Jack Valenti, is that you? You still believe that copying a song is the same as killing someone? That protecting lives is less than or equal to protecting the bottom line of MPAA (and RIAA) members?
Relaxing? First the link takes me to a page that doesn't actually have the music, but has a link to another page with the music.. but it's flash. So, opening the music on the computer hooked up to actually play music.. launch firefox, and take advantage of Sync.. oh, but this causes Firefox to halt for about 10 seconds. Once the page loads, and flash stops spinning up (grrr), press play and BOOM BOOM... high default volume! GRRRRRRRR! The page's design with the volume up in the corner is further annoyance!
Screw the music, I think it'd be more relaxing to go shoot things in RAGE.
Pissing off your customers may prod them to look elsewhere, but unless changing is easier than staying, it doesn't really matter. There are always people who will (or will claim to) ragequit a service at the drop of a hat, but most people aren't going to change unless the problem is tangible and the benefit outweighs the effort. In this case, Qwikster never materialized, so there was never really a reason to do anything.
Re:"Quikster" split a dumb move to begin with
on
Netflix Kills Qwikster
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I just can't see how they *wouldn't* expect a negative reaction from customers when you tell them "Now you'll have to visit two different sites, with different queues, different passwords, etc." It was taking something simple and making it a much bigger pain in the ass, for no apparent reason.
Of course, this creates even bigger outcry than price increases, and people stop talking about price issues and start talking about how they're going to cancel entirely when this happens. Then it doesn't, and they don't, but no one's really talking about price increases anymore. Cheap and effective counter to bad PR is worse PR that goes away!
Unfortunately "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" has a corollary, "never attribute to brilliant cunning that which is adequately explained by stupidity," so I can't quite bring myself to believe this.
Um, no. Google's true CA is not DigiNotar, but Equifax, according to the cert from encrypted.google.com. The rogue MITM cert for *.google.com was issued by DigiNotar, but there's not really a way to test this without altering DNS to point to the rogue site. Also, that cert was already revoked ("were you not paying attention?"), and I want to test revoked trust for all DigiNotar.
I just removed the trust setting from this CA in my browser. So can anyone else. Anyone know a site for which they've issued a cert to test and see if this actually makes any difference?
The phone can at most, when dropped (as opposed to "be thrown"), accelerate at 1G, no? You can exceed that in a car. Or taking off in a plane. Rollercoasters can get upward of 4. Nothing like this thing exploding in your pocket when the light turns green.
And the directional stuff I've seen on most are pretty laggy. Is there really time for it to wake up, determine which way is down, that it's heading there, that it's not a whale or bowl of petunias, and deploy an airbag?
I see people posting about "free exposure" and that sort of thing. But this is only getting exposure for Amazon, who presumably wants to build a user- and application-base for their own upcoming Google-free Android devices.
See, advertising is about drawing attention and profiting when people purchase your product. Regular advertisements do this. Even sales do this. But giving your stuff away doesn't make you money. Any exposure you got was immediately lost to those exposed who either wanted your product or didn't even want it for nothing. Anyone who didn't see it wasn't exposed, and therefore doesn't matter, or worse, will pass on your app even on sale to just wait for the next "free" one. Why pay anything?
However having free stuff does net Amazon a lot of exposure and incentive for new customers. This will sell their devices and platform through exposure.
Contrarily, I think Apple is a perfect example. They were innovating at least as much as Google. (If you call "making slightly better webapps than everyone else for ad revenue" innovative, then "making shiny mp3 players, smart phones, and tablets with mass appeal" can be innovative, too. Let's not belabor the definition.)
However, lately it seems, possibly due to a shortage of Steve, things may be going less well. Iteratively new stuff, but nothing really new, and there seems to be a "dumbing down" trend. Final Cut X is a joke by all accounts. Lion seems to be going in the "your desktop is the biggest iPhone" direction. Lion Server seems to have lost its tools and its appeal. The iPhone 4 may be the "perfect iPhone" with a great screen and video chat, and everyone wants the iPhone 5, but what is the 5 really going to have?
Is Apple really suing over lost sales or brand dilution because of "near-exact replicas"? Or do they just not have anything else to fall back on? Do they have a next idea to move on to? These should be last years, out-of-style designs, if they're really innovating. It is not obvious that Apple is rapidly innovating, or innovating at all.
So you're quoting that SSDs are not 10x more reliable than HDDs. That doesn't exactly prove a point that HDDs are more reliable.
The original poster said "it seems SSDs aren't more reliable than hard drives." Do not create a straw man. The article indicates that while marketing and simpletons may point out select statistics as "more reliable," there's a lot more to the story, and it's difficult to impossible to get meaningful data at this point. That is, based on their analysis, SSDs are not provably more reliable at this time.
When they run out of steam to innovate, they begin to consolidate.
I think the real sign they run out of innovation is they begin to sue people or businesses for "using their ideas" rather than moving on to new ones. Call be back when Google starts doing this.
Did the poster even look at the chart he linked to? Those big lines that shoot up to the top after 1-3 years? They're the failure rates for hard disks. The ones near the bottom? They're the failure rates for SSDs.
The poster probably saw the chart, as they seem to have actually read the article in addition to merely glancing at a picture on the last page. Right below that graph:
But under the best of conditions, hard drives typically top out at 3% by the fifth year. Suffice it to say, the researchers at CMRR are adamant that today's SSDs aren't an order of magnitude more reliable than hard drives.
There are other numerous quotes as well about MTBF not being equivalent to reliability, correlation to vintage, etc.
I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:
If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.
A more worrisome possibility is that an AI that doesn't share goals with humans might bootstrap itself by steadily improving itself to the point where it can easily out-think us. This scenario seems unlikely, but there are some very smart people who take that situation seriously.
Games that succeed are games like World of Warcraft and Farmville not games that involve human intelligence in any substantial fashion. [...]
The games of the future will not be games that make us smarter. The games of the future will be the games which get us to compulsively click more.
An unlikely scenario, eh? Maybe it's already begun...;-)
My "cable" company (if you consider AT&T U-verse cable; it's close enough) wanted $120+ a month to watch what I wanted and DVR it. Corrupt video? Schedule get screwed up? Local network happen to be out? I'd be screwed. This was on top of $50-$60/mo just for internet. So now it's $50-60/mo on internet plus $16/mo for Netflix, $8/mo for Hulu Plus, and I can still buy $96 worth of TV off Amazon or iTMS and still break even!
Of course I'm sure the internet providers (who also provide TV) will start getting bitchy when people start dropping their service for cheaper options over their existing network connection. But their service is crappy and their prices are outrageous.
Only a small (though loud) minority of Linux users believes in a Microsoft vs Linux fight. Linux was created in 1991 to be a POSIX compliant kernel, not to be a competitor to MS.
This isn't how it works, though. For those of us who actually remember MS in the 90s (and onto the 00s), it MS vs Linux simply because Linux had the potential to (and, obviously eventually has) become a huge competitor in the server and corporate market if never the desktop market. This is from Microsoft's perspective. Linux was not created as a competitor, but they eventually saw it that way, and have had any number of anti-Linux and anti-FOSS marketing campaigns over the past decade or so, in addition to incompatible changes to protocols, trying to not interoperate, hijack open standards, and simply give their stuff away to keep people from switching.
It's nice that they want to whitewash history and pretend Linux was the snobby competitor that has eventually come to play nicely with them, but it's quite the opposite. If anything, this is the indication we've moved from "then they fight you" to "then you win".
This has been running for nearly FOUR YEARS. Way to be on the ball, slashdot editors. And as it's still running after four years, it isn't really all that failed now, is it?
Makes Nintendo money on each console sold, rather than losing it like early run XBoxen and Playstations.
Rail against it if you like, but you'll have to shout: Nintendo are way down there at the deep end of their Olympic sized pool full of cash, blow and hookers.
(Emphasis added.) I can't really argue this assessment... Nintendo has been making cheapass hardware, selling lots of it, and surely raking it in. However, having grown up during the NES/SNES era, I have to ask: If it's just supposed to play games, where are all the damn games? If it's low-end, easy-to-dev hardware, then why is Nintendo lucky to release a game a year for it? Even if they can't convince third parties, surely they can, with their "Olympic sized pool full of cash," afford to have more than one dev team churning out high quality games. Other first parties, which are presumably not sitting on such funds, are making a solid showing of high-quality first-party titles.
This isn't just a problem with the Wii, either, it's been that way since then N64. Nintendo's excuse then may have been "new technology" and "lack of resources," but now they have no more excuses. None.
If only storage technology had kept up with GPUs! Instead of being limited to 8 character passwords because of stringent storage limitations, we could use entire passphrases that might be both fairly easy to remember and far more challenging for password guessing. But I guess we'll have to wait for some sort of technological breakthrough...
Just got a droid X2. You'd think with half a gig of ram and a 1GHz dual-core chip in there it'd be a little faster than my droid1. Well, it is now, since I rooted it and froze most of the preinstalled Motorola and Verizon crap, replacing it with "open store" alternatives. Before, you wouldn't believe how horrifically bad it was; doing anything from opening an app to merely trying to scroll the screen would cause delays of upwards of 5-10 seconds. Almost returned it myself.
(For others with this phone/problem, nuking the DLNA and BackupAssistant stuff seemed to help the most.)
The bill, which has been signed by the governor, was pushed by recording industry officials to try to stop the loss of billions of dollars to illegal music sharing.
Great job letting bogus assertions sneak into the summary masquerading as fact.
This is slashdot. We, at very least, already know it's bogus, and see it as the thinly-disguised greedy motivation that it is. Perhaps the "editor" could have used quotes to show skepticism. But, as I said, this is slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Jack Valenti, is that you? You still believe that copying a song is the same as killing someone? That protecting lives is less than or equal to protecting the bottom line of MPAA (and RIAA) members?
Thought so! Just checking...
Relaxing? First the link takes me to a page that doesn't actually have the music, but has a link to another page with the music.. but it's flash. So, opening the music on the computer hooked up to actually play music .. launch firefox, and take advantage of Sync .. oh, but this causes Firefox to halt for about 10 seconds. Once the page loads, and flash stops spinning up (grrr), press play and BOOM BOOM ... high default volume! GRRRRRRRR! The page's design with the volume up in the corner is further annoyance!
Screw the music, I think it'd be more relaxing to go shoot things in RAGE.
Pissing off your customers may prod them to look elsewhere, but unless changing is easier than staying, it doesn't really matter. There are always people who will (or will claim to) ragequit a service at the drop of a hat, but most people aren't going to change unless the problem is tangible and the benefit outweighs the effort. In this case, Qwikster never materialized, so there was never really a reason to do anything.
Of course, this creates even bigger outcry than price increases, and people stop talking about price issues and start talking about how they're going to cancel entirely when this happens. Then it doesn't, and they don't, but no one's really talking about price increases anymore. Cheap and effective counter to bad PR is worse PR that goes away!
Unfortunately "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" has a corollary, "never attribute to brilliant cunning that which is adequately explained by stupidity," so I can't quite bring myself to believe this.
They're investigating now. Apparently it was this guy:
@
Report anything to the nearest K. Last seen running toward a > .
...and they've clearly carried the practice over to lawsuits...
Um, no. Google's true CA is not DigiNotar, but Equifax, according to the cert from encrypted.google.com. The rogue MITM cert for *.google.com was issued by DigiNotar, but there's not really a way to test this without altering DNS to point to the rogue site. Also, that cert was already revoked ("were you not paying attention?"), and I want to test revoked trust for all DigiNotar.
This should be obvious.
I just removed the trust setting from this CA in my browser. So can anyone else. Anyone know a site for which they've issued a cert to test and see if this actually makes any difference?
Rollercoaster.
The phone can at most, when dropped (as opposed to "be thrown"), accelerate at 1G, no? You can exceed that in a car. Or taking off in a plane. Rollercoasters can get upward of 4. Nothing like this thing exploding in your pocket when the light turns green.
And the directional stuff I've seen on most are pretty laggy. Is there really time for it to wake up, determine which way is down, that it's heading there, that it's not a whale or bowl of petunias, and deploy an airbag?
Another word: GLOVES.
I see people posting about "free exposure" and that sort of thing. But this is only getting exposure for Amazon, who presumably wants to build a user- and application-base for their own upcoming Google-free Android devices.
See, advertising is about drawing attention and profiting when people purchase your product. Regular advertisements do this. Even sales do this. But giving your stuff away doesn't make you money. Any exposure you got was immediately lost to those exposed who either wanted your product or didn't even want it for nothing. Anyone who didn't see it wasn't exposed, and therefore doesn't matter, or worse, will pass on your app even on sale to just wait for the next "free" one. Why pay anything?
However having free stuff does net Amazon a lot of exposure and incentive for new customers. This will sell their devices and platform through exposure.
Contrarily, I think Apple is a perfect example. They were innovating at least as much as Google. (If you call "making slightly better webapps than everyone else for ad revenue" innovative, then "making shiny mp3 players, smart phones, and tablets with mass appeal" can be innovative, too. Let's not belabor the definition.)
However, lately it seems, possibly due to a shortage of Steve, things may be going less well. Iteratively new stuff, but nothing really new, and there seems to be a "dumbing down" trend. Final Cut X is a joke by all accounts. Lion seems to be going in the "your desktop is the biggest iPhone" direction. Lion Server seems to have lost its tools and its appeal. The iPhone 4 may be the "perfect iPhone" with a great screen and video chat, and everyone wants the iPhone 5, but what is the 5 really going to have?
Is Apple really suing over lost sales or brand dilution because of "near-exact replicas"? Or do they just not have anything else to fall back on? Do they have a next idea to move on to? These should be last years, out-of-style designs, if they're really innovating. It is not obvious that Apple is rapidly innovating, or innovating at all.
The original poster said "it seems SSDs aren't more reliable than hard drives." Do not create a straw man. The article indicates that while marketing and simpletons may point out select statistics as "more reliable," there's a lot more to the story, and it's difficult to impossible to get meaningful data at this point. That is, based on their analysis, SSDs are not provably more reliable at this time.
I think the real sign they run out of innovation is they begin to sue people or businesses for "using their ideas" rather than moving on to new ones. Call be back when Google starts doing this.
The poster probably saw the chart, as they seem to have actually read the article in addition to merely glancing at a picture on the last page. Right below that graph:
There are other numerous quotes as well about MTBF not being equivalent to reliability, correlation to vintage, etc.
I'm hardly going to debate the ethics or constitutionality or whatever of this, because to the following, it's irrelevant:
If you care about your privacy that much, why are you willingly carrying around a device that's transmitting your position with little or no encryption to everyone who wants to see it? If you want to secure your network, do you leave an open WAP transmitting its SSID as widely as possible? This isn't someone planting a tracking device. This is you shouting loudly to everyone that you're here, and then complaining when someone takes note.
An unlikely scenario, eh? Maybe it's already begun... ;-)
My "cable" company (if you consider AT&T U-verse cable; it's close enough) wanted $120+ a month to watch what I wanted and DVR it. Corrupt video? Schedule get screwed up? Local network happen to be out? I'd be screwed. This was on top of $50-$60/mo just for internet. So now it's $50-60/mo on internet plus $16/mo for Netflix, $8/mo for Hulu Plus, and I can still buy $96 worth of TV off Amazon or iTMS and still break even!
Of course I'm sure the internet providers (who also provide TV) will start getting bitchy when people start dropping their service for cheaper options over their existing network connection. But their service is crappy and their prices are outrageous.
This isn't how it works, though. For those of us who actually remember MS in the 90s (and onto the 00s), it MS vs Linux simply because Linux had the potential to (and, obviously eventually has) become a huge competitor in the server and corporate market if never the desktop market. This is from Microsoft's perspective. Linux was not created as a competitor, but they eventually saw it that way, and have had any number of anti-Linux and anti-FOSS marketing campaigns over the past decade or so, in addition to incompatible changes to protocols, trying to not interoperate, hijack open standards, and simply give their stuff away to keep people from switching.
It's nice that they want to whitewash history and pretend Linux was the snobby competitor that has eventually come to play nicely with them, but it's quite the opposite. If anything, this is the indication we've moved from "then they fight you" to "then you win".
This has been running for nearly FOUR YEARS . Way to be on the ball, slashdot editors. And as it's still running after four years, it isn't really all that failed now, is it?
Rail against it if you like, but you'll have to shout: Nintendo are way down there at the deep end of their Olympic sized pool full of cash, blow and hookers.
(Emphasis added.) I can't really argue this assessment ... Nintendo has been making cheapass hardware, selling lots of it, and surely raking it in. However, having grown up during the NES/SNES era, I have to ask: If it's just supposed to play games, where are all the damn games? If it's low-end, easy-to-dev hardware, then why is Nintendo lucky to release a game a year for it? Even if they can't convince third parties, surely they can, with their "Olympic sized pool full of cash," afford to have more than one dev team churning out high quality games. Other first parties, which are presumably not sitting on such funds, are making a solid showing of high-quality first-party titles.
This isn't just a problem with the Wii, either, it's been that way since then N64. Nintendo's excuse then may have been "new technology" and "lack of resources," but now they have no more excuses. None.
If only storage technology had kept up with GPUs! Instead of being limited to 8 character passwords because of stringent storage limitations, we could use entire passphrases that might be both fairly easy to remember and far more challenging for password guessing. But I guess we'll have to wait for some sort of technological breakthrough...
Just got a droid X2. You'd think with half a gig of ram and a 1GHz dual-core chip in there it'd be a little faster than my droid1. Well, it is now, since I rooted it and froze most of the preinstalled Motorola and Verizon crap, replacing it with "open store" alternatives. Before, you wouldn't believe how horrifically bad it was; doing anything from opening an app to merely trying to scroll the screen would cause delays of upwards of 5-10 seconds. Almost returned it myself.
(For others with this phone/problem, nuking the DLNA and BackupAssistant stuff seemed to help the most.)
Great job letting bogus assertions sneak into the summary masquerading as fact.
This is slashdot. We, at very least, already know it's bogus, and see it as the thinly-disguised greedy motivation that it is. Perhaps the "editor" could have used quotes to show skepticism. But, as I said, this is slashdot.
Their job to return the results a user is most likely to be interested in,
No! Their job is to return the results most relevant to the query. If two people making the same query get different results, they are failing badly!
No, because in "relevant to the query," the intent of the query largely depends on the user.
Yes.