I'm sure that in the middle ages the same thinking was used to justify not teaching peasants how to read. The only book that they needed to read was the Bible and you had your priest that could handle that for you. It was only when reading became common that we learned how dumb it was to let other people read for us.
Personally I believe that not everyone needs to know how to code, but they do need to be familiar with how code works, and how they interact with it. How many problems occur because people are just ignorant of what their devices are doing? Just look at the celebrity nude photo scandal. Do you think that if the majority of those people understood how their information was stored and what protections were used that they would have been so quick to create and store such photos? To say nothing of how laws surrounding software and computers are thoroughly borked due to judges and politicians having -2 clues between them on how a computer works and how their laws impact computer use.
Once it became possible for books to be distributed on a large scale, and the written word became a ubiquitous way to transfer information it no longer became possible to live in a modern society without learning to read. The same will be true of computers and code. We try to abstract the difficult parts behind GUIs, but you can no more automate good software design than you can automate the creation of a novel. Understanding of software will be critical to having an advantage in the coming years.
There were two high profile security flaws in Open Source software that garnered a lot of news attention. Once the vulnerabilities were noticed the community quickly moved to patch them. How is this worse than proprietary software developers who pray that no one exploits their dodgy code until they have the business will and manpower to patch the bugs? Or perhaps we should turn to our proprietary secure software paragons: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Flash to provide secure alternatives to Open Source software....oh wait.
I would be really interested in a link for something like this because on the surface it seems intuitive that people why go to church may be exposed to more societal pressure to maintain an unhappy marriage than risk social shame for going through a divorce.
The point that I was trying to get at wasn't that the amount was exorbitant, far from it. My point was that if an average user is confronted by a pay wall there first reaction is to leave the site and find what they were looking for elsewhere, which creates a disincentive for users to explore new content as there is a barrier to entry. If Facebook had opened as a pay walled service could it have effectively competed against Myspace if Myspace was free?
Also I believe the data I cited was also based of the average internet users usage of non-pay walled sites. It was asking the hypothetical question: 'how much would we have to pay if advertisements where not a source of revenue?'
As intrusive as I find Google's business model there is no changing the fact that the vast majority of internet content exists only because of add revenue. If that revenue were to dry up then it is quite likely that the internet would be facing a large crisis as so many users have been conditioned to believe they don't have to pay out of wallet for browsing web content.
This is not to support the sensationalist quote from Eric Schmidt, but merely to point out that Google's business model, and the business models of similar companies, are currently the reality of how the internet functions without pay walls. This was in a slashdot article a while ago, but it would cost the average user $230 a year to use the internet without adds.
While this is not really that large of an amount considering what Comcast extorts its average user for, it is worth mentioning that this would require individual signups for almost every website which throws a wet blanket over the prospect of most internet start ups who are looking to lower the barrier to entry as far as possible. Like it or not adds support the internet and targeted adds are the most valuable.
Instead of dismissing targeted adds as a concept I would prefer to know exactly what is being tracked about me so that I can separate the sensitive information from information that would be useful to marketers.
You know what? I won't be sad to see them go. After the garbage that they loaded on to the consumer market, and they way that they have mismanaged their company why should they deserve to slog on with reputation alone?
It makes me happy to see that even a behemoth like HP is mortal, and producing lousy products can result in the brow beating of a company no matter how long it takes and how much money they make..
The point of net nuetrality isn't about what speeds are sent to your home it's about the relative speeds of the web content that you browse. You pay for 100Mbps and yes that connection is capped at that speed, but without net nuetrality the individual sites that you visit could be throttled to well below the speed that you ALREADY PAID FOR. That is the key. You have paid to access all sites at a certain speed as determined by your plan, but the ISPs have decided that in order for you to recieve the speed that you paid for those websites must also pay.
Faster internet also means a larger cable bill. Maybe we are seeing inflated test scores because the people with faster internet are the people who can afford it along with better schools, private tutors, school supplies etc etc.
The allure of eSports (gah) is that you too, with a little practice, could be the next great star. It's a fantasy for most people without 10,000 hours to play Starcraft at a competitive level, but it's the same fantasy that has 5-10,000 people attending the WSOP every year to become the next Moneymaker.
Combine this with the prize structure for most events and you add the feeling that with a little skill you too could win the lottery.
Honestly, one of the main strengths of eSports over conventional sports is the low barrier of entry due to the sport not being closed off by large franchises not looking to split an audience.
Just this. Modern sporting teams rely on stars to draw in viewers, and create a relationship between the fans and the players, not just the fans and the brand.
People who don't go to see the Lakers may go to see "superman" in action, and this is same with eSports. Without a standout career, it's harder to create emotional investment in the team, and it's much harder to cheer for a player that has played for a year, and will be gone in 2.
It's one of the reasons why people in the west find Asian teams less compelling. The language barrier and lack of familiarity with the players prevents the team from creating the marketable narrative that we see in traditional sporting events.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.
I'm sure that in the middle ages the same thinking was used to justify not teaching peasants how to read. The only book that they needed to read was the Bible and you had your priest that could handle that for you. It was only when reading became common that we learned how dumb it was to let other people read for us.
Personally I believe that not everyone needs to know how to code, but they do need to be familiar with how code works, and how they interact with it. How many problems occur because people are just ignorant of what their devices are doing? Just look at the celebrity nude photo scandal. Do you think that if the majority of those people understood how their information was stored and what protections were used that they would have been so quick to create and store such photos? To say nothing of how laws surrounding software and computers are thoroughly borked due to judges and politicians having -2 clues between them on how a computer works and how their laws impact computer use.
Once it became possible for books to be distributed on a large scale, and the written word became a ubiquitous way to transfer information it no longer became possible to live in a modern society without learning to read. The same will be true of computers and code. We try to abstract the difficult parts behind GUIs, but you can no more automate good software design than you can automate the creation of a novel. Understanding of software will be critical to having an advantage in the coming years.
There were two high profile security flaws in Open Source software that garnered a lot of news attention. Once the vulnerabilities were noticed the community quickly moved to patch them. How is this worse than proprietary software developers who pray that no one exploits their dodgy code until they have the business will and manpower to patch the bugs? Or perhaps we should turn to our proprietary secure software paragons: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Flash to provide secure alternatives to Open Source software....oh wait.
I would be really interested in a link for something like this because on the surface it seems intuitive that people why go to church may be exposed to more societal pressure to maintain an unhappy marriage than risk social shame for going through a divorce.
The point that I was trying to get at wasn't that the amount was exorbitant, far from it. My point was that if an average user is confronted by a pay wall there first reaction is to leave the site and find what they were looking for elsewhere, which creates a disincentive for users to explore new content as there is a barrier to entry. If Facebook had opened as a pay walled service could it have effectively competed against Myspace if Myspace was free?
Also I believe the data I cited was also based of the average internet users usage of non-pay walled sites. It was asking the hypothetical question: 'how much would we have to pay if advertisements where not a source of revenue?'
As intrusive as I find Google's business model there is no changing the fact that the vast majority of internet content exists only because of add revenue. If that revenue were to dry up then it is quite likely that the internet would be facing a large crisis as so many users have been conditioned to believe they don't have to pay out of wallet for browsing web content.
This is not to support the sensationalist quote from Eric Schmidt, but merely to point out that Google's business model, and the business models of similar companies, are currently the reality of how the internet functions without pay walls. This was in a slashdot article a while ago, but it would cost the average user $230 a year to use the internet without adds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
While this is not really that large of an amount considering what Comcast extorts its average user for, it is worth mentioning that this would require individual signups for almost every website which throws a wet blanket over the prospect of most internet start ups who are looking to lower the barrier to entry as far as possible. Like it or not adds support the internet and targeted adds are the most valuable.
Instead of dismissing targeted adds as a concept I would prefer to know exactly what is being tracked about me so that I can separate the sensitive information from information that would be useful to marketers.
You know what? I won't be sad to see them go. After the garbage that they loaded on to the consumer market, and they way that they have mismanaged their company why should they deserve to slog on with reputation alone?
It makes me happy to see that even a behemoth like HP is mortal, and producing lousy products can result in the brow beating of a company no matter how long it takes and how much money they make. .
I can see it now hoards of people gathering around with straining ears to hear the call of the majestic space quack and his new dietary supplements.
Available now for 4 easy payments of $19.99.
The point of net nuetrality isn't about what speeds are sent to your home it's about the relative speeds of the web content that you browse. You pay for 100Mbps and yes that connection is capped at that speed, but without net nuetrality the individual sites that you visit could be throttled to well below the speed that you ALREADY PAID FOR. That is the key. You have paid to access all sites at a certain speed as determined by your plan, but the ISPs have decided that in order for you to recieve the speed that you paid for those websites must also pay.
Faster internet also means a larger cable bill. Maybe we are seeing inflated test scores because the people with faster internet are the people who can afford it along with better schools, private tutors, school supplies etc etc.
The allure of eSports (gah) is that you too, with a little practice, could be the next great star. It's a fantasy for most people without 10,000 hours to play Starcraft at a competitive level, but it's the same fantasy that has 5-10,000 people attending the WSOP every year to become the next Moneymaker.
Combine this with the prize structure for most events and you add the feeling that with a little skill you too could win the lottery. Honestly, one of the main strengths of eSports over conventional sports is the low barrier of entry due to the sport not being closed off by large franchises not looking to split an audience.
Just this. Modern sporting teams rely on stars to draw in viewers, and create a relationship between the fans and the players, not just the fans and the brand. People who don't go to see the Lakers may go to see "superman" in action, and this is same with eSports. Without a standout career, it's harder to create emotional investment in the team, and it's much harder to cheer for a player that has played for a year, and will be gone in 2. It's one of the reasons why people in the west find Asian teams less compelling. The language barrier and lack of familiarity with the players prevents the team from creating the marketable narrative that we see in traditional sporting events.