I'd think the TV makers would be scrambling for ways to differentiate. I mean, the buzz of last year's CES was the ill-conceived push for "3d tv". I get the sense most people had the same "meh" reaction I did.
And while I agree with the gp, that I'd rather have that functionality in a roku (etc), more ways to get content sounds nice to everyone. Standardized ways of doing so might just be a byproduct of manufacturers trying to offer as many services as possible in their devices' feature lists.
I'd rather pay 6 companies $5-$10 a month for a total of $30-$60, and have the ability to pick and choose what I want.
If Hulu decides to charge $25/mo for access to one decent show while subsidizing 10 other crappy ones... well I cancel Hulu.
And that's the nice bit of it all. A competitor doesn't have to source STB's for clients or deal with provisioning. They don't have to spend all that money convincing you to change your cable company / phone company / isp. They don't have to send a person and a truck full of equipment to your home to install hardware. Their serviceable market is as big or as small as they want it to be, etc.
So really, the barrier to entry in distribution is a tiny fraction of what it was, which means there can be more providers, which means they have to do it competitively. I can only see that being good for us. But yeah, maybe I'm overly optimistic.
I can agree that there are shows worth watching on TV. My problem with cable is that, to see the 5 or 6 shows I like, I've to bump up through the packages until I'm spending $80+/mo just to see them. If there are 3 currently airing in any given month I'm paying something like $20 per show. The rest of what I watch is just fluff to have something playing in the background.
I'm encouraged by Hulu, Netflix and now MSFT producing original content. At least one of the Hulu ones I've watched is actually good. I can only hope that more companies find ways to do it profitably and jump on board.
I shouldn't try to play devil's advocate for someone else (much less that guy), but I'd guess the question then is, is "skeazy" illegal if you're a total non-player?
Businesses make bad exclusivity agreements with other businesses every day. It usually only hurts them unless there's a monopoly involved, and this isn't even an exclusivity agreement.
I just seems more like msft shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
Yeah, the "teach yourself programming" things have been around. The problem is they've almost always been html versions of a horrible fucking textbook. And as anyone that learned to code outside academia will likely argue... learning out of a textbook isn't necessarily the best way anyways.
CodeAcademy is a good attempt. Rails for Zombies and similar are better. I can't think of any reason I should have a problem with there being good, usable material at all levels.
When your mom mentions you on the phone or shows someone a picture, the likely 3rd party exposure of that mention or photo is 1 or 2. On facebook, it's the number of tagged individuals, + 1, times the number of friends each of those people has (let's call it avg 200). So 4 people in one photo, posted by a fifth, is 1,000+ individuals in one, nonchalant post. Often more.
Short of robbing a bank and ending up on the news, you didn't usually have to think about that kind of exposure before facebook.
I'm not aware of Facebook selling my information, though I know they use it to target ads. I'd be somewhat interested to know if they are, though I don't share much about myself that isn't public knowledge.
That said, more than once I've had to ask some acquaintances to take down photos of me. I just don't love the idea of there being photos of me all red-faced inebriated being posted on the internet.
When you're goofing around with friends somewhere, that's one thing. Sharing the photographic evidence of that with hundreds or thousands of people you don't even know... well that's unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to be careful about what I say or do when I'm tying one on with friends (on the rare occasions we do anymore).
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
Ya'know, the article was really short:
Airbus recommends that airlines check for cracks but says they present no real danger. The BBC quotes the following from a statement by the company:
"We confirm that minor cracks were found on some noncritical wing rib-skin attachments on a limited number of A380 aircraft. We have traced the origin. Airbus has developed an inspection and repair procedure, which will be done during regular, routine scheduled four-year maintenance checks. In the meantime, Airbus emphasizes that the safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected."
Sure, as they often are. I thought it was funny though. Usually I shake my head at the silly use of BS, jargon-of-the-week phrases in the summaries without any effort to define them.
And then we get a verbose definition of "GPU"... one everyone is familiar with. The lack of consistency might be explainable, but it's kinda funny.;)
Maybe they're lying, but reports throughout the recession have said tech sector unemployment has remained at half (or less) of unemployment nationwide.
Oh sure. I work for a small business and I don't live and work in the valley. Though I did read that unemployment in the tech sector has been less than half the national average. So there's that.:)
Oh no, I meant just the state of things is crazy dangerous. And yeah, I kinda change lanes the same way... I signal, shoulder check, pray to the traffic gods and merge.
I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive.
I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.
Chicago requires you to risk getting your car hit to force yourself into another lane.
So true. It's really scary if you ride a motorcycle. There's no extended courtesy for bikes, they're just pests in the way.
You end up having to merge into tight spaces and they'll ride right up on your rear wheel to let you know they didn't want to let you in. They know their giant mommy SUV full of rats will roll right through you if it comes to that. They won't even have to hang up the phone or put their latte down.
Drivers absolutely do this here. I feel like it must be a primal, "I can't let someone get in front of me and slow me down... they're cutting in line!" reaction. That's total speculation, of course. It could just be that people are faceless assholes in their cars.
I don't think it's coincidence that so few people seem to use their turn signals for lane changes. It's absolutely dangerous.
It's entirely specific to the summary though, which put an unwarranted "oh noes, the open source!" spin on the article. The article itself says what many of us already knew. Where once being an OSS friendly company was a differentiating thing that became something of a requirement, the new expected feature set from any service includes API's. In their closing words...
Open APIs are the new open source, except they require less geeky access to lines of code, and more programmatic interaction with software services. As an added bonus, open APIs don't come with the baggage of licensing fundamentalists. Praise the heavens!
I honestly think Apple just doesn't pay much attention to performance on the old, old devices when they release new ios updates. They focus on the new devices and make sure ios "works" for any model they allow installations on.
When they released the 4x series for the 3g's, it slowed them to an unusable crawl, but it worked. Of course that update was optional, but folks still said (I probably did too) that Apple must have meant to make the old handsets unusable to encourage new device purchases.
I don't think that's really the case. I think they just avoid spending a lot of time worrying about optimizing ios for old devices.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the green thing to do. Why do you hate mother earth? ;)
It'll all be in the spin.
Murdoch* et al. will point at it as, "See! This kind of thing is killing American business!"
The other side will say, "Doh. You used what legal muscle you already had, which is already abusive."
* If you didn't see him squirm on Twitter yesterday, you're missing out.
I'd think the TV makers would be scrambling for ways to differentiate. I mean, the buzz of last year's CES was the ill-conceived push for "3d tv". I get the sense most people had the same "meh" reaction I did.
And while I agree with the gp, that I'd rather have that functionality in a roku (etc), more ways to get content sounds nice to everyone. Standardized ways of doing so might just be a byproduct of manufacturers trying to offer as many services as possible in their devices' feature lists.
Yeah that's a little silly. I guess the upside is that it's something that can be fixed in software if the users really want it.
I'd rather pay 6 companies $5-$10 a month for a total of $30-$60, and have the ability to pick and choose what I want.
If Hulu decides to charge $25/mo for access to one decent show while subsidizing 10 other crappy ones... well I cancel Hulu.
And that's the nice bit of it all. A competitor doesn't have to source STB's for clients or deal with provisioning. They don't have to spend all that money convincing you to change your cable company / phone company / isp. They don't have to send a person and a truck full of equipment to your home to install hardware. Their serviceable market is as big or as small as they want it to be, etc.
So really, the barrier to entry in distribution is a tiny fraction of what it was, which means there can be more providers, which means they have to do it competitively. I can only see that being good for us. But yeah, maybe I'm overly optimistic.
I can agree that there are shows worth watching on TV. My problem with cable is that, to see the 5 or 6 shows I like, I've to bump up through the packages until I'm spending $80+/mo just to see them. If there are 3 currently airing in any given month I'm paying something like $20 per show. The rest of what I watch is just fluff to have something playing in the background.
I'm encouraged by Hulu, Netflix and now MSFT producing original content. At least one of the Hulu ones I've watched is actually good. I can only hope that more companies find ways to do it profitably and jump on board.
We should try it anyway. For Marty's sake.
I shouldn't try to play devil's advocate for someone else (much less that guy), but I'd guess the question then is, is "skeazy" illegal if you're a total non-player?
Businesses make bad exclusivity agreements with other businesses every day. It usually only hurts them unless there's a monopoly involved, and this isn't even an exclusivity agreement.
I just seems more like msft shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
Yeah, the "teach yourself programming" things have been around. The problem is they've almost always been html versions of a horrible fucking textbook. And as anyone that learned to code outside academia will likely argue... learning out of a textbook isn't necessarily the best way anyways.
CodeAcademy is a good attempt. Rails for Zombies and similar are better. I can't think of any reason I should have a problem with there being good, usable material at all levels.
I have to agree. Laptop first and foremost. Tablets are great (using a kindle fire to post) but they're supplemental.
I don't know why smartphones became part of their conversation at all.
When your mom mentions you on the phone or shows someone a picture, the likely 3rd party exposure of that mention or photo is 1 or 2. On facebook, it's the number of tagged individuals, + 1, times the number of friends each of those people has (let's call it avg 200). So 4 people in one photo, posted by a fifth, is 1,000+ individuals in one, nonchalant post. Often more.
Short of robbing a bank and ending up on the news, you didn't usually have to think about that kind of exposure before facebook.
I'm not aware of Facebook selling my information, though I know they use it to target ads. I'd be somewhat interested to know if they are, though I don't share much about myself that isn't public knowledge.
That said, more than once I've had to ask some acquaintances to take down photos of me. I just don't love the idea of there being photos of me all red-faced inebriated being posted on the internet.
When you're goofing around with friends somewhere, that's one thing. Sharing the photographic evidence of that with hundreds or thousands of people you don't even know... well that's unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to be careful about what I say or do when I'm tying one on with friends (on the rare occasions we do anymore).
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
Ya'know, the article was really short:
Airbus recommends that airlines check for cracks but says they present no real danger. The BBC quotes the following from a statement by the company:
"We confirm that minor cracks were found on some noncritical wing rib-skin attachments on a limited number of A380 aircraft. We have traced the origin. Airbus has developed an inspection and repair procedure, which will be done during regular, routine scheduled four-year maintenance checks. In the meantime, Airbus emphasizes that the safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected."
Sure, as they often are. I thought it was funny though. Usually I shake my head at the silly use of BS, jargon-of-the-week phrases in the summaries without any effort to define them.
;)
And then we get a verbose definition of "GPU"... one everyone is familiar with. The lack of consistency might be explainable, but it's kinda funny.
I didn't mean the summary here, I meant more like these:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-08-15-cnbc-it-jobs-unemployment_n.htm
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/06/09/tech-sector-unemployment-half-the-u-s-national-average/
http://marketing.dice.com/techtalentdemand/
Maybe they're lying, but reports throughout the recession have said tech sector unemployment has remained at half (or less) of unemployment nationwide.
Oh sure. I work for a small business and I don't live and work in the valley. Though I did read that unemployment in the tech sector has been less than half the national average. So there's that. :)
I was going to say I'm closer to half the average but at least I get to work from home.
;)
I guess I'm the outlier (or rather, sucker) out there ruining the numbers for the rest of you folks.
Oh no, I meant just the state of things is crazy dangerous. And yeah, I kinda change lanes the same way... I signal, shoulder check, pray to the traffic gods and merge.
I don't know about the shill accounts, but the post was on-topic and reasonable. So... in this case, don't care one way or the other.
I don't think of it as disrespectful... more just unintentionally offensive.
I find it distasteful for someone to wear the flag as clothing, but I appreciate that those folks don't mean to be disrespectful. They think they're showing everyone how much they love their country.
Chicago requires you to risk getting your car hit to force yourself into another lane.
So true. It's really scary if you ride a motorcycle. There's no extended courtesy for bikes, they're just pests in the way.
You end up having to merge into tight spaces and they'll ride right up on your rear wheel to let you know they didn't want to let you in. They know their giant mommy SUV full of rats will roll right through you if it comes to that. They won't even have to hang up the phone or put their latte down.
Drivers absolutely do this here. I feel like it must be a primal, "I can't let someone get in front of me and slow me down... they're cutting in line!" reaction. That's total speculation, of course. It could just be that people are faceless assholes in their cars.
I don't think it's coincidence that so few people seem to use their turn signals for lane changes. It's absolutely dangerous.
It's entirely specific to the summary though, which put an unwarranted "oh noes, the open source!" spin on the article. The article itself says what many of us already knew. Where once being an OSS friendly company was a differentiating thing that became something of a requirement, the new expected feature set from any service includes API's. In their closing words...
Open APIs are the new open source, except they require less geeky access to lines of code, and more programmatic interaction with software services. As an added bonus, open APIs don't come with the baggage of licensing fundamentalists. Praise the heavens!
If you need to make money on top of that, throwing in an ad or two should do the trick and keep the service free for anyone.
The required proximity, ToS page and an SSID of "PEPSICOLA" for the AP in the Pepsi machine should do it. ;)
I honestly think Apple just doesn't pay much attention to performance on the old, old devices when they release new ios updates. They focus on the new devices and make sure ios "works" for any model they allow installations on.
When they released the 4x series for the 3g's, it slowed them to an unusable crawl, but it worked. Of course that update was optional, but folks still said (I probably did too) that Apple must have meant to make the old handsets unusable to encourage new device purchases.
I don't think that's really the case. I think they just avoid spending a lot of time worrying about optimizing ios for old devices.