I always thought Apple should buy TiVo's patents and tech and rebrand the failed AppleTV. Apple has the cash, marketing position, and design gurus to make an amazingly elegant, easy to use device integrated with beautiful TVs and screens, with all the backend apps to add value (iTunes integration, iMovie, etc.), and TiVo has the all the original patents that Apple could afford to defend. And Apple could turn into the big bullies themselves against the cable companies, especially if they can lobby for net neutrality legislation.
That's what you get when you give a large, disorganized group the right to make a decision. They will likely make the one choice you didn't want. Frankly, they're lucky not to have the thing named with some sort of phallic euphemism one would expect from a classroom full of 12-year-old boys.
Stop asking the "interwebs" their useless opinion on something, and use it as an opportunity for raising the funds necessary to do what they want to do. This is a perfect opportunity for product placement and naming rights.
Sell the naming rights to, say, AIG or General Motors or Chrysler, for several billion dollars they have lying around, and allow them to install some sort of immensely powerful, solar-charged LED signage viewable on the planet's surface by anyone with a cheap pair of binoculars. They could, in turn, sell advertising on the sign to others, creating the first space-based branding/advertising medium.
Goodyear would likely jump on this in a heartbeat.
I deal with this on a daily basis. From a complete documentation point of view, the real need is to document overall goals, processes that work to achieve those goals, and procedures that support each of your processes.
The difficulty is, even in a reasonably small organization, this fans out to an enormous number of documents. The idea of Folding + Wiki is interesting, but of real value would be a system that allows you to declare a procedure (a step-by-step description of a function) that maps to a corresponding process (more general or conceptual description of the hows or whys), which in turn easily maps to the overall goal.
Example: I can set a Goal that is a 99.99% SLA for applications I have to support. The goal document would describe the SLA and possible exceptions, who requires it, etc.
I can set up Process that state that each system in each of the applications will be monitored every 5 minutes, and notification of problems will be communicated to OPS staff immediately. The Process would describe any tools used to do this.
Then, I would have a series of Procedures describing what to do in case of a problem with any individual hardware or software component within any of the applications. These would be step-by-step, and would not necessarily require the user to have any special knowledge.
Problem is - I have yet to find a system that allows me to put these together and easily link them, allowing a user to understand what to do, and why it's being done, all by looking through the Goal-Process-Procedure linkage. If they can understand what, how, and why, they can better deal with problems that arise that we haven't accounted for, and assist in making procedures for those as they arise.
First steps are to see if the hypothesis produces valid results. If it does, then you need to perform a risk assessment based on side affects like other gene alterations or perhaps the creation of a super-virus (see I Am Legend).
If those issues can be overcome, then you can look at the practicality of providing this therapy to a) everyone with drug-resistant strains, b) everyone infected at all, and/or c) everyone, for use as a vaccine (if viable).
Still a LONG way away from looking at the price tag. This is at least 10 years away from that stage assuming no problems arise.
I agree, however, that people should be given the option of participation in more extreme experiments given few to no other options. There isn't a whole lot to lose for them, in many cases.
Actually, you can lose space due to the requirements of making the thing User-Proof. It's not just an aesthetics issue with a seam in the case. When making the battery compartment accessible to the user, you must design, install, and test a whole suite of physical mechanisms and electronics that hold the battery securely, allow for easy removal/replacement, and keeps it safe from users doing things like getting dirt in the cavity and in the connectors, or incorrectly installing the battery,...all sorts of usability and safety issues. When making the battery removable, there are even MORE issues with safety, portability, etc. that come in to play. This requires the manufacturers to put safeguards in place that aren't necessarily required if the user will never be touching the thing. Building it in can make the battery cheaper to make, and possibly allow them to build it with more juice capacity in a smaller, lighter form. Don't get me wrong - I'd love the ability to change my battery when I like, and have a spare or two available for long sessions without a power outlet. But if I can double the life of the battery right off the bat, I might be willing to compromise.
I'm sorry, but can we please look at a couple of things here?
1. The American pilots were flying a plane designed about 30 years ago - a turbo-prop.
2. The Chinese pilot was flying one of China's most advanced jet aircraft.
3. Both planes were flying in International waters - both sides have admitted as much.
Do you mean to tell me the Chinese pilot couldn't get out of the fucking way of
a slow, decrepit old junker? That plane is far faster and far more maneuverable than the goose the US pilots were flying. We hit them; that is such a load of shit!
My only problem is that they didn't destroy the damned thing like they were trained to do
to ensure the Chinese government couldn't get their hands on it.
And yes, if they were stupid enough to land the plane on our airstrip, we would strip it like a
date on prom night, absolutely. But you can rest assured that there would be not only an outcry
broadcasted by our press, but the flurry of people who would argue what an idiot our
pilot was for endangering himself and the crew of this hypothetical Chinese plane
for flying wingtip2wingtip with another plane (any plane), especially over international waters
Somehow, I doubt that was ever broadcast on Chinese television news anywhere.
GigsVT wrote - Really these people are writing something that MS should be writing. Its going to make an MS product easier to use in a mixed environment
Interesting statement...could it be that this was the reason Microsoft made threats to begin with? No....of course not, Microsoft would never do anything like that...that kind of thing just wouldn't be nice.
They built in the NetWare Migration Tool as an easy way to replace your NetWare servers, made it difficult to avoid installing, then pushed its support to everyone they could. NetWare migration is required knowledge in the MSCE exams. That was no accident.
Building their own Linux migration tool would be perfect for them. Or, seeing that someone else was doing it better may have led them into bullying the developer into submission (that's how they got Internet Explorer to begin with - this coming from a company that said the Internet was a passing fad...).
I have a feeling recent posters are correct; Merkeley had an Ace in the Hole, and Microsoft is trying to avoid bad press during an appeal of a possibly damaging suit against them. They want the appearance of a free, open environment, or the courts may just make their source code public domain.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if what I'm saying will hold any water, but...
Could it be that the reason the court found in favor of Connectix was that they did not violate the patent? The patent held by Sony may be entirely hardware. If Connectix can discover what the hardware does and create a software-based system to operate the same way, then Connectix has created an innovative and unique product, thus free from copyright violation.
It all depends on what Sony actually claims it owns. Connectix does not provide a system for reverse engineering/pirating the games themselves (last I checked); they simply provide an alternate medium for legal use of the games.
The RIAA needs to be disband, and get rid of all the barriers to true competition! Force the member companies to compete with each other for cd prices. CD prices would then drop because each company would want to get customers to buy their CDs. Currently, they don't compete. The CDs all sell for about the same price.
It's a nice thought, but a little unrealistic. Those songs you listen to...how do you find them? You hear them on the radio (or other media like TV or movies), you heard them privately (a friend's CD, whatever), or you heard them in concert.
Who puts songs on the radio? The RIAA affiliates. Who makes the CDs? The RIAA affiliates. Who funds all the touring? The RIAA affiliates. Who, in fact, "discovers" these bands in the first place? Why have you ever heard of a band/artist to make you want to have their music available to you? Whether you like it or not, they tell you what you want to hear. There is simply too much music out there for any one artist to realistically make a living by trying to market themselves. The only artists that could conceivably market their own music are ones that have the serious personal funds to do this - they could tour, advertise, place on radio/TV/Movies... and how did they get those funds (see above)?
Unfortunately, they have us by the orbs on this one. Not much is going to change for a very long time. It sucks...but unless someone comes up with a way to make it worth anyone's time and money to get into the business without this level of support, it won't change. And Napster isn't really assisting in this at all - the music is free, so there is no monetary incentive for artists to post their music. And there is no real workable system for finding music that you may like but have not yet heard, so there is no advertising benefit.
The truth is...Napster helps CD sales, and the RIAA is bitchy 'cause they didn't think of it first and they're not raking in the dough. So they do the only thing they know - they sue.
Pretty ironic that, just before you pass out, your face will turn a downright iMac shade of blue.
That's good. I like that.
It's funny to see people who have such a sore bone to pick against companies like Apple are so vocal. Their arguements almost invariably tend toward "Apple is so unimportant..." etc. If they are so unimportant, why do you bloody care? Do you have so little sense of self that you would actually *argue* about something that is *unimportant.* How truly, sad.
Apple will probably never live to see its original dream of taking over the world. Good. Because the day the Mac takes over the world is the day it becomes another Microsoft. And that would be a sad day.
Don't forget - Apple is the reason that any of us can even consider wearing less than a tie and cordovan Oxfords to work everyday. Companies like Apple are the innovators - whether you like it or not, they change the way we do things.
I think the point is that you spent an hour and a half with a sound card; I have never had to do that with my Mac OS box, even the 3rd party cards I've purchased over the years. That's why we say M$ Windoze.
Slashdot Mirror
I think by "beat" they may mean Apple will be the first to market. It won't necessarily be more open, or a better service, but it will be first.
I always thought Apple should buy TiVo's patents and tech and rebrand the failed AppleTV. Apple has the cash, marketing position, and design gurus to make an amazingly elegant, easy to use device integrated with beautiful TVs and screens, with all the backend apps to add value (iTunes integration, iMovie, etc.), and TiVo has the all the original patents that Apple could afford to defend. And Apple could turn into the big bullies themselves against the cable companies, especially if they can lobby for net neutrality legislation.
Seems like a perfect marriage to me.
That's what you get when you give a large, disorganized group the right to make a decision. They will likely make the one choice you didn't want. Frankly, they're lucky not to have the thing named with some sort of phallic euphemism one would expect from a classroom full of 12-year-old boys.
Stop asking the "interwebs" their useless opinion on something, and use it as an opportunity for raising the funds necessary to do what they want to do. This is a perfect opportunity for product placement and naming rights.
Sell the naming rights to, say, AIG or General Motors or Chrysler, for several billion dollars they have lying around, and allow them to install some sort of immensely powerful, solar-charged LED signage viewable on the planet's surface by anyone with a cheap pair of binoculars. They could, in turn, sell advertising on the sign to others, creating the first space-based branding/advertising medium.
Goodyear would likely jump on this in a heartbeat.
I deal with this on a daily basis. From a complete documentation point of view, the real need is to document overall goals, processes that work to achieve those goals, and procedures that support each of your processes.
The difficulty is, even in a reasonably small organization, this fans out to an enormous number of documents. The idea of Folding + Wiki is interesting, but of real value would be a system that allows you to declare a procedure (a step-by-step description of a function) that maps to a corresponding process (more general or conceptual description of the hows or whys), which in turn easily maps to the overall goal.
Example:
I can set a Goal that is a 99.99% SLA for applications I have to support. The goal document would describe the SLA and possible exceptions, who requires it, etc.
I can set up Process that state that each system in each of the applications will be monitored every 5 minutes, and notification of problems will be communicated to OPS staff immediately. The Process would describe any tools used to do this.
Then, I would have a series of Procedures describing what to do in case of a problem with any individual hardware or software component within any of the applications. These would be step-by-step, and would not necessarily require the user to have any special knowledge.
Problem is - I have yet to find a system that allows me to put these together and easily link them, allowing a user to understand what to do, and why it's being done, all by looking through the Goal-Process-Procedure linkage. If they can understand what, how, and why, they can better deal with problems that arise that we haven't accounted for, and assist in making procedures for those as they arise.
Guess I need to start writing one...
First steps are to see if the hypothesis produces valid results. If it does, then you need to perform a risk assessment based on side affects like other gene alterations or perhaps the creation of a super-virus (see I Am Legend).
If those issues can be overcome, then you can look at the practicality of providing this therapy to a) everyone with drug-resistant strains, b) everyone infected at all, and/or c) everyone, for use as a vaccine (if viable).
Still a LONG way away from looking at the price tag. This is at least 10 years away from that stage assuming no problems arise.
I agree, however, that people should be given the option of participation in more extreme experiments given few to no other options. There isn't a whole lot to lose for them, in many cases.
Actually, you can lose space due to the requirements of making the thing User-Proof.
It's not just an aesthetics issue with a seam in the case. When making the battery compartment accessible to the user, you must design, install, and test a whole suite of physical mechanisms and electronics that hold the battery securely, allow for easy removal/replacement, and keeps it safe from users doing things like getting dirt in the cavity and in the connectors, or incorrectly installing the battery,...all sorts of usability and safety issues.
When making the battery removable, there are even MORE issues with safety, portability, etc. that come in to play. This requires the manufacturers to put safeguards in place that aren't necessarily required if the user will never be touching the thing. Building it in can make the battery cheaper to make, and possibly allow them to build it with more juice capacity in a smaller, lighter form.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love the ability to change my battery when I like, and have a spare or two available for long sessions without a power outlet. But if I can double the life of the battery right off the bat, I might be willing to compromise.
8 is lucky, that's why Olympics opened on 08.08.08
That's good. It actually wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm sorry, but can we please look at a couple of things here?
1. The American pilots were flying a plane designed about 30 years ago - a turbo-prop.
2. The Chinese pilot was flying one of China's most advanced jet aircraft.
3. Both planes were flying in International waters - both sides have admitted as much.
Do you mean to tell me the Chinese pilot couldn't get out of the fucking way of
a slow, decrepit old junker? That plane is far faster and far more maneuverable than the goose
the US pilots were flying. We hit them; that is such a load of shit!
My only problem is that they didn't destroy the damned thing like they were trained to do
to ensure the Chinese government couldn't get their hands on it.
And yes, if they were stupid enough to land the plane on our airstrip, we would strip it like a
date on prom night, absolutely. But you can rest assured that there would be not only an outcry
broadcasted by our press, but the flurry of people who would argue what an idiot our
pilot was for endangering himself and the crew of this hypothetical Chinese plane
for flying wingtip2wingtip with another plane (any plane), especially over international waters
Somehow, I doubt that was ever broadcast on Chinese television news anywhere.
GigsVT wrote - Really these people are writing something that MS should be writing. Its going to make an MS product easier to use in a mixed environment
Interesting statement...could it be that this was the reason Microsoft made threats to begin with? No....of course not, Microsoft would never do anything like that...that kind of thing just wouldn't be nice.
They built in the NetWare Migration Tool as an easy way to replace your NetWare servers, made it difficult to avoid installing, then pushed its support to everyone they could. NetWare migration is required knowledge in the MSCE exams. That was no accident.
Building their own Linux migration tool would be perfect for them. Or, seeing that someone else was doing it better may have led them into bullying the developer into submission (that's how they got Internet Explorer to begin with - this coming from a company that said the Internet was a passing fad...).
I have a feeling recent posters are correct; Merkeley had an Ace in the Hole, and Microsoft is trying to avoid bad press during an appeal of a possibly damaging suit against them. They want the appearance of a free, open environment, or the courts may just make their source code public domain.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if what I'm saying will hold any water, but... Could it be that the reason the court found in favor of Connectix was that they did not violate the patent? The patent held by Sony may be entirely hardware. If Connectix can discover what the hardware does and create a software-based system to operate the same way, then Connectix has created an innovative and unique product, thus free from copyright violation. It all depends on what Sony actually claims it owns. Connectix does not provide a system for reverse engineering/pirating the games themselves (last I checked); they simply provide an alternate medium for legal use of the games.
The RIAA needs to be disband, and get rid of all the barriers to true competition! Force the member companies to compete with each other for cd prices. CD prices would then drop because each company would want to get customers to buy their CDs. Currently, they don't compete. The CDs all sell for about the same price.
It's a nice thought, but a little unrealistic. Those songs you listen to...how do you find them? You hear them on the radio (or other media like TV or movies), you heard them privately (a friend's CD, whatever), or you heard them in concert.
Who puts songs on the radio? The RIAA affiliates. Who makes the CDs? The RIAA affiliates. Who funds all the touring? The RIAA affiliates. Who, in fact, "discovers" these bands in the first place? Why have you ever heard of a band/artist to make you want to have their music available to you? Whether you like it or not, they tell you what you want to hear. There is simply too much music out there for any one artist to realistically make a living by trying to market themselves. The only artists that could conceivably market their own music are ones that have the serious personal funds to do this - they could tour, advertise, place on radio/TV/Movies... and how did they get those funds (see above)?
Unfortunately, they have us by the orbs on this one. Not much is going to change for a very long time. It sucks...but unless someone comes up with a way to make it worth anyone's time and money to get into the business without this level of support, it won't change. And Napster isn't really assisting in this at all - the music is free, so there is no monetary incentive for artists to post their music. And there is no real workable system for finding music that you may like but have not yet heard, so there is no advertising benefit.
The truth is...Napster helps CD sales, and the RIAA is bitchy 'cause they didn't think of it first and they're not raking in the dough. So they do the only thing they know - they sue.
Pretty ironic that, just before you pass out, your face will turn a downright iMac shade of blue. That's good. I like that. It's funny to see people who have such a sore bone to pick against companies like Apple are so vocal. Their arguements almost invariably tend toward "Apple is so unimportant..." etc. If they are so unimportant, why do you bloody care? Do you have so little sense of self that you would actually *argue* about something that is *unimportant.* How truly, sad. Apple will probably never live to see its original dream of taking over the world. Good. Because the day the Mac takes over the world is the day it becomes another Microsoft. And that would be a sad day. Don't forget - Apple is the reason that any of us can even consider wearing less than a tie and cordovan Oxfords to work everyday. Companies like Apple are the innovators - whether you like it or not, they change the way we do things.
I think the point is that you spent an hour and a half with a sound card; I have never had to do that with my Mac OS box, even the 3rd party cards I've purchased over the years. That's why we say M$ Windoze.