was dating a girl named Bernice, and she had a cat with allergies. So that's why the command is called "blernball". Just "man blernball" and there you'll discover the utility was later enhanced by someone from China, so all of the command line options are based on appropriate mythological deities which are easily referenced on this babelfish table.
Then it gets complicated...
Or tries the exact same operation four times, thinking it will work the fourth time!
It will work the fourth time if closing and reopening clears the cache that is causing the problem. Or if it's supposed to synchronize with a network resource and needs a "push" to get back on track. Or any of a hundred other reasons, including just verifying that what you suspect is the issue is really the issue by causing it to happen in a predictable manner.
The other chiefs and the legal department trust THEIR secretaries with their passwords, too. Secretaries know pretty much everything at the high level of a large organization, they have to in order to do their jobs.