Lock-in is a delicate thing. On the one hand you want to lock-in your own users, but on the other hand you want to unlock your competitors. You're assuming this threatens a console manufacturers lock-in, but it also opens up their opponents and could potentially grab a few new users.
Sometimes it isn't about grabbing a bigger piece of the pie, sometimes it's about making the pie bigger.
I went through Las Vegas airport last week and they did exactly that. Gave me a card before I joined the security line and took it back from me when I got through. Seems like a simple solution.
But not everybody is Feymann, Gell-Mann or Curie. Lots of researchers rest on their laurels after gaining recognition for one good piece of work. Nor is it the case that only well-known "elite" researchers are capable of making breakthroughs. One thing that constantly irritated me during my PhD was the level of hero worship I'd see amongst fellow students as well as faculty. I really don't give a shit who wrote a particular paper, I care about the content of the paper. It's an appeal to authority that I felt happened far too often.
To be clear, I'm not proposing that you completely disregard reputation either. I'm just saying the idea of concentration on only "elite" researchers is a waste. You risk missing promising young scientists who only aren't "elite" because they've only just started.
As a research, I strongly disagree. Reputations are slow to build and linger far longer than they are deserved. Einstein wasn't an "elite" research when he did most of his best work and once he was "elite" he never had another breakthrough as earth-shattering as those he made as a lowly Swiss patent clerk.
You'd be better off kidnapping the owner and beating it out of them, that at least COULD work.
Or possibly not. I don't know about you, but I don't remember the 64 random characters in my passcode, and no amount of beating is going to make me remember. Of course, if you ask me where I wrote it down, that you could beat out of me, but it's on my desktop computer, and once you have access to that, all bets are off anyway.
I agree. But I personally don't chose to be a swinger, so what's your point? Anybody who's not a swinger is an uptight puritan? That seems like a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. I'm truly sorry that you are unable to see any value whatsoever in a stable monogamous relationship so you feel you have to bash other people who chose it.
I certainly agree that if your spouse is cheating, it certainly ain't the fault of whatever thing let you find out. I don't think anybody was proposing that we shoot the messenger here. The real problem with revealing your sexual activity is that most people don't want to have everybody see it. But really, if you don't want anybody to see it, why the fuck are uploading it to some random website?
If all parties involved are happy with a sexual free-for-all, then more power to them. I'm not condoning it at all. But I have an agreement with my wife that we don't swing and if she broke that agreement I would be upset. I trust that she doesn't. That's what I assume the OP meant with it "being a problem", otherwise it would be a problem. My decision isn't inspired by some great respect for the religious sanctity of marriage, it's inspired by a desire to have a stable home life.
Well, I agree that if I saw something like that my first assumption would be there is some mistake. I wouldn't automatically assume she'd cheated and if you do, I think it's fair to say that there are underlying problems in the relationship already. And I don't have a problem with people who don't chose a monogamous relationship either. If you want to sleep around, more power to you, it's just not what I've chosen. And what I've chosen isn't the result of christian theology, it's because it works for me. I like the stability and the comfort I get from it.
I'll grant you that. Facebook would have made the change, made your private profile public and you wouldn't have found out about it until some alert blogger decided to raise a fuss. So I guess Google clears the very low bar set by Facebook. WTG Google!
I suspect it's not so much inherently complexity as it is the desire to make money from the supposedly "private" data. In other words, the data is private until the corporation running the social network decides they can make money from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Lock-in is a delicate thing. On the one hand you want to lock-in your own users, but on the other hand you want to unlock your competitors. You're assuming this threatens a console manufacturers lock-in, but it also opens up their opponents and could potentially grab a few new users.
Sometimes it isn't about grabbing a bigger piece of the pie, sometimes it's about making the pie bigger.
I went through Las Vegas airport last week and they did exactly that. Gave me a card before I joined the security line and took it back from me when I got through. Seems like a simple solution.
Maybe in Second Life?
But not everybody is Feymann, Gell-Mann or Curie. Lots of researchers rest on their laurels after gaining recognition for one good piece of work. Nor is it the case that only well-known "elite" researchers are capable of making breakthroughs. One thing that constantly irritated me during my PhD was the level of hero worship I'd see amongst fellow students as well as faculty. I really don't give a shit who wrote a particular paper, I care about the content of the paper. It's an appeal to authority that I felt happened far too often.
To be clear, I'm not proposing that you completely disregard reputation either. I'm just saying the idea of concentration on only "elite" researchers is a waste. You risk missing promising young scientists who only aren't "elite" because they've only just started.
Exactly, don't reinvent the wheel is all well and good, unless you end up inventing a far superior wheel.
As a research, I strongly disagree. Reputations are slow to build and linger far longer than they are deserved. Einstein wasn't an "elite" research when he did most of his best work and once he was "elite" he never had another breakthrough as earth-shattering as those he made as a lowly Swiss patent clerk.
Yeah, those loser children, disabled and elderly. Shake those spongers down for more cash. Nevermind that they don't have any cash to start with.
I'll make no further comment on your alt-medicine nonsense, others have already ripped you a new one. I'll simply refer you to this site.
...my local Half Price Books is going to be getting some new stock!
What Slashdot users know != what the general public knows.
You'd be better off kidnapping the owner and beating it out of them, that at least COULD work.
Or possibly not. I don't know about you, but I don't remember the 64 random characters in my passcode, and no amount of beating is going to make me remember. Of course, if you ask me where I wrote it down, that you could beat out of me, but it's on my desktop computer, and once you have access to that, all bets are off anyway.
I agree. But I personally don't chose to be a swinger, so what's your point? Anybody who's not a swinger is an uptight puritan? That seems like a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. I'm truly sorry that you are unable to see any value whatsoever in a stable monogamous relationship so you feel you have to bash other people who chose it.
I certainly agree that if your spouse is cheating, it certainly ain't the fault of whatever thing let you find out. I don't think anybody was proposing that we shoot the messenger here. The real problem with revealing your sexual activity is that most people don't want to have everybody see it. But really, if you don't want anybody to see it, why the fuck are uploading it to some random website?
If all parties involved are happy with a sexual free-for-all, then more power to them. I'm not condoning it at all. But I have an agreement with my wife that we don't swing and if she broke that agreement I would be upset. I trust that she doesn't. That's what I assume the OP meant with it "being a problem", otherwise it would be a problem. My decision isn't inspired by some great respect for the religious sanctity of marriage, it's inspired by a desire to have a stable home life.
Well, I agree that if I saw something like that my first assumption would be there is some mistake. I wouldn't automatically assume she'd cheated and if you do, I think it's fair to say that there are underlying problems in the relationship already. And I don't have a problem with people who don't chose a monogamous relationship either. If you want to sleep around, more power to you, it's just not what I've chosen. And what I've chosen isn't the result of christian theology, it's because it works for me. I like the stability and the comfort I get from it.
No, it's about trust. I'm an atheist and I don't cheat on my wife.
Actually, I'm not sure you can after the change over. I think that might be the point.
Ironic coming from an AC.
I'll grant you that. Facebook would have made the change, made your private profile public and you wouldn't have found out about it until some alert blogger decided to raise a fuss. So I guess Google clears the very low bar set by Facebook. WTG Google!
But previously you could have a profile only visible to your real-life contacts. Not everybody wants to be out there and be searchable.
Except your real name and gender. Which is public, whether you like it or not after July 31.
From TFA:
Well that didn't take long. They've gone from the anti-Facebook to being exactly like Facebook in the space of about a week. Paint me not surprised.
I suspect it's not so much inherently complexity as it is the desire to make money from the supposedly "private" data. In other words, the data is private until the corporation running the social network decides they can make money from it.
In the USA for some reason people seem to be unable to taste something if it doesn't have loads of sugar and salt added, or the combination of both.
Nonsense I say! .......Sometimes they smother it in cheese too. Or, I should say, a yellow cheese like substance.
And he had the "greedy bastard" tour.