Now the solitary inventor has a new strategy: try to sell a patent to the conglomerates for big $$$. Or sell it to a patent troll.
In fact, patent trolls are the direct result of this switch. I dislike them as much as the next guy, but at least they're a force acting against those that are blatantly abusing their patents.
I think the question is not that certain words are evil, but that profanity can be valuable. This value is lost from overuse.
Salt is wonderful. Brings out the flavor in most anything. But add just a bit too much and it ruins the dish.
Swearing can do the same thing for literature or movies. Some writers think that the right amount of salt is as much as the viewers can possibly stand. Censorship brings down the level to a point where everybody is comfortable, but limits flavor in the process.
Unfortunately, everybody has their own tastes. My personal rule of thumb is about one swear per 30 minutes... YMMV. Too bad there isn't the equivalent of a salt shaker for movies: "Hmmm... this needs more swearing in this scene. [shake shake shake]."
We really need a Cassini-like mission around Jupiter. Ground-based observations are just amazing, but think of the science we could do at Jupiter!
Juno won't be launched until 2011, and it's mission is only going to be one year (although we've seen how these things can be extended). EJSM seems promising, but that's still 10 years from launch.
And there don't seem to be any plans for Uranus and Neptune. What a shame.
At this point, we need to decide who we want to be in charge of the internet. Letting it evolve on its own has gotten us to where we are now, but I can't see that continuing much longer.
So, we now need to choose between an oligopoly (relatively unregulated) and "government takeover" (unspecified regulation).
It's a shame you posted AC. Now nobody will see your comment unless the mods help out.
Everything that Big Media does is to get eyeballs for their advertisers. Thus, the advertisers are the customers and the eyeballs are the product.
Now look at the copyright battles. The core issue is of control -- who can use the video/song/etc to attract consumers for their customers. Right now, it's YouTube that is getting the page hits. Big Media doesn't like that one bit, so now they're putting up a fight.
It's not a copyright violation that they're worrying about, but theft of their actual product: viewers.
So, what happens when the consumer and customer become the same person? That's the model Hulu and others have talked about. It's such a radical shift that it's no wonder Big Media has no clue how to handle that business model.
That's fine and dandy for a full computer, but not for a touch interface:
We also want to embrace touch as a first class input. We want people to be able to launch and switch between applications using touch, so the launcher must be finger friendly.
That rules out keyboard shortcuts, which no longer make things easier/faster on a touch-only interface.
I like the idea of hiding all panels... but how do you make them visible again later? Mouse hover is the traditional way, but we don't have a mouse to work with. Maybe through a gesture that "drags" them out from the screen edge?
Heck, if you do it that way, it doesn't matter which edge you use: top, bottom, left, or right. It would even work with screen rotation.
Ok, would everybody here that works in Marketing please raise your hand?...
Yeah, that's what I thought. Very few.
The point is that we attack products based on technical features, not on how popular it is. Of course it's "a good product from the standpoint of the manufacturer"... every product from any manufacturer is perfect in their own eyes. And of course it's "a good product from the standpoint of... the consumers who purchase it"... it meets their own needs and expectations.
But why to the apple fanbois attack anybody who sees a serious technical downside? "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." That's a technical attack, not a commentary on how well the product will sell. Most people don't need wireless in an MP3 player and 5 GB is enough for plenty of music -- so people bought it. That doesn't mean that the iPod was the best product to ever be brought to market!
Apple is very good at choosing the features necessary to make a product useful, and it's good at making the device appealing enough for users to ignore any features they decided to not put in.
Of course Apple products are popular -- but that doesn't make them perfect.
No, the point we're trying to make is that technically-minded people see the shortcomings in Apple products compared to others.
The problem is that people pay attention to their hip friends, not to the nerd with the broken glasses sitting at the front of the class. That nerd feels put-down because nobody listens to him.
I don't think many people here seriously believe that "nobody will buy the iPad" -- on the contrary, it's easy to see that some people will buy any device that Apple makes and some will buy it because they don't care about the technical shortcomings ("it's good enough").
That doesn't make Apple products "the best (computer|mp3 player|phone|tablet|etc) in the word"... but it does make the product successful.
Slashdot Mirror
So ... after three strikes you're left with only two balls?
If you're using any sort of skill to decipher that, you're doing it wrong.
http://www.rot13.com/
It gives companies another way to show their support for animal rights. It may just be a token gesture, but it's there nonetheless.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
And another sig becomes eerily appropriate ...
What is the best innovation Microsoft has brought to us?
The BSOD, of course. Bob and Clippy are tied for 2nd place.
Now the solitary inventor has a new strategy: try to sell a patent to the conglomerates for big $$$. Or sell it to a patent troll.
In fact, patent trolls are the direct result of this switch. I dislike them as much as the next guy, but at least they're a force acting against those that are blatantly abusing their patents.
If drug manufacturers can patent the process to make a new drug, why can't a food manufacturer patent the process used to make food?
Not that a recipe would qualify, but I'm sure they can come up with something significant, like a new baking process to reduce fat.
Of course, I'm only an expert on food consumption, not manufacturing ... so maybe this is already being done. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
In Soviet Russia, anti-spam advisor spams you!
Except in that universe, the + and - on circuit diagrams would actually make sense.
That's fine ... but it's not OK in a crowded church.
I think the question is not that certain words are evil, but that profanity can be valuable. This value is lost from overuse.
Salt is wonderful. Brings out the flavor in most anything. But add just a bit too much and it ruins the dish.
Swearing can do the same thing for literature or movies. Some writers think that the right amount of salt is as much as the viewers can possibly stand. Censorship brings down the level to a point where everybody is comfortable, but limits flavor in the process.
Unfortunately, everybody has their own tastes. My personal rule of thumb is about one swear per 30 minutes ... YMMV. Too bad there isn't the equivalent of a salt shaker for movies: "Hmmm... this needs more swearing in this scene. [shake shake shake]."
His surname is "17" ... didn't you look at the user name?
Soviet Russia has its own planet?
We really need a Cassini-like mission around Jupiter. Ground-based observations are just amazing, but think of the science we could do at Jupiter!
Juno won't be launched until 2011, and it's mission is only going to be one year (although we've seen how these things can be extended). EJSM seems promising, but that's still 10 years from launch.
And there don't seem to be any plans for Uranus and Neptune. What a shame.
At this point, we need to decide who we want to be in charge of the internet. Letting it evolve on its own has gotten us to where we are now, but I can't see that continuing much longer.
So, we now need to choose between an oligopoly (relatively unregulated) and "government takeover" (unspecified regulation).
I don't trust either side right now ....
Let me go find the video I took. I think it's on the same tape as my UFO abduction and ghost sightings ...
It's a shame you posted AC. Now nobody will see your comment unless the mods help out.
Everything that Big Media does is to get eyeballs for their advertisers. Thus, the advertisers are the customers and the eyeballs are the product.
Now look at the copyright battles. The core issue is of control -- who can use the video/song/etc to attract consumers for their customers. Right now, it's YouTube that is getting the page hits. Big Media doesn't like that one bit, so now they're putting up a fight.
It's not a copyright violation that they're worrying about, but theft of their actual product: viewers.
So, what happens when the consumer and customer become the same person? That's the model Hulu and others have talked about. It's such a radical shift that it's no wonder Big Media has no clue how to handle that business model.
That's fine and dandy for a full computer, but not for a touch interface:
We also want to embrace touch as a first class input. We want people to be able to launch and switch between applications using touch, so the launcher must be finger friendly.
That rules out keyboard shortcuts, which no longer make things easier/faster on a touch-only interface.
I like the idea of hiding all panels ... but how do you make them visible again later? Mouse hover is the traditional way, but we don't have a mouse to work with. Maybe through a gesture that "drags" them out from the screen edge?
Heck, if you do it that way, it doesn't matter which edge you use: top, bottom, left, or right. It would even work with screen rotation.
I've always pronounced it with vim and vigor. That seems to help.
but they want 3X-4X for it, at low res, and full of commercials.
And charge per viewing. At least with the DVD you can watch it multiple times and in multiple places.
$1.99 should buy you a local copy to do what you please, following your same logic.
Oh, but I forgot. Streaming provides a convenience that you should pay more for, right? Right?
Posting "TGI Friday" would violate trademarking laws. Seriously, you don't know how litigious that restaurant can be.
Ok, would everybody here that works in Marketing please raise your hand? ...
Yeah, that's what I thought. Very few.
The point is that we attack products based on technical features, not on how popular it is. Of course it's "a good product from the standpoint of the manufacturer" ... every product from any manufacturer is perfect in their own eyes. And of course it's "a good product from the standpoint of ... the consumers who purchase it" ... it meets their own needs and expectations.
But why to the apple fanbois attack anybody who sees a serious technical downside? "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." That's a technical attack, not a commentary on how well the product will sell. Most people don't need wireless in an MP3 player and 5 GB is enough for plenty of music -- so people bought it. That doesn't mean that the iPod was the best product to ever be brought to market!
Apple is very good at choosing the features necessary to make a product useful, and it's good at making the device appealing enough for users to ignore any features they decided to not put in.
Of course Apple products are popular -- but that doesn't make them perfect.
No, the point we're trying to make is that technically-minded people see the shortcomings in Apple products compared to others.
The problem is that people pay attention to their hip friends, not to the nerd with the broken glasses sitting at the front of the class. That nerd feels put-down because nobody listens to him.
I don't think many people here seriously believe that "nobody will buy the iPad" -- on the contrary, it's easy to see that some people will buy any device that Apple makes and some will buy it because they don't care about the technical shortcomings ("it's good enough").
That doesn't make Apple products "the best (computer|mp3 player|phone|tablet|etc) in the word" ... but it does make the product successful.
Actually, I thought he fit in here just fine.
Before I knew that these two fonts were overdone, I used them both for my wedding announcements.
I now know better and hang my head in shame. I can only hope nobody noticed.