Emerson was the first one to popularize the myth that if one were to "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door", and yes for the pedants out there I realize this is a misquotation of what Emerson really said, but the juice of it is a maxim that many individuals use to understand the process of innovation. Unfortunately, when observed through the lens of history, the maxim does not hold water.
The truth about innovation is that it occurs when the right mix of entities are brought together in a way that has never been done before to create a distinct advantage in the market. To illustrate this point, look at what Henry Ford did with the Model-T and how he altered the landscape of factories throughout the world. He didn't invent new technologies, he took technologies being utilized in other industries and adapted them for his needs. Thereby allowing for a streamlined factory where metal came in one end, and completed cars came out the other end. There are many entities involved in innovation and I've merely down a fly-over of what Henry Ford did, but I think it helps to illustrate the point that I was making at the beginning... Being the best product is never enough.
My guess is there is rhyme and reason to why they're making this announcement so public Say what you will about the bureaucrats who run these bureaus but they understand the relationships you described above and these are not idle statements.
Most individuals, upon completing a university education should have been exposed to Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and the wisdom on prevailing in conflicts explored in that text has stood 5,000 years of scrutiny. So what I'm saying is, don't underestimate this action. Our politicians are stupid because they pander to groups, thereby inducing the lowest common denominator. They often make the bureaucrats look stupid with their double-talk and ineptitudes, but perception is rarely reality.
Ideologically you may disagree with these people, but make no mistake about it, this was planned action and not a mere oversight.
C'mon now, communism is new player on the field. Religion has been the best in the game for 5,000 years and was probably the best in the game prior to that as well but we got no recorded records....
Communism has a lot of work to do if it EVER wants to catch religion and religion just keeps churning the numbers out like its going out of style.
I don't think you know that much about the Beatles good sir, but their time in Hamburg, at least to me, constitutes prolonged work perfecting their craft.
There are no prodigies, some people just reach 10,000 hours doing a single task faster than others. And clearly some people retain a higher level of mastery in those 10,000 hours but when we witness mastery there is 10,000 hours behind it.
So you're main point of criticism is to go after Microsoft for behaving like every other business in a free market? Every business acts to protect its self interest. This means that they often take hypocritical stands and I can't think of many corporations that have not done this at some point or another. The merits of the free market can certainly be debated, though in my mind a better alternative does not exist (Churchill's dictum comes to mind: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time").
So in essence I applaud you for your choice not to support Microsoft, as that is the means by which the market dictates the rules to corporations, but with that said Microsoft is behaving no differently than Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs et al. In my mind, sufficient evidences exists to suggest that protecting ones interests is hardcoded into our DNA and so in an effort to move the discussion forward I like to use this as my basis. I'm all for corporate responsibility and a clear and transparent system where hypocrisy doesn't abound but the system that we have is a byproduct of our nature and to think that changes can be made to impulses that have been honed over millions of years seems the height of arrogance.
Yes, there is a very long line of individuals responsible for what happened. We are of all ages, shapes and colors. But what cannot be argued, is that bankers are at the very front of this line followed closely by lobbyists and politicians.
This reminds me very much of what I saw occur following the financial meltdown; suddenly every major retail outlet I shopped at was soliciting donations for the latest fad. At the end of every transaction at stores like Safeway and Target, I would be asked if I wanted to donate $2 to breast cancer awareness or prostate cancer awareness. And when I'd say no, invariably the clerk behind the register would give me a dirty look.
At the end of the day, I'm not so interested in giving my money to Safeway so that they can say they raised $2 million dollars for breast cancer awareness and then take a nice tax cut for being an "ethical" corporation.
Viewing this as a censorship misconstrues the real motives behind what occurred and clouds the implications and legal precedent. What I mean is, this is an instance of a corporation dictating what is and is not acceptable on their private service. They have a right to protect their investment and flexed that right by banning this product.
This individual has not been censored in a traditional sense. He is not prevented from creating a website, a facebook account and a twitter account to support his view point and provide "help" for others. Moreover, the andriod software community has proven to be much more open to contentious apps so there is a medium by which he can sell his app to smart phone users.
There is no censorship laws that require a private entity (they're public I know, but I mean it as separate from the government) to give voice to things that they are opposed to.
This is corporate censorship, this is not government censorship. There's a huge difference.
This individuals ability to speak about his beliefs have not been inhibited. He can still create a website, facebook account, twitter account to express his beliefs. Apple has said that they will not tolerate people monetizing things on their platform that they find offensive. It is a private service, that the consumer can choose to use or not. And there's another sandbox that is much more open to "controversial" topics. It's called the Android, so he in fact is not censored but merely told that he will not be permitted to play in this sandbox.
It's fun to see you being critical of the left wind for being hypocritical, because usually the right wing is busy talking about the rights of the corporation... which Apple just flexed... in a way that bothers you.
It is important to note that the App Store is a private service, and at least how the law is setup currently they have every right to decide what is damaging to their ecosystem and they are not required to act as a voice for things they disagree with. SF Library System is a wonderful example of censorship, but censorship in the big "C" sense (aka the sort of censorship that prohibits people from communicating) is not present in the case with Apple.
This guy could go make a website that does the same thing as his app and Apple wouldn't say a word about it. But they have every right to protect their sandbox how they see fit.
Though I don't disagree with the slippery slope argument, I think it's important to note in this discussion that the Apple Store is a private service, as such its under their discretion to determine what is damaging to the ecosystem. If we don't like their rules, use other services.
This isn't censorship in the sense that the government is dictating what is and is not acceptable but rather this is corporate censorship which is something that has been grappled with in this country for quite some time and I can't think of too many examples where the government has stepped in said, "No you can't do that".
At the end of the day, all Apple has to do is create a compelling argument that this sort of material damages their ecosystem and our court system will back them full tilt. My power as a consumer is to go elsewhere, all and all not a terrible system though not perfect either.
So on what grounds do you have more credibility than Georgia Tech? I mean you've basically just called GT Researchers frauds and snake oil salesmen, so is that backed by any evidence?
I'm not expert in this field, nor an expert on "Internet Weather Stations" so I won't even try to assess the applicability of these tools. I'm sure if packaged correctly they could be a viable suite to do what you say, and if it is so easy why don't you go monetize it?
And sure if a government entity had won this award, I'd agree that the likely result would be the telcos working with the agency to conceal the truth but how do you propose that the telcos will get their hooks into a public research institution. I'm not arrogant enough to say that this doesn't happen but it strikes me as far less likely in this setting than in a corporate/government setting so what alternative is there?
Or are we back to trusting you because you say so?
It's very easy to be cynical about Google given their stance on privacy, but at this point there is no indication that there will be an attempt to monetize this technology. Moreover, George Tech will be providing the tool, not Google. Google just said, here's a million dollars to make the tool. Five years from now we'll have a better idea of the real purpose of this initiative but given they did not purchase a company, and as to yet the lead researcher on the topic is not a senior Google person so I'm willing to suspend any disbelief and hope that this is really Google saying "Fuck You" to the US Senate.
Seeing as the US Senate just overturned the FCC's ruling on net neutrality, this seems like a rather bold response by Google but maybe I'm being idealistic.
So let me change a few things here, "there's no benefit to them [Me]". That statement should end right there. Free Markets work by letting individuals decide what has value and what does not have value. You rightfully feel there is no value in these apps, thus I am assuming that you do not purchase those apps. But there are many people who derive value from the apps, you do not, which is your prerogative and I am no way in critical of that but don't extrapolate your experience to the experience of others particularly when the market has demonstrated a vastly different opinion on this subject matter than you.
For instance, I do not trust the big banks nor AT&T and Verizon and as such am currently looking in to alternatives to using this institutions. I will lose functionality and accessibility by doing this, but it's how the market allows me to express my displeasure with the ethical lapses perpetrated by the boards of these companies.
First, let me say it's a misnomer propagated by the media to say that "We wouldn't be engaging in all these wars in the middle east if we didn't need their oil" as the places that we get our oil form are as follows: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela with 40% of our oil coming from domestic reserves. Though I am not trying to be critical of your overall statement, nor advocate an energy policy that continues our dependence on any kind of oil. Our action is taken to hold oil prices in check on the global market, not to directly benefit from the reserves in these countries. This does not change the dynamics of dependence or help me sleep at night knowing that our dependence directly leads to the further enriching of entrenched powers that actively manipulate our political system for their own gain.
I would argue that we as a people are blinded by the sheer volume of information available in the media. An observation that I have made among my more liberal friends is a tendency to allow emotion to supersede coherent debate on certain types of issues. The distinction of liberal in this case is important, but not used to single this group out as "inferior" but rather to say that most conservatives line up in lock-step with corporations thus are much less likely to demonstrate the same emotional response to the tyranny that is corporate America. The conservatives become irrational and emotional about gay marriage and family values and fall victim to the same modalities. And at the end of the day, this allows the real power brokers to move unnoticed through the American landscape.
What really brought this home to me was a debate that erupted on facebook with respect to Ann Coulter's recent absurd statement about nuclear radiation being "good for you". Yes, yes I know some studies suggest that small dosages over long time periods is good, but she deliberately obfuscated the facts to suit her agenda. This caused one of my more liberal friends to denounce conservatives as broken, which is completely unfounded for a number of reasons that I won't go in to here. But what it illustrated was the fact that this individual was not looking beyond the surface at events and instead allowing his emotional response to prevent him from seeing clearly what was really going on. I would postulate that people like Ann Coulter are mere puppets for the ruling class in this country. They made outlandish statements, inundate us with agendas that benefit a very small portion of the population and become the focal point for political discourse allowing those with real power to continue at their nefarious ways with little oversight.
That's because an MBA isn't really about the education you receive but the connections that you make in industry. Do you learn some valuable skills for running a business while pursuing an MBA? Sure, but if you don't attend with the intent of leveraging the connections that you'll make, you're doing your MBA wrong. It's not like being a doctor or an engineer where this is a foundational knowledge that will safe peoples lives.
This insight has been derived by going through the MBA process, I'm going to the dark side... I know, but IT sucks.
Uh yeah, so things have changed since the economic downturn and there is a growing body of evidence that suggests a Law degree is about as valuable as a BS in the Arts. Unless you can graduate in the top 10% of your class and are at a prestigious university, you will not be hired as a lawyer these days.
Law firms folded like stacks of cards during the economic downturn but these institutions of higher learning have continued to sell the idea that getting a JD will make you big bucks right out of school. There are even reports of major law programs manipulating their employment numbers by hiring former students to be over-educated paper clerk.
So after three years of law school you're saddled with 150k debt and no means of paying it back....sound investment!
If you want a return on investment, go get an MBA:P
It's actually not a moot a point, as the original meaning of moot, is that of an issue of great importance. But, it has come to mean the opposite in modern day communication...
With that said, languages are living entities that change with the times thus it is a moot point....
This is not an attempt to discredit your statement in any way, rather just to point out that on occasion the national enquirer does get it right. Not too often, but it happens [Evidence].
Now any information attained from sources like this need to be approached with a great deal of skepticism but occasionally I'm sure they get things right here too...
My experience represents just one customer but I have never had an issue getting Apple to reissue downloads to me after losing all my data. They happily obliged after a hard drive failure and after my computer was stolen. Shame on me for not having backups, but Apple has always been very accommodating.
Sorry to double reply, but the story is slow moving in many respects... by the fourth book the overarching phenomenon is still developing and you have an idea of what it will be but still no clear picture.
Slashdot Mirror
Emerson was the first one to popularize the myth that if one were to "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door", and yes for the pedants out there I realize this is a misquotation of what Emerson really said, but the juice of it is a maxim that many individuals use to understand the process of innovation. Unfortunately, when observed through the lens of history, the maxim does not hold water.
The truth about innovation is that it occurs when the right mix of entities are brought together in a way that has never been done before to create a distinct advantage in the market. To illustrate this point, look at what Henry Ford did with the Model-T and how he altered the landscape of factories throughout the world. He didn't invent new technologies, he took technologies being utilized in other industries and adapted them for his needs. Thereby allowing for a streamlined factory where metal came in one end, and completed cars came out the other end. There are many entities involved in innovation and I've merely down a fly-over of what Henry Ford did, but I think it helps to illustrate the point that I was making at the beginning ... Being the best product is never enough.
Thanks, your friends in the south appreciate your hospitality! We need to drive our SUV's!
That's just nonsense, everyone knows that spies dress up like ninjas!
My guess is there is rhyme and reason to why they're making this announcement so public Say what you will about the bureaucrats who run these bureaus but they understand the relationships you described above and these are not idle statements.
Most individuals, upon completing a university education should have been exposed to Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and the wisdom on prevailing in conflicts explored in that text has stood 5,000 years of scrutiny. So what I'm saying is, don't underestimate this action. Our politicians are stupid because they pander to groups, thereby inducing the lowest common denominator. They often make the bureaucrats look stupid with their double-talk and ineptitudes, but perception is rarely reality.
Ideologically you may disagree with these people, but make no mistake about it, this was planned action and not a mere oversight.
C'mon now, communism is new player on the field. Religion has been the best in the game for 5,000 years and was probably the best in the game prior to that as well but we got no recorded records....
Communism has a lot of work to do if it EVER wants to catch religion and religion just keeps churning the numbers out like its going out of style.
I don't think you know that much about the Beatles good sir, but their time in Hamburg, at least to me, constitutes prolonged work perfecting their craft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_in_Hamburg
There are no prodigies, some people just reach 10,000 hours doing a single task faster than others. And clearly some people retain a higher level of mastery in those 10,000 hours but when we witness mastery there is 10,000 hours behind it.
And
So you're main point of criticism is to go after Microsoft for behaving like every other business in a free market? Every business acts to protect its self interest. This means that they often take hypocritical stands and I can't think of many corporations that have not done this at some point or another. The merits of the free market can certainly be debated, though in my mind a better alternative does not exist (Churchill's dictum comes to mind: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time").
So in essence I applaud you for your choice not to support Microsoft, as that is the means by which the market dictates the rules to corporations, but with that said Microsoft is behaving no differently than Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs et al. In my mind, sufficient evidences exists to suggest that protecting ones interests is hardcoded into our DNA and so in an effort to move the discussion forward I like to use this as my basis. I'm all for corporate responsibility and a clear and transparent system where hypocrisy doesn't abound but the system that we have is a byproduct of our nature and to think that changes can be made to impulses that have been honed over millions of years seems the height of arrogance.
Well said.
Yes, there is a very long line of individuals responsible for what happened. We are of all ages, shapes and colors. But what cannot be argued, is that bankers are at the very front of this line followed closely by lobbyists and politicians.
This reminds me very much of what I saw occur following the financial meltdown; suddenly every major retail outlet I shopped at was soliciting donations for the latest fad. At the end of every transaction at stores like Safeway and Target, I would be asked if I wanted to donate $2 to breast cancer awareness or prostate cancer awareness. And when I'd say no, invariably the clerk behind the register would give me a dirty look.
At the end of the day, I'm not so interested in giving my money to Safeway so that they can say they raised $2 million dollars for breast cancer awareness and then take a nice tax cut for being an "ethical" corporation.
Viewing this as a censorship misconstrues the real motives behind what occurred and clouds the implications and legal precedent. What I mean is, this is an instance of a corporation dictating what is and is not acceptable on their private service. They have a right to protect their investment and flexed that right by banning this product.
This individual has not been censored in a traditional sense. He is not prevented from creating a website, a facebook account and a twitter account to support his view point and provide "help" for others. Moreover, the andriod software community has proven to be much more open to contentious apps so there is a medium by which he can sell his app to smart phone users.
There is no censorship laws that require a private entity (they're public I know, but I mean it as separate from the government) to give voice to things that they are opposed to.
This is corporate censorship, this is not government censorship. There's a huge difference.
This individuals ability to speak about his beliefs have not been inhibited. He can still create a website, facebook account, twitter account to express his beliefs. Apple has said that they will not tolerate people monetizing things on their platform that they find offensive. It is a private service, that the consumer can choose to use or not. And there's another sandbox that is much more open to "controversial" topics. It's called the Android, so he in fact is not censored but merely told that he will not be permitted to play in this sandbox.
It's fun to see you being critical of the left wind for being hypocritical, because usually the right wing is busy talking about the rights of the corporation ... which Apple just flexed ... in a way that bothers you.
Welcome to my world.
It is important to note that the App Store is a private service, and at least how the law is setup currently they have every right to decide what is damaging to their ecosystem and they are not required to act as a voice for things they disagree with. SF Library System is a wonderful example of censorship, but censorship in the big "C" sense (aka the sort of censorship that prohibits people from communicating) is not present in the case with Apple.
This guy could go make a website that does the same thing as his app and Apple wouldn't say a word about it. But they have every right to protect their sandbox how they see fit.
Though I don't disagree with the slippery slope argument, I think it's important to note in this discussion that the Apple Store is a private service, as such its under their discretion to determine what is damaging to the ecosystem. If we don't like their rules, use other services.
This isn't censorship in the sense that the government is dictating what is and is not acceptable but rather this is corporate censorship which is something that has been grappled with in this country for quite some time and I can't think of too many examples where the government has stepped in said, "No you can't do that".
At the end of the day, all Apple has to do is create a compelling argument that this sort of material damages their ecosystem and our court system will back them full tilt. My power as a consumer is to go elsewhere, all and all not a terrible system though not perfect either.
To quote WoW Users: ^
So on what grounds do you have more credibility than Georgia Tech? I mean you've basically just called GT Researchers frauds and snake oil salesmen, so is that backed by any evidence?
I'm not expert in this field, nor an expert on "Internet Weather Stations" so I won't even try to assess the applicability of these tools. I'm sure if packaged correctly they could be a viable suite to do what you say, and if it is so easy why don't you go monetize it?
And sure if a government entity had won this award, I'd agree that the likely result would be the telcos working with the agency to conceal the truth but how do you propose that the telcos will get their hooks into a public research institution. I'm not arrogant enough to say that this doesn't happen but it strikes me as far less likely in this setting than in a corporate/government setting so what alternative is there?
Or are we back to trusting you because you say so?
It's very easy to be cynical about Google given their stance on privacy, but at this point there is no indication that there will be an attempt to monetize this technology. Moreover, George Tech will be providing the tool, not Google. Google just said, here's a million dollars to make the tool. Five years from now we'll have a better idea of the real purpose of this initiative but given they did not purchase a company, and as to yet the lead researcher on the topic is not a senior Google person so I'm willing to suspend any disbelief and hope that this is really Google saying "Fuck You" to the US Senate.
Seeing as the US Senate just overturned the FCC's ruling on net neutrality, this seems like a rather bold response by Google but maybe I'm being idealistic.
So let me change a few things here, "there's no benefit to them [Me]". That statement should end right there. Free Markets work by letting individuals decide what has value and what does not have value. You rightfully feel there is no value in these apps, thus I am assuming that you do not purchase those apps. But there are many people who derive value from the apps, you do not, which is your prerogative and I am no way in critical of that but don't extrapolate your experience to the experience of others particularly when the market has demonstrated a vastly different opinion on this subject matter than you.
For instance, I do not trust the big banks nor AT&T and Verizon and as such am currently looking in to alternatives to using this institutions. I will lose functionality and accessibility by doing this, but it's how the market allows me to express my displeasure with the ethical lapses perpetrated by the boards of these companies.
First, let me say it's a misnomer propagated by the media to say that "We wouldn't be engaging in all these wars in the middle east if we didn't need their oil" as the places that we get our oil form are as follows: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela with 40% of our oil coming from domestic reserves. Though I am not trying to be critical of your overall statement, nor advocate an energy policy that continues our dependence on any kind of oil. Our action is taken to hold oil prices in check on the global market, not to directly benefit from the reserves in these countries. This does not change the dynamics of dependence or help me sleep at night knowing that our dependence directly leads to the further enriching of entrenched powers that actively manipulate our political system for their own gain.
I would argue that we as a people are blinded by the sheer volume of information available in the media. An observation that I have made among my more liberal friends is a tendency to allow emotion to supersede coherent debate on certain types of issues. The distinction of liberal in this case is important, but not used to single this group out as "inferior" but rather to say that most conservatives line up in lock-step with corporations thus are much less likely to demonstrate the same emotional response to the tyranny that is corporate America. The conservatives become irrational and emotional about gay marriage and family values and fall victim to the same modalities. And at the end of the day, this allows the real power brokers to move unnoticed through the American landscape.
What really brought this home to me was a debate that erupted on facebook with respect to Ann Coulter's recent absurd statement about nuclear radiation being "good for you". Yes, yes I know some studies suggest that small dosages over long time periods is good, but she deliberately obfuscated the facts to suit her agenda. This caused one of my more liberal friends to denounce conservatives as broken, which is completely unfounded for a number of reasons that I won't go in to here. But what it illustrated was the fact that this individual was not looking beyond the surface at events and instead allowing his emotional response to prevent him from seeing clearly what was really going on. I would postulate that people like Ann Coulter are mere puppets for the ruling class in this country. They made outlandish statements, inundate us with agendas that benefit a very small portion of the population and become the focal point for political discourse allowing those with real power to continue at their nefarious ways with little oversight.
That's because an MBA isn't really about the education you receive but the connections that you make in industry. Do you learn some valuable skills for running a business while pursuing an MBA? Sure, but if you don't attend with the intent of leveraging the connections that you'll make, you're doing your MBA wrong. It's not like being a doctor or an engineer where this is a foundational knowledge that will safe peoples lives.
This insight has been derived by going through the MBA process, I'm going to the dark side... I know, but IT sucks.
Uh yeah, so things have changed since the economic downturn and there is a growing body of evidence that suggests a Law degree is about as valuable as a BS in the Arts. Unless you can graduate in the top 10% of your class and are at a prestigious university, you will not be hired as a lawyer these days.
Law firms folded like stacks of cards during the economic downturn but these institutions of higher learning have continued to sell the idea that getting a JD will make you big bucks right out of school. There are even reports of major law programs manipulating their employment numbers by hiring former students to be over-educated paper clerk.
So after three years of law school you're saddled with 150k debt and no means of paying it back....sound investment!
If you want a return on investment, go get an MBA :P
Blog source so take it for what it's worth,
It's actually not a moot a point, as the original meaning of moot, is that of an issue of great importance. But, it has come to mean the opposite in modern day communication...
With that said, languages are living entities that change with the times thus it is a moot point....
So my point is moot...or is it? :)
Source
This is not an attempt to discredit your statement in any way, rather just to point out that on occasion the national enquirer does get it right. Not too often, but it happens [Evidence].
Now any information attained from sources like this need to be approached with a great deal of skepticism but occasionally I'm sure they get things right here too...
My experience represents just one customer but I have never had an issue getting Apple to reissue downloads to me after losing all my data. They happily obliged after a hard drive failure and after my computer was stolen. Shame on me for not having backups, but Apple has always been very accommodating.
Sorry to double reply, but the story is slow moving in many respects ... by the fourth book the overarching phenomenon is still developing and you have an idea of what it will be but still no clear picture.