They could use or sell the one they find without infringing on the patent
Actually, patent law prohibits even the private manufacture and use of a patented invention, at least in the U.S. From 35 USC 271(a): "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." (emphasis mine)
without authority is the key - Having a legitimate copy would, IMHO, grant you the right to use it since its manufacture was authorized by the patent holder and thus does not infringe on the patent.
As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year; not because he had plants growing their from seeds that blew across his property line.. The court said since the patent was valid Monsanto has the right to control how those seeds were used; which is no different from any other patent. While you may disagree with genetic patents the law seems to be pretty clear until the legislature changes the law; or passes a law giving farmers the right to reuse any seeds from plants grown on their land regardless of the source. I would not be surprised if one of the conditions of sale of genetically modified seed is that you can't harvest the seeds and plant them next year; otherwise farmers would buy such seeds once.
While I dislike many aspects of patent law, Monsanto is not evil for protecting their patents any more than any other company. In this case, it's no different from some tech company acting to protect their patented product from being copied and sold by someone who finds one on their lawn. They could use or sell the one they find without infringing on the patent; but not the copies.
You seriously misanderstood what I said: the smaller company doesn't know how seriously the price war will go. Or when it will start. A lot of them just suppose that the bigger one doesn't take notice.
"You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; "
It's very hard to tell in advance, and a its the cause of many bankruptcies.
I beg to differ. Take Southwest for example. While they may not know how long Braniff would try to drive them out of the market by undercutting fares; they knew how long they could survive and bet (correctly) that Braniff would fold before they ran out of money. They also worked to differentiate their product and appeal to a specific segment to remain profitable in the face of predatory pricing; which Braniff was unable to use to drive Southwest out of business. Other airlines used regulations to limit Southwest's ability to compete instead of pricing.
"You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; "
It's very hard to tell in advance, and a its the cause of many bankruptcies.
If they don't know what it costs to produce their product then they probably shouldn't be in business - while you are correct that it is the cause of many bankruptcies the problem is not predatory pricing but corporate incompetence.
" so they can outlast you if they enter later."
They cannot. Because they don't know it in advance.
You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; they do that all the time. Then they simply must decide whether or not they can survive to the point the other competitor raises prices; or if they can differentiate their product enough to charge more. You see that all the time in business; it is neither new or unusual.
If you bust up the trust, no one has market prices [correction - power, not prices] and prices can rise to a higher level than with a monopoly.
That's some bogus reasoning. (It only works if the price of entering the market is practically zero. These are the markets least prone to become a monopoly.)
By busting the competition by predatory pricing you eliminate the initial capital of the competition. And that takes time to recover. In the meantime you can have outrageous profits. Antitrust makes it harder to destroy that initial capital.
The problem with predatory pricing is it is unsustainable; ultimately you raise prices and competition enters or you keep the artificially low prices which benefit the consumer and cost you profits. If the cost of entry is high the longer you keep them low the longer it takes to recover your investment; and once you raise them you'll lose market share further depressing your profits.
If a competitor believes the low prices are unsustainable they can enter anyway knowing you'll have to raise prices or go out of business; so they can outlast you if they enter later.
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
Even better - put police officers there. Where I live, it's not uncommon to see a cop, sitting in the median, watching for speeders. He's readily visible, and has the effect of slowing people down. Even so, he or she is also regularly writing a ticket.
The problem with speed cameras is they have little direct deterrent effect - the are an after the fact gotcha (which often is not a traffic violation so they avoid having to deal with them in court) - and as such would not prevent the scenario you describe; unless the person knows the camera is there and even with signs they seem to catch a lot of people. If they didn't, they'd cost more than they produce and they'd be gone; "increased traffic safety" be damned (of course, we'd get some official explanation how they accomplished their goals and it was time to move on, etc., etc., etc.).
As with any regulation, the idea was to limit competition and thereby ensure profitability.
Or sometimes increase it (antitrust)
Unfortunately, the general net effect of regulation is to limit competition to raise prices. While anti-trust would appear to have the opposite effect, consider this:
The argument against monopolies is they raise prices and squash competition; first by lowering prices. But to keep out competitors they have to keep prices low enough to avoid re-entry, so prices stay low. If you bust up the trust, no one has market prices and prices can rise to a higher level than with a monopoly.
As a customer of Telekom Austria, I can assure you that nothing about that company is quick and efficient. They're the former state-run monopoly.
People love to say this scornfully, but they seem not to realise that if "Telekom $SOME_COUNTRY" _wasn't_ a "former state-run monopoly" then if they didn't live within a hundred metres of their nearest neighbour they wouldn't even _have_ a phone service, and the mere idea of a practically free phone standing on the street would be absolutely laughable.
While I agree that government regulation (which generally means a monopoly) to ensure cost recovery (and profits) drives universal service since companies can provide service to uneconomic areas by subsidizing the costs; that does not mean it must be a state run monopoly. ATT in the US wasn't one; it didn't even start as a regulated monopoly.
As with any regulation, the idea was to limit competition and thereby ensure profitability. Universal service was one by-product.
Some of them were amazing. I remember one where Woz and others were middle aged (with gray hair) showing off the new tech - The Apple 5000(?) mainframe that replaced IBM, and a disk drive so small it fit into the side of a pair of glasses (which was a computer with screen in teh glasses). In some ways they are not as far fetched today as they were in 1983/84. I wonder if any of them survived?
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Because I simply want my device to work; and do not want to pay any extra or be inconvenienced by others using their freer device.
To your car analogy; I could care less what you do to your car; until you decide to widen it 10 feet and block traffic on the pay road I use; or make it go 200mph on the same road and cause an accident, or put in a gigawatt stereo that I can here a mile away.
More to the point; Apple is taking away none of your freedoms; they are offering a specific user experience for a specific fee. You are free to chose to buy it or not; but they do not need to cater to every desire of every customer.
In the end; you get to vote with your dollars; which is a real measure of freedom. People make those choices every day, and cost / convenience / performance win out. I see very few Linux advocates build a laptop from scratch so they can have their own 100% free solution; it's simply too costly and time consuming; so they compromise by buying an existing machine and then get Linus up and running. Of course, if they have problems getting it up and running then they have no room to complain to the manufacturer about their lack of support any more than someone who mods a car and then has a problem has to expect the manufacturer to solve the problem. I chose a Mac because it works; and therefore I can spend my time making money. There are trade-offs, but I can live with them because the overall experience meets MY needs. I like Linux, but it simply takes too much time to get and keep it working and trying to find workable alternatives to the programs I need to make it a viable business solution, FOR ME. If it works for you, great. You have the freedom top chose your platform.
They ensure a readily available supply of people willing to enter the field for relatively less pay than other fields. This ensures they have a large talent pool that they can pick from; those that decide it's not for tehm (100+ Hour weeks) or can't cut it leave. It's the promise of a payoff that keeps the talent flowing; just like in sports or drug dealing. After all, why would you sell drugs when you can make more at McDonalds? (see Freakenomics for an interesting article on just that) Rewards have more to them than just motivating a specific individual.
It may be a bad day for balloon launches, but at least jokes seem to be flying right past some people.
Yup, unfortunately for NASA this story may yet balloon out of control or at least blown up out of proportion. Then again, I may just be full of hot air.
Not anymore they don't. I'm a hiring manager in Silicon Valley and I can tell you that any Palm engineer with sense has been interviewing and most have gotten away already.
While I agree with you ; that's not a big stumbling block. As long as they can get some key talent they can identify who else they may want and go after them. HP has the $$$ to lure just about any talent they may want.
My guess it's the IP and patents they want; and not just for smartphones. Tablets may be the next big thing, and in many ways they are just a scaled up smartphone. Palm gives HP some leverage in that space. Think IBM - "sure you can sue us over patent infringement. We'll get back to you with a list of the thousands of our patents you infringe. So, you gotta ask yourself - 'Do you feel lucky?'"
Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).
I agree that's probably pretty standard to avoid opening one up to more legal action; as is requiring neither party to discuss the settlement.
I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.
I realize I'm responding to a sig but I'd suggest an MBA. Science / Tech undergrad plus MBA is a good combination.
I don't particularly agree with their corporate mission ("glorify god")
Who says you can't learn anything by surfing the web while at work? I did not know that and looked it up to confirm what you said.
Scratch another place not to go to.*
*To those of you who are going to whine or mod me down for saying that, take a look at yourself before you open your mouth (or type the words). Do you not go to some place(s) because of their corporate policies, working conditions, charities they give to, etc? If so, one word describes you: hypocrite.
Whether or not you agree with Chick-fil-A's corporate mission; I think you can respect how they actually try to live up to it. T. Cathy at least puts his money where his mouth is. He could have made buckets more money staying open on Saturday but decided to close because he felt it was in the best interests of his employees and their families to give them Sunday off. (To a certain extent it even saves them money because they have a lower turnover rate than other fast food restaurants.) I know people who have worked at CfA and they don't push religion on anyone; they just try to make it a good place to work. I find there approach to be a lot more honest than many of the companies who talk about doing good but when it costs money they back away.
They make a mean chicken sandwich and biscuit as well...
"The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man."
This will work for less than 1% of artists. The rest will starve.
Then the market has spoken. Or do you believe the current method is superior? it essentially reduces music to marketing and relies on tight controls to allow one hit to pat for many failures.
As a side note, I think you'd find more who make a livable income off their music but fewer meg-bands.
The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man.
PowerPoint exposes how stupid we already are. It shows that we have a swirling mess of semi-interconnected ideas and when we try to convey them, all we can produce is a swirling mess of semi-interconnected slides.
While PowerPoint does not make us stupid; how we use it does. We distill key points into a mess of bullet points, spend far to much time on making it pretty; having multiple layers of reviewers who make "happy to glad" changes; and then assume it imparts information. In short, we've forgotten how to brief information. I served before and during, PowerPoint, and briefings were way different BP. We seem to spend more time on the medium (PowerPoint) than the message. I yearn for the days when you hand drew slides and then actually explained what you meant. No one came in and said "Let's use 16 point MT Sans Crap font there and change the background shade. No, not that shade, another shade. BTW - is that font available in a serif?"
PP has it place, but I agree with Tufte - it is not really good at imparting information
based on the blog, I didn't see the OP as a shot at the developer; it looked more like a complement. Reusing a perfectly good game engine (or storyline) and making an interesting new game (or story) with it is a real good business model. The comment about people liking interesting game play over gee whiz graphics only reinforces that. Many successful authors do that - read one Ludlum / WEB Griffin / Clancey novel and you've "read" them all; but their storytelling still pulls you in even if you know how the plot and characters will playout. As a consultant, I'm a firm believer in the "Create once, sell as often and for as much money as the market will bear as long as possible. Lather, rinse, and repeat."
No, not "GREEN", more like "It's a helluva lot less expensive to just not print the manuals!"
Exactly. One of the concepts I learned in psych was that you need to properly frame things to be a benefit to the customer; even if teh goal is simply to save costs. Hence, hotels "Use less water if you reuse a tool" and "Unless you ask we won't change sheets / vacuum during your stay"ather then "we only service the room every other day to save cash."
Using a mix of flash and spinning disk technology you could build a single hybrid drive that supports fast operation by optimizing what uses flash and what uses the older tech; this would increase the perceived speed of a machine while keeping costs lower. The OS would need to support such a drive; but it would result in faster machines with reasonably large storage capacities at a lower price point. It's not really a new idea, variations of the solid state / hard drive memory mix use have been around a while.
I realize you could use two drives; but shoe horning it into one laptop form factor would make it a lot easier to incorporate into existing laptop form factors; as well as add backwards compatibility via an OS update.
Just wait until CSI starts using this technology. Then it will be open-and-shut in the mind of any Juror.
Wiki the CSI effect.
Though, interestingly enough, from my discussions with lawyers and law enforcement people the problem is juries expect high tech and all kinds of forensic evidence; even when it is really overkill, becasue CSI shows how easy it is to get that kind of evidence.
Except most juvenile cases are decided before a judge, not a jury.
In addition, IAAL and I've done plenty of Juvenile defense cases and I can tell you that some of these kids need extra help as early as possible. Far too often, the reason a kid stays in a life of crime into adulthood is because the juvenile justice system is ill-equipped and has their hands tied in how to properly deal with these cases.
I see this as a potentially positive thing... and this is coming from a juvenile defense attorney.
I agree with you - people are far too willing to blame (and fear) a tool when the real issue is how it is used. After all, if you could run it atop a Linux system should we oppose it since it would enable the tracking technology?
More to your point, if predictive analyitcs is used to identify behaviors and environmental factors that lead to recurring problems and used to get someone help to modify or remove those behaviours and factors; rather than to merely convict them of "future crime" it can be a positive tool.
Slashdot Mirror
They could use or sell the one they find without infringing on the patent Actually, patent law prohibits even the private manufacture and use of a patented invention, at least in the U.S. From 35 USC 271(a): "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." (emphasis mine)
without authority is the key - Having a legitimate copy would, IMHO, grant you the right to use it since its manufacture was authorized by the patent holder and thus does not infringe on the patent.
When Monsanto can successfully sue you for patent infringement when a neighbor's seeds blow onto your land, then yes, Monsanto needs to die. If "Roundup Ready" weeds are part of it, bring them on.
As the Wiki article points out, he was sued because he harvested the seeds and then used them to plant his crop next year; not because he had plants growing their from seeds that blew across his property line.. The court said since the patent was valid Monsanto has the right to control how those seeds were used; which is no different from any other patent. While you may disagree with genetic patents the law seems to be pretty clear until the legislature changes the law; or passes a law giving farmers the right to reuse any seeds from plants grown on their land regardless of the source. I would not be surprised if one of the conditions of sale of genetically modified seed is that you can't harvest the seeds and plant them next year; otherwise farmers would buy such seeds once.
While I dislike many aspects of patent law, Monsanto is not evil for protecting their patents any more than any other company. In this case, it's no different from some tech company acting to protect their patented product from being copied and sold by someone who finds one on their lawn. They could use or sell the one they find without infringing on the patent; but not the copies.
You seriously misanderstood what I said: the smaller company doesn't know how seriously the price war will go. Or when it will start. A lot of them just suppose that the bigger one doesn't take notice.
"You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; " It's very hard to tell in advance, and a its the cause of many bankruptcies.
I beg to differ. Take Southwest for example. While they may not know how long Braniff would try to drive them out of the market by undercutting fares; they knew how long they could survive and bet (correctly) that Braniff would fold before they ran out of money. They also worked to differentiate their product and appeal to a specific segment to remain profitable in the face of predatory pricing; which Braniff was unable to use to drive Southwest out of business. Other airlines used regulations to limit Southwest's ability to compete instead of pricing.
"You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; "
It's very hard to tell in advance, and a its the cause of many bankruptcies.
If they don't know what it costs to produce their product then they probably shouldn't be in business - while you are correct that it is the cause of many bankruptcies the problem is not predatory pricing but corporate incompetence.
" so they can outlast you if they enter later." They cannot. Because they don't know it in advance.
You're incorrectly assuming companies can't determine the cost of creating a product; they do that all the time. Then they simply must decide whether or not they can survive to the point the other competitor raises prices; or if they can differentiate their product enough to charge more. You see that all the time in business; it is neither new or unusual.
If you bust up the trust, no one has market prices [correction - power, not prices] and prices can rise to a higher level than with a monopoly.
That's some bogus reasoning. (It only works if the price of entering the market is practically zero. These are the markets least prone to become a monopoly.)
By busting the competition by predatory pricing you eliminate the initial capital of the competition. And that takes time to recover. In the meantime you can have outrageous profits. Antitrust makes it harder to destroy that initial capital.
The problem with predatory pricing is it is unsustainable; ultimately you raise prices and competition enters or you keep the artificially low prices which benefit the consumer and cost you profits. If the cost of entry is high the longer you keep them low the longer it takes to recover your investment; and once you raise them you'll lose market share further depressing your profits.
If a competitor believes the low prices are unsustainable they can enter anyway knowing you'll have to raise prices or go out of business; so they can outlast you if they enter later.
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
Even better - put police officers there. Where I live, it's not uncommon to see a cop, sitting in the median, watching for speeders. He's readily visible, and has the effect of slowing people down. Even so, he or she is also regularly writing a ticket.
The problem with speed cameras is they have little direct deterrent effect - the are an after the fact gotcha (which often is not a traffic violation so they avoid having to deal with them in court) - and as such would not prevent the scenario you describe; unless the person knows the camera is there and even with signs they seem to catch a lot of people. If they didn't, they'd cost more than they produce and they'd be gone; "increased traffic safety" be damned (of course, we'd get some official explanation how they accomplished their goals and it was time to move on, etc., etc., etc.).
As with any regulation, the idea was to limit competition and thereby ensure profitability.
Or sometimes increase it (antitrust)
Unfortunately, the general net effect of regulation is to limit competition to raise prices. While anti-trust would appear to have the opposite effect, consider this:
The argument against monopolies is they raise prices and squash competition; first by lowering prices. But to keep out competitors they have to keep prices low enough to avoid re-entry, so prices stay low. If you bust up the trust, no one has market prices and prices can rise to a higher level than with a monopoly.
As a customer of Telekom Austria, I can assure you that nothing about that company is quick and efficient. They're the former state-run monopoly.
People love to say this scornfully, but they seem not to realise that if "Telekom $SOME_COUNTRY" _wasn't_ a "former state-run monopoly" then if they didn't live within a hundred metres of their nearest neighbour they wouldn't even _have_ a phone service, and the mere idea of a practically free phone standing on the street would be absolutely laughable.
While I agree that government regulation (which generally means a monopoly) to ensure cost recovery (and profits) drives universal service since companies can provide service to uneconomic areas by subsidizing the costs; that does not mean it must be a state run monopoly. ATT in the US wasn't one; it didn't even start as a regulated monopoly.
As with any regulation, the idea was to limit competition and thereby ensure profitability. Universal service was one by-product.
Some of them were amazing. I remember one where Woz and others were middle aged (with gray hair) showing off the new tech - The Apple 5000(?) mainframe that replaced IBM, and a disk drive so small it fit into the side of a pair of glasses (which was a computer with screen in teh glasses). In some ways they are not as far fetched today as they were in 1983/84. I wonder if any of them survived?
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Because I simply want my device to work; and do not want to pay any extra or be inconvenienced by others using their freer device.
To your car analogy; I could care less what you do to your car; until you decide to widen it 10 feet and block traffic on the pay road I use; or make it go 200mph on the same road and cause an accident, or put in a gigawatt stereo that I can here a mile away.
More to the point; Apple is taking away none of your freedoms; they are offering a specific user experience for a specific fee. You are free to chose to buy it or not; but they do not need to cater to every desire of every customer.
In the end; you get to vote with your dollars; which is a real measure of freedom. People make those choices every day, and cost / convenience / performance win out. I see very few Linux advocates build a laptop from scratch so they can have their own 100% free solution; it's simply too costly and time consuming; so they compromise by buying an existing machine and then get Linus up and running. Of course, if they have problems getting it up and running then they have no room to complain to the manufacturer about their lack of support any more than someone who mods a car and then has a problem has to expect the manufacturer to solve the problem. I chose a Mac because it works; and therefore I can spend my time making money. There are trade-offs, but I can live with them because the overall experience meets MY needs. I like Linux, but it simply takes too much time to get and keep it working and trying to find workable alternatives to the programs I need to make it a viable business solution, FOR ME. If it works for you, great. You have the freedom top chose your platform.
They ensure a readily available supply of people willing to enter the field for relatively less pay than other fields. This ensures they have a large talent pool that they can pick from; those that decide it's not for tehm (100+ Hour weeks) or can't cut it leave. It's the promise of a payoff that keeps the talent flowing; just like in sports or drug dealing. After all, why would you sell drugs when you can make more at McDonalds? (see Freakenomics for an interesting article on just that) Rewards have more to them than just motivating a specific individual.
It may be a bad day for balloon launches, but at least jokes seem to be flying right past some people.
Yup, unfortunately for NASA this story may yet balloon out of control or at least blown up out of proportion. Then again, I may just be full of hot air.
Palm has a lot of talented employees, .
Not anymore they don't. I'm a hiring manager in Silicon Valley and I can tell you that any Palm engineer with sense has been interviewing and most have gotten away already.
While I agree with you ; that's not a big stumbling block. As long as they can get some key talent they can identify who else they may want and go after them. HP has the $$$ to lure just about any talent they may want.
My guess it's the IP and patents they want; and not just for smartphones. Tablets may be the next big thing, and in many ways they are just a scaled up smartphone. Palm gives HP some leverage in that space. Think IBM - "sure you can sue us over patent infringement. We'll get back to you with a list of the thousands of our patents you infringe. So, you gotta ask yourself - 'Do you feel lucky?'"
Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).
I agree that's probably pretty standard to avoid opening one up to more legal action; as is requiring neither party to discuss the settlement.
I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.
I realize I'm responding to a sig but I'd suggest an MBA. Science / Tech undergrad plus MBA is a good combination.
I don't particularly agree with their corporate mission ("glorify god") Who says you can't learn anything by surfing the web while at work? I did not know that and looked it up to confirm what you said. Scratch another place not to go to.* *To those of you who are going to whine or mod me down for saying that, take a look at yourself before you open your mouth (or type the words). Do you not go to some place(s) because of their corporate policies, working conditions, charities they give to, etc? If so, one word describes you: hypocrite.
Whether or not you agree with Chick-fil-A's corporate mission; I think you can respect how they actually try to live up to it. T. Cathy at least puts his money where his mouth is. He could have made buckets more money staying open on Saturday but decided to close because he felt it was in the best interests of his employees and their families to give them Sunday off. (To a certain extent it even saves them money because they have a lower turnover rate than other fast food restaurants.) I know people who have worked at CfA and they don't push religion on anyone; they just try to make it a good place to work. I find there approach to be a lot more honest than many of the companies who talk about doing good but when it costs money they back away.
They make a mean chicken sandwich and biscuit as well...
"The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man."
This will work for less than 1% of artists. The rest will starve.
Then the market has spoken. Or do you believe the current method is superior? it essentially reduces music to marketing and relies on tight controls to allow one hit to pat for many failures.
As a side note, I think you'd find more who make a livable income off their music but fewer meg-bands.
The Dead used the free model long before free software. You could record, copy, and trade their concerts - they even encouraged it. They made their money from concerts, memorabilia sales, and (gasp) records. It simply was uncool to bootleg Dead records; caus ethey were cool about letting you trade their concert tapes. It's about the music, man.
No, PowerPoint does not make us stupid.
PowerPoint exposes how stupid we already are. It shows that we have a swirling mess of semi-interconnected ideas and when we try to convey them, all we can produce is a swirling mess of semi-interconnected slides.
While PowerPoint does not make us stupid; how we use it does. We distill key points into a mess of bullet points, spend far to much time on making it pretty; having multiple layers of reviewers who make "happy to glad" changes; and then assume it imparts information. In short, we've forgotten how to brief information. I served before and during, PowerPoint, and briefings were way different BP. We seem to spend more time on the medium (PowerPoint) than the message. I yearn for the days when you hand drew slides and then actually explained what you meant. No one came in and said "Let's use 16 point MT Sans Crap font there and change the background shade. No, not that shade, another shade. BTW - is that font available in a serif?"
PP has it place, but I agree with Tufte - it is not really good at imparting information
Now, get off my lawn.
based on the blog, I didn't see the OP as a shot at the developer; it looked more like a complement. Reusing a perfectly good game engine (or storyline) and making an interesting new game (or story) with it is a real good business model. The comment about people liking interesting game play over gee whiz graphics only reinforces that. Many successful authors do that - read one Ludlum / WEB Griffin / Clancey novel and you've "read" them all; but their storytelling still pulls you in even if you know how the plot and characters will playout. As a consultant, I'm a firm believer in the "Create once, sell as often and for as much money as the market will bear as long as possible. Lather, rinse, and repeat."
No, not "GREEN", more like "It's a helluva lot less expensive to just not print the manuals!"
Exactly. One of the concepts I learned in psych was that you need to properly frame things to be a benefit to the customer; even if teh goal is simply to save costs. Hence, hotels "Use less water if you reuse a tool" and "Unless you ask we won't change sheets / vacuum during your stay"ather then "we only service the room every other day to save cash."
Using a mix of flash and spinning disk technology you could build a single hybrid drive that supports fast operation by optimizing what uses flash and what uses the older tech; this would increase the perceived speed of a machine while keeping costs lower. The OS would need to support such a drive; but it would result in faster machines with reasonably large storage capacities at a lower price point. It's not really a new idea, variations of the solid state / hard drive memory mix use have been around a while.
I realize you could use two drives; but shoe horning it into one laptop form factor would make it a lot easier to incorporate into existing laptop form factors; as well as add backwards compatibility via an OS update.
Except it's not that easy. Most of what happens on that show cannot be done.
My point exactly - defendants would benefit from the jury expectations. I was not quite as clear as I could have been.
After all, if you could run IT atop a Linux system should we oppose IT since IT would enable the tracking technology?
Please keep your pronouns to a single referent. You've got three 'it's with two different things you're referring to. Stop it. Thank you.
Actually, I have no it's.
Please review the grammar Nazi rules.
You're welcome. It's been a please to resolve the confusion it caused with it.
Just wait until CSI starts using this technology. Then it will be open-and-shut in the mind of any Juror.
Wiki the CSI effect.
Though, interestingly enough, from my discussions with lawyers and law enforcement people the problem is juries expect high tech and all kinds of forensic evidence; even when it is really overkill, becasue CSI shows how easy it is to get that kind of evidence.
Except most juvenile cases are decided before a judge, not a jury.
In addition, IAAL and I've done plenty of Juvenile defense cases and I can tell you that some of these kids need extra help as early as possible. Far too often, the reason a kid stays in a life of crime into adulthood is because the juvenile justice system is ill-equipped and has their hands tied in how to properly deal with these cases.
I see this as a potentially positive thing... and this is coming from a juvenile defense attorney.
I agree with you - people are far too willing to blame (and fear) a tool when the real issue is how it is used. After all, if you could run it atop a Linux system should we oppose it since it would enable the tracking technology?
More to your point, if predictive analyitcs is used to identify behaviors and environmental factors that lead to recurring problems and used to get someone help to modify or remove those behaviours and factors; rather than to merely convict them of "future crime" it can be a positive tool.