I had a friend of mine who used to work at a gaming store. His job was to steam open the Magic The Gathering card packs, replace the rare cards with bunk and reseal them.
It's not unheard of for a store to just flat out rip people off. I'm not saying this is what Newegg did, I'm a happy customer of theirs - but human nature being what it is I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be the case.
The issue of life insurance is a red herring. The point was that nobody needs to be paid for their creative work after they die.
Not a red herring at all. I might be making money after I die through life insurance, depending on my method of departing this place.
If you're being pedantic, sure - nobody needs to be paid after they die because they're dead. I won't be needing a cheeseburger and a roof over my head. But my point is that I have needs that expand beyond my own life and my own selfish needs. I personally won't have any needs, but my family will and that is important to me.
90+ years of copyright protection is an abuse of the spirit (if not the letter) of the copyright clause of the US Constitution.
I agree. I wouldn't argue this point and I'm not on this side of the discussion. I'm merely pointing out that some of us have needs that expand beyond our own lifetimes, and it's natural to want to meet those needs somehow.
A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
Maybe a true artist doesn't, but I certainly need compensation after death. It's called life insurance. I have plenty so if I get hit by a bus my wife and son get a paid off house and a chance at a good life without me providing for them.
You've bought into her "marketing disclaimer" - not the actual function. The clear air angle is nothing more than a good healthy dose of CYA. It's illegal to block cell phone transmissions. If she pitches this thing as an air ionizer - then she's golden.
She says this: "It is intended for city-dwellers who feel that their personal space is being overrun with undesired radio transmissions." That's the disclaimer. Which is patently absurd since the thing is a transmitter. I'm pretty sure she's bright enough to get this point.
She also says this: "Much like the personal air ionizers available in catalogues, this device is for cleaning up the air around the user. By pinning this device to a bag or jacket, the user can enjoy a radius of silence. The device is also small enough to tape underneath classroom and office desks, or tables in libraries and restaurants." The only thing she didn't add was "wink wink nudge nudge".
She's hoping that the reader is intelligent enough to see through her CYA disclaimer and use the device as it is intended - to keep people around you at restaurants and movies from screeching into their cellphones while you're trying to have an enjoyable evening out.
But since I might possibly have the ear of a dev there, this seems like a good place to discuss things.
I love the idea of gEDA. I really do. There is a definite need for such a project. But Seakip18 is right. The lack of documentation makes it nearly unusable. I can't say if it's a good program or not because it isn't terribly welcoming to new users. I simply don't have the free time to puzzle it out.
Eagle on the other hand, is welcoming to new users. It is intuitive, documentation is good, you can get up and running with it pretty quick. It is easy to use.
If your vision of "open source hardware" means "open source hardware tools were used", it's within your power to make that happen. Give the world an on-ramp to using gEDA by writing some good documentation. Make a beginners interface that looks Eagle-ish. Write tutorials. Do something to make the tools more usable and the rest will take care of itself.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I can't pass up an opportunity like this.
(Mootar) morons.
(Mootar) these people who live in my apartment complex are connected to my wireless
(Mootar) they must think they're super-cool hackers by breaking into my completely unsecure network
(Mootar) unfortunatly, the connection works both ways
(Mootar) long story short, they now have loads of horse porn on their computer
Have some shop hire in a newb that can't write because they're cheap. Six months later they'll need me. And I'll be able to bill whatever I want.
And on the other side of the coin - maybe he's an ace, a diamond in the rough. A colleague just waiting to be discovered. Not everyone I know who writes great code has a degree. I can think of three people that absolutely blow me out of the water - none with formal degrees.
If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
Cadmium sulfides - a fairly common photoreceptor - are sensitive to infrared. We might be able to do better than mother nature someday. Imagine being able to see in infrared.
Honestly you have to outright lie to employers today. Hide your experience and education if you might be overqualified.
Exactly. Go ahead and lie on your resume. It's not illegal. The only thing bad that can happen is they find out, and you don't get the job. You wouldn't have gotten the job anyways so it's zero risk. I think a lie is fine if you're hungry. Maslow has it right - worry about your soul after you've had dinner.
Some jobs require lying as a prerequisite.
For instance, every manager you've ever met is a liar. Read the want ads/careerbuilder/whatever. Every single managerial position says the same thing: "Previous management experience a must." There are no zero experience jobs to start off with. Therefore the only way to break into the field is with an initial lie. QED.
Ok, kidding aside - if you know you're screwed, that means that you have less to risk on a second attempt. He's already an ex-con. When he gets out after this sentence he's going to be...an ex-con. Nothing will have changed, his prospects will be exactly the same. It's a good gamble, if you look at it from a game theory-ish kind of viewpoint.
But that being said I find it unlikely that he couldn't find any work at all. I mean hells bells, he's got the balls to install backdoor programs on an FBI server but he can't lie on a resume?
-1 overrated is not a substitute for "I disagree". I know the main groupthink here is "Microsoft is always wrong/evil/bad/etc." However true that may be, let's not begin the argument with bullshitting ourselves.
OP posted a conclusion that I thought was recklessly summed up. It's easy to come up with other notions on how this graph could look the way it does - I posted one.
If you disagree, fine. Post something that refutes my argument. A good starting point would be to look up Apple's revenue and see if it tracks with MS. If they track together, that's evidence of a common cause which would back up my argument. If they stray, then that would argue that the economy may not be the common cause.
It's lazy to use your mod points as a way to bury your head in the sand though. So stop it, please. Let's seek the truth no matter what it may be. Then we'll be able to proceed on solid ground, rather than simply jerking off to groupthink.
What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff. This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.
That's one possibility. Another would be the economy itself. Maybe when things are good people buy more software so both go up at the same time.
The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.
The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.
True, but my point was that any funny commercial will get posted on Fark/YouTube and it'll get the same circulation. Why pay the extra amount to have it broadcast during the superbowl? Geeks won't care one way or another because we won't be there for the most part and that's their target audience.
Intel has one ad in the collection from 1997, and it turns out that it is returning with two ads this year that it says feature 'geek humor.'
Seriously - why bother?
Geeks, at least the type of geek who cares who is making their cpu generally don't watch the superbowl. I know it's a stereotype, but it does have a basis in reality. I know of maybe one person at work that I would suspect *might* watch the game.
If the commercials are actually funny Fark will let me know and I'll catch them on YouTube tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a friend of mine who used to work at a gaming store. His job was to steam open the Magic The Gathering card packs, replace the rare cards with bunk and reseal them.
It's not unheard of for a store to just flat out rip people off. I'm not saying this is what Newegg did, I'm a happy customer of theirs - but human nature being what it is I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be the case.
The issue of life insurance is a red herring. The point was that nobody needs to be paid for their creative work after they die.
Not a red herring at all. I might be making money after I die through life insurance, depending on my method of departing this place.
If you're being pedantic, sure - nobody needs to be paid after they die because they're dead. I won't be needing a cheeseburger and a roof over my head. But my point is that I have needs that expand beyond my own life and my own selfish needs. I personally won't have any needs, but my family will and that is important to me.
90+ years of copyright protection is an abuse of the spirit (if not the letter) of the copyright clause of the US Constitution.
I agree. I wouldn't argue this point and I'm not on this side of the discussion. I'm merely pointing out that some of us have needs that expand beyond our own lifetimes, and it's natural to want to meet those needs somehow.
What does a blonde do with her asshole just before sex?
Drops him off at band practice.
A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
Maybe a true artist doesn't, but I certainly need compensation after death. It's called life insurance. I have plenty so if I get hit by a bus my wife and son get a paid off house and a chance at a good life without me providing for them.
A line from National Lampoon's Animal House came to my mind first thing:
"You can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up... you trusted us!"
I mean really - how could this guy possibly have expected them do drop something as useful* as a DNA fingerprint?
* useful in this context means "everyone is a suspect which makes my job easier as a cop"
No, they're not. But holistic air ionizers are.
Get it yet?
You've bought into her "marketing disclaimer" - not the actual function. The clear air angle is nothing more than a good healthy dose of CYA. It's illegal to block cell phone transmissions. If she pitches this thing as an air ionizer - then she's golden.
She says this: "It is intended for city-dwellers who feel that their personal space is being overrun with undesired radio transmissions." That's the disclaimer. Which is patently absurd since the thing is a transmitter. I'm pretty sure she's bright enough to get this point.
She also says this: "Much like the personal air ionizers available in catalogues, this device is for cleaning up the air around the user. By pinning this device to a bag or jacket, the user can enjoy a radius of silence. The device is also small enough to tape underneath classroom and office desks, or tables in libraries and restaurants." The only thing she didn't add was "wink wink nudge nudge".
She's hoping that the reader is intelligent enough to see through her CYA disclaimer and use the device as it is intended - to keep people around you at restaurants and movies from screeching into their cellphones while you're trying to have an enjoyable evening out.
But since I might possibly have the ear of a dev there, this seems like a good place to discuss things.
I love the idea of gEDA. I really do. There is a definite need for such a project. But Seakip18 is right. The lack of documentation makes it nearly unusable. I can't say if it's a good program or not because it isn't terribly welcoming to new users. I simply don't have the free time to puzzle it out.
Eagle on the other hand, is welcoming to new users. It is intuitive, documentation is good, you can get up and running with it pretty quick. It is easy to use.
If your vision of "open source hardware" means "open source hardware tools were used", it's within your power to make that happen. Give the world an on-ramp to using gEDA by writing some good documentation. Make a beginners interface that looks Eagle-ish. Write tutorials. Do something to make the tools more usable and the rest will take care of itself.
Apologies for the off-topic rant, but I can't pass up an opportunity like this.
#202477 +(7983)- [X]
(Mootar) morons.
(Mootar) these people who live in my apartment complex are connected to my wireless
(Mootar) they must think they're super-cool hackers by breaking into my completely unsecure network
(Mootar) unfortunatly, the connection works both ways
(Mootar) long story short, they now have loads of horse porn on their computer
Job security my man. Job security.
Have some shop hire in a newb that can't write because they're cheap. Six months later they'll need me. And I'll be able to bill whatever I want.
And on the other side of the coin - maybe he's an ace, a diamond in the rough. A colleague just waiting to be discovered. Not everyone I know who writes great code has a degree. I can think of three people that absolutely blow me out of the water - none with formal degrees.
If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
Way to go.
I've heard they're working with a Trim function thingy to remedy this, but I haven't really paid attention since.
If you're going to take the time out to post and bitch, at least read up and know what you're bitching about. They've had TRIM for a while now, and Indilinx firmware can collect fragmented nodes during pause time.
These are solved problems you're bitching about.
What do you do for an encore? Complain about how annoying it is to get across town in a horse and buggy?
Cadmium sulfides - a fairly common photoreceptor - are sensitive to infrared. We might be able to do better than mother nature someday. Imagine being able to see in infrared.
If he doesn't get awarded fees, there would hopefully be thousands willing to pitch in to reimburse him for the precedent he bought us.
I'd Paypal that for a dollar.
We finally have that micropayments thing the RIAA wanted all those years ago.
Honestly you have to outright lie to employers today. Hide your experience and education if you might be overqualified.
Exactly. Go ahead and lie on your resume. It's not illegal. The only thing bad that can happen is they find out, and you don't get the job. You wouldn't have gotten the job anyways so it's zero risk. I think a lie is fine if you're hungry. Maslow has it right - worry about your soul after you've had dinner.
Some jobs require lying as a prerequisite.
For instance, every manager you've ever met is a liar. Read the want ads/careerbuilder/whatever. Every single managerial position says the same thing: "Previous management experience a must." There are no zero experience jobs to start off with. Therefore the only way to break into the field is with an initial lie. QED.
He's not homeless anymore.
Ok, kidding aside - if you know you're screwed, that means that you have less to risk on a second attempt. He's already an ex-con. When he gets out after this sentence he's going to be...an ex-con. Nothing will have changed, his prospects will be exactly the same. It's a good gamble, if you look at it from a game theory-ish kind of viewpoint.
But that being said I find it unlikely that he couldn't find any work at all. I mean hells bells, he's got the balls to install backdoor programs on an FBI server but he can't lie on a resume?
-1 overrated is not a substitute for "I disagree". I know the main groupthink here is "Microsoft is always wrong/evil/bad/etc." However true that may be, let's not begin the argument with bullshitting ourselves.
OP posted a conclusion that I thought was recklessly summed up. It's easy to come up with other notions on how this graph could look the way it does - I posted one.
If you disagree, fine. Post something that refutes my argument. A good starting point would be to look up Apple's revenue and see if it tracks with MS. If they track together, that's evidence of a common cause which would back up my argument. If they stray, then that would argue that the economy may not be the common cause.
It's lazy to use your mod points as a way to bury your head in the sand though. So stop it, please. Let's seek the truth no matter what it may be. Then we'll be able to proceed on solid ground, rather than simply jerking off to groupthink.
What I find most interesting is the way all changes are perfectly synchronized with the exception of entertainment related stuff. This is clear indication of the power of vendor lock-in and tying unrelated products together.
That's one possibility. Another would be the economy itself. Maybe when things are good people buy more software so both go up at the same time.
The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.
The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.
As soon as the United States identifies the culprits in China...wow are they in trouble.
The lesson is: Even people famous for endless tinkering still like a simple, clean user experience once in a while.
Design your software with this in mind.
True, but my point was that any funny commercial will get posted on Fark/YouTube and it'll get the same circulation. Why pay the extra amount to have it broadcast during the superbowl? Geeks won't care one way or another because we won't be there for the most part and that's their target audience.
Intel has one ad in the collection from 1997, and it turns out that it is returning with two ads this year that it says feature 'geek humor.'
Seriously - why bother?
Geeks, at least the type of geek who cares who is making their cpu generally don't watch the superbowl. I know it's a stereotype, but it does have a basis in reality. I know of maybe one person at work that I would suspect *might* watch the game.
If the commercials are actually funny Fark will let me know and I'll catch them on YouTube tomorrow.
I'm not going to defend the product. I don't care if you hate it. But please - hate it for the right reasons at least.
You have now apparently read the article (or at least looked at the picture), and you now hate it for the right reasons.
My job here... is done.