A lot of the drunk drivers involved in accidents aren't completely shitfaced falling down drunk; they are just "a little bit drunk". Slow to react, easily distracted, and taking more risks than they should. But they will most likely notice this alert and respond to it, increasing their chances of avoiding an accident. I think this system would definitely benefit drunk drivers too.
The biggest problem I have on alt.binaries is downloading a completely non-fake movie... only to find that it has been dubbed in German and doesn't include the original soundtrack.
Most of the problems like these are easily avoided though: just buy the legit version! I pay for my software, and I pay for my music as well, since these days there is plenty of music online, for the right price, without DRM that needs to phone home, and with the ability to play on the device of my choice.
The reason I still download pirated movies is that movie distributors still haven't got a clue about the Internet, and insist on only offering drm-laden or streaming-only options of movies, which essentialy makes them rentals. When the studios open up online stores similar to what exists today for music, I'll be all over it. No more alt.binaries or Pirate Bay... I won't miss it.
For most, the lottery is pretty much the only shot at becoming rich. It's a tiny chance to win, but if you can afford the lottery ticket, then why not play? If you think the expectation value is the only parameter to look at, you're the one not understanding probability. For those people, it's better to play shitty odds for a big payout at EV=0.8 than it is to play better odds for small payouts at EV=0.95.
Funny, insurance is a bit like gambling even though emotionally they're light-years apart. With insurance you're just betting on a negative outcome, and of course not taking out insurance is gambling with money you may not be able to afford (think medical/homeowners insurance). But insuring your cell phone? That's about as silly as playing roulette: the payout stinks, and in the end the house always wins.
Perhaps it works the other way around as well: some professions pay better because they are respected more. It sounds counter-intuitive, but research has shown time and time again that it does work like that at the individual level: people who are better looking, taller, etc are usually found earning more than the average in their job group.
Over here, in the 40s and 50s, being an engineer meant something, and it put you right up there with doctors and lawyers (as the cliche has it). Somewhere along the way, being an engineer or scientist lost its social status, even before engineer wages dropped. Conversely, "managing something", be it a company, a project or just a team, became the hot thing in the 80s and 90s, even though salaries for project managers or lower managent weren't all that great. Even the prospects for getting into middle and upper management were slim as in those days a lot of management postitions were filled from the work floor rather than from professional managers. That didn't stop the social status of managers to rise explosively in those years. Perhaps it had something to do with the idea that managers are a bit like entrepreneurs, who've pretty much always commanded respect.
Trains suck, even on the dense and efficient Dutch railway system. Trains take you from a place where you aren't, to a place where you do not want to go; you still need to get to the train station first. Most train stations are positively hostile to cars; park&rides are rare, and car drop-off places are well hidden or very hard to reach. During rush hour, many train routes are unbearably busy unless you travel 1st class. Getting to and from the station and changing trains easily add 30 minutes to any journey, which suddenly make travel times on the congested highways look good. Plus, you're in your own car, with your own music, in a comfy seat... I'd love to have auto-drive so I could read a bit in traffic. The only things I'll miss out on when travelling by car are the body odours, germs, noise and jostling of fellow train passengers.
Your concern is valid, but I despise this attitude: "we don't want choice and variety, not because it's bad for the company but because it makes life hard for us". It's the kind of attitude we've had to beat out of our legal and compliance departments; anything non-standard used to mean an automatic rejection (god forbid they'd have to do some actual work). Now they work with us and make the decision that is good for the company, and not just for them. And thankfully, the IT departments are coming around to that way of thinking. Don't forbid choice and enforce a one-size-fits-all policy; learn to accommodate it.
As I said, security and supportability are issues, but they're becoming smaller issues by the week. Stuff like virtualisation, remote desktops and apps, and browser-based software are a big help. For the rest, re-think your deployment of firewalls, vires scanners and intrusion detection. One of my clients is already making this happen in a few ways, and they are finding that supporting this so-called mess turns out to be a lot easier than they thought it would be. There's only a few real trouble cases, and in those cases they always have a fallback: using a corporate laptop.
One of my current clients is very flexible in the way I arrange my work. I can work from home, and there's no issue with me running all manner of personal errands during work hours, as long as I make up the time and (more importantly) deliver what I promised. I do some idle surfing during office hours as well, and no one cares. They know that most people do some work-related surfing at home as well anyway.
This company is very much into the idea of allowing people to use their own hardware for work. Not as a cost saving measure, but to allow people more choice. Already I can get my corporate mail and calendar on my personal iPhone, which is a huge time saver. When I work from home, it's on my own box even though the company is happy to provide me with a laptop. So, everybody wins. And when I am at home, I have no trouble switching off. My co-workers often work in the same way, and they are very careful about invading someone's personal time, which rarely happens.
Oh, and this client isn't some hipster dot-com startup, it's a well-established, traditional megacorp. They just happen to have some enlightened managers and IT guys, providing one of the better jobs I've worked on in my professional life. In contrast, I heard about this German firm the other day, taking a very old-fashioned approach to separating work and personal time. A strict 9-5 regimen, be on time and leave on time, no personal calls or surfing on the job whatsoever, and no ability or permission to access work files after 5. I'd hate to work for a company like that.
If the company is legit (if it isn't, why did the OP even take the job?), and if they still have a shot at creating a viable product, then I'd put in the hours and work unpaid overtime in exchange for a stake in the company. At worst I'd lose those hours. If on the other hand you think the company isn't going to make it, quit now. Being on a sinking ship sucks.
Personally, I'll never join a startup again without getting a stake in the company. Even if they pay decent or even good wages.
A funny quote but rather unfair. Come to think of it, I did read Atlas Shrugged at around that age, and it did change my life, though (thankfully) not in the way Krugman describes.
To me, it was interesting to read someone who, for example, put man's ability before man's need. Rand's (political) views were not exactly new to me, and I was already leaning towards a more right-wing, libertarian (insert your favorite label) world view, but to a boy growing up in the Dutch educational system, actually seeing such views promoted in print was a rare sight and a first for me. I've since left Rand's somewhat simple notions behind, but she did get me reading other works on politics and philosophy.
We should not hope for a settlement in a patent troll case, however tiny the amount. Patent trolls love settlements, because a settlement does not set a legal precedent, and leaves the troll open to sue more companies.
Here's the model patent trolls follow, especially for ridiculous patents like this one.
1) Patent
2) Sue for billions
3) Settle or license the tech.
4)...
5) Profit!
Companies like Walker Digital don't really want their crappy patent to be actually contested in court; if it gets thrown out, the game is up. The good news is that I expect none of the companies sued will be content to settle, since they'll expect to use the same tech in future games.
Why is WoW still succesful? That is something worth pondering for the other MMO producers who want to be the next Blizzard. They do not have to beat WoW on the level of graphics or gameplay: WoW is already beaten there, by several other games. And they're still nr. 1. Because of one word: momentum.
Everybody plays WoW because everybody else plays WoW. They got to where they are by being the best but they no longer have to be, social momentum has taken over. All WoW players I know got bored with the game, they took a break, tried one or several other MMO's, got bored with those too, and gravitated back to WoW because at least that had plenty of players and most of their friends in it. The way to beat WoW is to create an MMO that does way better at the social aspect of MMOs, and provides enough staying power for the first two years to retain players and help those players to convince their friends to hop over too. At this time, I don't think this is possible. Don't try to beat WoW, for the same reasons it is foolish to try and beat Facebook at this time.
If I had to guess how WoW was going to be beaten, my money would be on slow attrition caused by light, browser based MMO's on a popular social network like Facebook. And guessing at which MMO producer is going to survive, my money is on a company that figures out how to produce, operate, support and expand an MMO on the cheap, so it can serve a niche market of 100k-500k players and still be profitable. This you can do by figuring out your niche, rather than trying to clone WoW. Two examples of good, viable games are Star Wars Galaxies and Age of Conan. They did a lot of things right in terms of gameplay, lots of things other companies can learn from. There's mistakes to be learned from as well: SWG lost most of their players after a big and hugely impopular change in game mechanics. AoC lost a lot of players following a buggy launch and a subsequent patch that made matters far worse. A shame, because both games have a lot of potential as profitable niche players.
They get away with it because few people care. Especially since the law is supposed to uphold decency in the media. A lot of people actually think that's a good thing... until it's their point of view that gets censored.
These laws are all over the place, and they generally start small. In the Netherlands, there already is a law for websites with child pornography (what else? *rolls eyes*), which can be ordered shut down and/or blocked without intervention of a judge. There have been recent proposals to extend this law to cover sites with hatred-inciting or discriminatory content, or stuff that threatens public order. In other words, covering "anything we don't like". The proposal was shot down, thankfully. But even the mere the fact that this motion was tabled at all is a shameful, shameful blot on our institution of government.
But this is by no means a new thing. Searches and wiretaps for instance, used to require a judge's go-ahead, but that was done away a few decades ago with "for convenience". No one cared. The prosecutor's office can now order searches, and wiretaps can be requested by pretty much anyone involved in police investigations, to the point where there are now more wiretaps being conducted in the Netherlands than in the rest of Europe combined. And as for searches, even city mayors now have the power to order these, for crying out loud. They can (and have one so on several occasions) order searches on no suspicion whatsoever, and/or do a door to door search of an entire neighborhood. The pretext is just fire safety, but they will enter homes with a whole team of officials checking for varied things like stolen goods, firearms, marihuana plantations, false social benefits claims, electricity theft, illegal subletting, and so on. And for those who think these are not real, official searches... if you're not at home and it's the 3rd time they've found you absent, they will open your front door with the "municipal key" (i.e. a crowbar), and fail to compensate you for the broken lock even if they find nothing.
That is the state of our country... sounds a bit like East Germany, but nobody gives a shit. So, am I worried about freedom of our media? Well yes... if they can get away with the above, then who will raise a hue and cry over something as "reasonable" as media censorship?
Actually, with a physical book or a regular DVD, you do own the content of that particular item. The proof? You are free to lend or re-sell that item. And if you decide to keep it, no one can ever prevent you from enjoying its content, short of breaking into your house and taking the physical media. This is how people generally understand "ownership", and people (rightfully) expect to get the same ownership for digital, DRMed media. That's what they think they are getting, until the rude awakening comes and Amazon decides to pull a book off their Kindle, or the firm running a central DRM server goes belly-up (this has happened with a certain online music vendor), or you decide you'd rather have a Sony player instead of an iPod, and you find none of your music purchases will transfer. Not because of technical impediments, but because it turns out you don't own the content and the vendor is free to keep it hostage. Incidentally, this is why for a long time I have steered well clear of companies who sell both content and equipment. To be fair, the music industry has for a good part cleaned up its act and most music is more or less DRM free, and transferable.
But so far, the public is largely unaware of the implications of DRM. And that needs to change, before DRM becomes the default. In some cases, content providers have lobbied to make DRM mandatory, to twhart pirates but also to keep indie labels off the market since they are unlikely to be able to afford expensive DRM keys. The public needs to understand this to make sure such laws are never allowed to be drafted. And the more companies like Amazon screw up their DRM, the sooner this will happen.
As for the difference between DRM and obscure formats, this is exactly what needs to be regulated by law. At the moment, in the Netherlands at least, "fair use" is merely a privilege: if DRM gets in the way of using your content, too bad. Now there are some politicians stating that you, as a consumer, should have the right to backup, transfer or play your content on the device of your choice. Getting the content transfered to your device of choice is your problem, but DRM should not get in the way. Even if the content provider switches to some obscure file format, there will always be someone writing a conversion tool, and under these new rights it shall not be unlawful to write, distribute or use such a tool to break DRM or convert weird file formats. Yes, this would pretty much outlaw unbreakable (or phone-home) DRM... unless, ironically, a universal DRM scheme would be adopted and used in all devices, guaranteeing your right to use and transfer your content. The only problem is that content and equipment manufacturers would like a whole different type of DRM, of the kind that takes your rights away. Again, legislation is needed to protect the consumer.
First off, it's their store, and it should be their decision to sell or not sell any particular book.
Secondly, if they are indeed pulling titles off people's Kindles like last time, I say: "Go Amazon, and by all means extend the scope of your ban". All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.
If students prefer playing Farmville to listening to your lecture, perhaps you should rethink your lecture. Talk to anyone in the education industry who is not making a living giving lectures, and you'll find that pretty much all of them agree that classroom-based training sucks. There are better alternatives, but so far these methods are often highly tailored to the subject being taught, which makes it expensive. What they haven't come up with yet is something that is practical, universally applicable, with repeatable success.
I tend to agree with the Farmville-playing students and those educators: lectures are boring. I got a Master's in EE without attending most of the lectures, except during the final year, when a few interesting ones appeared on the roster.
If your students prefer playing Farmville to listening to your lecture, perhaps you should rethink your teaching methods. Talk to anyone in the education industry who doesn't make their living actually giving lectures, and you'll find that they'll pretty much all agree that traditional classroom based training sucks. There's ways to do it better, but they haven't yet found something that is both practical, with easily repeatable success.
I tend to agree with those education guys and the Farmville playing students: lectures are boring. I managed to get a Master in EE without attending lectures except during the final year when there where some interesting ones on the roster.
Sadly, that's not the case. Allen's company Interval Licensing exists for the sole purpose of "inventing" stuff, i.e. getting a bunch of people together (there's one very famous SF writer doing part-time work for this firm, I forgot his name though) to brainstorm up this "one step beyond the immediately obvious" crap, patent it, then licence and/or sue. And the company knows that despite the fact that some of this stuff shouldn't be patentable even under the broken patent system, they know that they can still make money by threatening with litigation, getting companies to settle or buy a license.
In the case of these particularly ridiculous patents, the last thing Paul and his company want is a court decision. They want the other companies to pony up in an out of court deal.
I should think a drone can be launched at a similar or greater accelleration than that of a manned aircraft launching off a carrier. But the steam catapult probably does not provide a fixed amount of accelleration, but a fixed amount of force. Apply this force to a small, light drone, and I think you'll be picking up small pieces of your expensive toy off the flight deck.
Actually, helping a murderer can make you an accessory to the crime if you know what his intent is (over here, at least. Not sure what the laws are like in other countries). If someone asks you "I bought this firearm, can you train me in using it safely?", and then goes off to shoot someone after you trained him, you can hardly be blamed. But what if someone drops by and states: "Those kids in the park have disturbed my rest for the last time! Can you explain how this shotgun works, and then help me saw off half the barrel?".
The latter case would be hard to sufficiently prove beyond doubt, if they'd charge you in court. In case of the Pirate Bay however, it should be abundantly clear to the owners that their tracker is used for sharing copyrighted materials, and little else. There's probably several laws they could be charged under. Aiding and abetting, membership of a criminal organisation, etc... Again, not sure what the laws are like in Sweden, but many countries have laws against this sort of thing. With penalties resulting in a cease and desist against the site at the least, fines, damages and perhaps even jail time.
I don't think the US Government is behind this, but if it turns out that they were, it would not surprise me either. There's a few strange things about this case... for example, why would Sweden oppose Assange to be released on bail by the UK, for this very flimsy allegation of rape? The case itself doesn't really merit the measures that have been taken against Assange so far.
Of course, if the US really wanted to get their hands on Assange "legally", then this would be the easiest avenue of approach. Once Assange is in Swedish custody, all the US have to do is charge him and request extradition. If that happens, my guess is that the rape charge will evaporate overnight so that nothing stands in the way of his extradition.
Consumers generally favour all-you-can-eat plans over this nickle&diming for separate items. They like to pay 50 euro/month every month instead of paying 30 some months and 70 on other months. And thankfully we have enough competition... a few carriers have tried to introduce metered traffic, low data caps and/or bandwidth throttling, but each time there has been such a consumer backlash and people switching en masse to the competition that to date, internet traffic (either wired or mobile) is cheap and in practice unlimited. And plans to charge extra for certain services will probably meet the same fate.
Actually, I think this is an interesting app, for two reasons:
1) The "wow" factor: even if the app doesn't work all that well and the only translation available is (crappy) Spanish, this app actually demonstrates one of those things that pops into everybody's head when they think of the future of AR.
2) unlike you, I believe apps like these will become very useful. There are many instances where I've wondered what a particular sign meant... "danger, rockfall ahead" would have been useful to know. Or think of restaurant menus. Sure, there are other apps that do this, but the "cutesy" text overlay is what makes this app an App (in the Apple sense): it's highly visual and immediately usable. No hassle with making snapshots first. And yes, at some point this tech might even be integrated into future AR glasses.
Too bad the authors really missed an opportunity here... instead of offering this for free and charging $5 for the language packs, they should have had a few languages ready, charged $.79 for the app with one language thrown in. This app is now all over the web, on./ and other tech blogs and magazines. They could have made a bundle.
That's not the point. The point is that a government thinks it has the right to block websites without any form of due process. That should have anyone worrying, no matter how ineffective the actual block.
By the way, the powers-that-be in Netherlands tried a similar stunt; bringing in a law allowing summary takedown of websites with kiddie porn, then trying to extend that law to other categories. They failed... but seriously, if anyone proposes a rule stating that "we need this to fight kiddie porn", be afraid, be very afraid, and take a long hard look at what is actually being proposed, and think about how it can be extended.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, which is why we (Dutchies) switched from km/l to l/100km at some point. Just to throw us off balance...
Now that we're on the subject of change: give me back my guilder! And get off my lawn...
A lot of the drunk drivers involved in accidents aren't completely shitfaced falling down drunk; they are just "a little bit drunk". Slow to react, easily distracted, and taking more risks than they should. But they will most likely notice this alert and respond to it, increasing their chances of avoiding an accident. I think this system would definitely benefit drunk drivers too.
The biggest problem I have on alt.binaries is downloading a completely non-fake movie... only to find that it has been dubbed in German and doesn't include the original soundtrack.
Most of the problems like these are easily avoided though: just buy the legit version! I pay for my software, and I pay for my music as well, since these days there is plenty of music online, for the right price, without DRM that needs to phone home, and with the ability to play on the device of my choice.
The reason I still download pirated movies is that movie distributors still haven't got a clue about the Internet, and insist on only offering drm-laden or streaming-only options of movies, which essentialy makes them rentals. When the studios open up online stores similar to what exists today for music, I'll be all over it. No more alt.binaries or Pirate Bay... I won't miss it.
For most, the lottery is pretty much the only shot at becoming rich. It's a tiny chance to win, but if you can afford the lottery ticket, then why not play? If you think the expectation value is the only parameter to look at, you're the one not understanding probability. For those people, it's better to play shitty odds for a big payout at EV=0.8 than it is to play better odds for small payouts at EV=0.95.
Funny, insurance is a bit like gambling even though emotionally they're light-years apart. With insurance you're just betting on a negative outcome, and of course not taking out insurance is gambling with money you may not be able to afford (think medical/homeowners insurance). But insuring your cell phone? That's about as silly as playing roulette: the payout stinks, and in the end the house always wins.
Perhaps it works the other way around as well: some professions pay better because they are respected more. It sounds counter-intuitive, but research has shown time and time again that it does work like that at the individual level: people who are better looking, taller, etc are usually found earning more than the average in their job group.
Over here, in the 40s and 50s, being an engineer meant something, and it put you right up there with doctors and lawyers (as the cliche has it). Somewhere along the way, being an engineer or scientist lost its social status, even before engineer wages dropped. Conversely, "managing something", be it a company, a project or just a team, became the hot thing in the 80s and 90s, even though salaries for project managers or lower managent weren't all that great. Even the prospects for getting into middle and upper management were slim as in those days a lot of management postitions were filled from the work floor rather than from professional managers. That didn't stop the social status of managers to rise explosively in those years. Perhaps it had something to do with the idea that managers are a bit like entrepreneurs, who've pretty much always commanded respect.
Trains suck, even on the dense and efficient Dutch railway system. Trains take you from a place where you aren't, to a place where you do not want to go; you still need to get to the train station first. Most train stations are positively hostile to cars; park&rides are rare, and car drop-off places are well hidden or very hard to reach. During rush hour, many train routes are unbearably busy unless you travel 1st class. Getting to and from the station and changing trains easily add 30 minutes to any journey, which suddenly make travel times on the congested highways look good. Plus, you're in your own car, with your own music, in a comfy seat... I'd love to have auto-drive so I could read a bit in traffic. The only things I'll miss out on when travelling by car are the body odours, germs, noise and jostling of fellow train passengers.
Your concern is valid, but I despise this attitude: "we don't want choice and variety, not because it's bad for the company but because it makes life hard for us". It's the kind of attitude we've had to beat out of our legal and compliance departments; anything non-standard used to mean an automatic rejection (god forbid they'd have to do some actual work). Now they work with us and make the decision that is good for the company, and not just for them. And thankfully, the IT departments are coming around to that way of thinking. Don't forbid choice and enforce a one-size-fits-all policy; learn to accommodate it.
As I said, security and supportability are issues, but they're becoming smaller issues by the week. Stuff like virtualisation, remote desktops and apps, and browser-based software are a big help. For the rest, re-think your deployment of firewalls, vires scanners and intrusion detection. One of my clients is already making this happen in a few ways, and they are finding that supporting this so-called mess turns out to be a lot easier than they thought it would be. There's only a few real trouble cases, and in those cases they always have a fallback: using a corporate laptop.
That depends on the company.
One of my current clients is very flexible in the way I arrange my work. I can work from home, and there's no issue with me running all manner of personal errands during work hours, as long as I make up the time and (more importantly) deliver what I promised. I do some idle surfing during office hours as well, and no one cares. They know that most people do some work-related surfing at home as well anyway.
This company is very much into the idea of allowing people to use their own hardware for work. Not as a cost saving measure, but to allow people more choice. Already I can get my corporate mail and calendar on my personal iPhone, which is a huge time saver. When I work from home, it's on my own box even though the company is happy to provide me with a laptop. So, everybody wins. And when I am at home, I have no trouble switching off. My co-workers often work in the same way, and they are very careful about invading someone's personal time, which rarely happens.
Oh, and this client isn't some hipster dot-com startup, it's a well-established, traditional megacorp. They just happen to have some enlightened managers and IT guys, providing one of the better jobs I've worked on in my professional life. In contrast, I heard about this German firm the other day, taking a very old-fashioned approach to separating work and personal time. A strict 9-5 regimen, be on time and leave on time, no personal calls or surfing on the job whatsoever, and no ability or permission to access work files after 5. I'd hate to work for a company like that.
If the company is legit (if it isn't, why did the OP even take the job?), and if they still have a shot at creating a viable product, then I'd put in the hours and work unpaid overtime in exchange for a stake in the company. At worst I'd lose those hours. If on the other hand you think the company isn't going to make it, quit now. Being on a sinking ship sucks.
Personally, I'll never join a startup again without getting a stake in the company. Even if they pay decent or even good wages.
A funny quote but rather unfair. Come to think of it, I did read Atlas Shrugged at around that age, and it did change my life, though (thankfully) not in the way Krugman describes.
To me, it was interesting to read someone who, for example, put man's ability before man's need. Rand's (political) views were not exactly new to me, and I was already leaning towards a more right-wing, libertarian (insert your favorite label) world view, but to a boy growing up in the Dutch educational system, actually seeing such views promoted in print was a rare sight and a first for me. I've since left Rand's somewhat simple notions behind, but she did get me reading other works on politics and philosophy.
We should not hope for a settlement in a patent troll case, however tiny the amount. Patent trolls love settlements, because a settlement does not set a legal precedent, and leaves the troll open to sue more companies. Here's the model patent trolls follow, especially for ridiculous patents like this one. ...
1) Patent
2) Sue for billions
3) Settle or license the tech.
4)
5) Profit!
Companies like Walker Digital don't really want their crappy patent to be actually contested in court; if it gets thrown out, the game is up. The good news is that I expect none of the companies sued will be content to settle, since they'll expect to use the same tech in future games.
Why is WoW still succesful? That is something worth pondering for the other MMO producers who want to be the next Blizzard. They do not have to beat WoW on the level of graphics or gameplay: WoW is already beaten there, by several other games. And they're still nr. 1. Because of one word: momentum.
Everybody plays WoW because everybody else plays WoW. They got to where they are by being the best but they no longer have to be, social momentum has taken over. All WoW players I know got bored with the game, they took a break, tried one or several other MMO's, got bored with those too, and gravitated back to WoW because at least that had plenty of players and most of their friends in it. The way to beat WoW is to create an MMO that does way better at the social aspect of MMOs, and provides enough staying power for the first two years to retain players and help those players to convince their friends to hop over too. At this time, I don't think this is possible. Don't try to beat WoW, for the same reasons it is foolish to try and beat Facebook at this time.
If I had to guess how WoW was going to be beaten, my money would be on slow attrition caused by light, browser based MMO's on a popular social network like Facebook. And guessing at which MMO producer is going to survive, my money is on a company that figures out how to produce, operate, support and expand an MMO on the cheap, so it can serve a niche market of 100k-500k players and still be profitable. This you can do by figuring out your niche, rather than trying to clone WoW. Two examples of good, viable games are Star Wars Galaxies and Age of Conan. They did a lot of things right in terms of gameplay, lots of things other companies can learn from. There's mistakes to be learned from as well: SWG lost most of their players after a big and hugely impopular change in game mechanics. AoC lost a lot of players following a buggy launch and a subsequent patch that made matters far worse. A shame, because both games have a lot of potential as profitable niche players.
Don't refer to the iPhone alarm clock issue as Y2K11; it's i2K.
They get away with it because few people care. Especially since the law is supposed to uphold decency in the media. A lot of people actually think that's a good thing... until it's their point of view that gets censored.
These laws are all over the place, and they generally start small. In the Netherlands, there already is a law for websites with child pornography (what else? *rolls eyes*), which can be ordered shut down and/or blocked without intervention of a judge. There have been recent proposals to extend this law to cover sites with hatred-inciting or discriminatory content, or stuff that threatens public order. In other words, covering "anything we don't like". The proposal was shot down, thankfully. But even the mere the fact that this motion was tabled at all is a shameful, shameful blot on our institution of government.
But this is by no means a new thing. Searches and wiretaps for instance, used to require a judge's go-ahead, but that was done away a few decades ago with "for convenience". No one cared. The prosecutor's office can now order searches, and wiretaps can be requested by pretty much anyone involved in police investigations, to the point where there are now more wiretaps being conducted in the Netherlands than in the rest of Europe combined. And as for searches, even city mayors now have the power to order these, for crying out loud. They can (and have one so on several occasions) order searches on no suspicion whatsoever, and/or do a door to door search of an entire neighborhood. The pretext is just fire safety, but they will enter homes with a whole team of officials checking for varied things like stolen goods, firearms, marihuana plantations, false social benefits claims, electricity theft, illegal subletting, and so on. And for those who think these are not real, official searches... if you're not at home and it's the 3rd time they've found you absent, they will open your front door with the "municipal key" (i.e. a crowbar), and fail to compensate you for the broken lock even if they find nothing.
That is the state of our country... sounds a bit like East Germany, but nobody gives a shit. So, am I worried about freedom of our media? Well yes... if they can get away with the above, then who will raise a hue and cry over something as "reasonable" as media censorship?
Actually, with a physical book or a regular DVD, you do own the content of that particular item. The proof? You are free to lend or re-sell that item. And if you decide to keep it, no one can ever prevent you from enjoying its content, short of breaking into your house and taking the physical media. This is how people generally understand "ownership", and people (rightfully) expect to get the same ownership for digital, DRMed media. That's what they think they are getting, until the rude awakening comes and Amazon decides to pull a book off their Kindle, or the firm running a central DRM server goes belly-up (this has happened with a certain online music vendor), or you decide you'd rather have a Sony player instead of an iPod, and you find none of your music purchases will transfer. Not because of technical impediments, but because it turns out you don't own the content and the vendor is free to keep it hostage. Incidentally, this is why for a long time I have steered well clear of companies who sell both content and equipment. To be fair, the music industry has for a good part cleaned up its act and most music is more or less DRM free, and transferable.
But so far, the public is largely unaware of the implications of DRM. And that needs to change, before DRM becomes the default. In some cases, content providers have lobbied to make DRM mandatory, to twhart pirates but also to keep indie labels off the market since they are unlikely to be able to afford expensive DRM keys. The public needs to understand this to make sure such laws are never allowed to be drafted. And the more companies like Amazon screw up their DRM, the sooner this will happen.
As for the difference between DRM and obscure formats, this is exactly what needs to be regulated by law. At the moment, in the Netherlands at least, "fair use" is merely a privilege: if DRM gets in the way of using your content, too bad. Now there are some politicians stating that you, as a consumer, should have the right to backup, transfer or play your content on the device of your choice. Getting the content transfered to your device of choice is your problem, but DRM should not get in the way. Even if the content provider switches to some obscure file format, there will always be someone writing a conversion tool, and under these new rights it shall not be unlawful to write, distribute or use such a tool to break DRM or convert weird file formats. Yes, this would pretty much outlaw unbreakable (or phone-home) DRM... unless, ironically, a universal DRM scheme would be adopted and used in all devices, guaranteeing your right to use and transfer your content. The only problem is that content and equipment manufacturers would like a whole different type of DRM, of the kind that takes your rights away. Again, legislation is needed to protect the consumer.
First off, it's their store, and it should be their decision to sell or not sell any particular book.
Secondly, if they are indeed pulling titles off people's Kindles like last time, I say: "Go Amazon, and by all means extend the scope of your ban". All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.
If students prefer playing Farmville to listening to your lecture, perhaps you should rethink your lecture. Talk to anyone in the education industry who is not making a living giving lectures, and you'll find that pretty much all of them agree that classroom-based training sucks. There are better alternatives, but so far these methods are often highly tailored to the subject being taught, which makes it expensive. What they haven't come up with yet is something that is practical, universally applicable, with repeatable success.
I tend to agree with the Farmville-playing students and those educators: lectures are boring. I got a Master's in EE without attending most of the lectures, except during the final year, when a few interesting ones appeared on the roster.
If your students prefer playing Farmville to listening to your lecture, perhaps you should rethink your teaching methods. Talk to anyone in the education industry who doesn't make their living actually giving lectures, and you'll find that they'll pretty much all agree that traditional classroom based training sucks. There's ways to do it better, but they haven't yet found something that is both practical, with easily repeatable success.
I tend to agree with those education guys and the Farmville playing students: lectures are boring. I managed to get a Master in EE without attending lectures except during the final year when there where some interesting ones on the roster.
Sadly, that's not the case. Allen's company Interval Licensing exists for the sole purpose of "inventing" stuff, i.e. getting a bunch of people together (there's one very famous SF writer doing part-time work for this firm, I forgot his name though) to brainstorm up this "one step beyond the immediately obvious" crap, patent it, then licence and/or sue. And the company knows that despite the fact that some of this stuff shouldn't be patentable even under the broken patent system, they know that they can still make money by threatening with litigation, getting companies to settle or buy a license.
In the case of these particularly ridiculous patents, the last thing Paul and his company want is a court decision. They want the other companies to pony up in an out of court deal.
I should think a drone can be launched at a similar or greater accelleration than that of a manned aircraft launching off a carrier. But the steam catapult probably does not provide a fixed amount of accelleration, but a fixed amount of force. Apply this force to a small, light drone, and I think you'll be picking up small pieces of your expensive toy off the flight deck.
Actually, helping a murderer can make you an accessory to the crime if you know what his intent is (over here, at least. Not sure what the laws are like in other countries). If someone asks you "I bought this firearm, can you train me in using it safely?", and then goes off to shoot someone after you trained him, you can hardly be blamed. But what if someone drops by and states: "Those kids in the park have disturbed my rest for the last time! Can you explain how this shotgun works, and then help me saw off half the barrel?".
The latter case would be hard to sufficiently prove beyond doubt, if they'd charge you in court. In case of the Pirate Bay however, it should be abundantly clear to the owners that their tracker is used for sharing copyrighted materials, and little else. There's probably several laws they could be charged under. Aiding and abetting, membership of a criminal organisation, etc... Again, not sure what the laws are like in Sweden, but many countries have laws against this sort of thing. With penalties resulting in a cease and desist against the site at the least, fines, damages and perhaps even jail time.
I don't think the US Government is behind this, but if it turns out that they were, it would not surprise me either. There's a few strange things about this case... for example, why would Sweden oppose Assange to be released on bail by the UK, for this very flimsy allegation of rape? The case itself doesn't really merit the measures that have been taken against Assange so far.
Of course, if the US really wanted to get their hands on Assange "legally", then this would be the easiest avenue of approach. Once Assange is in Swedish custody, all the US have to do is charge him and request extradition. If that happens, my guess is that the rape charge will evaporate overnight so that nothing stands in the way of his extradition.
Consumers generally favour all-you-can-eat plans over this nickle&diming for separate items. They like to pay 50 euro/month every month instead of paying 30 some months and 70 on other months. And thankfully we have enough competition... a few carriers have tried to introduce metered traffic, low data caps and/or bandwidth throttling, but each time there has been such a consumer backlash and people switching en masse to the competition that to date, internet traffic (either wired or mobile) is cheap and in practice unlimited. And plans to charge extra for certain services will probably meet the same fate.
Actually, I think this is an interesting app, for two reasons: 1) The "wow" factor: even if the app doesn't work all that well and the only translation available is (crappy) Spanish, this app actually demonstrates one of those things that pops into everybody's head when they think of the future of AR.
./ and other tech blogs and magazines. They could have made a bundle.
2) unlike you, I believe apps like these will become very useful. There are many instances where I've wondered what a particular sign meant... "danger, rockfall ahead" would have been useful to know. Or think of restaurant menus. Sure, there are other apps that do this, but the "cutesy" text overlay is what makes this app an App (in the Apple sense): it's highly visual and immediately usable. No hassle with making snapshots first. And yes, at some point this tech might even be integrated into future AR glasses.
Too bad the authors really missed an opportunity here... instead of offering this for free and charging $5 for the language packs, they should have had a few languages ready, charged $.79 for the app with one language thrown in. This app is now all over the web, on
That's not the point. The point is that a government thinks it has the right to block websites without any form of due process. That should have anyone worrying, no matter how ineffective the actual block.
By the way, the powers-that-be in Netherlands tried a similar stunt; bringing in a law allowing summary takedown of websites with kiddie porn, then trying to extend that law to other categories. They failed... but seriously, if anyone proposes a rule stating that "we need this to fight kiddie porn", be afraid, be very afraid, and take a long hard look at what is actually being proposed, and think about how it can be extended.