When cameras are EVERYWHERE, privacy will again return. At this rate, there will be enough cameras to allow everything to be watched. They will not be selective enough. Therefore, the output will be ignored.
The problem is in the middle ground between no cameras and all-cameras-all-the-time. There are enough cameras to put you on edge, but not so many that there is no time to monitor them all.
Re:Interpretive Errors in Review
on
Dot.Con
·
· Score: 1
Sorry. Hadn't read it in a while and couldn't remember where I hid it.
I host a project at sourceforge, and I've been more than happy with the service I've gotten. I have CVS space, ftp space, mailing lists, discussion boards, and web space. And as far as I can tell, they have nothing from me except for some slightly useful information from my profile.
Big whoop.
There is nothing they can take from me. I have the source code. I update my local cvs daily. The project webpage is garbage, and half of the discussions about development are in email. The greatest benefit is that the package I run has been difficult to find, and now it has a 'permanent' home.
I'd have more problems with, oh, say, Comcast changing the TOS. Or M$. Or AOL. When those guys change things, I always get the "I changed the bargain, just pray I don't alter it any further" impression. With sourceforge, I AM A LEECH. I live at the whim of my host.
If they piss me off, it's off to the FSF hosted site. No problem.
Hey, I don't like the VA Systems->Linux->Software scam. I'm part of the gang whinging about the 'post'. And I often question the integrity of folks. But sourceforge.net never promised anything, and they haven't disappointed me yet.
Nothing to see. Move along.
Interpretive Errors in Review
on
Dot.Con
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I can recall only one notion that I don't recall reading elsewhere: the impact of Adam Smith's concept of "perfect competition" in an age when the internet reduces barriers to entry and removes friction from transactions. Cassidy writes: "In perfect competition, all goods sell at cost, and profits are zero." This insight helps us understand the folly of the recurring theme that because the internet is so big, it's inevitable that internet companies which hold a "first mover advantage" or which capture millions of "eyeballs" will somehow earn huge profits from their vast audiences. But Cassidy doesn't seem very committed to this theory
The problem is the layman's use of the word 'profit' and the understanding of the concept by economists.
Without getting too technical, the layman thinks of profit as anything above and beyond the cost of manufacture. To the economist, monopolist profit taking means the excess taken over the fair market price.
Also, please read my journal article regarding 'perfect knowledge'. It is a key ingredient to any discussion of 'perfect competition', and one sorely lacking in many/most internet business transactions.
Basing your self esteem entirely upon the the whim of the Academy, or upon the results of a game where surely chance plays a considerable part is clearly not a good idea. However, that's not what most people are doing. They're just participating in a pleasant diversion, a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bet. If "we" win, then I feel good for a few hours or days. If "we" lose, I have a few minutes of cathartic disappointment and move on to the rest of my daily life.
Best explanation I've yet heard for getting excited about who wins the Super Bowl, World Series, Gold Medal in the 10k biathalon, etc.
While I probably participate in fandom less than most people I know, I don't feel any contempt for it. I find it perfectly understandable and harmless. What I don't really have a good handle on is what the Germans call Schadenfreude -- the pleasure that comes from raining on somebody else's parade.
It's probably a lot more fun when you are raining on France's parade.
OTOH, in the courts, there would be both a civil and a criminal remedy. You would get some criminal penalty (say, 3 months in jail), but no restitution. Similarly, you would not have to pay in the civil case for compensatory damages, only for punitive damages (which galls me. You get punished twice: once in criminal court, once in civil).
But, in the case of movies, there is a whole interrelated mishmash of civil/criminal penalties. And given that the courts in CA and NY are somewhat unlikely to side with 'pirates'...
I probably signed some BS license agreement that gave them the right to do that. Doesn't matter. With spamcop, spamassassin, and all of that (plus the fact that they STILL don't have a working email address for me) they can't send me spam. And with caller id, I haven't spoken to a salesman since I stopped answering blocked numbers. And, finally, with my hosts file, I don't even see 90% of the ads anymore.
Don't know. I think it was on some sort of tape. One of the first things to do at my new job was either make this company (that managed to stay in business) either do some things to their software to reflect changes in the industry (medicine) in the past 20 years, or find someone else. Tried the former for about one year, gave up, and found someone else.
How much promotion has been done on the book in question? Yeah, thought so. Also, how much less expensive is online or electronic promotion vs. in store stuff? What good is a cardboard cutout when I am on Amazon? Zero. Now, how many banner/popup ads can a publisher purchase on Amazon for the price of a single cardboard display stand? Hundreds, if not thousands.
You mentioned physical costs, but not distribution costs. Distribution costs, while not eliminated, should be drastically reduced with e-Books. Consumer has paid for the transport already via isp fees. Amazon (ie) would have to front a little bit. But there is little or no fee between Amazon and (again, ie) Doubleday. Doubleday emails the pdf/e-book file, and is done with it, except for some monthly accounting/sales reports from Amazon.
I won't profess to know how much all of this costs, so won't discuss the actual number or percent savings it should engender.
Then, let's look at paperbacks. Don't have any within reach, but about $7.99 seems about right. And I assume that Borders/Amazon makes a buck (+/-) on them. And that includes a more expensive supply chain (printing and shipping) than e-Books.
I'm sure the margin on a paperback is less than that on a hardcover. I'm also sure that many of the costs (editing) are paid for by the hardcover sales. So let's assume no hardcover, and all sales need to be covered by paperback and ebook. We still don't get to $21 in costs.
There is value added beyond the production. You are absolutely correct to reference editing costs. But spellchecking is likely done very automatically. There is not as much need for typesetting an ebook.
And one final point about editing: some of that time/money is spent weeding out unpublishable/unprofitable books. Because they need to pay for transport, advertising, etc. But I would argue that if you don't need those costs (ie, do a strict ebook edition) you can again cut the costs.
It is somewhat ironic that you mention CDs and DVDs. It has been shown by those with more knowledge than myself, that CD's, for example, cost less to bring to market than a tape (this is currently. There were costs in the beginning to set up plants, distribution, etc., but these have long since been amortized). IOW, there is more profiteering today with music than in the past. I suspect the same thing of the print publishing industry.
My mother gave up on her eBook. She had a bazillion restrictions (how to use it, where to use it, blah, blah, blah) and the books cost nearly the same as a hardcover, and 9/10 times cost much more than the paperback.
IMNSHO, there is no reason for an eBook to cost more than a paperback, and there is no reason for an eBook to cost only 10% less than a hardcover.
Re:I hate to rain on Mr Cringely's parade, but...
on
Cringely's Bank Shot
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I thought that even his boosted signal was low enough to be considered unregulated. At that point, there is no FCC guidelines concerning interference. Were he using a 10 watt transmitter, he WOULD be regulated because he might interfere.
The danger of using anything in the unregulated area is that you might get hosed by other unregulated users. If you need the reliability/durability/security, you have to pay for it.
Yeah, I could sell my house. Problem is, my wife and son might have a problem with that. Ditch them too? No thanks. Their happiness and comfort takes just a little bit more precedence than mine.
Or, perhaps, 'No One Above'. I like to work for myself. It's harder, possibly less pay, less guarantees. But at the end of the day, I have no one to blame but myself. And no one to thank but myself.
Be careful of PHBs who know a little programming. Kinda that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Or those who know nothing "If C is good, C++ must be three times as good".
If you can, talk to people who work at a company. Just like you are going to lie, bend the truth, and put on your best face at an interview and in a resume, so is the hiring person/manager who you talk to.
Stay out of debt for a while. Keep driving that shitty car, and stay in that shitty apartment. You may get into a position that you hate, but be stuck in it due to debt and other responsibilities. Continue to stay flexible for a while. (That's why I'm not yet working for myself full time. F***ing mortgage.)
Have you ever driven a car from the 1950's? Probably not. I've driven cars from the 1960's, and they were bad enough. Shitty handling and braking, fuel economy that would make an Excursion look miserly, uncomfortable as all get out, and slow.
Yes. Slow. With modern advances, we have much, much safer vehicles (nitwits whinging about airbags not-withstanding. The problem was/is the airbag spec provided by the federal gov't, not the airbag itself.) Tires last longer, provide better economy, and grip better in all conditions.
I'm not sure what numerical perspective you are using, but modern cars are in general better in every way than their 1950's brethern. I'm quite certain (although no numbers to back it up) that a 1957 Chevy BelAir with the 283/283 does not hold a candle in performance to a 2002 Chevy Impala, hardly the latest and greatest ultra-high performance vehicle.
Finally, fatality statistics disprove your implied claim that inept drivers negate the improvements in the auto.
It's unfortunate that you chose such a poor example as automotive technology, or, more specifically, auto tech from the 1950's. By that time, autos were ~50 years old. About as old as computers today. From about 1955 onward, with few exceptions, auto tech has been evolutionary, not revolutionary (the biggest exception I would point to would be FWD). Similary, we are now witnessing merely evolutionary development of computers, UI's, etc.
Let's call 1990 the year that the GUI really became popular. It splits the difference between the Mac/Amiga/X/etc. and Windows (not counting 3.1, but the popular 95). In that time, there have been only evolutionary improvements. A little faster each year, a little more storage space every six months. As you point out, the 'net is darned similar to the old BBS systems. Only we increased the modem speed a little bit every year or two.
Still, despite my many disagreements, I must agree that 90% of the populace doesn't need the improvements capable in computers today. Oh well. Whatever.
(Posted without a +1, because I don't even know what the heck I'm driving at.)
Company I work for purchased a system in early 80's. Company was new. Who knew if it would last? This was pretty damned important software. So, the source went into an escrowed safety deposit box. They disappear or file bankruptcy, we get to open the box.
Never had to use it, never wanted to use it. But it was there, and allowed us to pick something other than IBM (way too expensive at the time. Not sure if they even offer a similar product anymore.)
Re:Why I think Jon Katz articles are a Good Thing
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Amen.
I disagree with much of what he writes, and don't care much for his writing style. Editorials without cred don't do it for me.
However, insult his opinions and his ideas; not the man. With all the modded up bitching in this article, the only really good comment was that sex is the heart of the net.
For the last time folks: edit your preferences.
At this point, I figure that people read the front page blurb and the author, then just blast away.
Of course, that's more reading than most of the editors do...
Maybe you could have posted this a little sooner if you weren't an FP'ing little bitch.
(Moderators, go read this comment first, mod that down as offtopic, and THEN mod this as offtopic. Or better yet, find two quality posts and mod them up.)
If a tester recommends a feature, they should be able to recommend that to anyone. If they mention a new way to do something, they can mention that to anyone. If they mention a new color scheme...
Basically, any ideas they have are their own, and they should be able to share them anywhere. The specific implementation, however, is your code. And unless you open it up in some way, it stays your code. Piss on them. (And this is spoken from someone who does a LOT more testing than programming.)
Slashdot Mirror
When cameras are EVERYWHERE, privacy will again return. At this rate, there will be enough cameras to allow everything to be watched. They will not be selective enough. Therefore, the output will be ignored.
The problem is in the middle ground between no cameras and all-cameras-all-the-time. There are enough cameras to put you on edge, but not so many that there is no time to monitor them all.
Sorry. Hadn't read it in a while and couldn't remember where I hid it.
The one time in a month I don't preview a post, and I screw up the link. Oh well. Here it is again for anyone who cares.
I host a project at sourceforge, and I've been more than happy with the service I've gotten. I have CVS space, ftp space, mailing lists, discussion boards, and web space. And as far as I can tell, they have nothing from me except for some slightly useful information from my profile.
Big whoop.
There is nothing they can take from me. I have the source code. I update my local cvs daily. The project webpage is garbage, and half of the discussions about development are in email. The greatest benefit is that the package I run has been difficult to find, and now it has a 'permanent' home.
I'd have more problems with, oh, say, Comcast changing the TOS. Or M$. Or AOL. When those guys change things, I always get the "I changed the bargain, just pray I don't alter it any further" impression. With sourceforge, I AM A LEECH. I live at the whim of my host.
If they piss me off, it's off to the FSF hosted site. No problem.
Hey, I don't like the VA Systems->Linux->Software scam. I'm part of the gang whinging about the 'post'. And I often question the integrity of folks. But sourceforge.net never promised anything, and they haven't disappointed me yet.
Nothing to see. Move along.
The problem is the layman's use of the word 'profit' and the understanding of the concept by economists.
Without getting too technical, the layman thinks of profit as anything above and beyond the cost of manufacture. To the economist, monopolist profit taking means the excess taken over the fair market price.
Also, please read my journal article regarding 'perfect knowledge'. It is a key ingredient to any discussion of 'perfect competition', and one sorely lacking in many/most internet business transactions.
Best explanation I've yet heard for getting excited about who wins the Super Bowl, World Series, Gold Medal in the 10k biathalon, etc.
It's probably a lot more fun when you are raining on France's parade.
Profit matters more than gold replicas of Sinead O'Connor when it comes to greenlighting a film.
Would love to see Ender's * as well.
Painted backdrops were the sign of high budget (Logan's Run??) And a painted backdrop is not necessarily inferior to CG. But I see your point.
OTOH, in the courts, there would be both a civil and a criminal remedy. You would get some criminal penalty (say, 3 months in jail), but no restitution. Similarly, you would not have to pay in the civil case for compensatory damages, only for punitive damages (which galls me. You get punished twice: once in criminal court, once in civil).
But, in the case of movies, there is a whole interrelated mishmash of civil/criminal penalties. And given that the courts in CA and NY are somewhat unlikely to side with 'pirates'...
Ehh. Just blathering along.
I probably signed some BS license agreement that gave them the right to do that. Doesn't matter. With spamcop, spamassassin, and all of that (plus the fact that they STILL don't have a working email address for me) they can't send me spam. And with caller id, I haven't spoken to a salesman since I stopped answering blocked numbers. And, finally, with my hosts file, I don't even see 90% of the ads anymore.
I want one to run on my C64 for when I get tired of playing my mp3's.
Now, if I had a C128, maybe I could do both at the same time...
Don't know. I think it was on some sort of tape. One of the first things to do at my new job was either make this company (that managed to stay in business) either do some things to their software to reflect changes in the industry (medicine) in the past 20 years, or find someone else. Tried the former for about one year, gave up, and found someone else.
How much promotion has been done on the book in question? Yeah, thought so. Also, how much less expensive is online or electronic promotion vs. in store stuff? What good is a cardboard cutout when I am on Amazon? Zero. Now, how many banner/popup ads can a publisher purchase on Amazon for the price of a single cardboard display stand? Hundreds, if not thousands.
You mentioned physical costs, but not distribution costs. Distribution costs, while not eliminated, should be drastically reduced with e-Books. Consumer has paid for the transport already via isp fees. Amazon (ie) would have to front a little bit. But there is little or no fee between Amazon and (again, ie) Doubleday. Doubleday emails the pdf/e-book file, and is done with it, except for some monthly accounting/sales reports from Amazon.
I won't profess to know how much all of this costs, so won't discuss the actual number or percent savings it should engender.
Then, let's look at paperbacks. Don't have any within reach, but about $7.99 seems about right. And I assume that Borders/Amazon makes a buck (+/-) on them. And that includes a more expensive supply chain (printing and shipping) than e-Books.
I'm sure the margin on a paperback is less than that on a hardcover. I'm also sure that many of the costs (editing) are paid for by the hardcover sales. So let's assume no hardcover, and all sales need to be covered by paperback and ebook. We still don't get to $21 in costs.
There is value added beyond the production. You are absolutely correct to reference editing costs. But spellchecking is likely done very automatically. There is not as much need for typesetting an ebook.
And one final point about editing: some of that time/money is spent weeding out unpublishable/unprofitable books. Because they need to pay for transport, advertising, etc. But I would argue that if you don't need those costs (ie, do a strict ebook edition) you can again cut the costs.
It is somewhat ironic that you mention CDs and DVDs. It has been shown by those with more knowledge than myself, that CD's, for example, cost less to bring to market than a tape (this is currently. There were costs in the beginning to set up plants, distribution, etc., but these have long since been amortized). IOW, there is more profiteering today with music than in the past. I suspect the same thing of the print publishing industry.
My mother gave up on her eBook. She had a bazillion restrictions (how to use it, where to use it, blah, blah, blah) and the books cost nearly the same as a hardcover, and 9/10 times cost much more than the paperback.
IMNSHO, there is no reason for an eBook to cost more than a paperback, and there is no reason for an eBook to cost only 10% less than a hardcover.
I thought that even his boosted signal was low enough to be considered unregulated. At that point, there is no FCC guidelines concerning interference. Were he using a 10 watt transmitter, he WOULD be regulated because he might interfere.
The danger of using anything in the unregulated area is that you might get hosed by other unregulated users. If you need the reliability/durability/security, you have to pay for it.
Yeah, I could sell my house. Problem is, my wife and son might have a problem with that. Ditch them too? No thanks. Their happiness and comfort takes just a little bit more precedence than mine.
Hmm. Couldn't be intentional, could it? Or it couldn't be that it doesn't matter?
Look at my entire comment, and you'll see that I don't think highly of management.
Or, perhaps, 'No One Above'. I like to work for myself. It's harder, possibly less pay, less guarantees. But at the end of the day, I have no one to blame but myself. And no one to thank but myself.
Be careful of PHBs who know a little programming. Kinda that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Or those who know nothing "If C is good, C++ must be three times as good".
If you can, talk to people who work at a company. Just like you are going to lie, bend the truth, and put on your best face at an interview and in a resume, so is the hiring person/manager who you talk to.
Stay out of debt for a while. Keep driving that shitty car, and stay in that shitty apartment. You may get into a position that you hate, but be stuck in it due to debt and other responsibilities. Continue to stay flexible for a while. (That's why I'm not yet working for myself full time. F***ing mortgage.)
Sorry. Not really on point. But I hope it helps.
Have you ever driven a car from the 1950's? Probably not. I've driven cars from the 1960's, and they were bad enough. Shitty handling and braking, fuel economy that would make an Excursion look miserly, uncomfortable as all get out, and slow.
Yes. Slow. With modern advances, we have much, much safer vehicles (nitwits whinging about airbags not-withstanding. The problem was/is the airbag spec provided by the federal gov't, not the airbag itself.) Tires last longer, provide better economy, and grip better in all conditions.
I'm not sure what numerical perspective you are using, but modern cars are in general better in every way than their 1950's brethern. I'm quite certain (although no numbers to back it up) that a 1957 Chevy BelAir with the 283/283 does not hold a candle in performance to a 2002 Chevy Impala, hardly the latest and greatest ultra-high performance vehicle.
Finally, fatality statistics disprove your implied claim that inept drivers negate the improvements in the auto.
It's unfortunate that you chose such a poor example as automotive technology, or, more specifically, auto tech from the 1950's. By that time, autos were ~50 years old. About as old as computers today. From about 1955 onward, with few exceptions, auto tech has been evolutionary, not revolutionary (the biggest exception I would point to would be FWD). Similary, we are now witnessing merely evolutionary development of computers, UI's, etc.
Let's call 1990 the year that the GUI really became popular. It splits the difference between the Mac/Amiga/X/etc. and Windows (not counting 3.1, but the popular 95). In that time, there have been only evolutionary improvements. A little faster each year, a little more storage space every six months. As you point out, the 'net is darned similar to the old BBS systems. Only we increased the modem speed a little bit every year or two.
Still, despite my many disagreements, I must agree that 90% of the populace doesn't need the improvements capable in computers today. Oh well. Whatever.
(Posted without a +1, because I don't even know what the heck I'm driving at.)
Company I work for purchased a system in early 80's. Company was new. Who knew if it would last? This was pretty damned important software. So, the source went into an escrowed safety deposit box. They disappear or file bankruptcy, we get to open the box.
Never had to use it, never wanted to use it. But it was there, and allowed us to pick something other than IBM (way too expensive at the time. Not sure if they even offer a similar product anymore.)
Amen.
I disagree with much of what he writes, and don't care much for his writing style. Editorials without cred don't do it for me.
However, insult his opinions and his ideas; not the man. With all the modded up bitching in this article, the only really good comment was that sex is the heart of the net.
For the last time folks: edit your preferences.
At this point, I figure that people read the front page blurb and the author, then just blast away.
Of course, that's more reading than most of the editors do...
Maybe you could have posted this a little sooner if you weren't an FP'ing little bitch.
(Moderators, go read this comment first, mod that down as offtopic, and THEN mod this as offtopic. Or better yet, find two quality posts and mod them up.)
Wouldn't the most sense be to theme a KDE/Gnome install to look just like Win2k/WinXP/WinNT, and run Linux/*BSD under it?
What did you say in the licensing agreement?
Barring that, here is what is ethical:
If a tester recommends a feature, they should be able to recommend that to anyone. If they mention a new way to do something, they can mention that to anyone. If they mention a new color scheme...
Basically, any ideas they have are their own, and they should be able to share them anywhere. The specific implementation, however, is your code. And unless you open it up in some way, it stays your code. Piss on them. (And this is spoken from someone who does a LOT more testing than programming.)
Haven't many mentioned that an OSS game engine with copyrighted artwork is a way to make Linux games fly?
Sounds good to me. I need to go to the bargain racks and get some of the data files for these src packages.
Avoid the Noid, Crest ???, and Kool Aid Man.
These aren't exactly games with advertisements, but rather, games AS advertisements.
I expect more of this.
Yes, but those are planned times. The M$ announcement, seems rather spur of the moment.