Scalping white men isn't necessary for survival (these days, anyway). The Inuit live in a place where it's difficult to find or grow other abundant sources of food, so whaling is nearly a necessity. (Although I'm reminded of Sam Kinison screaming, "You live in a f*cking desert! Move!" about the Ethiopian famine--if only it were that easy). And as for the other countries harvesting whales, you'll generally find there's a strong profit motive behind it. Not so much for the Inuit.
In your Linksys example, there is a hardware component that is not easy to replicate - there is a barrier to duplication. So in that case it is a great benefit to create and sell the hardware, but leave the software open so that the world can improve the functionality and attractiveness of the hardware you are selling.
Minor correction: Linksys (prior to the Cisco purchase) did not appear to have any intention of leaving the software open, to allow the world to improve it or for any other purpose. It wasn't until someone discovered they were using Linux that they were forced to open up some or all of their code.
A useful lesson was hopefully learned that at least for a hardware-based business model like that, opening up the code is far more beneficial than detrimental.
My point was that there is a very real danger that countries will develop (actually, have developed) these kinds of weapons for the purpose of maiming soldiers. The Geneva Conventions address this fact by specifically outlawing things like blinding lasers.
On the other hand, let the medic rescue the injured soldier. How many others need to then be involved transporting and treating the injured soldier? An injured soldier places a much greater burden on an army than a dead one, at least for serious injuries. Why else would the Geneva Convention need to be so concerned about outlawing "weapons of mass injury" designed to blind or otherwise incapacitate soldiers without actually killing them?
I was going to say this whole car analogy has been taken way too far, but then I realized maybe not. There are laws that apply to certain car modifications that have nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the manufacturer to prevent you from making those modifications. The DMCA would be analogous in this case, where removing DRM from a TIVO would be prevented not because of TIVO's rights, but because of a Federal law.
But this whole line of reasoning misses the point, anyway. The real issue is that TIVO is taking GPL'd code, including that in a product, and then locking it up in such a way as to prevent users/owners from modifying it. Ignoring the GPL aspect, they have every right to do that.
To beat the car analogy a little more, GM has every right to design a dashboard that uses custom wiring, connectors, and mountings for their stereos that would make it very hard to get an after market unit. They can even go so far as to patent some of that stuff so that you can't go out and buy a drop-in replacement from someone else. They can't prevent you from ripping theirs out and cobbling together some way to hook up a different one.
TIVO can design their hardware/software to be really, really hard to modify or replace, but they can't prevent you from trying. The DMCA is another story.
But getting back to the GPL issue, TIVO is taking advantage of the efforts of developers of GPL software and then forcing restrictions on users. If this violates GPLv3, then so be it. TIVO is free to license some other OS or write their own, or maybe even use BSD. Heck, if they were using a proprietary OS, you might see a statement in their SEC filing like, "Our OS vendor is likely to go out of business, forcing us to find an alternative". That's really pretty much the same thing from their point of view.
I think RMS is speaking of freedom from the point of view of the code, not the developer or user. I'm not sure RMS give's a rat's ass about your freedom. And if that's the case, he's not redefining freedom. Those that think so are placing themselves in the center of the discussion and not the code.
If MS is so altruistic, why didn't they make a move like this before OLPC gained significant traction?
I don't need to repeat the comment that MS is clearly interested in making sure the people in these nations are primarily exposed to MS software so they are more likely to just stick with it out of familiarity. Oh crap, I went ahead and repeated it anyway.
CS is NOT all about programming, there are countless branches of Computer Science were programming has *nothing* to do
And exactly what do you do with such a degree, aside from becoming a professor or researcher? And how many of those positions exist versus SW engineering/programming positions?
I agree with you that CS is not all about programming, which is why I tend to round-file any resumes I see from CS grads looking for SW engineering/programming positions. In my experience, they have little practical knowledge and skills, at least the graduates from some schools.
seriously, as of december, my wii has not been touched...the 2 360's in my house, on the other hand, are both played for hours daily
The demand for the Wii isn't coming from those with 2 360's who play for "hours daily", it's coming from the likes of me: father of two (ages 5 and 10) who's never owned a console and saw one that wouldn't require hours of investment to become good enough to begin to enjoy a game, and one that the kids could enjoy, too (not to mention the wife).
And boy do I feel lucky that I got one before Christmas!
Huh? The "action" in this case is the US government subsidizing corn grown for ethanol production. Imagine yourself a farmer with this choice: grow corn for food and take your chances with commodity pricing, or grow corn for ethanol and have the government guarantee a good price. Not a difficult choice. Now what happens to corn-for-food prices as you take a big chunk of the annual yield off the table, so to speak?
Maybe ethanol production when viewed as a completely stand-alone event is not the reason for corn prices going up, but then that wasn't really the original point, was it?
Does this strategy not forbid asking students to wrestle with the best questions? While all possible meaning may long since have been wrung from the familiar passages, is there not still value in new students struggling with these passages again for themselves? Perhaps the obscure passages are obscure for a reason: life is too short to spend on material of little consequence whose only recommendation is that it is found in a work that is important for other reasons.
You're missing the point of doing a term paper, I think. It's not about the subject--how many students that write papers on Milton (obscure passages or otherwise) go on to be Milton scholars? Maybe one? It's all about the process of thinking, researching, and writing.
One thing I learned in school, and now as a parent with school-age children, is that the effort you put into getting an education is far more important than the quality of the school or teachers. If a kid wants to put their effort into cheating, then they will build expertise in cheating. Unfortunately, that will equip them well to exceed in today's corporate management. Damn--my own arguments just bit me in the ass!
On a tangent, a friend who was a TA in a CompSci class in college used to catch the cheaters by holding print-outs of their programming assignments up to the light two at a time. The students who cheated generally were too lazy to even do a decent job of it. I suppose there's an argument that really good cheating (where there is minimal chance of getting caught) requires nearly as much effort as just doing the assignment properly, but the cheater isn't learning what was intended.
I'm not a student of history, so I can't support my position with a deep knowledge thereof. However, I think it's a fallacious leap to assume that a significant portion of the wealthy actively try to keep the poor poor. It seems logical that many or most wealthy attempt or at least desire to be even more wealthy, but that isn't the same as saying they want the poor to remain poor (or even get poorer).
You are assigning a level of directed malice to the wealthy that I just don't see making any sense. Take Bill Gates as an example (yeah, yeah, a favorite of/.). Is it in his best interest to expand the ranks of the poor? I don't think so. The more people who can afford PCs, Office, and other MS software, the better off he is. Likewise for many companies. Note that I didn't say before that the wealthy want more wealthy, just that it doesn't make sense for them to want the poor to remain poor.
Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich?
I have to say, I'm sick and tired of this argument. Of what use is it for a "rich" person to intentionally work to keep a "poor" person poor? Other than the odd sociopath who does it merely to inflict pain and suffering (the likes of which is not limited to any particular economic class; it's only the means with which to inflict pain that differs), there is no sense in this argument.
In fact, if you assume that most rich people earn (or get) their money through running a successful business, then it most certainly is not in their best interest to "keep the poor poor"[1]. They need someone to buy the stuff they are selling. Also, there is typically a certain ego involved that is stroked by running a company that employs more people than the competition. That tends to provide a way for the motivated poor to earn a living and potentially work their way up.
Are these "poor" going to become "rich" this way? Statistically it's unlikely, but any step up in economic status provides that much more opportunity (and comfort as far as standard of living). And yes, I'm aware that companies pay as little as they can to employees, but that's market driven and not purely a decision made by executives.
On the flip side, it's just as ridiculous to make the blanket statement that "The poor remain poor because of their own choices". There are far too many factors and individual situations to lump all poor into the same "lazy" or "stupid" bucket. Just as there are those rich people who really did nothing to earn or deserve their money, there are those poor people who have through no fault of their own not had the opportunity to better themselves. This is not a black and white issue.
[1] This doesn't apply to drug dealers and such who benefit from keeping their clientele in misery.
why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?
That's like saying, "Why imprison someone and torture them when you plan to kill them, anyway? I can't pretend to know what goes on in the mind of someone willing to make these threats or do these things, but even if a big part of the thrill is the terrorism, I wouldn't assume that the actual act is unnecessary to them.
The exact vendor selection criteria, often being secret, leaves vendors that had reasonable belief that they should have won completely baffled as to why they lost. Unlike commercial transactions, where there is no recourse, they can bring the case to court to see if there was any improper behavior in the vendor selection process.
I think it's the rare vendor who is naive enough to not understand how the process works. I used to work for an ultrasound company. All of the competitors in that market have their favorite doctors who advise on and test new products. To make sure that the "fanboy" docs can get the machines they want, unique (but mostly useless) features are added so there can be a line item in the requirements that will all but force selection of the desired vendor. Not unlike the previous comment that jokingly suggested a requirement that the voting machine have a "Diebold" label on it, just not quite so obvious.
"PDAs have already been crushed by smart phones and the same thing looks to be happening with standalone MP3 players...
I suspect the vast majority of people using PDAs also use cell phones and typically pay a fair amount for them (business users, primarily), so combining the two is a natural fit (except for form-factor issues). I don't think the same can be said for MP3 players, digital cameras, etc. My phone is reasonably small, but it's still 3 times the size of my MP3 player. That makes a big difference when I'm working out. And cell phones (at least reasonably priced ones) are a long long way from being even decent compared to a dedicated camera.
If you then take into consideration the convergence of camera, GPS, TV and laptop-like functionality into mobile phones
Just because those features are there doesn't necessarily make them good enough to replace a dedicated device. Having GPS in a phone might be a cool feature to some people, but to others it's just a useless extra-cost item. MS Word has every feature imaginable, but how many of them do you use? Wouldn't you like a version that had just what you use at half the cost (in dollars, memory, cpu cycles, UI complexity,...)?
I was going to say the same thing. I suspect that once people have to pay on a monthly basis, they'll take a harder look at what they are paying for.
It's like paying for a gym membership. If you go once a month, you're paying like $25 a visit, whereas if you go three times a week, you're paying you're paying closer to $2 a visit. So if you write one word doc a month, it would cost you $15. Is it really worth $15, or might OpenOffice for $0 suffice?
The best thing MS could do for OpenOffice and other OSS apps is to eliminate the free version of Word from new computers and replace it with a subscription service. Make people think about where their money is going and whether it's really worth it.
Let me guess--you're the guy in line behind me for a Wii, and when there weren't enough, you "settled" for a PS3. So now you've never actually played the Wii, and you're pissed that you spent $600 on a console when all your non-hardcore gamer friends are at the house of the guy who stuck it out and snagged a Wii.
Seriously, I had no intention of ever buying a console until the Wii caught my attention. I don't have the time or the inclination to spend hours a day learning arcane controller-button sequences. With the Wii, the controls tend to be completely intuitive.
Not sure about the details of EU law, but I don't think this is (at at least it shouldn't be) about whether copyright infringement should be punished. I have a hard time arguing that posting a bootleg movie for other to download is somehow justifiable.
The problem that I have with laws/directives like this is that they tend to encompass what should rightfully be considered fair use and are overly broadly written such that some pretty ridiculous abuses of the law result. Witness the DMCA in the US.
As several others pointed out, your analogy sucks.
I moved from CA to TX recently, and have been astounded by the difference in driving behavior here. In CA, the lane that is ending is always filled with idiots who have to get past as many other cars as possible. The merge point becomes a choke where everyone has to practically stop to safely accomplish the merging. I think a big part of the problem is the drivers who merged when they should have and try to do everything to keep the *ssholes from sneaking in. The whole situation tends to create a lot of stress and animosity.
Here in TX, I drive a stretch of freeway everyday that has a 3-to-2 merge, and it works fantastically well. I pass the merge point going 15-20 MPH, which would never happen if the left (closing) lane was filled with traffic. I've been in 1/4 to 1/2 mile slowdowns and had maybe three cars go by in the left lane. I tell you, after driving in CA for years, I'm almost happy when I hit traffic here. I'm certainly in a much better mood when I get home. In general, I find drivers here much more polite in almost all circumstances, and it seems to be contagious (the worst drivers I've seen tend to have out-of-state license plates).
Another note: the zipper thing might almost be applicable to a 2-to-1 merge (if everyone cooperated nicely), but not to a 3-to-2 or more. In a 3-to-2 or higher, cars in the ending lane (say, lane 3) have to slow way down to merge in to the next lane before running out of road. Drivers in lane 2 do one of two things usually: they tend to actively try to prevent the merge, or they move over to lane 1. The drivers in lane 1 are now irritated and try to prevent this merging. In the meantime, everyone is slowing down as other drivers cut in front of them with little warning. The inevitable result is a much more severe traffic jam than was warranted by the number of cars on the road.
And on a tangent, I sure wish everyone at a traffic light would watch the light and start to accelerate when the light turns green, rather than waiting for the car in front to move. I hate not even starting to move before the light has turned red again because the drivers ahead of me aren't paying attention, and their poor reaction time is compounded. Unfortunately, the proliferation of big SUVs and such makes it hard to see the light.
Re:The 360 is console done right, Wii is console .
on
Two Weeks with the Wii
·
· Score: 1
The failed launch and the fact that no one is really talking about it is because it's so hard to get ahold of the damn things.
Not in my experience. I've been in line for a Wii twice where I could have gotten a PS3 (the more expensive one, even) had I wanted it. Both times the Wiis ran short, and someone further down the line said, "Oh, well, I guess I'll just get a PS3. A guy I work with walked into a Walmart in a small town over Thanksgiving and they had three PS3s left over from the launch. Combined with similar comments here on this review, I would have to say that all the hard-core gamers got their PS3s, and demand has dropped off precipitously. At least enough so that I was not willing to take the risk of buying one and trying to resell it.
What's the real difference between what the offerings of the oil companies and the film-makers? Both have a vested interest in the issue, and both have done substantial research on the subject, research that merits careful consideration. But one is welcomed and the other is marginalized. The only difference, obviously, is cash.
Actually, I think the real difference is in the conditions behind the offers. The film-makers are trying to get their message out by giving away free copies of the film. As far as I am aware, they aren't putting any conditions on the give-away. The oil companies, on the other hand, appear (although this may be supposition on the part of the NSTA) to be placing certain conditions on their future contribution, such as "don't teach anything that would put us in a bad light." An accusation is made that the NSTA would rather not jeopardize that funding by showing the movie.
I'm not supporting the oil industry here, but I also don't like hypocrisy. The linked article implies that oil companies have threatened the NSTA with loss of future funding without evidence of such threats. It's easy to believe that such threats have been made, but it would be better to have evidence. Also, a big deal is made about the oil industry's contributions to the NSTA and their convention, but no mention is made of the other contributors. If bio-engineering companies are contributing, should we accuse them of trying to create a generation of GMO-lovers? If high-tech companies contribute, should we accuse them of trying to sweep the issue of e-waste under the rug?
My point is that all of these companies depend very heavily on well-trained, talented scientists. It is not unexpected or subversive that they would be giving lots of money to help foster science education to help create the next generation of the scientists and engineers that they will depend on. It would be great, though, if there was a way for them to contribute without even the appearance of using the contributions to influence the beliefs of those students.
A side point is that we need to be careful about treating some of these companies as faceless evil monsters. I don't particularly like Microsoft, but I certainly respect the talents of some of the engineers that work there. Similarly, I don't like how the oil companies behave, but at the same time, I recognize that there are brilliant scientists there who truly are trying to find ways to substantially lessen the environmental impact their companies have.
I think Joel and most or all of the responses here miss the real issue.
As a person, I don't want a ton of choices for different ways to do the same task. I want the system to work in the most intuitive way for me. If I never use hibernate, then I don't need to see it in a menu or on a button or whatever. I want the things I do most often to be easy to get to, the things I do less often to be easy to find, and the things I never do to be non-existent. And I don't want to have to go through some huge app like Word (or Emacs, for that matter) and customize every menu.
The problem is that you likely have a completely different set of desires and habits from me. So the choices in an app or Windows or Emacs are not to allow a user to do something in multiple different ways, they're to allow multiple different users to choose the one way they like to do it.
I was about to say that a good solution might be an app that "learns" my preferences and eliminates what I don't need, but then I remembered that this has been done to some extent in Windows and/or Office (sorry, I don't use Windows all that often to remember exactly). I find that I really hate that little arrow there saying, "hey, I've got a secret that I'm not showing you".
In the end, I think most users (the set of users that are not highly technically savvy) just want simple apps that do what they need them to do without having to think too much. On that I agree with Joel.
Slashdot Mirror
Scalping white men isn't necessary for survival (these days, anyway). The Inuit live in a place where it's difficult to find or grow other abundant sources of food, so whaling is nearly a necessity. (Although I'm reminded of Sam Kinison screaming, "You live in a f*cking desert! Move!" about the Ethiopian famine--if only it were that easy). And as for the other countries harvesting whales, you'll generally find there's a strong profit motive behind it. Not so much for the Inuit.
In your Linksys example, there is a hardware component that is not easy to replicate - there is a barrier to duplication. So in that case it is a great benefit to create and sell the hardware, but leave the software open so that the world can improve the functionality and attractiveness of the hardware you are selling.
Minor correction: Linksys (prior to the Cisco purchase) did not appear to have any intention of leaving the software open, to allow the world to improve it or for any other purpose. It wasn't until someone discovered they were using Linux that they were forced to open up some or all of their code.
A useful lesson was hopefully learned that at least for a hardware-based business model like that, opening up the code is far more beneficial than detrimental.
My point was that there is a very real danger that countries will develop (actually, have developed) these kinds of weapons for the purpose of maiming soldiers. The Geneva Conventions address this fact by specifically outlawing things like blinding lasers.
On the other hand, let the medic rescue the injured soldier. How many others need to then be involved transporting and treating the injured soldier? An injured soldier places a much greater burden on an army than a dead one, at least for serious injuries. Why else would the Geneva Convention need to be so concerned about outlawing "weapons of mass injury" designed to blind or otherwise incapacitate soldiers without actually killing them?
I was going to say this whole car analogy has been taken way too far, but then I realized maybe not. There are laws that apply to certain car modifications that have nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the manufacturer to prevent you from making those modifications. The DMCA would be analogous in this case, where removing DRM from a TIVO would be prevented not because of TIVO's rights, but because of a Federal law.
But this whole line of reasoning misses the point, anyway. The real issue is that TIVO is taking GPL'd code, including that in a product, and then locking it up in such a way as to prevent users/owners from modifying it. Ignoring the GPL aspect, they have every right to do that.
To beat the car analogy a little more, GM has every right to design a dashboard that uses custom wiring, connectors, and mountings for their stereos that would make it very hard to get an after market unit. They can even go so far as to patent some of that stuff so that you can't go out and buy a drop-in replacement from someone else. They can't prevent you from ripping theirs out and cobbling together some way to hook up a different one.
TIVO can design their hardware/software to be really, really hard to modify or replace, but they can't prevent you from trying. The DMCA is another story.
But getting back to the GPL issue, TIVO is taking advantage of the efforts of developers of GPL software and then forcing restrictions on users. If this violates GPLv3, then so be it. TIVO is free to license some other OS or write their own, or maybe even use BSD. Heck, if they were using a proprietary OS, you might see a statement in their SEC filing like, "Our OS vendor is likely to go out of business, forcing us to find an alternative". That's really pretty much the same thing from their point of view.
I think RMS is speaking of freedom from the point of view of the code, not the developer or user. I'm not sure RMS give's a rat's ass about your freedom. And if that's the case, he's not redefining freedom. Those that think so are placing themselves in the center of the discussion and not the code.
So, I have to wonder: how many of the PCs that this software will run on already have the MS tax priced into them?
If MS is so altruistic, why didn't they make a move like this before OLPC gained significant traction?
I don't need to repeat the comment that MS is clearly interested in making sure the people in these nations are primarily exposed to MS software so they are more likely to just stick with it out of familiarity. Oh crap, I went ahead and repeated it anyway.
CS is NOT all about programming, there are countless branches of Computer Science were programming has *nothing* to do
And exactly what do you do with such a degree, aside from becoming a professor or researcher? And how many of those positions exist versus SW engineering/programming positions?
I agree with you that CS is not all about programming, which is why I tend to round-file any resumes I see from CS grads looking for SW engineering/programming positions. In my experience, they have little practical knowledge and skills, at least the graduates from some schools.
You saved me a lot of typing.
I would have included the following quote:
seriously, as of december, my wii has not been touched...the 2 360's in my house, on the other hand, are both played for hours daily
The demand for the Wii isn't coming from those with 2 360's who play for "hours daily", it's coming from the likes of me: father of two (ages 5 and 10) who's never owned a console and saw one that wouldn't require hours of investment to become good enough to begin to enjoy a game, and one that the kids could enjoy, too (not to mention the wife).
And boy do I feel lucky that I got one before Christmas!
Huh? The "action" in this case is the US government subsidizing corn grown for ethanol production. Imagine yourself a farmer with this choice: grow corn for food and take your chances with commodity pricing, or grow corn for ethanol and have the government guarantee a good price. Not a difficult choice. Now what happens to corn-for-food prices as you take a big chunk of the annual yield off the table, so to speak?
Maybe ethanol production when viewed as a completely stand-alone event is not the reason for corn prices going up, but then that wasn't really the original point, was it?
Does this strategy not forbid asking students to wrestle with the best questions? While all possible meaning may long since have been wrung from the familiar passages, is there not still value in new students struggling with these passages again for themselves? Perhaps the obscure passages are obscure for a reason: life is too short to spend on material of little consequence whose only recommendation is that it is found in a work that is important for other reasons.
You're missing the point of doing a term paper, I think. It's not about the subject--how many students that write papers on Milton (obscure passages or otherwise) go on to be Milton scholars? Maybe one? It's all about the process of thinking, researching, and writing.
One thing I learned in school, and now as a parent with school-age children, is that the effort you put into getting an education is far more important than the quality of the school or teachers. If a kid wants to put their effort into cheating, then they will build expertise in cheating. Unfortunately, that will equip them well to exceed in today's corporate management. Damn--my own arguments just bit me in the ass!
On a tangent, a friend who was a TA in a CompSci class in college used to catch the cheaters by holding print-outs of their programming assignments up to the light two at a time. The students who cheated generally were too lazy to even do a decent job of it. I suppose there's an argument that really good cheating (where there is minimal chance of getting caught) requires nearly as much effort as just doing the assignment properly, but the cheater isn't learning what was intended.
I'm not a student of history, so I can't support my position with a deep knowledge thereof. However, I think it's a fallacious leap to assume that a significant portion of the wealthy actively try to keep the poor poor. It seems logical that many or most wealthy attempt or at least desire to be even more wealthy, but that isn't the same as saying they want the poor to remain poor (or even get poorer).
/.). Is it in his best interest to expand the ranks of the poor? I don't think so. The more people who can afford PCs, Office, and other MS software, the better off he is. Likewise for many companies. Note that I didn't say before that the wealthy want more wealthy, just that it doesn't make sense for them to want the poor to remain poor.
You are assigning a level of directed malice to the wealthy that I just don't see making any sense. Take Bill Gates as an example (yeah, yeah, a favorite of
Or for that matter, what about the personal responsibility of the rich themselves? Why is it okay for them to use money and power to keep the poor poor and them rich?
I have to say, I'm sick and tired of this argument. Of what use is it for a "rich" person to intentionally work to keep a "poor" person poor? Other than the odd sociopath who does it merely to inflict pain and suffering (the likes of which is not limited to any particular economic class; it's only the means with which to inflict pain that differs), there is no sense in this argument.
In fact, if you assume that most rich people earn (or get) their money through running a successful business, then it most certainly is not in their best interest to "keep the poor poor"[1]. They need someone to buy the stuff they are selling. Also, there is typically a certain ego involved that is stroked by running a company that employs more people than the competition. That tends to provide a way for the motivated poor to earn a living and potentially work their way up.
Are these "poor" going to become "rich" this way? Statistically it's unlikely, but any step up in economic status provides that much more opportunity (and comfort as far as standard of living). And yes, I'm aware that companies pay as little as they can to employees, but that's market driven and not purely a decision made by executives.
On the flip side, it's just as ridiculous to make the blanket statement that "The poor remain poor because of their own choices". There are far too many factors and individual situations to lump all poor into the same "lazy" or "stupid" bucket. Just as there are those rich people who really did nothing to earn or deserve their money, there are those poor people who have through no fault of their own not had the opportunity to better themselves. This is not a black and white issue.
[1] This doesn't apply to drug dealers and such who benefit from keeping their clientele in misery.
why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?
That's like saying, "Why imprison someone and torture them when you plan to kill them, anyway? I can't pretend to know what goes on in the mind of someone willing to make these threats or do these things, but even if a big part of the thrill is the terrorism, I wouldn't assume that the actual act is unnecessary to them.
I think it's the rare vendor who is naive enough to not understand how the process works. I used to work for an ultrasound company. All of the competitors in that market have their favorite doctors who advise on and test new products. To make sure that the "fanboy" docs can get the machines they want, unique (but mostly useless) features are added so there can be a line item in the requirements that will all but force selection of the desired vendor. Not unlike the previous comment that jokingly suggested a requirement that the voting machine have a "Diebold" label on it, just not quite so obvious.
I suspect the vast majority of people using PDAs also use cell phones and typically pay a fair amount for them (business users, primarily), so combining the two is a natural fit (except for form-factor issues). I don't think the same can be said for MP3 players, digital cameras, etc. My phone is reasonably small, but it's still 3 times the size of my MP3 player. That makes a big difference when I'm working out. And cell phones (at least reasonably priced ones) are a long long way from being even decent compared to a dedicated camera.
Just because those features are there doesn't necessarily make them good enough to replace a dedicated device. Having GPS in a phone might be a cool feature to some people, but to others it's just a useless extra-cost item. MS Word has every feature imaginable, but how many of them do you use? Wouldn't you like a version that had just what you use at half the cost (in dollars, memory, cpu cycles, UI complexity,
I was going to say the same thing. I suspect that once people have
to pay on a monthly basis, they'll take a harder look at what they
are paying for.
It's like paying for a gym membership. If you go once a month, you're
paying like $25 a visit, whereas if you go three times a week, you're
paying you're paying closer to $2 a visit. So if you write one word
doc a month, it would cost you $15. Is it really worth $15, or might
OpenOffice for $0 suffice?
The best thing MS could do for OpenOffice and other OSS apps is to
eliminate the free version of Word from new computers and replace it
with a subscription service. Make people think about where their
money is going and whether it's really worth it.
Let me guess--you're the guy in line behind me for a Wii, and when there
weren't enough, you "settled" for a PS3. So now you've never actually
played the Wii, and you're pissed that you spent $600 on a console when
all your non-hardcore gamer friends are at the house of the guy who stuck
it out and snagged a Wii.
Seriously, I had no intention of ever buying a console until the Wii
caught my attention. I don't have the time or the inclination to spend
hours a day learning arcane controller-button sequences. With the Wii,
the controls tend to be completely intuitive.
Not sure about the details of EU law, but I don't think this is (at at least it shouldn't be) about whether copyright infringement should be punished. I have a hard time arguing that posting a bootleg movie for other to download is somehow justifiable.
The problem that I have with laws/directives like this is that they tend to encompass what should rightfully be considered fair use and are overly broadly written such that some pretty ridiculous abuses of the law result. Witness the DMCA in the US.
As several others pointed out, your analogy sucks.
I moved from CA to TX recently, and have been astounded by the difference in driving behavior here. In CA, the lane that is ending is always filled with idiots who have to get past as many other cars as possible. The merge point becomes a choke where everyone has to practically stop to safely accomplish the merging. I think a big part of the problem is the drivers who merged when they should have and try to do everything to keep the *ssholes from sneaking in. The whole situation tends to create a lot of stress and animosity.
Here in TX, I drive a stretch of freeway everyday that has a 3-to-2 merge, and it works fantastically well. I pass the merge point going 15-20 MPH, which would never happen if the left (closing) lane was filled with traffic. I've been in 1/4 to 1/2 mile slowdowns and had maybe three cars go by in the left lane. I tell you, after driving in CA for years, I'm almost happy when I hit traffic here. I'm certainly in a much better mood when I get home. In general, I find drivers here much more polite in almost all circumstances, and it seems to be contagious (the worst drivers I've seen tend to have out-of-state license plates).
Another note: the zipper thing might almost be applicable to a 2-to-1 merge (if everyone cooperated nicely), but not to a 3-to-2 or more. In a 3-to-2 or higher, cars in the ending lane (say, lane 3) have to slow way down to merge in to the next lane before running out of road. Drivers in lane 2 do one of two things usually: they tend to actively try to prevent the merge, or they move over to lane 1. The drivers in lane 1 are now irritated and try to prevent this merging. In the meantime, everyone is slowing down as other drivers cut in front of them with little warning. The inevitable result is a much more severe traffic jam than was warranted by the number of cars on the road.
And on a tangent, I sure wish everyone at a traffic light would watch the light and start to accelerate when the light turns green, rather than waiting for the car in front to move. I hate not even starting to move before the light has turned red again because the drivers ahead of me aren't paying attention, and their poor reaction time is compounded. Unfortunately, the proliferation of big SUVs and such makes it hard to see the light.
The failed launch and the fact that no one is really talking about it is because it's so hard to get ahold of the damn things.
Not in my experience. I've been in line for a Wii twice where I could have gotten a PS3 (the more expensive one, even) had I wanted it. Both times the Wiis ran short, and someone further down the line said, "Oh, well, I guess I'll just get a PS3. A guy I work with walked into a Walmart in a small town over Thanksgiving and they had three PS3s left over from the launch. Combined with similar comments here on this review, I would have to say that all the hard-core gamers got their PS3s, and demand has dropped off precipitously. At least enough so that I was not willing to take the risk of buying one and trying to resell it.
What's the real difference between what the offerings of the oil companies and the film-makers? Both have a vested interest in the issue, and both have done substantial research on the subject, research that merits careful consideration. But one is welcomed and the other is marginalized. The only difference, obviously, is cash.
Actually, I think the real difference is in the conditions behind the offers. The film-makers are trying to get their message out by giving away free copies of the film. As far as I am aware, they aren't putting any conditions on the give-away. The oil companies, on the other hand, appear (although this may be supposition on the part of the NSTA) to be placing certain conditions on their future contribution, such as "don't teach anything that would put us in a bad light." An accusation is made that the NSTA would rather not jeopardize that funding by showing the movie.
I'm not supporting the oil industry here, but I also don't like hypocrisy. The linked article implies that oil companies have threatened the NSTA with loss of future funding without evidence of such threats. It's easy to believe that such threats have been made, but it would be better to have evidence. Also, a big deal is made about the oil industry's contributions to the NSTA and their convention, but no mention is made of the other contributors. If bio-engineering companies are contributing, should we accuse them of trying to create a generation of GMO-lovers? If high-tech companies contribute, should we accuse them of trying to sweep the issue of e-waste under the rug?
My point is that all of these companies depend very heavily on well-trained, talented scientists. It is not unexpected or subversive that they would be giving lots of money to help foster science education to help create the next generation of the scientists and engineers that they will depend on. It would be great, though, if there was a way for them to contribute without even the appearance of using the contributions to influence the beliefs of those students.
A side point is that we need to be careful about treating some of these companies as faceless evil monsters. I don't particularly like Microsoft, but I certainly respect the talents of some of the engineers that work there. Similarly, I don't like how the oil companies behave, but at the same time, I recognize that there are brilliant scientists there who truly are trying to find ways to substantially lessen the environmental impact their companies have.
I think Joel and most or all of the responses here miss the real issue.
As a person, I don't want a ton of choices for different ways to do the same task. I want the system to work in the most intuitive way for me. If I never use hibernate, then I don't need to see it in a menu or on a button or whatever. I want the things I do most often to be easy to get to, the things I do less often to be easy to find, and the things I never do to be non-existent. And I don't want to have to go through some huge app like Word (or Emacs, for that matter) and customize every menu.
The problem is that you likely have a completely different set of desires and habits from me. So the choices in an app or Windows or Emacs are not to allow a user to do something in multiple different ways, they're to allow multiple different users to choose the one way they like to do it.
I was about to say that a good solution might be an app that "learns" my preferences and eliminates what I don't need, but then I remembered that this has been done to some extent in Windows and/or Office (sorry, I don't use Windows all that often to remember exactly). I find that I really hate that little arrow there saying, "hey, I've got a secret that I'm not showing you".
In the end, I think most users (the set of users that are not highly technically savvy) just want simple apps that do what they need them to do without having to think too much. On that I agree with Joel.
And you will stop perpetuating this kind of lawyer-centric society.
Um, read the article, no lawyers involved.