Yeah, Bush sucks. I remember the good old days when Bill & Al were in the White House and Microsoft was just a socially conscious underdog struggling against the tyranny of Apple......um, or did I get that wrong?
Be careful in attaching too much meaning to opinion surveys. All this survey tells us is how _comfortable_ these users are with technology, not how proficient they really are. This survey could tell us as much about demographic attitudes as it does about capabilities. For instance, your average user in a high-tech area might actually feel less capable than a user in a more agricultural or industrial area, simply because they are constantly surrounded by evidence of the the technology elite.
Unless a study is done rigorously, preferably using double-blind testing, I'm going to be skeptical about its interpretation.
So, um, what's the point of this? Are you suggesting that Steve should either:
1) Compete more directly with Microsoft
2) Become another Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc.
3) Switch to Linux
4) Just close up shop, liquidate the assets, and distribute the take to preferred stock holders?
Why do people buy Mercedes when Toyotas clearly get the job done at a better price/performance ratio?
It's "engineering-centric" thinking like this that leads most software companies to let their engineers design the user interfaces, and it's why I and millions of others will continue to buy Macs.
You're high. Copenhagen was mildly interesting but way to contrived. And they never touched on quantum at all, which I find improbable.
But most importantly, Proof had much more engaging characters and better acting (I saw the JJL version) even if the subject matter wasn't as highbrow.
In the environment where we did most of our evolving very few people lived to "old age" before succumbing to a number of other dangers, so something that kept cancer at bay for a while at the price of guaranteeing death after a few decades probably seemed like a good deal.
Kind of like the 640k limit. "That ought to be enough for everybody."
Actually, capitalism is about leveraging capital, and "property" is just one of the most stable kinds of capital to leverage. I.e., you borrow money against the value of your land and use it to start a business, that's capitalism.
Hernando de Soto has a great book, "The Mystery of Capital," that postulates the biggest barrier to growth in the 3rd world is that as much as 90% of all property is not "legally" owned so it can't be used as capital. Thus 90% of the wealth in these companies is stagnant wealth.
I was so irate by this article that I fired off a letter to the NYT almost immediately. They didn't print it today (of course) but here's the text of what I wrote:
In response to the claim that experiments in soccer-playing robots "may be
surprising to those who believe that the pursuit of individual rewards -- as in
capitalism -- encourages people to develop a diversity of ideas..." the only thing
that surprised me was the astonishing leap of illogic performed by the writer.
The heart of capitalism, Trade, is not a zero-sum game (as soccer is, by the way)
but rather it provides mutual benefit to both parties in a voluntary transaction. In both
versions of robot soccer the goal is presumably for each individual to maximize
personal reward, but in the group-reward version the best strategy is cooperation,
much like in trade. We must conclude that this model is actually the better
analogue for a free market economy.
If we are looking for an analogue to the individual-reward version of robot soccer,
we should perhaps consider systems in which individuals compete ("lobby") for
rewards ("entitlements") distributed by a central authority ("Democrats").
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Bush sucks. I remember the good old days when Bill & Al were in the White House and Microsoft was just a socially conscious underdog struggling against the tyranny of Apple... ...um, or did I get that wrong?
This proposed show would have Amber in a bikini, would it not?
Be careful in attaching too much meaning to opinion surveys. All this survey tells us is how _comfortable_ these users are with technology, not how proficient they really are. This survey could tell us as much about demographic attitudes as it does about capabilities. For instance, your average user in a high-tech area might actually feel less capable than a user in a more agricultural or industrial area, simply because they are constantly surrounded by evidence of the the technology elite. Unless a study is done rigorously, preferably using double-blind testing, I'm going to be skeptical about its interpretation.
Ok, I'm convinced that I should stop using the Gnutella network. But what should I use with OS X if it's not LimeWire?
So, um, what's the point of this? Are you suggesting that Steve should either: 1) Compete more directly with Microsoft 2) Become another Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc. 3) Switch to Linux 4) Just close up shop, liquidate the assets, and distribute the take to preferred stock holders? Why do people buy Mercedes when Toyotas clearly get the job done at a better price/performance ratio? It's "engineering-centric" thinking like this that leads most software companies to let their engineers design the user interfaces, and it's why I and millions of others will continue to buy Macs.
You're high. Copenhagen was mildly interesting but way to contrived. And they never touched on quantum at all, which I find improbable. But most importantly, Proof had much more engaging characters and better acting (I saw the JJL version) even if the subject matter wasn't as highbrow.
In the environment where we did most of our evolving very few people lived to "old age" before succumbing to a number of other dangers, so something that kept cancer at bay for a while at the price of guaranteeing death after a few decades probably seemed like a good deal. Kind of like the 640k limit. "That ought to be enough for everybody."
Bill has fairly deep pockets. Maybe the settlement should be that he runs barbed wire...er, cat 3 cable...to all of our houses.
Is it just me, or did anyone else think "huge bare ass" when they saw "Hugh Barrass" in this article?
Hummer Winblad. $60 million. About a year ago.
Hernando de Soto has a great book, "The Mystery of Capital," that postulates the biggest barrier to growth in the 3rd world is that as much as 90% of all property is not "legally" owned so it can't be used as capital. Thus 90% of the wealth in these companies is stagnant wealth.
I was so irate by this article that I fired off a letter to the NYT almost immediately. They didn't print it today (of course) but here's the text of what I wrote: In response to the claim that experiments in soccer-playing robots "may be surprising to those who believe that the pursuit of individual rewards -- as in capitalism -- encourages people to develop a diversity of ideas..." the only thing that surprised me was the astonishing leap of illogic performed by the writer. The heart of capitalism, Trade, is not a zero-sum game (as soccer is, by the way) but rather it provides mutual benefit to both parties in a voluntary transaction. In both versions of robot soccer the goal is presumably for each individual to maximize personal reward, but in the group-reward version the best strategy is cooperation, much like in trade. We must conclude that this model is actually the better analogue for a free market economy. If we are looking for an analogue to the individual-reward version of robot soccer, we should perhaps consider systems in which individuals compete ("lobby") for rewards ("entitlements") distributed by a central authority ("Democrats").