If our local news suddenly reported murders every night, we would think the crime rate had gone up. If they started reporting wire cuts every night, we would think someone was cutting them on purpose.
Would you like to be the pilot who opens the door and causes 9/11?
Terrorist also won't be killing people one by one with bombs, let alone liquid bombs they've constructed out of something they smuggled in their Starbucks coffee cup.
If the new policy is enforced, it will be publicized, and can even be announced prior to take-off. Knowing what is possible and not possible will change any plans the terrorists have, and hopefully deter them from including airplanes in any of their plans. And they do plan. They aren't stupid.
old-fashioned "take me to Syria/Iran/Cuba" kind Why not? Take them to Syria. It doesn't mean they will gain control of the aircraft.
The true threat with aircraft security is hijacking. A hijacker can take over an aircraft and use the plane as a missile. As someone pointed out earlier, if the goal was to just kill people, terrorists could just blow up prior to reaching the security check point or suicide bomb a crowd somewhere else. There are plenty of places to just blow up that would kill more people that can fit on a plane.
If hijacking is the real threat, then the cockpit is what needs to be secured. Have it lock automatically prior to boarding, and have it unlock automatically after the plane is emptied. If terrorists can't get to the cockpit, then they cannot take over a craft.
I ran into one of these guys once who didn't ship the item until I started threatening him. When I looked deep into his feedback, it was clear this was his standard practice. But on the surface the guy looked golden, with little negative feedback. I finally got the item, but left him a neutral feedback to warn others. You basically accused the seller of being a bad seller on behalf of completely unrelated transactions. If I were him, I'd be pissed too. You also claim he didn't ship until you started threatening him, but to him, you might have just been threatening him before he got to shipping the item.
I am not accusing you of anything, but the feedback system is what it is. If you made him feel bad, he has every right to speak his mind. In fact, you left him a neautral. It could be he genuinly wanted to leave you negative regardless of your feedback, but just waited for you to post your feedback to prevent you from retaliating with a negative.
He had every right to leave you a negative as did you.
Is superior customer service, superior functionality, and superior value for price really lock-in? I would say yes, you have managed to lock them in. You are leaving the gate open to allow them to leave at anytime, but I am saying lock-in is your goal as a business regardless . If a competitor comes along and uses dirty lock-in tactics, they will have an unfair advantage, and your company will face tough decisions. If a competitor comes along and does provide a superior product without any dirty tactics whatsoever, then you will still pretend to be the best company and not just fork over all of your client-base to make them happy.
We could argue over the meaning of "lock-in", but utlimately whether it is willingful or unwillingful, locking your customers in is one of the bottomlines of any successful enterprise, and your company too is well aware of that, and is working hard to accomplish it.
The only reason why XML caught on is because it...
on
The Future of XML
·
· Score: 1
The only reason why XML caught on is because it looks like HTML. And since all the phony IT execs who have "HTML" on their resume were able to say they understood it.
This has nothing to do with IT. Business is all about lock-in. If this comes as a surprise, you don't know the basics of business. You can do it "cleanly" and morally and ethically through things such as superior customer service, superior product functionality, and superior value for the price. Or, you can be "dirty" and use things such as technology and software barriers, vendor pressure tactics, bias contracts and user agreements, biological mechanisms such as addiction, and lobbying and manipulating the law. The stock market, our way of evaluating and rewarding corporate perforance, unfortunately does not make any distiction between these clean and dirty lock-in tactics. The system's only real requirement is that we obide by the law and don't get caught cheating. Given this requirement, companies gain enormous advantages by being dirty. In this free capitalist market, those with advantages ultimately win and they get heavily rewarded for it. The result? Hello Microsoft, hello Nike, hello Exxon Mobil, hello Time Warner AOL Cable. And just when you thought Apple was gaining marketshare, what a surprise, we talk about how they are just getting better at being dirty.
Eventhough the government talks about being all for fair competition in an open market, their behavior and the law which they help create says otherwise. Intellectual property law, anti-trust law, and much of the consitution is comprised of lock-in catalysts. Mergers and aquisitions heavily support lock-ins as well.
Whether you are selling iPhones at Apple Stores or hotdogs at an intersection in Manhattan, you are still trying to lock-in your customers. And the better you do it, the more the United States of America will reward you.
terrorists will plot and scheme in such environments. aa... I think this sentence should end after "scheme". In other words, they plot and scheme, period. These environments in question, are just one of the many available ways to do it, and if they become unavailable, terrorists (which we are only told exist) will use something else.
Unless we can block absolutely all anonymous communication, we should simply assume they can anonymously communicate. There is no solution. So why not save the time and money and work on some other part of the problem?
To say Accenture is a corrupt criminal organization is a little out of line. They are a multi-billion dollar international consulting agency, not the mob or Yakuza (not to say they don't have connections, but then, when you're that big who doesn't). And I don't think Accenture has any part in the FBI biometric database.
Also, the US already fingerprints all incoming foreigners. Japan only adopted it recently because of US pressure. I am pretty sure the Japanese government follows the US constitution better than the US right now.
Obviously they are paying based on the value of the service, and not the cost of the service. That is not a lot of work for 10B. @1 mb per person, my $200 500 gig hdd can hold approx 500,000 people. Setting up a DB is easy. Providing secure, encrypted, logged, monitored access is easy. Backing data up is easy.
They are probably paying a lot in the name of security, although I am sure we would never hear about any breaches even if they did happen, and of course, data like this usually gets stolen with the help of someone who already works there.
The issue is why other countries are already 2 to 3 cycles ahead.
It isn't like US moved first, then everyone deployed "what was next" to outdo the US. The US moved first, and most countries followed in its footsteps deploying the same technology. The problem is why other countries were able to continue to move forward to outdo the US, while US growth stopped. The "cycles" you talk about are faster abroad, and slower in the US, and that is the issue here, not the existence of cycles.
Re:This phone is a 2 HAND device vs 1 HAND device
on
Apple iPhone Dissected
·
· Score: 1
When driving in LA sometimes it feels like 99 out of 100 people have a cell phone in one hand. So i guess the iPhone won't catch on in LA... strike that. It will catch on and so will more accidents.
Re:This phone is a 2 HAND device vs 1 HAND device
on
Apple iPhone Dissected
·
· Score: 1
no no... i mean touch screen ONLY phones. Even sony recognized the importance of a keypad on this one.
I have this phone for when I go back to Japan. It is not a touch screen (don't need it to be), but if it had the iPhone interface as a UI mode, that would be a true advancement. But if I had to turn in the keypad to get it, forget it.
I am still disappointed at how WOWed people get by features that have been standard in most other markets for years. Like wireless broadband. Which in japan is faster than most DSL and cable connections in the states.
This phone is a 2 HAND device vs 1 HAND device
on
Apple iPhone Dissected
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Q. I was wondering why there haven't been any touch screen phones until now. It seems simple enough, and Apple makes it look like it is the future of phones.
A. YOU CANNOT USE THE IPHONE WITH ONE HAND!!! Because you need to be able to "point" and "move your finger" to send commands to the device, it is much harder to one-hand it than any other phone which pretty much are one hand devices. Many phones have a full keyboard, and they require 2 hands also, but most of them also have a 1 hand mode.
I think that is why it is not being released yet in Europe or in Japan... It lacks some vital features these markets are used to. Well, apart from replacing batteries.
If we are going by classic physics, then I believe it would actually be EASIEST to emulate every atom, rather than try to emulate only what is observed.
To emulate every atom would require one initial state, and then a set of rules. Everything would be deterministic, and it would just be numbers. Every "battery" could be plugged into this one emulation.
On the other hand. if one were to try to create a system to emulate only what is observed (as in game development), then the designer must know how things are observed and must program the causal relationships between all abstractions, rather than just between atoms. This task is by nature impossible if, for example, we are to take the view that our abstractions are not all the same. Leave the abstraction to the observer. The brains of the observers themselves are biocomputers, and harnessing that power would seem to be a better design decision.
Also, even with modern game development, if everything could be emulated as is, that would be easiest. However, due to computational limitations, parts of the emulation must be minimized/approximated to emulate more. This itself is a problem, not a means to make any problems easier. It is required due to resource limitations.
1. Provide the software in a form that allows the customer to fix bugs and rebuild. In other words, provide the source and everything needed to compile it.
You as a programmer may benefit from this, but most customers will not. Rarely do "customers" know better than the developers. It is most often the case they just have more time. Furthermore, I would say most web developers would benefit little from IE coming with source code. A) they won't know how to fix anything, B) even if they did, microsoft would have to agree to incorporate the fix for it to be worth anything... A fork for every bug is not going to improve any software.
2. License the buildable source code to third parties for free. These third parties should pay the original vendor the retail price + 10% for any copies they sell. Any third party should be able to license the code in this way.
The vendor gets 110% for writing buggy software that others need to fix? Or do you mean anyone who calls themselves a vendor can get the software for free?
3. Be unable to disclaim liability for the software.
Unfortunately for most developers/vendors, this will read, "Be unable to distribute software". That is, I believe to be, the legal truth.
Slashdot Mirror
For all those hackers lined up behind me, looking into my monitor!
If our local news suddenly reported murders every night, we would think the crime rate had gone up. If they started reporting wire cuts every night, we would think someone was cutting them on purpose.
Terrorist also won't be killing people one by one with bombs, let alone liquid bombs they've constructed out of something they smuggled in their Starbucks coffee cup.
If the new policy is enforced, it will be publicized, and can even be announced prior to take-off. Knowing what is possible and not possible will change any plans the terrorists have, and hopefully deter them from including airplanes in any of their plans. And they do plan. They aren't stupid. old-fashioned "take me to Syria/Iran/Cuba" kind Why not? Take them to Syria. It doesn't mean they will gain control of the aircraft.
The true threat with aircraft security is hijacking. A hijacker can take over an aircraft and use the plane as a missile. As someone pointed out earlier, if the goal was to just kill people, terrorists could just blow up prior to reaching the security check point or suicide bomb a crowd somewhere else. There are plenty of places to just blow up that would kill more people that can fit on a plane.
If hijacking is the real threat, then the cockpit is what needs to be secured. Have it lock automatically prior to boarding, and have it unlock automatically after the plane is emptied. If terrorists can't get to the cockpit, then they cannot take over a craft.
Newspapers have printed worse.
I am not accusing you of anything, but the feedback system is what it is. If you made him feel bad, he has every right to speak his mind. In fact, you left him a neautral. It could be he genuinly wanted to leave you negative regardless of your feedback, but just waited for you to post your feedback to prevent you from retaliating with a negative.
He had every right to leave you a negative as did you.
If they leave negative, and your leaving feedback will finalize it, retalitory or not, no one in their right mind would leave feedback.
You might as well remove all negative feedback.
We could argue over the meaning of "lock-in", but utlimately whether it is willingful or unwillingful, locking your customers in is one of the bottomlines of any successful enterprise, and your company too is well aware of that, and is working hard to accomplish it.
on how to recycle old news.
The only reason why XML caught on is because it looks like HTML. And since all the phony IT execs who have "HTML" on their resume were able to say they understood it.
This has nothing to do with IT. Business is all about lock-in. If this comes as a surprise, you don't know the basics of business. You can do it "cleanly" and morally and ethically through things such as superior customer service, superior product functionality, and superior value for the price. Or, you can be "dirty" and use things such as technology and software barriers, vendor pressure tactics, bias contracts and user agreements, biological mechanisms such as addiction, and lobbying and manipulating the law. The stock market, our way of evaluating and rewarding corporate perforance, unfortunately does not make any distiction between these clean and dirty lock-in tactics. The system's only real requirement is that we obide by the law and don't get caught cheating. Given this requirement, companies gain enormous advantages by being dirty. In this free capitalist market, those with advantages ultimately win and they get heavily rewarded for it. The result? Hello Microsoft, hello Nike, hello Exxon Mobil, hello Time Warner AOL Cable. And just when you thought Apple was gaining marketshare, what a surprise, we talk about how they are just getting better at being dirty.
Eventhough the government talks about being all for fair competition in an open market, their behavior and the law which they help create says otherwise. Intellectual property law, anti-trust law, and much of the consitution is comprised of lock-in catalysts. Mergers and aquisitions heavily support lock-ins as well.
Whether you are selling iPhones at Apple Stores or hotdogs at an intersection in Manhattan, you are still trying to lock-in your customers. And the better you do it, the more the United States of America will reward you.
Unless we can block absolutely all anonymous communication, we should simply assume they can anonymously communicate. There is no solution. So why not save the time and money and work on some other part of the problem?
To say Accenture is a corrupt criminal organization is a little out of line. They are a multi-billion dollar international consulting agency, not the mob or Yakuza (not to say they don't have connections, but then, when you're that big who doesn't). And I don't think Accenture has any part in the FBI biometric database.
Although I am always cynical about Wikipedia entries and who really edits them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture
Also, the US already fingerprints all incoming foreigners. Japan only adopted it recently because of US pressure. I am pretty sure the Japanese government follows the US constitution better than the US right now.
Obviously they are paying based on the value of the service, and not the cost of the service. That is not a lot of work for 10B. @1 mb per person, my $200 500 gig hdd can hold approx 500,000 people. Setting up a DB is easy. Providing secure, encrypted, logged, monitored access is easy. Backing data up is easy.
They are probably paying a lot in the name of security, although I am sure we would never hear about any breaches even if they did happen, and of course, data like this usually gets stolen with the help of someone who already works there.
Advances within a paradigm are incremental.
A leap towards a new paradigm happens in a flash.
The issue is why other countries are already 2 to 3 cycles ahead.
It isn't like US moved first, then everyone deployed "what was next" to outdo the US. The US moved first, and most countries followed in its footsteps deploying the same technology. The problem is why other countries were able to continue to move forward to outdo the US, while US growth stopped. The "cycles" you talk about are faster abroad, and slower in the US, and that is the issue here, not the existence of cycles.
When driving in LA sometimes it feels like 99 out of 100 people have a cell phone in one hand. So i guess the iPhone won't catch on in LA... strike that. It will catch on and so will more accidents.
no no... i mean touch screen ONLY phones. Even sony recognized the importance of a keypad on this one.
t heme_S.jpg
The iphone boils down to being a great touch screen OS for phones. I expect the iPhone2 to be more like this:
http://www.casio.co.jp/release/2006/images/w41ca/
(opens and folds)
I have this phone for when I go back to Japan. It is not a touch screen (don't need it to be), but if it had the iPhone interface as a UI mode, that would be a true advancement. But if I had to turn in the keypad to get it, forget it.
I am still disappointed at how WOWed people get by features that have been standard in most other markets for years. Like wireless broadband. Which in japan is faster than most DSL and cable connections in the states.
Q. I was wondering why there haven't been any touch screen phones until now. It seems simple enough, and Apple makes it look like it is the future of phones.
A. YOU CANNOT USE THE IPHONE WITH ONE HAND!!! Because you need to be able to "point" and "move your finger" to send commands to the device, it is much harder to one-hand it than any other phone which pretty much are one hand devices. Many phones have a full keyboard, and they require 2 hands also, but most of them also have a 1 hand mode.
I think that is why it is not being released yet in Europe or in Japan... It lacks some vital features these markets are used to. Well, apart from replacing batteries.
or, well, there is always spam.
(in fact, what you are doing IS spam to some).
We have recently been doing more and more modification and customization of open source products, and we would love to give some of this back
What does he mean by "love"? Does he have a choice?
If we are going by classic physics, then I believe it would actually be EASIEST to emulate every atom, rather than try to emulate only what is observed.
To emulate every atom would require one initial state, and then a set of rules. Everything would be deterministic, and it would just be numbers. Every "battery" could be plugged into this one emulation.
On the other hand. if one were to try to create a system to emulate only what is observed (as in game development), then the designer must know how things are observed and must program the causal relationships between all abstractions, rather than just between atoms. This task is by nature impossible if, for example, we are to take the view that our abstractions are not all the same. Leave the abstraction to the observer. The brains of the observers themselves are biocomputers, and harnessing that power would seem to be a better design decision.
Also, even with modern game development, if everything could be emulated as is, that would be easiest. However, due to computational limitations, parts of the emulation must be minimized/approximated to emulate more. This itself is a problem, not a means to make any problems easier. It is required due to resource limitations.
IMHO.
Over the past three years Sun's stock has declined 92 percent
Gee, do the stock prices of three years ago mean anything? Yahoo and Amazon must also be bought!
Since you ask...
1. Provide the software in a form that allows the customer to fix bugs and rebuild. In other words, provide the source and everything needed to compile it.
You as a programmer may benefit from this, but most customers will not. Rarely do "customers" know better than the developers. It is most often the case they just have more time. Furthermore, I would say most web developers would benefit little from IE coming with source code. A) they won't know how to fix anything, B) even if they did, microsoft would have to agree to incorporate the fix for it to be worth anything... A fork for every bug is not going to improve any software.
2. License the buildable source code to third parties for free. These third parties should pay the original vendor the retail price + 10% for any copies they sell. Any third party should be able to license the code in this way.
The vendor gets 110% for writing buggy software that others need to fix? Or do you mean anyone who calls themselves a vendor can get the software for free?
3. Be unable to disclaim liability for the software.
Unfortunately for most developers/vendors, this will read, "Be unable to distribute software". That is, I believe to be, the legal truth.