I don't care one way or the other if they use a paywall or not, but the characterization of the company as starting to charge for its "product" is ludicrous.
The New York Times is a newspaper company. Newspaper companies do not sell newspapers--those aren't the "products" that they charge for. Newspaper companies sell eyeballs. They use various techniques to attract readers, but most especially to attract subscribers. Then they sell the eyeballs of their subscribers to advertisers. That was the business model for newspapers that got them profit margins of over 20% in the 1970s and 80s.
Many internet sites essentially use the same business model. However, the profit margins aren't quite the same, and advertising can't keep up with expenses.
Making people pay to read or buy the newspaper has always just been a cost-defraying measure, not a profit-creation measure.
The peer-reviewed paper that showed that the "brontosaurus" was really an apatosaur was published in 1903.
I've often used the brontosaurus/apatosaurus story to explain how often popular ideas lag behind scientific discoveries. Literally over 100 years after it was discovered that the apatosaurus was what we had been calling the brontosaurus, there are books, movies, t-shirts, cups, and all sorts of things *at science museums* which continue the false naming convention. This is why science needs "activists" to continue to represent to the public their most recent discoveries.
Re:In defense of the Baroque Cycle
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. Part of the beauty of The BC is that un-edited feel. I love the heft of those enormous tomes on my bookshelf.
Re:I have the great forturne ...
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
I've read his other books, and I loved the Baroque Cycle. I actually started "late" with Cryptonomicon, then read Snow Crash (and re-read it a couple of times, and listened to the audio version in a car trip) followed by everything but "The Big U", which isn't exactly ubiquitous.
In the other comments, I notice a certain self-identification that I don't think I have. I think the issue is that I'm more of a "literary geek" than a "technical geek". I enjoy the worlds Stephenson builds, I enjoy his sense of play, I enjoy his imagination and his characterizations, and, apparently in contrast to most Slashdot readers, I love all the endings of his books.
By "you guys" are you referring to participants on this Slashdot discussion, or the marketers of the game? Have you read the news about Spore? Have you heard how it is being presented? The people who are marketing it are trying to say that it *is* based on something scientific, yet it isn't science.
Here's a little nugget from the National Geographic channel: "Journey into the billion-year history of the human body, led by computer game visionary, Will Wright as he explores the break through science that's revealing the secret genetic machinery that shapes all life in the game Spore."
It should be just a "damn game" but it isn't always being presented like that.
Now, of course people should be skeptical of claims such as these, but even people in their right minds may consider that it is based on something scientific when, you know, even people not part of the company are making claims that it is scientific.
There is no "just" an anything. These things matter.
Oh my. Someone on the Internet understands evolution through natural selection, and the definition of fitness in relation to environment. The world's about to end.
It's so frustrating to see so many other comments that treat "fitness" as something that exists outside of any context, as if what they value as fitness is what the selection process used.
Re:"not designed with the American consumer in min
on
Hacking the XO Laptop
·
· Score: 1
Do not anger happy fun ball...er...The XO comes with a nice little pictogram chart of "things to not do with the XO Laptop" and immerse in water is one.
This is a great high-level explanation. Obviously, you can choose at which level to start--where low-level would be talking about the hardware and protocols, and a mid-level discussion would be about the applications and uses. At each level, a different analogy or metaphor would be used, and that's what all the other posts were about. I'm late to this thread, but I'm glad I got your post.
I don't see the part where the poster says, "I went over to his house to discuss these things, and he wouldn't talk to me at all." Have you tried...talking? Trying to work out problems like an adult, rather than running to mommy Slashdot?
Unless Microsoft can pick up the pace, "consumers may simply end up with a more and more inferior operating system over time, which is sad," said Yoffie of the Harvard Business School.
Well said (except for the "I'm a Republican" part ). I agree, the defensiveness is definitely more stupid than the original attack. Of course, I say that having been pulled into the defensive mode more often than I care to admit.
The thing is "trolling" has been around a lot longer than the Internet. It's a tried-and-true tactic for dealing with a political argument.
The one thing I would disagree with on your post is that calling some criticisms "rational" is stretching the term too much.
There's no way to take this post seriously. Beyond the "you're all a bunch of hive-mind" crap that doesn't say anything, there's this little nugget from our previous president:
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
Do you honestly think that anyone connected with the current administration would ever say anything like that? Ever? The primary duty of a president isn't necessarily to do stuff. It's to talk. Presidents talk. That's their job. And I respect a President based on what he says--the rhetoric that he chooses identifies where he wants the country to go.
And our current president would never say what our previous one said.
Since when did "eat less meat / more vegetables" become "eating no meat and nothing but raw vegetables"?
Do you like to take everything to its most extreme conclusion? Honestly, there is nothing within that sentence that on its own supplied the implication of going "all the way." You took that one and ran with it on your own. People can start to control their eating habits and get benefits without consulting a doctor. And by the way, "control" does not mean "eliminate all of one substance."
Excellent post, but I disagree on your final conclusion:
If FOSS is the Right Thing then it will eventually win. Nothing anyone can do will prevent this from happening, only delaying it. In the meantime, sit back and enjoy it for what it is.
Being "the Right Thing" is no guarantee of success. First of all, the Right Thing is a slippery topic, and secondly, history is full of the abandoned and destroyed "right things." For example, many believe BetaMax was a superior technology to VHS. Many believe that there are better audio formats than mp3, better image formats than GIF, etc.
I wish you were right and the Right Thing won, but victory doesn't always go where its deserved.
Not flaming, just curious: Why is he totally clueless? What specifically in the article, and in the behavior of Perens, ESR, and RMS, leads you to think they are clueless? I think a case can definitely be made for it, so I'd like to hear yours.
Re:You don't have the slightest idea...
on
QNX 6.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Disclaimer--I wouldn't even say "standard," because they allow a loophole--"unless QSS has provided its express written consent." That seems much more willing than others would be to let their software run in "High-Risk Applications."
Slashdot Mirror
Cringley had a post on this today as well:
http://www.cringely.com/2011/06/iclouds-real-purpose-is-to-kill-windows/
He looks at it as an intentional strategy to harm Microsoft, and he has a good point about the business aspects of the announcement.
I don't care one way or the other if they use a paywall or not, but the characterization of the company as starting to charge for its "product" is ludicrous.
The New York Times is a newspaper company. Newspaper companies do not sell newspapers--those aren't the "products" that they charge for. Newspaper companies sell eyeballs. They use various techniques to attract readers, but most especially to attract subscribers. Then they sell the eyeballs of their subscribers to advertisers. That was the business model for newspapers that got them profit margins of over 20% in the 1970s and 80s.
Many internet sites essentially use the same business model. However, the profit margins aren't quite the same, and advertising can't keep up with expenses.
Making people pay to read or buy the newspaper has always just been a cost-defraying measure, not a profit-creation measure.
The peer-reviewed paper that showed that the "brontosaurus" was really an apatosaur was published in 1903.
I've often used the brontosaurus/apatosaurus story to explain how often popular ideas lag behind scientific discoveries. Literally over 100 years after it was discovered that the apatosaurus was what we had been calling the brontosaurus, there are books, movies, t-shirts, cups, and all sorts of things *at science museums* which continue the false naming convention. This is why science needs "activists" to continue to represent to the public their most recent discoveries.
I disagree. Part of the beauty of The BC is that un-edited feel. I love the heft of those enormous tomes on my bookshelf.
I've read his other books, and I loved the Baroque Cycle. I actually started "late" with Cryptonomicon, then read Snow Crash (and re-read it a couple of times, and listened to the audio version in a car trip) followed by everything but "The Big U", which isn't exactly ubiquitous.
In the other comments, I notice a certain self-identification that I don't think I have. I think the issue is that I'm more of a "literary geek" than a "technical geek". I enjoy the worlds Stephenson builds, I enjoy his sense of play, I enjoy his imagination and his characterizations, and, apparently in contrast to most Slashdot readers, I love all the endings of his books.
Please remember that if you messed with minefield "a few months back" then its been through dozens of iterations since then. It's a nightly build.
By "you guys" are you referring to participants on this Slashdot discussion, or the marketers of the game? Have you read the news about Spore? Have you heard how it is being presented? The people who are marketing it are trying to say that it *is* based on something scientific, yet it isn't science.
Here's a little nugget from the National Geographic channel:
"Journey into the billion-year history of the human body, led by computer game visionary, Will Wright as he explores the break through science that's revealing the secret genetic machinery that shapes all life in the game Spore."
It should be just a "damn game" but it isn't always being presented like that.
Now, of course people should be skeptical of claims such as these, but even people in their right minds may consider that it is based on something scientific when, you know, even people not part of the company are making claims that it is scientific.
There is no "just" an anything. These things matter.
Oh my. Someone on the Internet understands evolution through natural selection, and the definition of fitness in relation to environment. The world's about to end.
It's so frustrating to see so many other comments that treat "fitness" as something that exists outside of any context, as if what they value as fitness is what the selection process used.
Do not anger happy fun ball...er...The XO comes with a nice little pictogram chart of "things to not do with the XO Laptop" and immerse in water is one.
Actually, it's slightly worse than that. The song was written in 1893 and copyrighted in 1935. But your point stands.
This is a great high-level explanation. Obviously, you can choose at which level to start--where low-level would be talking about the hardware and protocols, and a mid-level discussion would be about the applications and uses. At each level, a different analogy or metaphor would be used, and that's what all the other posts were about. I'm late to this thread, but I'm glad I got your post.
In other words, mod parent up.
Yoda fades away as well, leaving no body behind. I would say that is a repetition.
I'd be interested to know where the Fair Use doctrine gets in here. I think that's where the original question was coming from.
It's my understanding that the Fair Use doctrine covers the ability to make backups of certain copyrighted purchases you make.
I don't see the part where the poster says, "I went over to his house to discuss these things, and he wouldn't talk to me at all." Have you tried...talking? Trying to work out problems like an adult, rather than running to mommy Slashdot?
Would be not to solicit Slashdot for writing help. And help with teaching writing? Oh, shudder.
How has this not happened already?
Well said (except for the "I'm a Republican" part ). I agree, the defensiveness is definitely more stupid than the original attack. Of course, I say that having been pulled into the defensive mode more often than I care to admit.
The thing is "trolling" has been around a lot longer than the Internet. It's a tried-and-true tactic for dealing with a political argument.
The one thing I would disagree with on your post is that calling some criticisms "rational" is stretching the term too much.
Do you honestly think that anyone connected with the current administration would ever say anything like that? Ever? The primary duty of a president isn't necessarily to do stuff. It's to talk. Presidents talk. That's their job. And I respect a President based on what he says--the rhetoric that he chooses identifies where he wants the country to go.
And our current president would never say what our previous one said.
Why post anonymously when this should be seen by others? You're providing information, what's there to hide from?
Since when did "eat less meat / more vegetables" become "eating no meat and nothing but raw vegetables"?
Do you like to take everything to its most extreme conclusion? Honestly, there is nothing within that sentence that on its own supplied the implication of going "all the way." You took that one and ran with it on your own. People can start to control their eating habits and get benefits without consulting a doctor. And by the way, "control" does not mean "eliminate all of one substance."
What's already being done is NOT "the use of cellphones for marine comms," but the use of lighthouses as cell-towers.
The Wired kiss-of-death will strike again. They can't tout a "next big thing" without absolutely killing it.
Not flaming, just curious: Why is he totally clueless? What specifically in the article, and in the behavior of Perens, ESR, and RMS, leads you to think they are clueless? I think a case can definitely be made for it, so I'd like to hear yours.
Disclaimer--I wouldn't even say "standard," because they allow a loophole--"unless QSS has provided its express written consent." That seems much more willing than others would be to let their software run in "High-Risk Applications."