Right. And don't forget Pay Per View via cable TV or satellite. About as convenient as you can get, and if they let you "keep" a movie for a week, better than the hypothesized BB/Ipod service.
OTOH, why doesn't your PC come with a partition on the drive that when you boot it you choose (PC/Console), and if the latter it boots into a stripped-down, hard to hurt yourself (i.e. the rest of the harddrive is invisible) X-Box mode? One computing device, a couple of input controllers (keyboard/game-pad), and an extra S-Video output on the graphics card. Microsoft could get out of the hardware manufacturing business entirely (and the associated support and shipping channels), and just worry about content creation/licensing.
Mod parent up. This is a very good idea!
Yeah, they'll make a killing since they didn't spend a penny on advertising,
One would expect that the remaining $124-$199 wouldn't be entirely eaten up by such things. $50 a unit for advertising would be extreme, and should still leave them with a margin.
Not to be rude or anything, but how do you know that $50/unit is extreme? Do you have some evidence from other console launches or something similar (IPod mini or Nano?)
And Another: You can burn all your DRM iTunes Music Store songs to CDs, re-rip them and put them on any device you like... but the majority are happy with just using it on an iPod.
That may be the case, but it is also true that doing that (burn to CD, re-rip) degrades the quality quite a bit.
For both my banks (http://wachovia.com/http://affinityfcu.org/) https links don't work in Firefox or Opera for that matter.
The most annoying thing in the wachovia case is that you can do all but the last step while paying bills; and then hitting submit simply doesn't work. No extension conflict either as this is true even with no extensions installed. All the way from 0.7 to 1.5 beta.
This got modded funny? Jesus H, outsourcing to India is motivated by efficiencies, profit, filthy lucre etc., *but* not to escape law suits, visits by men in black, and happy time with bubba in jail.
No doubt. The problem is that we tend to view "our" way as being the only way, paradoxically, even among Hindus (where there is literally a pantheon). That arrogance, coupled with the need to "save" others that don't think like you is what I was referring to.
That would be Gandhi, with the "dh" sounding like "there".
Quibbling aside, you make a good point about religion being blinding. It used to be mostly true of monotheistic religions, but is increasingly the case with Hindus and Buddhists.
This question brought back an interesting discussion from business school (and no, I'm no PHB) about the success of Nike. Nike's strategy is apparently to make its sneakers for the world class athlete, who paradoxically doesn't even pay for the product. However, the unwashed massess wish to emulate these atheletes and flock to stores to buy the $150 sneaker du jour. Seems to have worked for Nike.
So the question is whether Joe Sixpack who buys a computer with M$Crap on it cares to emulate (hrrmph) me. Unlikely.
I agree consumers prefer to all you can eat to tiered pricing; speaking as a someone who worked in bandwidth pricing, it is a royal pain for both the customer and the provider to measure and price small units b/w consumption. The existence of bandwidth hogs notwithstanding, the providers are interested in maximizing "total" profits and therefore should consequently tolerate people whose consumption may be above "average".
Now if the marginal cost of providing service exceeds the return it makes no sense at all for a provider to keep/retain the b/w hog. The sliding bandwidth proposed earlier makes a lot of sense in controlling the hogs' behavior by basing the slope of the b/w decline on the pricing tier the consumer chooses.
Seriously, as others have said, if you have originated the idea, then you are the final arbiter of what goes into the project. If forking results, then so be it.
The "waste" from forking is more than likely to be recouped from what would ultimately be a better piece of software.
The problem is that I want to keep the really good books so that I can read them again. If everybody else does this there'll be only bad books floating around
Yes, the old problem of adverse selection strikes again, and the best of best may not circulate as much. But then again, really bad books are much less likely to be bought in the first place.
Would you please give an example of how the net has made creating or consuming content harder?
I am not implying the above. All I am saying is that creating and consuming content is not without friction--access to content in a number of countries is and has been heavily restricted regardless of how widespread the internet is. Then there is the greater philosophical issue--if I am facing impending death from starvation or am facing extermination on account of who I am, does free access to content help?
In summary, yes, a vast number of people have access to and ability to create content because of the net, and yes, it has changed their lives to some extent. Is the world materially better off as a result? The answer is not a resounding yes, more like a maybe.
The freedom to create content has never been greater. How could I have had this conversation with you (someone I've never met and whose name I do not know) even 20 years ago?
Sure, but is it enough to make a difference on issues like poverty, hunger, etc.? Yeah, a starving, out of work chap in Sub Saharan Africa can view http://www.ynotnetwork.com but that doesn't make any difference to his condition (not for long anyway!:)). M$oft will still want to extract its pound of flesh regardless of how much flesh the bloke has to spare for its software, Dow Jones will not let him read the WSJ without appropriate subscription dues, and so on.
Take the case in India. With an exploding info tech sector, all that has happened is that a small proportion of the population has managed to up their standard of living greatly--the bulk of the population is still where they were.
Don't get me wrong--things have definitely improved ( I could be the sub saharan bloke op cit ) and the workings of the beaurocracy have, I'm sure, improved. The point is, it (the net) is simply not enough to change the world on its own.
If the net is cold, alienating, money obsessed, balkanized and uninviting it is because it reflects humanity all too well.
Not all human creation reflects human beings or human thinking. The net is a medium, very much like TV, radio, and dead trees. What is cold and alienating is the (relative) lack of freedom to create or consume content as some (e.g. Katz). It is also entirely possible that the negative aspects above reflect the thinking of a few, a powerful few, that impose them on a much larger majority. I believe that is the case that is being referred to in the article.
Just to clarify, these suggestions are for a legally run napster serving only constituionally protected free speech, not metallica mp3s.
It is not easy to separate the two without monitoring the "free speech". If you must honor copyrights, then they must be an enforcement mechanism => free speech will be monitored => potential for abuse.
Being philosophically aligned with GNU myself, I think metallica (and others of the ilk) make too much of these copyright violations. They are perhaps concerned with the scenario where they will sell no CDs, and are trying to preempt that.
Slashdot Mirror
It has to be a whoosh. Audiophiles are fanatics about sound, not stupid.
Right. And don't forget Pay Per View via cable TV or satellite. About as convenient as you can get, and if they let you "keep" a movie for a week, better than the hypothesized BB/Ipod service.
OTOH, why doesn't your PC come with a partition on the drive that when you boot it you choose (PC/Console), and if the latter it boots into a stripped-down, hard to hurt yourself (i.e. the rest of the harddrive is invisible) X-Box mode? One computing device, a couple of input controllers (keyboard/game-pad), and an extra S-Video output on the graphics card. Microsoft could get out of the hardware manufacturing business entirely (and the associated support and shipping channels), and just worry about content creation/licensing. Mod parent up. This is a very good idea!
IANAAE (Audio Engineer)
For both my banks (http://wachovia.com/ http://affinityfcu.org/) https links don't work in Firefox or Opera for that matter. The most annoying thing in the wachovia case is that you can do all but the last step while paying bills; and then hitting submit simply doesn't work. No extension conflict either as this is true even with no extensions installed. All the way from 0.7 to 1.5 beta.
This got modded funny? Jesus H, outsourcing to India is motivated by efficiencies, profit, filthy lucre etc., *but* not to escape law suits, visits by men in black, and happy time with bubba in jail.
Very good. Someone please mod parent up. AA Milne (just kidding, humor impaired folks)
No doubt. The problem is that we tend to view "our" way as being the only way, paradoxically, even among Hindus (where there is literally a pantheon). That arrogance, coupled with the need to "save" others that don't think like you is what I was referring to.
I can't believe that this conversation is onThat would be Gandhi, with the "dh" sounding like "there".
Quibbling aside, you make a good point about religion being blinding. It used to be mostly true of monotheistic religions, but is increasingly the case with Hindus and Buddhists.
I have seen Wikipedia referenced as a source of information in the Economist. I don't have the citation handy, but can dig it up if needed.
I have had a NJ drivers license since 1995; the license number is *not* an obvious transform of my SSN.
YM, OTOH, MV.This question brought back an interesting discussion from business school (and no, I'm no PHB) about the success of Nike. Nike's strategy is apparently to make its sneakers for the world class athlete, who paradoxically doesn't even pay for the product. However, the unwashed massess wish to emulate these atheletes and flock to stores to buy the $150 sneaker du jour. Seems to have worked for Nike.
So the question is whether Joe Sixpack who buys a computer with M$Crap on it cares to emulate (hrrmph) me. Unlikely.
Now if the marginal cost of providing service exceeds the return it makes no sense at all for a provider to keep/retain the b/w hog. The sliding bandwidth proposed earlier makes a lot of sense in controlling the hogs' behavior by basing the slope of the b/w decline on the pricing tier the consumer chooses.
The "waste" from forking is more than likely to be recouped from what would ultimately be a better piece of software.
Didn't he also use to have a show with Donna Hanover (Guliani's ex wife)? She wasn't bad either.
Perhaps a petition to get him back on the air would be in order.
Yes, the old problem of adverse selection strikes again, and the best of best may not circulate as much. But then again, really bad books are much less likely to be bought in the first place.
Ya gotta love it when someone quotes the press release verbatim and it gets modded "funny."
Now that's funny!
What is a nation state and how is it different from a nation?
Would you please give an example of how the net has made creating or consuming content harder?
I am not implying the above. All I am saying is that creating and consuming content is not without friction--access to content in a number of countries is and has been heavily restricted regardless of how widespread the internet is. Then there is the greater philosophical issue--if I am facing impending death from starvation or am facing extermination on account of who I am, does free access to content help?
In summary, yes, a vast number of people have access to and ability to create content because of the net, and yes, it has changed their lives to some extent. Is the world materially better off as a result? The answer is not a resounding yes, more like a maybe.
The freedom to create content has never been greater. How could I have had this conversation with you (someone I've never met and whose name I do not know) even 20 years ago?
:)). M$oft will still want to extract its pound of flesh regardless of how much flesh the bloke has to spare for its software, Dow Jones will not let him read the WSJ without appropriate subscription dues, and so on.
Sure, but is it enough to make a difference on issues like poverty, hunger, etc.? Yeah, a starving, out of work chap in Sub Saharan Africa can view http://www.ynotnetwork.com but that doesn't make any difference to his condition (not for long anyway!
Take the case in India. With an exploding info tech sector, all that has happened is that a small proportion of the population has managed to up their standard of living greatly--the bulk of the population is still where they were.
Don't get me wrong--things have definitely improved ( I could be the sub saharan bloke op cit ) and the workings of the beaurocracy have, I'm sure, improved. The point is, it (the net) is simply not enough to change the world on its own.
Not all human creation reflects human beings or human thinking. The net is a medium, very much like TV, radio, and dead trees. What is cold and alienating is the (relative) lack of freedom to create or consume content as some (e.g. Katz). It is also entirely possible that the negative aspects above reflect the thinking of a few, a powerful few, that impose them on a much larger majority. I believe that is the case that is being referred to in the article.
It is not easy to separate the two without monitoring the "free speech". If you must honor copyrights, then they must be an enforcement mechanism => free speech will be monitored => potential for abuse.
Being philosophically aligned with GNU myself, I think metallica (and others of the ilk) make too much of these copyright violations. They are perhaps concerned with the scenario where they will sell no CDs, and are trying to preempt that.