Posts like this make me wish Slashdot had a +0 Disturbing.
I don't really want to affect your Karma, I just want some way of communicating to you that I am concerned with the mental image that you just place into my head.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I find that rather irritating.
Trust me, that's not at all curmudgeony. I also find it really irritating.
But I also find it irritating when I do need to call someone on an urgent issue and they don't seem to give me their attention. In my opinion, texting and e-mail is great for communication that doesn't need to be addressed right this second. If I can wait on the response, I will e-mail. If I need help now, I will pick up the phone and call. When I answer the phone I am prepared to give them my attention at least long enough to prioritize the call. If I'm too busy I ignore it and wait to hear the voicemail, then I can return the call when I can give the person my full attention.
My problem is that I think that approach is so logical that I tend to expect other people to do the same.
I can't stand management types that get all uptight about junk like this.
Think of it this way, if you're an IT Professional you always want to be aware of what your system is up to, what its current weaknesses are, and what the status is of whatever task you've set it to run. Managers have to do kind of the same thing, except they have to do it with people.
Super basic example: If your computer refused to respond to your queries and stopped giving you information, but was obviously still running some kind of process, you would probably reboot it. If it persisted you would likely open it up to see whats wrong, and would eventually replace it. Imagine how frustrated Manager must be to have the same symptoms with the people they manage.
Incompatible yes, idiot proof no. I have seen a couple of people who managed to jam a USB plug into the network socket of their laptop.
Well I'm sorry! Its supposed to be a Universal something-or-other. That means the thingy should work in anything I stick it into or they shouldn't call it that.
Journalists have to abide by a code of ethics.
Those ethics require disclosure when there are conflicts of interests.
They don't have to. Many of them choose to. Those that don't are typically relegated to National Enquirer level of credibility.
If a journalist ever wants to work for a respectable organization then they better be building a career around that code of ethics, but these bloggers are something else entirely.
I was born, raised, and live in America, so I can only speak for my own country.
I wish more of us thought like you my friend. Many of us are all too quick to generalize about the political systems and socioeconomic situations of other countries.
Of course plenty of people around the world do the same thing. Especially the French, they all do that.
But how can a business that runs a website not be considered responsible for the content that is displayed on that website?
So they've set up an automated uploading process? Great! But just because they don't have to manually review each submission doesn't mean that they are absolved of their responsibility for the content they display. If I closed my eyes and wildly uploaded random videos to my personal website I would still be responsible f some of that content turned out to be infringing on a copyrighted work.
plus the last thing we need are more dumb 13 year olds whining about how Microsoft should unban them cuz all they did was steal a game and play it illegally.
Not sure if you've ever played on XBox Live, but Microsoft would most definitely be doing a service to society by banning those whining 13 yr olds. I fully support anyone who is stupid and cheap enough to pirate this game to go ahead and do so. MS/Bungie will ban the hell out of the 'tards and make the service a lot more attractive to the socially responsible normal people out there.
Thus, after fraudulent rescue cry number two it's possible for the in-over-their-heads hikers to say, "Give us a lift out of here so we can find a safer, more comfortable trail".
That's banking on this group of inexperienced jackoffs being self aware enough to recognize that they are in over their heads. To these people the calls aren't fraudulent, they genuinely need/desire help.
I'm sorry I sound contrary, I'm trying to play devils advocate. Like you, I find it frustrating that people would undertake this kind of excursion without proper preparation (in both gear and knowledge). I have a hard time justifying expending the resources of emergency responders on these people that haven't taken the basic steps of preparing themselves. But as much as I want to see these people learn a lesson and be better prepared for "next time", I would also hate to see someone die a preventable death because we wanted to make a point.
After the second time the Grand Canyon SatPhone hikers pushed their emergency button, I think they ought to be put in the "sorry, you're on your own from here on out" category.
A problem with that, is that the third call might be an actual emergency. You can't know. All the emergency responders would know at this point is that there is a group of inexperienced idiots out there whose satphone makes them feel like they can call for help anytime the need help carrying their bags. Those people might be doing really stupid things and might at any point put themselves in real danger without any of the knowledge or skills they would need to protect themselves. While I agree that maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for these kinds of people to become bear snacks, we can't really expect emergency services not to respond to people that might need help.
we all know our current congress has MUCH MORE IMPORTANT business to attend to...
Well, yes.
It does.
Yes, yes they do. But as long as they are wasting time with stupid crap like going after Roger Clemens, maybe they could spare a couple of hours and get some real governing done. Maybe that's asking too much.
how does a normal citizen go about getting a federal judge permanently removed from the bench?
You don't. That is intentional.
There is a process in which the House of Representatives can impeach a Federal Judge, but an individual normal citizen is unlikely to force the House to a vote without some support. The Judicial system exists in this way so that powerful individuals cannot simply go and get a Judge fired if they feel wronged.
Selection and approval is a very detailed process, the possibility of a true buffoon making their way through is unlikely. Impeachment is a very serious process as well, it is not undertaken lightly.
You've made two unspoken assumptions in coming up with your examples.
One is that Option A and Option B will both sell X number of ebooks. There is no guarantee that both options will sell the same number of ebooks. IMO Option B will lead to more sales of ad-free paper books.
Your other assumption is that the market is full of mindless consumers with no sense of the real value of the product beyond their desire for it. If the inconvenience of the advertisements outweighs the value the consumer draws out of the book then they will not buy it.
Cell phone companies have gotten away with charging ridiculous rates for text messages because they've been able to convince people that texts are fundamentally different from other data. Average Joe consumer is willing to pay an exorbitant rate because he believes the telcos when they say that texts are unique and expensive. Book readers will not be so gullible. Mainly because they already have a sense that a new hardcover is worth about $25USD and has been for some time.
if they use this technology only for periodicals how would this be different from traditional magazines except that the ads would alway be up-to-date?
Those ads will be better targeted. Amazon has a really robust recommendations systems that I really like. I think part of the reason people hate having ads jammed down their throat is that many of the ads don't relate to them. Targeted ads that are relevant to me based on my purchasing history will be a lot less annoying than ads for tampons and farm equipment.
If there is a market for it, I can absolutely see publishers offering a premiumly priced advertising free edition. It all depends on what the market will support. The publishers are interested in making big piles of money, so if there is money to be made by selling an edition without ads then they will do it.
You can no longer expect games branded "playstation 3" to run on the playstation 3, and they've basically announced they'll do the same for Blu-Ray movies.
If you are so dissatisfied with Sony's product offerings and services then you should stop buying new PS3 games.
That was part of my point. A lot of people are acting pissed off at Sony's behavior but they keep on buying their products and supporting their business. How else do you expect Sony to respond to a consumer base that is continuing to buy their products?
So if you had an iphone and apple said 'we are removing the application functionality in the next update, however it's optional so you can retain the application functionality, but you won't be able to make calls.' you would see that as acceptable?
Well that example is a little different. Apple has no right to kick people off of AT&T's network. but...
Sure, I would see that as acceptable. I don't see anything wrong with Apple/At&T making decisions about what devices and software packages can access their network. I would imagine that would let me out of whatever service contract I had with AT&T though.
Sony's situation is different. They cut off access to a free non-contractual service, and they had always reserved the right to change or modify their Terms of Use. Granted it was an advertised feature and the majority of users purchased their PS3's for that reason, but Sony still must have the right to say who can and can't access their networks. Right?
This move makes me not trust Sony. It will make me hesitant to buy a similar "hardware with FREE internet services" device from them in the future. But there was nothing wrong with what they did. They pissed people off to be sure. But that was their business decision to make. They've got a long history of being dicks to their customer base, but people keep buying their stuff.
Bluff My Call Mobile and Automatic Call Recorder. Just Google "Android app record call" and you get a few results.
I don't personally use a call recording app so I can't give any advice. My state is a two-party consent state so it would probably be illegal for me./p?
Or what about a retailer tracking people that pass through points of entry or near points of interest. I'm thinking of something like Best Buy keeping tabs on people that go into the store and play Guitar Hero for 15 minutes on the demo machine, then hitting them with a targeted advertisement.
I found an RFID under the collar of a shirt I had worn and even washed a few times. If being used as a theft deterrent system, it would behoove manufacturers to hide them on the clothing our outright put them in a part of the item which you can't find it at all without destroying it (such as inside the soles of shoes).
Retailers would benefit too. It's fairly easy to steal items of clothing from a big box retailer and attempt to "return" it back to another store for cash or store credit. Having those clothes tagged with a hidden RFID tag would help defeat that.
So if you want to walk around Detroit with an RFID reader and "track" people, good luck: the only thing you're tracking is the unique keys. You'd need access to whatever database in order to tie that unique key to a specific person.
Assuming everyone only carried a drivers license, that would be great!. Unfortunately a lot of people will also be carrying credit cards (some with RFID), and maybe an RFID equipped passport.
Plus with a little bit of social engineering you could very easily get someone's name or other less secure personal information while scanning their unique key.
Putting RFID tech into state issued ID's seems like a dangerous idea. If a CC holder wants one with an RFID chip to make their purchasing simpler than they should feel free. Setting up a system where everyone has a unique identifier that is available to anyone nearby just seems dangerous.
I'm carrying a device that makes phone calls, plays music, has digital memory, and sometimes includes the ability to take voice memos, but it does not include built-in a feature for recording incoming and outgoing phone calls to that memory, all because of differing jurisdictions over whether or not you can record calls to which you're a party.
Android has a couple of apps that do it. But I can't imagine Apple (or any other operator of a closed OS) would want to make those kinds of apps available.
iWiretap seems like it would be a bad iBusiness decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Posts like this make me wish Slashdot had a +0 Disturbing.
I don't really want to affect your Karma, I just want some way of communicating to you that I am concerned with the mental image that you just place into my head.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I find that rather irritating.
Trust me, that's not at all curmudgeony. I also find it really irritating.
But I also find it irritating when I do need to call someone on an urgent issue and they don't seem to give me their attention. In my opinion, texting and e-mail is great for communication that doesn't need to be addressed right this second. If I can wait on the response, I will e-mail. If I need help now, I will pick up the phone and call. When I answer the phone I am prepared to give them my attention at least long enough to prioritize the call. If I'm too busy I ignore it and wait to hear the voicemail, then I can return the call when I can give the person my full attention.
My problem is that I think that approach is so logical that I tend to expect other people to do the same.
I can't stand management types that get all uptight about junk like this.
Think of it this way, if you're an IT Professional you always want to be aware of what your system is up to, what its current weaknesses are, and what the status is of whatever task you've set it to run. Managers have to do kind of the same thing, except they have to do it with people.
Super basic example: If your computer refused to respond to your queries and stopped giving you information, but was obviously still running some kind of process, you would probably reboot it. If it persisted you would likely open it up to see whats wrong, and would eventually replace it. Imagine how frustrated Manager must be to have the same symptoms with the people they manage.
Incompatible yes, idiot proof no. I have seen a couple of people who managed to jam a USB plug into the network socket of their laptop.
Well I'm sorry! Its supposed to be a Universal something-or-other. That means the thingy should work in anything I stick it into or they shouldn't call it that.
Journalists have to abide by a code of ethics. Those ethics require disclosure when there are conflicts of interests.
They don't have to. Many of them choose to. Those that don't are typically relegated to National Enquirer level of credibility.
If a journalist ever wants to work for a respectable organization then they better be building a career around that code of ethics, but these bloggers are something else entirely.
I was born, raised, and live in America, so I can only speak for my own country.
I wish more of us thought like you my friend. Many of us are all too quick to generalize about the political systems and socioeconomic situations of other countries.
Of course plenty of people around the world do the same thing. Especially the French, they all do that.
Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.
But how can a business that runs a website not be considered responsible for the content that is displayed on that website?
So they've set up an automated uploading process? Great! But just because they don't have to manually review each submission doesn't mean that they are absolved of their responsibility for the content they display. If I closed my eyes and wildly uploaded random videos to my personal website I would still be responsible f some of that content turned out to be infringing on a copyrighted work.
plus the last thing we need are more dumb 13 year olds whining about how Microsoft should unban them cuz all they did was steal a game and play it illegally.
Not sure if you've ever played on XBox Live, but Microsoft would most definitely be doing a service to society by banning those whining 13 yr olds. I fully support anyone who is stupid and cheap enough to pirate this game to go ahead and do so. MS/Bungie will ban the hell out of the 'tards and make the service a lot more attractive to the socially responsible normal people out there.
Thus, after fraudulent rescue cry number two it's possible for the in-over-their-heads hikers to say, "Give us a lift out of here so we can find a safer, more comfortable trail".
That's banking on this group of inexperienced jackoffs being self aware enough to recognize that they are in over their heads. To these people the calls aren't fraudulent, they genuinely need/desire help.
I'm sorry I sound contrary, I'm trying to play devils advocate. Like you, I find it frustrating that people would undertake this kind of excursion without proper preparation (in both gear and knowledge). I have a hard time justifying expending the resources of emergency responders on these people that haven't taken the basic steps of preparing themselves. But as much as I want to see these people learn a lesson and be better prepared for "next time", I would also hate to see someone die a preventable death because we wanted to make a point.
After the second time the Grand Canyon SatPhone hikers pushed their emergency button, I think they ought to be put in the "sorry, you're on your own from here on out" category.
A problem with that, is that the third call might be an actual emergency. You can't know. All the emergency responders would know at this point is that there is a group of inexperienced idiots out there whose satphone makes them feel like they can call for help anytime the need help carrying their bags. Those people might be doing really stupid things and might at any point put themselves in real danger without any of the knowledge or skills they would need to protect themselves. While I agree that maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for these kinds of people to become bear snacks, we can't really expect emergency services not to respond to people that might need help.
Well, yes. It does.
Yes, yes they do. But as long as they are wasting time with stupid crap like going after Roger Clemens, maybe they could spare a couple of hours and get some real governing done. Maybe that's asking too much.
From hells heart, I stab at thee.
You have to ask yourself, though, whether it's possible, just possible, that the media has overhyped the problem.
Never! What possible motivation would they have to keep me terrified and glued to my televis...
Oh, wait...
how does a normal citizen go about getting a federal judge permanently removed from the bench?
You don't. That is intentional.
There is a process in which the House of Representatives can impeach a Federal Judge, but an individual normal citizen is unlikely to force the House to a vote without some support. The Judicial system exists in this way so that powerful individuals cannot simply go and get a Judge fired if they feel wronged.
Selection and approval is a very detailed process, the possibility of a true buffoon making their way through is unlikely. Impeachment is a very serious process as well, it is not undertaken lightly.
You've made two unspoken assumptions in coming up with your examples.
One is that Option A and Option B will both sell X number of ebooks. There is no guarantee that both options will sell the same number of ebooks. IMO Option B will lead to more sales of ad-free paper books.
Your other assumption is that the market is full of mindless consumers with no sense of the real value of the product beyond their desire for it. If the inconvenience of the advertisements outweighs the value the consumer draws out of the book then they will not buy it.
Cell phone companies have gotten away with charging ridiculous rates for text messages because they've been able to convince people that texts are fundamentally different from other data. Average Joe consumer is willing to pay an exorbitant rate because he believes the telcos when they say that texts are unique and expensive. Book readers will not be so gullible. Mainly because they already have a sense that a new hardcover is worth about $25USD and has been for some time.
if they use this technology only for periodicals how would this be different from traditional magazines except that the ads would alway be up-to-date?
Those ads will be better targeted. Amazon has a really robust recommendations systems that I really like. I think part of the reason people hate having ads jammed down their throat is that many of the ads don't relate to them. Targeted ads that are relevant to me based on my purchasing history will be a lot less annoying than ads for tampons and farm equipment.
If there is a market for it, I can absolutely see publishers offering a premiumly priced advertising free edition. It all depends on what the market will support. The publishers are interested in making big piles of money, so if there is money to be made by selling an edition without ads then they will do it.
You can no longer expect games branded "playstation 3" to run on the playstation 3, and they've basically announced they'll do the same for Blu-Ray movies.
If you are so dissatisfied with Sony's product offerings and services then you should stop buying new PS3 games.
That was part of my point. A lot of people are acting pissed off at Sony's behavior but they keep on buying their products and supporting their business. How else do you expect Sony to respond to a consumer base that is continuing to buy their products?
So if you had an iphone and apple said 'we are removing the application functionality in the next update, however it's optional so you can retain the application functionality, but you won't be able to make calls.' you would see that as acceptable?
Well that example is a little different. Apple has no right to kick people off of AT&T's network. but...
Sure, I would see that as acceptable. I don't see anything wrong with Apple/At&T making decisions about what devices and software packages can access their network. I would imagine that would let me out of whatever service contract I had with AT&T though.
Sony's situation is different. They cut off access to a free non-contractual service, and they had always reserved the right to change or modify their Terms of Use. Granted it was an advertised feature and the majority of users purchased their PS3's for that reason, but Sony still must have the right to say who can and can't access their networks. Right?
This move makes me not trust Sony. It will make me hesitant to buy a similar "hardware with FREE internet services" device from them in the future. But there was nothing wrong with what they did. They pissed people off to be sure. But that was their business decision to make. They've got a long history of being dicks to their customer base, but people keep buying their stuff.
Bluff My Call Mobile and Automatic Call Recorder. Just Google "Android app record call" and you get a few results.
I don't personally use a call recording app so I can't give any advice. My state is a two-party consent state so it would probably be illegal for me./p?
Or what about a retailer tracking people that pass through points of entry or near points of interest. I'm thinking of something like Best Buy keeping tabs on people that go into the store and play Guitar Hero for 15 minutes on the demo machine, then hitting them with a targeted advertisement.
I found an RFID under the collar of a shirt I had worn and even washed a few times. If being used as a theft deterrent system, it would behoove manufacturers to hide them on the clothing our outright put them in a part of the item which you can't find it at all without destroying it (such as inside the soles of shoes).
Retailers would benefit too. It's fairly easy to steal items of clothing from a big box retailer and attempt to "return" it back to another store for cash or store credit. Having those clothes tagged with a hidden RFID tag would help defeat that.
So if you want to walk around Detroit with an RFID reader and "track" people, good luck: the only thing you're tracking is the unique keys. You'd need access to whatever database in order to tie that unique key to a specific person.
Assuming everyone only carried a drivers license, that would be great!. Unfortunately a lot of people will also be carrying credit cards (some with RFID), and maybe an RFID equipped passport.
Plus with a little bit of social engineering you could very easily get someone's name or other less secure personal information while scanning their unique key.
Putting RFID tech into state issued ID's seems like a dangerous idea. If a CC holder wants one with an RFID chip to make their purchasing simpler than they should feel free. Setting up a system where everyone has a unique identifier that is available to anyone nearby just seems dangerous.
I'm carrying a device that makes phone calls, plays music, has digital memory, and sometimes includes the ability to take voice memos, but it does not include built-in a feature for recording incoming and outgoing phone calls to that memory, all because of differing jurisdictions over whether or not you can record calls to which you're a party.
Android has a couple of apps that do it. But I can't imagine Apple (or any other operator of a closed OS) would want to make those kinds of apps available.
iWiretap seems like it would be a bad iBusiness decision.
I think the laws of all three would apply (Feds and both States).