We've already coded a solution. The solution was part of the DNS system design. It's just clueless people refuse to see the simplicity of the system (and NSI wouldn't make nearly as much money or have nearly as much power).
I'm referring of course to geographic TLDs. The rule is simple. Names are first come first serve unless you present proof of a trademark in a given region. In the case of two companies having the same trademark in the same region, but in different businesses, the second applicant will just have to use a qualifier (Acme auto got there first so it got www.Acme.raleigh.nc.us, Acme fishing tackle will just have to settle for www.AcmeFishing.raleigh.nc.us)
Why do companies continuously look for solutions to problems that were solved years ago?
At my company there are two teams. Both receive a project of approximate equal complexity.
Team A: Develops a realistic plan and conscientiously follows it. All team members put in small amounts of overtime when needed to meet intermediate goals. There are no suprises and a stable program is delivered several days ahead of schedule with concise, well-documented code.
Team B: Maintains a moto of "We've got time!". All intermediate deadlines are missed by a mile. Everyone nearly always goes home early, the exception being days when the intermediate deadlines are due. On these days, everyone pulls an all-nighter so that the deliverables can be presented the next morning. The final deliverable, due on Friday, is delivered Monday morning. To anyone who's taken Comp101, the code is obviously a poorly architected, cut-n-pasted, undocumented peice of a bad knock-off of a poor hack.
Now, who gets the credit for "putting in the effort to go the extra mile"? Who is the "real team players"? Who gets the rewards and their pictures in the company newsletter?
Clue to people new to the industry. NEVER deliver on time. The pressed tee shirts don't know what your job entails, and if you deliver early they think your job was too easy. Complain about tight deadlines and lack of man power. Go home, login, and run a script to keep data moving. Next morning, tell your boss that you pulled an all-nighter. The weekend after the final due date, get your team together for a weekend party, have everyone log in and then pass the bottle. Monday morning (red-eyed and dreary looking) make up grand and heroic tales of how much effort was put forth to pull off your amazing feat to get the project finished by Monday morning. This is the time for the team leader to recommend raises to honor the valiant efforts of all the 'team players'.
Of course, this is all unnecessary if your companies management has a clue.
Re:I suspect that the hype prevented the disaster
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
This will be another non-event.
Do you expect that any company will be servicing 30 yr old equipment (other than those selling to the FAA)?
I ask that, because we're on the virge of a 64-bit revolution. IBM's mainframes are moving to 64 bit, as are all large servers. These are the systems that tend to hang around the longest. Everything will probably be at 128 bits by the time that 2038 rolls around.
Meanwhile 55% of online fans who used Napster decreased their purchases to zero?
that's an absolutely terrible argument. too bad that the remaining 55 percent only stated that they haven't increased their music purchases. you used an extreme to prove your case, which is normally known as "propaganda".
No, that was not an argument at all, which you would have realized if you had not chosen to ignore the question mark. Far from being propaganda, the simple questioning of omitted data points to a serious flaw in Jon's supporting data.
They also said that they were willing to pay for a trip to Mars
see, this argument is just sad. that's like saying "so what if people need food to live, they also like to download pics of Natalie Portman, so any data on their need for food is irrelevant." Existential reasoning is still existential.
No, it is more like saying that people lie about what they are willing to pay for, as I specifically pointed out in my previous post.
It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money.
show us ONE case study that backs up that claim.
Oh, I don't know. How about comparing two studies. One where a large percentage of people claim that they would be willing to pay for a good that they are getting from a contested system for free. The other study indicates that when it comes time to pay for what they have been getting for free, most people aren't willing to ante up the cash. Gee, maybe we could use the two studies that Jon quoted from.
The rest of your post is pretty hysterical. you're trying to flame JonKatz by agreeing with everything he says, and putting a small amount of spin on it.
The spin that I put on it was that Jon was aiming in the wrong direction. I disagree with Jon on two points. First, music execs are trying to protect their own turf which is not a silly thing to do and does not qualify them for titles such as "dunder-headed". Second people are not honorable and noble, willing to pay for something that they can get for free, regardless of the fact that it may be the "right thing".
Jon likes to paint a romantic picture of the computer using public using an us-vs-them mentallity of the smart, noble geek against the dumb, greedy corporatist. Well, geeks aren't nearly as noble corporatist nearly as dumb as Jon tries to make out. What is so hysterical about that?
You're point that the execs are dunderheads for their stance is misguided because you refuse to see where they are standing. You cannot defeat an enemy until you understand what they are fighting.
Nearly two-thirds of the 1,135 college students surveyed say they download music as a way to sample music before buying it. The proliferation of online music is introducing consumes to artists they don't know, in almost precisely the same way department stores offer samples of food, perfume and other retail items. A survey by Yankelovich Partners for the Digital Media Association found that about half the music fans in the U.S. turn to look for artists they can't or don't hear in other venues, like radio. Nearly two-thirds of those who downloaded music from the Web say that their search ended in a music purchase. Music labels should have been donating money to Napster users, not threatening to sue them and chase the site off of college campuses.
Here you display your complete lack of the concept of how the big industry music moguls use the limited market for gain. They do not see expanded consumer choice as a way to make money, they see it as a burden of expanded inventory maintainance. Their ideal world would consist of a populace that had exactly one CD to choose from. This would give them only one title and artist to maintain and promote. For the execs more consumer choice only adds up to more discount bin titles as the fads come and go. Their goal is to limit choice to a few 'superstars' (ie, overpromoted mediocre artist).
And the much-libeled Napster users are dedicated music buyers, quick to reach for their wallets. Jupiter Research says it found that 45 per cent of online music fans are more likely to have increased their music purchases than online fans who don't use Napster.
Meanwhile 55% of online fans who used Napster decreased their purchases to zero?
The Jupiter study of Napster users found that 71 percent of users say they're willing to pay to download an entire album.
They also said that they were willing to pay for a trip to Mars; however, none showed the color of their money. My point is that a survey of what people claim they are willing to do is completely meaningless and no marketing exec worth his salt pays any attention to such surveys.
Interestingly, reports American Demographics, the Jupiter Study of Napster users found that 71 percent of those who use the site said they were willing to pay to download an entire album. But in a Greenfield Online survey of 5,200 online music shoppers, nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads.
And there is the real proof. People will say that they will pay, but when it comes to actually putting the cash on the table...
This suggests that subscription-based services may be more likely and successful than a per-song fee system.
It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money.
Face it, Jon, et. al. The music industry execs have had a nice ride over the last few decades. New technologies have a habit of disrupting the ride, causing them to spill their champagne. While the new technologies often enable huge new markets, they very often cause a depression in existing markets. Someone makes it big in the new market, but that someone isn't necessarily the same people who are big in the market that is being disrupted.
New media provides people with the ability to communicate one-to-one the world over. Music execs are distributors who control the one-to-many communication pipelines. Their job is to control who talks to who. Change the pipleline and you change the job that they know and the medium they are able to manipulate. The Net not only changes but removes the exclusivity of the one-to-many pipeline altogether, leaving the execs out in the cold. We know that, and they know that, so cut the bullshit about how they should accept the changes with open arms. They would be fools to do so.
The music industry is on shaky ground that will quickly disappear into an ocean of one-to-one communciation. I won't be throwing out a life-preserver, but I also won't be claiming that they aren't drowning. (Sink, you bastards, SINK!!)
You can choose NOT to use the airline's services. People tend to forget that they don't have a right to every single convenience that some company has to offer.
The question I have is do they get a Cinematic 3D view, or just a foggy outline. Do they get to laugh at this big splotchy birthmark on my butt, or just the big wart on my left toe?
This is why I keep pushing for the elimination of.com/org/net TLDs. Everything should go to geographical domains. Then we could make something resonable out of the trademark vs domain name conflicts. If you have the trademark in region X, then you can lay claim to the domain name; otherwise, don't bring any frivolous lawsuits into my courtroom. What's more, this would obey the decentralized spirit that was originally designed into the DNS system. The US would no longer have exclusive control over the damn thing. Put the top level servers under UN control (it's about time that organization did something useful anyway), then every country could handle allocation of domains in whatever way suits them.
One of my biggest frustrations while learning UNIX has been that DOC1 assumes that you know what is in DOC2 and DOC3 which both assume that you know what is in DOC1. Of course, you don't know any of it so you're just SOL.
The Redhat and Mandrake distributions now provide the HOWTOs with an HTMLized front end through KDE. Why not make the HOWTO's themselves HTML and provide an internal link to each section? If in the CD WRITING HOWTO I refer to retrieving a file through FTP I can link to section in the FTP HOWTO.
Then we can convince Google to open up their search technology and provide a help search engine for the HOWTOs. I type in ipforwarding and get a list of docs with references (hopefully with the IPCHAINS HOWTO at the top).
I guarantee that if the average US Citizen was worried about living to see the next day, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
I can't fault you're logic; unfortunately, the average US Citizen can very quickly become addicted to a substance without even knowing it. What happens when some online company convinces people that their herb (actually cocain) is good for what ails them. The first 10 doses are cheap, but then the price skyrockets due to 'supply problems' (you know, snowstorms in Canada and such). The poor schmuck ends up sending his/her rent money to get the miracle drug.
Who gets hurt? If it were just the schmuck, I'd say "fuck 'em, he/she gets what he/she deserves. Let 'em die and clean out the gene pool." But it isn't just the schmuck. It's his/her children who have their childhood ruined. It's the average taxpayer who must pay for social services to raise the child once the parent is completely incapacitated by the drug. It's the parent who must watch their child shrivel and die under the effects of the poison. It's the schmucks neighbor who must buy a new stereo after it's stolen to buy more drugs. It's not the schmuck we care about, it's the collateral damage they cause once they're hooked.
The FDA needs to regulate online drug dealers, just like the brick and mortar ones both to protect us from unscrupulous drug dealers and ourselves.
I almost hate myself for saying this, but I believe we need to enforce restrictions on controlled substances in this country and around the world (OUCH! That hurt.)
I was a security guard at Ciba-Geigy, a pharma^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrug company, among other chemicals. The place I worked actually concentrated on dyes. Anyway, we would often get calls at the guard desk from people who needed 'emergency supplies' of one drug or another that had certain 'side-effects'. These callers usually got 'irrate' when we tried to explain that we had no way of helping them (usually by saying that they needed to see their doctor).
My brother-in-law just spent Christmas Eve driving around town to various crack houses looking for his adolescent neices father. When the dirty bastard showed up, he had spent every penny he had (which was given to him to buy the child a present) on crack. I can't believe this would happen without the addictive nature of the drug. I enjoy a cigar now and again, but I wouldn't trade the Christmas morning look on my boys' face for one. Drugs like crack can't be handle by normal humans and the government has a responsibility to protect.
I detest government regulation, but in this case I see the collateral damage of a free drug society being worse than federal intrusion. The FDA should have the power to watch over the online drug stores to insure that they don't become online drug pushers.
I read the first line as more along the lines of the way ZD magazines go on about the look of programs, without any regard to which one actually works best. Exercise for reader: If you can stomach it, read several ZD magazine reviews of software and count the how often the look of the interface is considered important.
Upgrading for functionality is something I consider valid. Chasing the latest eye-candy I consider a silly way to keep Bill Gates, et.al. rich.
When you install the Xing player, you are presented with the license agreement in the installation process.
Again I make the point, you can't modify the deal after it's complete. Was there a notice on the outside of the box informing the purchaser that there are some additional terms to the deal hidden somewhere within, and by purchasing the product you agree to the terms without a chance to see them? If not, then software makers can present as many dialog box 'agreements' that they want. None of them mean anything. You can't add stipulations to the sale AFTER you take the money!!
It looks like we could make two points at once here if we could win the case. Several people have pointed out the the blowhards case rest on the fact that Xing software was hacked in opposition to the license agreement. Well is that license agreement worth the paper its printed on?
Really, a piece paper with illegibly small print is stuck somewhere between the pages of a manual within a shrinkwrapped box. I pay for a box of software, and thus conclude an agreement. I get software, you get money. I get home and low, you have decided that I also must stand on my head and clap three times. Balderdash. After you have my money, you can't make any more stipulations to the contract.
They claim that the hacker knew or should've known that they were prohibited from reverse engineering Xing's software. The hackers should just say, "Nobody said anything about this restriction before I paid for the software." Case closed.
But for me Palm is like Microsoft's DOS -- very simple, but not necessarily up-to-date. I'd rather play with flashier toys and tinker with more complicated things.
Three years ago Palms were great. Now they look more and more older.
I don't understand this mindset. If we were talking about a pair of jeans, I might agree with you. Fashion counts there, but we're not. We're talking about a tool. I don't go out and buy a new hammer or jig saw because the one I have "look[s] more and more older." I may get a new one because the old one is worn out or broken, but not because it looks old. I see this as nothing more than a software-industry conspired/ZD implemented conspiracy to keep people on an upgrade mill. Why do companies pull out perfectly good systems to install something new so that they can look more uptodate (but actually operate less effeciently)?
I remember a documentary on some world health organization. The comment I remember most is the quote that doctors in 3rd world countries are concerned with things like leprosy, cholera, and other communicable deadly diseases. Doctors in America and other "1st world?" countries concern themselves with things like depression and obesity.
It's true, I'm a cold hearted bastard. No one needs to point that out, but if people can't stay on an even keel while surrounded by the wealth and opulance (sp?) of America then suicide is a decent option. Blow your brains out and quit soiling the gene pool. Remember this is Darwinism in action. People can't cope with the enviroment, so they remove themselves. Eventually, you're just left with the ones that can cope and the species is improved.
The problem with people today is television, or more correctly, peoples willingness to accept what they see on the TV as plausible. People sit all day looking at soap operas, those shows where people all have maids and butlers/constantly party/wear fancy clothes/take exotic vacations/live in luxurios houses/have affairs/etc but never work/clean house/use the bathroom/etc. Eventually people begin to wonder why their lives aren't as dramatic. Why doesn't my boyfriend bring me flowers and expensive perfumes on a daily basis? Why can't my wife clean house, hold a job and tend to our 4 children all while wearing a ball gown and fancy jewelry as she prepares dinner for 12 guest? Why does my husband have to work all day, and when do I get to go on a 6 month cruise?
People start believing this shit even if they don't admit it. They develope expectations, and when those expectations aren't fulfilled (which they almost never will be) the person goes into a funk. Reality and their expectations of it are out of kilter, and only one will change.
The psych's answer to the problem: give 'em drugs and counselling. My answer: grow the fuck up. Life is not TV and TV is not life. Most people are ugly compared to whats on TV. Most people work damned hard to barely get by. 6 month cruises are few and far between, but if you accept that the average persons life has a beautiful side you can have good time daily. Fancy houses, cars and boats are a burden not a blessing unless you can afford to have someone else care for them (or you like caring for them yourself). Quit concentrating on obtaining all the fluff and concentrate on enjoying what you have and watch the depression disappear.
But of course this neither makes money for anyone nor does it make anyone feel as if they've made a heroic effort to overcome something. I hear it now, "Oh, I spent three years in a depressive funk and was only able to overcome it with intensive counselling and Prozac." All I can say is, "Shut-up you big cry baby. Grow up and get a life."
I was a security guard in a former life (per-college degree). If we saw someone acting weird, hanging around after hours, fixing a car in the parking lot, etc, we went up to them and started a conversation. "Heh, how ya' doin'?" Is that harassment?
Damn, people catch a clue. Just because a policeman ask for ID or why you're hanging out in a near empty parking garage with a coat hanger doesn't mean he is about to drag you off to jail. He may actually want to HELP you. I've actually had the police to stop and UNLOCK MY CAR FOR ME!! Yes he did ask to see some ID, and he did check the registration. But I'd would've been writing articles to the local paper if he hadn't with titles like "Why do the police aid in car theft?"
We pay the police to monitor suspicious behavior (Why the hell would they monitor NORMAL behavior?). What's the problem with a system that automates the surveillance? How is this different from an old man in a uniform standing next to the entrance to a bank?
Another benefit people here are glossing over. The police prefer to PREVENT crimes. Is it better to catch a criminal, or have a guard walk up right before the crime convincing the guy to move on. Remember, most crime is committed not hardened criminals, but by opportunist. These cameras will be most effective on the latter.
This technology can be tuned for specific words/pronunciations/dialects/languages/etc. I used IBM's VoiceType that came with OS/2. It actually performed fairly well with training, wasn't worth a damn before that though (I have a rather hard Southern accent and a deep voice.)
The Echelon folks wouldn't use this to transcribe phone conversations. They would use it to filter for interesting conversations and then appoint an agent to listen to the real thing. Save a lot of manpower that way.
"Half a CD per month is pretty standard among the top three [online music distributors] in the indie space (IUMA/Internet Underground Music Archive, MP3.com, and Riffage.com)," admits Antony Bryden, general manager of IUMA, which was acquired by the digital download site EMusic.com earlier this year. "Per band, that works out to about $3 a month."... Revenue streams in from music fans buying CDs and digital downloads, from advertising and from the artists themselves, who split revenues from CD sales and sometimes pay for placement on the sites. And all of this revenue is based on inventory the online music distributors obtain free.
So, they aren't selling but half a CD per month, and yet the 'revenue streams in'? Gimme a break people.
That's the attitude that would really change some minds. How hard is it to drum up support on college campus' and high schools anyway? Heh, Mr. Senator I have a million digital signatures from people with no money who think that we should spend someone elses. Compare that statement to "Heh, Mr. Senator here are the digital signatures of a million qualified voters who are willing to put down some of their own cash."
I'm not saying that their effort will have no effect at all, just that it will be very limited in what could be done.
The information in these databases isn't always correct, and provide a way for the rich to rule the less fortunate. Take, for example, when I bought my current house. I had a $30 debt on my credit report from a company that had never done a damn thing for me. I had three choices: 1)pay $60 to take them to court or more to hire a lawyer 2)not buy the house (they wouldn't give me a loan without the removal of this 'debt' and I didn't have 180grand on hand) 3)pay off the bastards. I paid the $30.
All the company had to do was make a report and leave it on my record until I really needed credit. They are not required to do anything and I'm guilty until proven innocent. The large database owners have become a center of power that rivals the US government. They can unilaterally punish without recourse (unless your independantly wealthy, denial of credit equals punishment in the US since there is no way an average American can by a car or house without it). These databases must be controlled by the government (eg, the power structure controlled by the people).
On the flip side, if Traveler's Insurance tells the world that they paid for me to have herpes treatment, what's to stop them (as long as they actually paid for it). I may not like them for it, but don't they have a right to tell others what they paid for (barring a privacy clause in our contract)? Would it be OK for me to publicize that Traveler's tries to avoid paying claims? Is it OK for Joe Bartender at the local pub to tell his girlfriend that I like gin? Is it OK for the mop boy at the local pub to tell the police that I like gin? Why would it be OK for me to tell my drinking buddies that Joe Bartender's gin sucks? Is it OK for my ISP to tell the NSA my IP address? If not, then why is it OK for me to tell you that the ISP's service sucks? At what point does it become illegal for business people to pass on information that they are party to?
What I'm trying to get at is that when you make a law you are drawing a line. That line must be clear so that everyone can understand and obey it, or you end up with silly lawsuit and rich lawyers. Where is the clear line between protecting peoples right from unlawful searches and the companies rights to compile and publish factual information? (OK, I agree that corporations don't necessarily have rights, but a database company could easily be run by a single person and a fast computer -- theoretically at least.)
One interesting issue is that of radiation shielding -- as most of you are probably aware, the Earth's magnetic field shields people on, say, the Shuttle from lots of nasty critters.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. A further problem in a spacecraft approaching anything near the speed of light is that everything in its path becomes a nuclear catastrophe. But I don't think these problems are all that hard to overcome.
I remember seeing a design for an intersteller craft that used a big scoop in front to tunnel and then accelerate material through the center of the ship, expelling it out the rear. The problem would be that the scoop would quickly be destroyed and there is still nothing to prevent radiation from the sides of the ship.
My solution (which I call the Squid Drive (TM)) would replicate the magnetic shielding of the Earth. A large tesla coil would ionize everything in front of the ship, then huge magnets would create rippling mangetic fields that accelerate the particles down the side. Picture a squid moving through the water by rippling its side fins (hence, the name I chose). You get both shielding and propulsion from the same source. Acceleration is only limited by the availability of material to pull/push.
I find this hard to believe, though, for two reasons. First, it would imply that Intel was really deeply enmeshed into the NSA and/or the FBI, and while some conspiracy theorists might believe that, I have trouble believing it.
How about if they are enmeshed with the SEC? Could you believe that? Their anti-trust suit didn't seem to make much of a splash did it?
I've said this before and I'll repeat it here. AT&T designed and manufactured a device that would make voice calls secure. You plugged it in between your handset and the phone and it used a 32bit DSP (which we had overclocked the hell out of), to encrypt the call. It was about the size of a Palm Pilot. I know this first hand. I helped build the things (I tested units as they came off the assembly line).
6 months later I helped open each unit and install a 'clipper' IC (read: a backdoor for the government to listen in to your call). The rumor was that the FBI had agreed to buy all the units already made in exchange for no more being built.
The US government bent AT&T to their will. Why should Intel stand where the communications giant couldn't?
AOL's use of a buffer overrun to block MS clients from using their servers. They used what was at hand in a creative and unconventional way to get a job done. You may not agree with the job that was performed, but you have to admit that it was a sly hack the way AOL did it.
I keep reading a lot of vitriol being expended toward those companies that keep data on transactions that people perform with them. What I don't here is anyone defending the companies rights.
Don't get me wrong here. I get irritated at corporate intrusion, too. The other day I had to threaten an AT&T telemarketer with a lawsuit. I was getting at least two calls a day from people wanting to know who my long-distance carrier was (as if it were any of their business).
But think about it. If I buy a widget from Joe Schmoe, do I have a right to tell everyone that I bought a widget from Joe Schmoe? Can I tell people that the widget was good/bad/cheap/expensive... (e.g., can I give a review in a magazine)? Can I state publicly that Joe Schmoe was easy/hard to deal with? Free countries throughout the world claim the ability to do a product review as a basic right of free speech.
If I can talk about a transaction that I have with Joe Schmoe, Inc., why can't Joe Schmoe, Inc. talk about it? You can say that it isn't fair because Joe Schmoe, Inc. profits from the information, but don't product reviewer's profit from the information they provide? How do we justify taking the right of freedom of speech from Joe Schmoe, Inc.?
Slashdot Mirror
We've already coded a solution. The solution was part of the DNS system design. It's just clueless people refuse to see the simplicity of the system (and NSI wouldn't make nearly as much money or have nearly as much power).
I'm referring of course to geographic TLDs. The rule is simple. Names are first come first serve unless you present proof of a trademark in a given region. In the case of two companies having the same trademark in the same region, but in different businesses, the second applicant will just have to use a qualifier (Acme auto got there first so it got www.Acme.raleigh.nc.us, Acme fishing tackle will just have to settle for www.AcmeFishing.raleigh.nc.us)
Why do companies continuously look for solutions to problems that were solved years ago?
At my company there are two teams. Both receive a project of approximate equal complexity.
Team A: Develops a realistic plan and conscientiously follows it. All team members put in small amounts of overtime when needed to meet intermediate goals. There are no suprises and a stable program is delivered several days ahead of schedule with concise, well-documented code.
Team B: Maintains a moto of "We've got time!". All intermediate deadlines are missed by a mile. Everyone nearly always goes home early, the exception being days when the intermediate deadlines are due. On these days, everyone pulls an all-nighter so that the deliverables can be presented the next morning. The final deliverable, due on Friday, is delivered Monday morning. To anyone who's taken Comp101, the code is obviously a poorly architected, cut-n-pasted, undocumented peice of a bad knock-off of a poor hack.
Now, who gets the credit for "putting in the effort to go the extra mile"? Who is the "real team players"? Who gets the rewards and their pictures in the company newsletter?
Clue to people new to the industry. NEVER deliver on time. The pressed tee shirts don't know what your job entails, and if you deliver early they think your job was too easy. Complain about tight deadlines and lack of man power. Go home, login, and run a script to keep data moving. Next morning, tell your boss that you pulled an all-nighter. The weekend after the final due date, get your team together for a weekend party, have everyone log in and then pass the bottle. Monday morning (red-eyed and dreary looking) make up grand and heroic tales of how much effort was put forth to pull off your amazing feat to get the project finished by Monday morning. This is the time for the team leader to recommend raises to honor the valiant efforts of all the 'team players'.
Of course, this is all unnecessary if your companies management has a clue.
This will be another non-event.
Do you expect that any company will be servicing 30 yr old equipment (other than those selling to the FAA)?
I ask that, because we're on the virge of a 64-bit revolution. IBM's mainframes are moving to 64 bit, as are all large servers. These are the systems that tend to hang around the longest. Everything will probably be at 128 bits by the time that 2038 rolls around.
Meanwhile 55% of online fans who used Napster decreased their purchases to zero?
that's an absolutely terrible argument. too bad that the remaining 55 percent only stated that they haven't increased their music purchases. you used an extreme to prove your case, which is normally known as "propaganda".
No, that was not an argument at all, which you would have realized if you had not chosen to ignore the question mark. Far from being propaganda, the simple questioning of omitted data points to a serious flaw in Jon's supporting data.
They also said that they were willing to pay for a trip to Mars
see, this argument is just sad. that's like saying "so what if people need food to live, they also like to download pics of Natalie Portman, so any data on their need for food is irrelevant." Existential reasoning is still existential.
No, it is more like saying that people lie about what they are willing to pay for, as I specifically pointed out in my previous post.
It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money.
show us ONE case study that backs up that claim.
Oh, I don't know. How about comparing two studies. One where a large percentage of people claim that they would be willing to pay for a good that they are getting from a contested system for free. The other study indicates that when it comes time to pay for what they have been getting for free, most people aren't willing to ante up the cash. Gee, maybe we could use the two studies that Jon quoted from.
The rest of your post is pretty hysterical. you're trying to flame JonKatz by agreeing with everything he says, and putting a small amount of spin on it.
The spin that I put on it was that Jon was aiming in the wrong direction. I disagree with Jon on two points. First, music execs are trying to protect their own turf which is not a silly thing to do and does not qualify them for titles such as "dunder-headed". Second people are not honorable and noble, willing to pay for something that they can get for free, regardless of the fact that it may be the "right thing".
Jon likes to paint a romantic picture of the computer using public using an us-vs-them mentallity of the smart, noble geek against the dumb, greedy corporatist. Well, geeks aren't nearly as noble corporatist nearly as dumb as Jon tries to make out. What is so hysterical about that?
You're point that the execs are dunderheads for their stance is misguided because you refuse to see where they are standing. You cannot defeat an enemy until you understand what they are fighting.
Nearly two-thirds of the 1,135 college students surveyed say they download music as a way to sample music before buying it. The proliferation of online music is introducing consumes to artists they don't know, in almost precisely the same way department stores offer samples of food, perfume and other retail items. A survey by Yankelovich Partners for the Digital Media Association found that about half the music fans in the U.S. turn to look for artists they can't or don't hear in other venues, like radio. Nearly two-thirds of those who downloaded music from the Web say that their search ended in a music purchase. Music labels should have been donating money to Napster users, not threatening to sue them and chase the site off of college campuses.
Here you display your complete lack of the concept of how the big industry music moguls use the limited market for gain. They do not see expanded consumer choice as a way to make money, they see it as a burden of expanded inventory maintainance. Their ideal world would consist of a populace that had exactly one CD to choose from. This would give them only one title and artist to maintain and promote. For the execs more consumer choice only adds up to more discount bin titles as the fads come and go. Their goal is to limit choice to a few 'superstars' (ie, overpromoted mediocre artist).
And the much-libeled Napster users are dedicated music buyers, quick to reach for their wallets. Jupiter Research says it found that 45 per cent of online music fans are more likely to have increased their music purchases than online fans who don't use Napster.
Meanwhile 55% of online fans who used Napster decreased their purchases to zero?
The Jupiter study of Napster users found that 71 percent of users say they're willing to pay to download an entire album.
They also said that they were willing to pay for a trip to Mars; however, none showed the color of their money. My point is that a survey of what people claim they are willing to do is completely meaningless and no marketing exec worth his salt pays any attention to such surveys.
Interestingly, reports American Demographics, the Jupiter Study of Napster users found that 71 percent of those who use the site said they were willing to pay to download an entire album. But in a Greenfield Online survey of 5,200 online music shoppers, nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads.
And there is the real proof. People will say that they will pay, but when it comes to actually putting the cash on the table...
This suggests that subscription-based services may be more likely and successful than a per-song fee system.
It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money.
Face it, Jon, et. al. The music industry execs have had a nice ride over the last few decades. New technologies have a habit of disrupting the ride, causing them to spill their champagne. While the new technologies often enable huge new markets, they very often cause a depression in existing markets. Someone makes it big in the new market, but that someone isn't necessarily the same people who are big in the market that is being disrupted.
New media provides people with the ability to communicate one-to-one the world over. Music execs are distributors who control the one-to-many communication pipelines. Their job is to control who talks to who. Change the pipleline and you change the job that they know and the medium they are able to manipulate. The Net not only changes but removes the exclusivity of the one-to-many pipeline altogether, leaving the execs out in the cold. We know that, and they know that, so cut the bullshit about how they should accept the changes with open arms. They would be fools to do so.
The music industry is on shaky ground that will quickly disappear into an ocean of one-to-one communciation. I won't be throwing out a life-preserver, but I also won't be claiming that they aren't drowning. (Sink, you bastards, SINK!!)
You can choose NOT to use the airline's services. People tend to forget that they don't have a right to every single convenience that some company has to offer.
The question I have is do they get a Cinematic 3D view, or just a foggy outline. Do they get to laugh at this big splotchy birthmark on my butt, or just the big wart on my left toe?
This is why I keep pushing for the elimination of .com/org/net TLDs. Everything should go to geographical domains. Then we could make something resonable out of the trademark vs domain name conflicts. If you have the trademark in region X, then you can lay claim to the domain name; otherwise, don't bring any frivolous lawsuits into my courtroom. What's more, this would obey the decentralized spirit that was originally designed into the DNS system. The US would no longer have exclusive control over the damn thing. Put the top level servers under UN control (it's about time that organization did something useful anyway), then every country could handle allocation of domains in whatever way suits them.
One of my biggest frustrations while learning UNIX has been that DOC1 assumes that you know what is in DOC2 and DOC3 which both assume that you know what is in DOC1. Of course, you don't know any of it so you're just SOL.
The Redhat and Mandrake distributions now provide the HOWTOs with an HTMLized front end through KDE. Why not make the HOWTO's themselves HTML and provide an internal link to each section? If in the CD WRITING HOWTO I refer to retrieving a file through FTP I can link to section in the FTP HOWTO.
Then we can convince Google to open up their search technology and provide a help search engine for the HOWTOs. I type in ipforwarding and get a list of docs with references (hopefully with the IPCHAINS HOWTO at the top).
I guarantee that if the average US Citizen was worried about living to see the next day, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
I can't fault you're logic; unfortunately, the average US Citizen can very quickly become addicted to a substance without even knowing it. What happens when some online company convinces people that their herb (actually cocain) is good for what ails them. The first 10 doses are cheap, but then the price skyrockets due to 'supply problems' (you know, snowstorms in Canada and such). The poor schmuck ends up sending his/her rent money to get the miracle drug.
Who gets hurt? If it were just the schmuck, I'd say "fuck 'em, he/she gets what he/she deserves. Let 'em die and clean out the gene pool." But it isn't just the schmuck. It's his/her children who have their childhood ruined. It's the average taxpayer who must pay for social services to raise the child once the parent is completely incapacitated by the drug. It's the parent who must watch their child shrivel and die under the effects of the poison. It's the schmucks neighbor who must buy a new stereo after it's stolen to buy more drugs. It's not the schmuck we care about, it's the collateral damage they cause once they're hooked.
The FDA needs to regulate online drug dealers, just like the brick and mortar ones both to protect us from unscrupulous drug dealers and ourselves.
I almost hate myself for saying this, but I believe we need to enforce restrictions on controlled substances in this country and around the world (OUCH! That hurt.)
I was a security guard at Ciba-Geigy, a pharma^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrug company, among other chemicals. The place I worked actually concentrated on dyes. Anyway, we would often get calls at the guard desk from people who needed 'emergency supplies' of one drug or another that had certain 'side-effects'. These callers usually got 'irrate' when we tried to explain that we had no way of helping them (usually by saying that they needed to see their doctor).
My brother-in-law just spent Christmas Eve driving around town to various crack houses looking for his adolescent neices father. When the dirty bastard showed up, he had spent every penny he had (which was given to him to buy the child a present) on crack. I can't believe this would happen without the addictive nature of the drug. I enjoy a cigar now and again, but I wouldn't trade the Christmas morning look on my boys' face for one. Drugs like crack can't be handle by normal humans and the government has a responsibility to protect.
I detest government regulation, but in this case I see the collateral damage of a free drug society being worse than federal intrusion. The FDA should have the power to watch over the online drug stores to insure that they don't become online drug pushers.
Aahh, you make good points.
I read the first line as more along the lines of the way ZD magazines go on about the look of programs, without any regard to which one actually works best. Exercise for reader: If you can stomach it, read several ZD magazine reviews of software and count the how often the look of the interface is considered important.
Upgrading for functionality is something I consider valid. Chasing the latest eye-candy I consider a silly way to keep Bill Gates, et.al. rich.
When you install the Xing player, you are presented with the license agreement in the installation process.
Again I make the point, you can't modify the deal after it's complete. Was there a notice on the outside of the box informing the purchaser that there are some additional terms to the deal hidden somewhere within, and by purchasing the product you agree to the terms without a chance to see them? If not, then software makers can present as many dialog box 'agreements' that they want. None of them mean anything. You can't add stipulations to the sale AFTER you take the money!!
It looks like we could make two points at once here if we could win the case. Several people have pointed out the the blowhards case rest on the fact that Xing software was hacked in opposition to the license agreement. Well is that license agreement worth the paper its printed on?
Really, a piece paper with illegibly small print is stuck somewhere between the pages of a manual within a shrinkwrapped box. I pay for a box of software, and thus conclude an agreement. I get software, you get money. I get home and low, you have decided that I also must stand on my head and clap three times. Balderdash. After you have my money, you can't make any more stipulations to the contract.
They claim that the hacker knew or should've known that they were prohibited from reverse engineering Xing's software. The hackers should just say, "Nobody said anything about this restriction before I paid for the software." Case closed.
But for me Palm is like Microsoft's DOS -- very simple, but not necessarily up-to-date. I'd rather play with flashier toys and tinker with more complicated things.
Three years ago Palms were great. Now they look more and more older.
I don't understand this mindset. If we were talking about a pair of jeans, I might agree with you. Fashion counts there, but we're not. We're talking about a tool. I don't go out and buy a new hammer or jig saw because the one I have "look[s] more and more older." I may get a new one because the old one is worn out or broken, but not because it looks old. I see this as nothing more than a software-industry conspired/ZD implemented conspiracy to keep people on an upgrade mill. Why do companies pull out perfectly good systems to install something new so that they can look more uptodate (but actually operate less effeciently)?
Is it just me or is anyone else here reminded of the conclusion to Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe?
In the end, it was revealed that the Earth was first populated by hair stylist, and public telephone cleaners.
huey.
I remember a documentary on some world health organization. The comment I remember most is the quote that doctors in 3rd world countries are concerned with things like leprosy, cholera, and other communicable deadly diseases. Doctors in America and other "1st world?" countries concern themselves with things like depression and obesity.
It's true, I'm a cold hearted bastard. No one needs to point that out, but if people can't stay on an even keel while surrounded by the wealth and opulance (sp?) of America then suicide is a decent option. Blow your brains out and quit soiling the gene pool. Remember this is Darwinism in action. People can't cope with the enviroment, so they remove themselves. Eventually, you're just left with the ones that can cope and the species is improved.
The problem with people today is television, or more correctly, peoples willingness to accept what they see on the TV as plausible. People sit all day looking at soap operas, those shows where people all have maids and butlers/constantly party/wear fancy clothes/take exotic vacations/live in luxurios houses/have affairs/etc but never work/clean house/use the bathroom/etc. Eventually people begin to wonder why their lives aren't as dramatic. Why doesn't my boyfriend bring me flowers and expensive perfumes on a daily basis? Why can't my wife clean house, hold a job and tend to our 4 children all while wearing a ball gown and fancy jewelry as she prepares dinner for 12 guest? Why does my husband have to work all day, and when do I get to go on a 6 month cruise?
People start believing this shit even if they don't admit it. They develope expectations, and when those expectations aren't fulfilled (which they almost never will be) the person goes into a funk. Reality and their expectations of it are out of kilter, and only one will change.
The psych's answer to the problem: give 'em drugs and counselling. My answer: grow the fuck up. Life is not TV and TV is not life. Most people are ugly compared to whats on TV. Most people work damned hard to barely get by. 6 month cruises are few and far between, but if you accept that the average persons life has a beautiful side you can have good time daily. Fancy houses, cars and boats are a burden not a blessing unless you can afford to have someone else care for them (or you like caring for them yourself). Quit concentrating on obtaining all the fluff and concentrate on enjoying what you have and watch the depression disappear.
But of course this neither makes money for anyone nor does it make anyone feel as if they've made a heroic effort to overcome something. I hear it now, "Oh, I spent three years in a depressive funk and was only able to overcome it with intensive counselling and Prozac." All I can say is, "Shut-up you big cry baby. Grow up and get a life."
I was a security guard in a former life (per-college degree). If we saw someone acting weird, hanging around after hours, fixing a car in the parking lot, etc, we went up to them and started a conversation. "Heh, how ya' doin'?" Is that harassment?
Damn, people catch a clue. Just because a policeman ask for ID or why you're hanging out in a near empty parking garage with a coat hanger doesn't mean he is about to drag you off to jail. He may actually want to HELP you. I've actually had the police to stop and UNLOCK MY CAR FOR ME!! Yes he did ask to see some ID, and he did check the registration. But I'd would've been writing articles to the local paper if he hadn't with titles like "Why do the police aid in car theft?"
We pay the police to monitor suspicious behavior (Why the hell would they monitor NORMAL behavior?). What's the problem with a system that automates the surveillance? How is this different from an old man in a uniform standing next to the entrance to a bank?
Another benefit people here are glossing over. The police prefer to PREVENT crimes. Is it better to catch a criminal, or have a guard walk up right before the crime convincing the guy to move on. Remember, most crime is committed not hardened criminals, but by opportunist. These cameras will be most effective on the latter.
This technology can be tuned for specific words/pronunciations/dialects/languages/etc. I used IBM's VoiceType that came with OS/2. It actually performed fairly well with training, wasn't worth a damn before that though (I have a rather hard Southern accent and a deep voice.)
The Echelon folks wouldn't use this to transcribe phone conversations. They would use it to filter for interesting conversations and then appoint an agent to listen to the real thing. Save a lot of manpower that way.
"Half a CD per month is pretty standard among the top three [online music distributors] in the indie space (IUMA/Internet Underground Music Archive, MP3.com, and Riffage.com)," admits Antony Bryden, general manager of IUMA, which was acquired by the digital download site EMusic.com earlier this year. "Per band, that works out to about $3 a month." ... Revenue streams in from music fans buying CDs and digital downloads, from advertising and from the artists themselves, who split revenues from CD sales and sometimes pay for placement on the sites. And all of this revenue is based on inventory the online music distributors obtain free.
So, they aren't selling but half a CD per month, and yet the 'revenue streams in'? Gimme a break people.
That's the attitude that would really change some minds. How hard is it to drum up support on college campus' and high schools anyway? Heh, Mr. Senator I have a million digital signatures from people with no money who think that we should spend someone elses. Compare that statement to "Heh, Mr. Senator here are the digital signatures of a million qualified voters who are willing to put down some of their own cash."
I'm not saying that their effort will have no effect at all, just that it will be very limited in what could be done.
The information in these databases isn't always correct, and provide a way for the rich to rule the less fortunate. Take, for example, when I bought my current house. I had a $30 debt on my credit report from a company that had never done a damn thing for me. I had three choices: 1)pay $60 to take them to court or more to hire a lawyer 2)not buy the house (they wouldn't give me a loan without the removal of this 'debt' and I didn't have 180grand on hand) 3)pay off the bastards. I paid the $30.
All the company had to do was make a report and leave it on my record until I really needed credit. They are not required to do anything and I'm guilty until proven innocent. The large database owners have become a center of power that rivals the US government. They can unilaterally punish without recourse (unless your independantly wealthy, denial of credit equals punishment in the US since there is no way an average American can by a car or house without it). These databases must be controlled by the government (eg, the power structure controlled by the people).
On the flip side, if Traveler's Insurance tells the world that they paid for me to have herpes treatment, what's to stop them (as long as they actually paid for it). I may not like them for it, but don't they have a right to tell others what they paid for (barring a privacy clause in our contract)? Would it be OK for me to publicize that Traveler's tries to avoid paying claims? Is it OK for Joe Bartender at the local pub to tell his girlfriend that I like gin? Is it OK for the mop boy at the local pub to tell the police that I like gin? Why would it be OK for me to tell my drinking buddies that Joe Bartender's gin sucks? Is it OK for my ISP to tell the NSA my IP address? If not, then why is it OK for me to tell you that the ISP's service sucks? At what point does it become illegal for business people to pass on information that they are party to?
What I'm trying to get at is that when you make a law you are drawing a line. That line must be clear so that everyone can understand and obey it, or you end up with silly lawsuit and rich lawyers. Where is the clear line between protecting peoples right from unlawful searches and the companies rights to compile and publish factual information? (OK, I agree that corporations don't necessarily have rights, but a database company could easily be run by a single person and a fast computer -- theoretically at least.)
One interesting issue is that of radiation shielding -- as most of you are probably aware, the Earth's magnetic field shields people on, say, the Shuttle from lots of nasty critters.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. A further problem in a spacecraft approaching anything near the speed of light is that everything in its path becomes a nuclear catastrophe. But I don't think these problems are all that hard to overcome.
I remember seeing a design for an intersteller craft that used a big scoop in front to tunnel and then accelerate material through the center of the ship, expelling it out the rear. The problem would be that the scoop would quickly be destroyed and there is still nothing to prevent radiation from the sides of the ship.
My solution (which I call the Squid Drive (TM)) would replicate the magnetic shielding of the Earth. A large tesla coil would ionize everything in front of the ship, then huge magnets would create rippling mangetic fields that accelerate the particles down the side. Picture a squid moving through the water by rippling its side fins (hence, the name I chose). You get both shielding and propulsion from the same source. Acceleration is only limited by the availability of material to pull/push.
Of course, I may just be a crackpot.
I find this hard to believe, though, for two reasons. First, it would imply that Intel was really deeply enmeshed into the NSA and/or the FBI, and while some conspiracy theorists might believe that, I have trouble believing it.
How about if they are enmeshed with the SEC? Could you believe that? Their anti-trust suit didn't seem to make much of a splash did it?
I've said this before and I'll repeat it here. AT&T designed and manufactured a device that would make voice calls secure. You plugged it in between your handset and the phone and it used a 32bit DSP (which we had overclocked the hell out of), to encrypt the call. It was about the size of a Palm Pilot. I know this first hand. I helped build the things (I tested units as they came off the assembly line).
6 months later I helped open each unit and install a 'clipper' IC (read: a backdoor for the government to listen in to your call). The rumor was that the FBI had agreed to buy all the units already made in exchange for no more being built.
The US government bent AT&T to their will. Why should Intel stand where the communications giant couldn't?
AOL's use of a buffer overrun to block MS clients from using their servers. They used what was at hand in a creative and unconventional way to get a job done. You may not agree with the job that was performed, but you have to admit that it was a sly hack the way AOL did it.
I keep reading a lot of vitriol being expended toward those companies that keep data on transactions that people perform with them. What I don't here is anyone defending the companies rights.
Don't get me wrong here. I get irritated at corporate intrusion, too. The other day I had to threaten an AT&T telemarketer with a lawsuit. I was getting at least two calls a day from people wanting to know who my long-distance carrier was (as if it were any of their business).
But think about it. If I buy a widget from Joe Schmoe, do I have a right to tell everyone that I bought a widget from Joe Schmoe? Can I tell people that the widget was good/bad/cheap/expensive... (e.g., can I give a review in a magazine)? Can I state publicly that Joe Schmoe was easy/hard to deal with? Free countries throughout the world claim the ability to do a product review as a basic right of free speech.
If I can talk about a transaction that I have with Joe Schmoe, Inc., why can't Joe Schmoe, Inc. talk about it? You can say that it isn't fair because Joe Schmoe, Inc. profits from the information, but don't product reviewer's profit from the information they provide? How do we justify taking the right of freedom of speech from Joe Schmoe, Inc.?