The implication here being that juvenile == trash.
Whenever I hear someone make that kind of argument I think they must be a real snob. Like people who don't like things that are too popular. The kind of people who think they are clever and sophisticated. Wankers.
No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.
Yep, I mean that's why we have the internet in the first place, isn't it? It was created by free markets. The idea that government could create such a thing is laughable. Oh, hang on. Now I'm a bit confused...
Just because you're right, its still kinda wrong;)
Why is it wrong? Pretending there are no differences between men and women might be politically correct, but I don't think it is necessarily helpful. In fact I think it is the root of many social problems today.
Someone with experience in psychology care to explain this?
Read "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus". It's quite interesting on how men and women think differently.
I have to say, it actually helped me a lot - I was having loads of arguments with my girlfriend at the time, and that book made me realise that the root of the arguments was often that we were treating the same subject in very different ways.
The gist of it is that men always try to fix things - they talk to solve problems. However women like to talk about their problems but don't necessarily want you to help fix them. So a major source of conflict is often the different way men and women "wind down" after work. Men often want to be slient - read the newspaper or watch TV - and that way they gradually relax. Women want to talk about the day - that's their way to relax. Of course this causes problems because the two ways to wind down don't co-exist well.
Sorry, this is going to come across a bit sexist, but it's an observation of mine that I think is true.
When women use cashpoints, they will often get out tiny amounts of money. Like, ten or twenty pounds. When men use them, they get out much bigger quantities, so they don't have to visit them so often.
I've had girlfriends that have driven me nuts getting out ten pounds, and then a few hours later having to hunt for a cashpoint so they can do it again.
Is this a valid observation or am I just a sexist?
What you might find truly surprising, however, is that as a rule, large banks actually lose money on these moneymakers
Oh, poor banks! They have to pay for cash machines and they don't profit from them!
The banks have to have cash machines, if they didn't then they would lose lots of customers to the banks that did have them.
So, if they are charging customers from other banks, that money is profit, since they would have to have the machines for their existing customers anyway.
The Stone Masson Association of America will not stand for such a thing. They will soon lobby for a DMCA-like legislation to outlaw progress like this.
You joke about this, but this is exactly what happened with industries in the past - laws have been passed so that people can continue profitting from them when new technologies have threatened people's livelyhoods.
Consider - once upon a time, if you were a story teller, the way you would make more money was by visiting towns and telling your stories, and people would pay you for them, presumably the better ones would get a bigger audience and so earn more. But you wouldn't get rich by it. Then the printing press came along, which had the potential to rob storytellers of their livelyhood. So we made laws such that the original storyteller could make money on every copy of his work sold.
Similarly, if you were a musician a few hundred years ago, the only way you could make money was by playing live. Then recorded music came along - this had the potential to rob musicians of their income - they were now only needed to play the music once, and the a recording to be listened to again and again. So again, laws were made so that musicians could maintain their income.
In the past, artists and composers were comissioned by weathly people to do original artworks for them. Now they can profit from reproductions of their works, so they don't need the wealthy patrons. But only because we have made laws that allow that.
If you have a satellite internet connection (which you might need in places where the telephone service is very poor, in parts of Africa for instance) then you will pay around $10 a megabyte today if you pay as you go.
I have a friend who pays this much, so I always keep my emails to him short, and don't attach a sig.
If that coffee shop goes under, it's not the fault of Starbucks, but the cheap customers.
This is a common argument, often heard with regards to Walmart - "hey, if the mom and pop can't compete with Walmart, it's there fault!" Or alternatively, "it's the customers choice, and customers prefer Walmart!" That kind of stuff.
It's not true of course. A highstreet coffee shop that has been going for years might not be able to survive if it loses all its tourist trade, even if it has lots of locals that love it. So the locals suffer, and the character of the locality suffers.
The cost of the testing, and time involved, has very little to do with what new features were added or changed, os it works out far better for people who test their products, if they have releases less often.
This is only true if you don't actually test properly.
I used to work on transaction processing software for banks. Each line of code would be tested thoughly. A one-line code change would involve n tests, a ten-line code change would involve 10*n tests.
It is nonsensical to say that the cost of testing has no relation to what features have been added or changed.
I dont want to install an application that has partial or buggy implementation
You shouldn't have to. We're talking about incremental releases, i.e. releasing small changes frequently, rather than large changes infrequently. That's got nothing to do with how the software is tested and quality controlled.
Didn't they already try this "subscription" method, with horrid results?
Yes, they tried the subscription method, but in conjunction with the major release model of software production - with horrid results. People understandably did not like paying for nothing. If they did increamental releases, people would be happier with a subscription payment.
I've often wondered why Microsoft and the other main software companies have not abandonded the idea of major product releases. Incremental releases (like those in the OSS world) make a lot more sense, as the product then evolves more organically. There is no real reason why MS couldn't start doing this for it's products. It would be much easier to get people to "subscribe" to products then, which would be good in the long term for Microsoft's revenue stream.
Perhaps they are targeting Africa so they don't tread on Microsoft's toes too much?
Actually, it's probably so they're not treading on their own toes - I expect HP makes a lot of money selling IT kit to schools in "first world" countries and they don't want to start to dramatically undercut themselves.
I don't know why they are targetting this at Africa. There are plenty of other countries where schools don't have enough computers. The UK for instance - many schools in the UK struggle with very low IT budgets. This would be great of them.
Perhaps they are targeting Africa so they don't tread on Microsoft's toes too much?
I'm the older brother of Linus. Our wicked parents have kept me locked in the basement since the day I was born, due to me being somewhat weird looking and stinky.
I've lived all my life locked in a cold, damp basement in my parents house in a little town in Finland. My only light is the dull glow of my greenscreen monitor. I've never washed or cut my hair. All I've ever had for company is an old 486, and Terry the rat (but he died of the cold and so I ate him).
I wrote Linux, and my evil little brother Linus stole it from me!!
P.S. If you've ever chatted to hotgirl19@hotmail.com, that's me!
I know I'm going to get myself into trouble for saying this, but "breeding" is NOT evolution!
That is a nonsensical statement. Breeding is fundamental to evolution, whether it be sexual reproduction or asexual splitting. Of course, breeding itself isn't evolution, but it is the process through which evolution occurs.
You seem to assume that the genes are unitary, descrete entities - that evolution occurs when, (to use your example) a giraffe suddenly gets the correct genes to develop gills. Genetics is much more complex than this.
Then there's Spain. I find the phrase "undermine political credibility in Europe" to be a laughable concept when an entire country changes its majority party in a radical direction because of a single terrorist bombing.
I live in Spain, and I lived through those days of the bombing and elections shortly afterwards. I can tell you something with certainty -- the election went the way it did not because of the bombing, but because of the governing party's response to it. They tried to very crudely manipulate public opinion in the aftermath of the bombing so that the elections would go in their favour. The public was responding to the governments blatent attempt to manipulate them, not the bombing per se.
It's a real shame that it was presented in a lot of the American press differently, because Bush could learn a lot from the Spanish public's response to the governing party's attempted manipulation -- lie to the electorate, and they'll punish you for it.
Estate holders only consider the money side of things
No they don't. They often want editorial control as well. Which was the problem in case case, and I believe has been a problem with the Tolkein estate aswell.
Slashdot Mirror
"juvenile trash"
The implication here being that juvenile == trash.
Whenever I hear someone make that kind of argument I think they must be a real snob. Like people who don't like things that are too popular. The kind of people who think they are clever and sophisticated. Wankers.
No. Having a bunch of providers is exactly what will spur higher bandwidths and lower prices. It is called the free market system.
Yep, I mean that's why we have the internet in the first place, isn't it? It was created by free markets. The idea that government could create such a thing is laughable. Oh, hang on. Now I'm a bit confused...
The United States considers itself the centre of technological innovation
Yes, the USA considers itself the centre of technological innovation, but that doesn't mean it is.
Places like Japan, Northern Europe, and as this article discusses Korea, are ahead of the USA in many respects.
Just because you're right, its still kinda wrong ;)
Why is it wrong? Pretending there are no differences between men and women might be politically correct, but I don't think it is necessarily helpful. In fact I think it is the root of many social problems today.
Someone with experience in psychology care to explain this?
Read "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus". It's quite interesting on how men and women think differently.
I have to say, it actually helped me a lot - I was having loads of arguments with my girlfriend at the time, and that book made me realise that the root of the arguments was often that we were treating the same subject in very different ways.
The gist of it is that men always try to fix things - they talk to solve problems. However women like to talk about their problems but don't necessarily want you to help fix them. So a major source of conflict is often the different way men and women "wind down" after work. Men often want to be slient - read the newspaper or watch TV - and that way they gradually relax. Women want to talk about the day - that's their way to relax. Of course this causes problems because the two ways to wind down don't co-exist well.
Sorry, this is going to come across a bit sexist, but it's an observation of mine that I think is true.
When women use cashpoints, they will often get out tiny amounts of money. Like, ten or twenty pounds. When men use them, they get out much bigger quantities, so they don't have to visit them so often.
I've had girlfriends that have driven me nuts getting out ten pounds, and then a few hours later having to hunt for a cashpoint so they can do it again.
Is this a valid observation or am I just a sexist?
From the article:
What you might find truly surprising, however, is that as a rule, large banks actually lose money on these moneymakers
Oh, poor banks! They have to pay for cash machines and they don't profit from them!
The banks have to have cash machines, if they didn't then they would lose lots of customers to the banks that did have them.
So, if they are charging customers from other banks, that money is profit, since they would have to have the machines for their existing customers anyway.
Good idea. The only problem is that the baby would have to keep completely still while scanned, which might be diffcult.
Would work for a sleeping baby though.
The Stone Masson Association of America will not stand for such a thing. They will soon lobby for a DMCA-like legislation to outlaw progress like this.
You joke about this, but this is exactly what happened with industries in the past - laws have been passed so that people can continue profitting from them when new technologies have threatened people's livelyhoods.
Consider - once upon a time, if you were a story teller, the way you would make more money was by visiting towns and telling your stories, and people would pay you for them, presumably the better ones would get a bigger audience and so earn more. But you wouldn't get rich by it. Then the printing press came along, which had the potential to rob storytellers of their livelyhood. So we made laws such that the original storyteller could make money on every copy of his work sold.
Similarly, if you were a musician a few hundred years ago, the only way you could make money was by playing live. Then recorded music came along - this had the potential to rob musicians of their income - they were now only needed to play the music once, and the a recording to be listened to again and again. So again, laws were made so that musicians could maintain their income.
In the past, artists and composers were comissioned by weathly people to do original artworks for them. Now they can profit from reproductions of their works, so they don't need the wealthy patrons. But only because we have made laws that allow that.
If you have a satellite internet connection (which you might need in places where the telephone service is very poor, in parts of Africa for instance) then you will pay around $10 a megabyte today if you pay as you go.
I have a friend who pays this much, so I always keep my emails to him short, and don't attach a sig.
Anyone know of anything like emachineshop in the UK or mainland Europe?
If that coffee shop goes under, it's not the fault of Starbucks, but the cheap customers.
This is a common argument, often heard with regards to Walmart - "hey, if the mom and pop can't compete with Walmart, it's there fault!" Or alternatively, "it's the customers choice, and customers prefer Walmart!" That kind of stuff.
It's not true of course. A highstreet coffee shop that has been going for years might not be able to survive if it loses all its tourist trade, even if it has lots of locals that love it. So the locals suffer, and the character of the locality suffers.
I agree. It is sad when you think he is visiting other countries to go to Starbuck, because it is pretty much the same verywhere in the world.
Starbucks in Tokyo is pretty much the same as Starbucks in London. But Tokyo and London are fascinating.
A very sad hobby this man has.
Certain types of humour require a higher level of intelligence and cultural sophistication to appreciate. Benny Hill doesn't. Monty Python does.
Elitist, snobby comment? Probably. But is it true?
The cost of the testing, and time involved, has very little to do with what new features were added or changed, os it works out far better for people who test their products, if they have releases less often.
This is only true if you don't actually test properly.
I used to work on transaction processing software for banks. Each line of code would be tested thoughly. A one-line code change would involve n tests, a ten-line code change would involve 10*n tests.
It is nonsensical to say that the cost of testing has no relation to what features have been added or changed.
I dont want to install an application that has partial or buggy implementation
You shouldn't have to. We're talking about incremental releases, i.e. releasing small changes frequently, rather than large changes infrequently. That's got nothing to do with how the software is tested and quality controlled.
Didn't they already try this "subscription" method, with horrid results?
Yes, they tried the subscription method, but in conjunction with the major release model of software production - with horrid results. People understandably did not like paying for nothing. If they did increamental releases, people would be happier with a subscription payment.
I've often wondered why Microsoft and the other main software companies have not abandonded the idea of major product releases. Incremental releases (like those in the OSS world) make a lot more sense, as the product then evolves more organically. There is no real reason why MS couldn't start doing this for it's products. It would be much easier to get people to "subscribe" to products then, which would be good in the long term for Microsoft's revenue stream.
Perhaps they are targeting Africa so they don't tread on Microsoft's toes too much?
Actually, it's probably so they're not treading on their own toes - I expect HP makes a lot of money selling IT kit to schools in "first world" countries and they don't want to start to dramatically undercut themselves.
I don't know why they are targetting this at Africa. There are plenty of other countries where schools don't have enough computers. The UK for instance - many schools in the UK struggle with very low IT budgets. This would be great of them.
Perhaps they are targeting Africa so they don't tread on Microsoft's toes too much?
I'm the older brother of Linus. Our wicked parents have kept me locked in the basement since the day I was born, due to me being somewhat weird looking and stinky.
I've lived all my life locked in a cold, damp basement in my parents house in a little town in Finland. My only light is the dull glow of my greenscreen monitor. I've never washed or cut my hair. All I've ever had for company is an old 486, and Terry the rat (but he died of the cold and so I ate him).
I wrote Linux, and my evil little brother Linus stole it from me!!
P.S. If you've ever chatted to hotgirl19@hotmail.com, that's me!
I know I'm going to get myself into trouble for saying this, but "breeding" is NOT evolution!
That is a nonsensical statement. Breeding is fundamental to evolution, whether it be sexual reproduction or asexual splitting. Of course, breeding itself isn't evolution, but it is the process through which evolution occurs.
You seem to assume that the genes are unitary, descrete entities - that evolution occurs when, (to use your example) a giraffe suddenly gets the correct genes to develop gills. Genetics is much more complex than this.
This has been know about for ages in the world of UI design. I mean, it's the whole basis of the "desktop" metaphor.
The little folder on the desktop isn't really a folder in the physical sense, but it's a very helpful way for users to envisage where there files are.
Then there's Spain. I find the phrase "undermine political credibility in Europe" to be a laughable concept when an entire country changes its majority party in a radical direction because of a single terrorist bombing.
I live in Spain, and I lived through those days of the bombing and elections shortly afterwards. I can tell you something with certainty -- the election went the way it did not because of the bombing, but because of the governing party's response to it. They tried to very crudely manipulate public opinion in the aftermath of the bombing so that the elections would go in their favour. The public was responding to the governments blatent attempt to manipulate them, not the bombing per se.
It's a real shame that it was presented in a lot of the American press differently, because Bush could learn a lot from the Spanish public's response to the governing party's attempted manipulation -- lie to the electorate, and they'll punish you for it.
Estate holders only consider the money side of things
No they don't. They often want editorial control as well. Which was the problem in case case, and I believe has been a problem with the Tolkein estate aswell.