When Yahoo and Google started giving click-thru data for advertising, as opposed to page impressions, advertisers were shocked that viewers ignored most of their ads. When Tivo starting giving viewing statistics to the networks they were shocked at how ineffective their ads were. Are newspapers only now learning that there's a huge difference between seeing a headline (an ad) and actually paying attention to it? Seriously?
A larger problem is the changing definition of "journalist". A lot of people (and almost everyone on/.) would agree that journalists have a right to protect their sources in the name of journalistic independence and integrity. But who exactly is a journalist? You're average blogger? A prominent commentator?
Recently the Government Accountibility Office (GAO) has started hearings into "newspeople" who were surreptitiously paid to promote government proposals. Armstrong Williams promoting the No Child Left Behind act and Maggie Gallagher for the Health and Marriage Initiative are two prominent examples. Williams claims he's a commentator and not a journalist, while Gallagher says she is a journalist but that she did not have a conflict of interest. And what about bloggers who do their own reporting? Many do not have any journalistic training and do not know (or care to know) the rules that guide reporters.
Traditionally, the law has differentiated the 1st Amendment needs of journalists and the average person because of the importance of journalistic independence. If you're reporting on trade secrets, how to your prove you're a real journalist and not some schmuck with an axe to grind?
Taking this strategy would be very dangerous for Microsoft. Right now, there is a unwritten detente between the IT heavies (MS, IBM, Xerox, etc.) to stop patent warfare. Think about it this way: the Cold War never became a nuclear war because everyone would've been destroyed. So many IT patents overlap major products that the entire industry could be knocked to a standstill if the lawyers were unleashed. MS is mostly defending itself from submarine patents like those owned by Eolas - a outright patent war will never happen.
1) I agree with David Brin when he asks you to "unleash your imagination a bit" and stretch the boundaries of a novel. See where the possibilities lie. Taking a story to places where it was never meant to go makes it more relevant to today's readers and shows insight on how we think of today's world.
2) Taking a story where is was never meant to go and making pronouncements on its worldview is not just useless, it leads to wrong conclusions.
Tolkien was the greatest philologist (in case your not sure of the meaning, a scholar of languages, to save you the time of looking it up:-) ) and mythologist of his generation. He taught at Oxford. His treatise on Beowulf is the seminal analysis of the epic. From the very beginning, when he was starting to write the 'Lost Tales' of Middle Earth in the trenches of WWI, he was writing his own epic. For fun, much like e.e. cummings was writing breathtaking new poetry in WWII that had nothing to do with the war. His languages were based on Gothic, Old Norse, Old Finnish, Old Gaelic, etc. The Rohirrim are Vikings on horseback. The enemy as "swarthy and cruel" is straight from Old Finnish mythology, not a comment on race. Same goes for the place of women. If your writing stories based on old wordviews, you keep the worldviews. Otherwise, what's the point?
The Narnia Chronicles by C.S. Lewis are fantasy based on his Christian worldview (especially The Last Battle). LOTR is a rewriting of North European culture with a little England thrown in. In the forward for LOTR, Tolkien specifically writes "As for any meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none." It's good to stretch the story and examine the world through the characters' eyes (or Sauron's Eye). Ignoring the author's explicit reasoning and purpose, however, means that your creating your own fantasy at story's expense.
Hey, this is cruel. You're just posting this story to make us feel guilty about the incredibly tasty, artery-clogging binge fest that's our God given right on the Fourth of July. Shame on you.
Actually, the decision to kill off all the 1st generation characters in TF: The Movie came from the corporation itself, not the TF managers.
Hasbro, which also owned GI Joe, decided to release three movies through Sunbeam Productions that summer: GI Joe, TF, and My Little Pony. GI Joe, which had an slightly older audience, wanted to kill of Duke strictly for dramatic purposes. The management figured they could just phase new characters into the show to generate more toy sales and didn't need to actually kill anyone else off. However, the idiots upstairs decided that killing off all the previous characters was a great idea and instructed the authors of TF: The Movie to do so, over the objections of the managers.
This turned out to be a HUGE mistake, as the body count caused TF: The Movie to be a dismal box office failure. GI Joe: The Movie ended up as a multipart TV series and the ending was quickly changed so the Duke turned out OK. A great example of how top-down creative management can severely screw with a entertainment powerhouse.
The problem with legal endorsement of a technological solution is that business models don't have to change. In other words:
Pay-per-view will NOT decrease advertising.
Without regulation: 1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV. 2) People are willing to spend more money if there are fewer or no commericials, the picture quality is better, and they can watch at any time. 3) Pay-per-view offers fewer or no commercials, better picture quality, and flexible viewing schedules to justify the expense. 4) TV viewing options improve and media companies make more money.
With regulation: 1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV. 2) Regulations specify that pay-per-view systems have to be adapted, irregardless if consumer interest. 3) Pay-per-view becomes the normal viewing experience. 4) Because there was no competition, view options don't change though prices go up.
One thing you should always bring up to Congressman when talking about this bill:
CBDTPA will have very obvious effects that will severely annoy most of their constiuents. This bill will negatively affect how all computers, TVs, VCRs, camcorders, and music players will work. People who use this kind of basic technology include most senior citizens (senior citizens always scare politicians). When these consumers call Sony to complain, Sony will blame the bill and therefore the Congressmen who passed it. This bill will make re-election VERY difficult ("Would you vote for the man who ruined your VCR?").
To win the battle, Congress needs to be scared. They should be. Those congressmen who vote for this bill will lose their jobs shortly thereafter.
MS is not in a position to exploit open source. None of the strengths of open source work in tune with MS strengths.
The open source model works best in two situations:
1) Obscure, slowly developing technology. Think of BSD. BSD represents the cutting edge of OS work and it's elite technology. Some of the improvements the BSD movement develops will become standard for the masses down the line. Many more of the improvements will remain useless to the average user.
2) Commodity products. Think Gnome. They've done an exceptional job creating a word processor, a spreadsheet, imaging software, etc, and making it all compatible. In the long run though what Gnome really did was drop the price dramatically on essential software for the average user. Whether or not the average user will ever know the product is out there is another question.
Yes, I know there are a lot of exceptions. MS works on billion dollar budgets, though, so most exceptions don't count.
Linux is interesting because it's moving from development to commodity. Where servers act as commodities Linux does very well. Linux on the desktop will only work if companies treat Linux as another commodity to bring prices down.
MS strategies are NOT based on:
1) Obscure, slowly developing technology. MS follows innovative companies into areas that it knows will be profitable, such as gaming consoles, and spends its money improving existing technologies (well, sort of). MS does not spend millions on pure research hoping to invent the mouse (like Xerox did).
2) Commodity products. When the consumer realizes s/he's in a commodity market s/he'll usually switch to a different product if the price is better. That's why Red Hat sells. Unless you want to do something difficult, Red Hat will do the job just as well and cheaper to boot. By convincing the consumer that s/he's not really in a commodity market, MS can continue to keep prices artificially high (the infamous MS tax).
IBM sells commodity products which is why they bought into Linux. Sun kept Java shared source (almost open source) to develop a secure foundation for their other products and services (they just didn't execute very well). None of the strengths of open source mesh with the strengths of MS. Hence why MS wants to smush open source - they can't co-op the strategy.
Yannis Kouros, considered the greatest ultra-long-distance runner of all time, can run 153 miles in 20 hours, 25 minutes. If Kouris played basketball, he'd make Jordan look bad. He's that far beyond the competition. It's possible that a Navy SEAL drill instructor could run 141 miles in 24 hours, but I'd bet against it in the office pool.
Slashdot Mirror
When Yahoo and Google started giving click-thru data for advertising, as opposed to page impressions, advertisers were shocked that viewers ignored most of their ads. When Tivo starting giving viewing statistics to the networks they were shocked at how ineffective their ads were. Are newspapers only now learning that there's a huge difference between seeing a headline (an ad) and actually paying attention to it? Seriously?
A larger problem is the changing definition of "journalist". A lot of people (and almost everyone on /.) would agree that journalists have a right to protect their sources in the name of journalistic independence and integrity. But who exactly is a journalist? You're average blogger? A prominent commentator?
Recently the Government Accountibility Office (GAO) has started hearings into "newspeople" who were surreptitiously paid to promote government proposals. Armstrong Williams promoting the No Child Left Behind act and Maggie Gallagher for the Health and Marriage Initiative are two prominent examples. Williams claims he's a commentator and not a journalist, while Gallagher says she is a journalist but that she did not have a conflict of interest. And what about bloggers who do their own reporting? Many do not have any journalistic training and do not know (or care to know) the rules that guide reporters.
Traditionally, the law has differentiated the 1st Amendment needs of journalists and the average person because of the importance of journalistic independence. If you're reporting on trade secrets, how to your prove you're a real journalist and not some schmuck with an axe to grind?
Taking this strategy would be very dangerous for Microsoft. Right now, there is a unwritten detente between the IT heavies (MS, IBM, Xerox, etc.) to stop patent warfare. Think about it this way: the Cold War never became a nuclear war because everyone would've been destroyed. So many IT patents overlap major products that the entire industry could be knocked to a standstill if the lawyers were unleashed. MS is mostly defending itself from submarine patents like those owned by Eolas - a outright patent war will never happen.
1) I agree with David Brin when he asks you to "unleash your imagination a bit" and stretch the boundaries of a novel. See where the possibilities lie. Taking a story to places where it was never meant to go makes it more relevant to today's readers and shows insight on how we think of today's world.
2) Taking a story where is was never meant to go and making pronouncements on its worldview is not just useless, it leads to wrong conclusions.
Tolkien was the greatest philologist (in case your not sure of the meaning, a scholar of languages, to save you the time of looking it up :-) ) and mythologist of his generation. He taught at Oxford. His treatise on Beowulf is the seminal analysis of the epic. From the very beginning, when he was starting to write the 'Lost Tales' of Middle Earth in the trenches of WWI, he was writing his own epic. For fun, much like e.e. cummings was writing breathtaking new poetry in WWII that had nothing to do with the war. His languages were based on Gothic, Old Norse, Old Finnish, Old Gaelic, etc. The Rohirrim are Vikings on horseback. The enemy as "swarthy and cruel" is straight from Old Finnish mythology, not a comment on race. Same goes for the place of women. If your writing stories based on old wordviews, you keep the worldviews. Otherwise, what's the point?
The Narnia Chronicles by C.S. Lewis are fantasy based on his Christian worldview (especially The Last Battle). LOTR is a rewriting of North European culture with a little England thrown in. In the forward for LOTR, Tolkien specifically writes "As for any meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none." It's good to stretch the story and examine the world through the characters' eyes (or Sauron's Eye). Ignoring the author's explicit reasoning and purpose, however, means that your creating your own fantasy at story's expense.
Hey, this is cruel. You're just posting this story to make us feel guilty about the incredibly tasty, artery-clogging binge fest that's our God given right on the Fourth of July. Shame on you.
Actually, the decision to kill off all the 1st generation characters in TF: The Movie came from the corporation itself, not the TF managers.
Hasbro, which also owned GI Joe, decided to release three movies through Sunbeam Productions that summer: GI Joe, TF, and My Little Pony. GI Joe, which had an slightly older audience, wanted to kill of Duke strictly for dramatic purposes. The management figured they could just phase new characters into the show to generate more toy sales and didn't need to actually kill anyone else off. However, the idiots upstairs decided that killing off all the previous characters was a great idea and instructed the authors of TF: The Movie to do so, over the objections of the managers.
This turned out to be a HUGE mistake, as the body count caused TF: The Movie to be a dismal box office failure. GI Joe: The Movie ended up as a multipart TV series and the ending was quickly changed so the Duke turned out OK. A great example of how top-down creative management can severely screw with a entertainment powerhouse.
The problem with legal endorsement of a technological solution is that business models don't have to change. In other words:
Pay-per-view will NOT decrease advertising.
Without regulation:
1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV.
2) People are willing to spend more money if there are fewer or no commericials, the picture quality is better, and they can watch at any time.
3) Pay-per-view offers fewer or no commercials, better picture quality, and flexible viewing schedules to justify the expense.
4) TV viewing options improve and media companies make more money.
With regulation:
1) Pay-per-view is more expensive than regular TV.
2) Regulations specify that pay-per-view systems have to be adapted, irregardless if consumer interest.
3) Pay-per-view becomes the normal viewing experience.
4) Because there was no competition, view options don't change though prices go up.
One thing you should always bring up to Congressman when talking about this bill:
CBDTPA will have very obvious effects that will severely annoy most of their constiuents. This bill will negatively affect how all computers, TVs, VCRs, camcorders, and music players will work. People who use this kind of basic technology include most senior citizens (senior citizens always scare politicians). When these consumers call Sony to complain, Sony will blame the bill and therefore the Congressmen who passed it. This bill will make re-election VERY difficult ("Would you vote for the man who ruined your VCR?").
To win the battle, Congress needs to be scared. They should be. Those congressmen who vote for this bill will lose their jobs shortly thereafter.
MS is not in a position to exploit open source. None of the strengths of open source work in tune with MS strengths.
The open source model works best in two situations:
1) Obscure, slowly developing technology. Think of BSD. BSD represents the cutting edge of OS work and it's elite technology. Some of the improvements the BSD movement develops will become standard for the masses down the line. Many more of the improvements will remain useless to the average user.
2) Commodity products. Think Gnome. They've done an exceptional job creating a word processor, a spreadsheet, imaging software, etc, and making it all compatible. In the long run though what Gnome really did was drop the price dramatically on essential software for the average user. Whether or not the average user will ever know the product is out there is another question.
Yes, I know there are a lot of exceptions. MS works on billion dollar budgets, though, so most exceptions don't count.
Linux is interesting because it's moving from development to commodity. Where servers act as commodities Linux does very well. Linux on the desktop will only work if companies treat Linux as another commodity to bring prices down.
MS strategies are NOT based on:
1) Obscure, slowly developing technology. MS follows innovative companies into areas that it knows will be profitable, such as gaming consoles, and spends its money improving existing technologies (well, sort of). MS does not spend millions on pure research hoping to invent the mouse (like Xerox did).
2) Commodity products. When the consumer realizes s/he's in a commodity market s/he'll usually switch to a different product if the price is better. That's why Red Hat sells. Unless you want to do something difficult, Red Hat will do the job just as well and cheaper to boot. By convincing the consumer that s/he's not really in a commodity market, MS can continue to keep prices artificially high (the infamous MS tax).
IBM sells commodity products which is why they bought into Linux. Sun kept Java shared source (almost open source) to develop a secure foundation for their other products and services (they just didn't execute very well). None of the strengths of open source mesh with the strengths of MS. Hence why MS wants to smush open source - they can't co-op the strategy.
Yannis Kouros, considered the greatest ultra-long-distance runner of all time, can run 153 miles in 20 hours, 25 minutes. If Kouris played basketball, he'd make Jordan look bad. He's that far beyond the competition. It's possible that a Navy SEAL drill instructor could run 141 miles in 24 hours, but I'd bet against it in the office pool.