Right now I have a high end data phone for Sprint and with the "extra" costs (BS shit like paying for university wireless coverage? WTF?) I am paying 64 bucks a month for a shittier plan than the IPHONE.
So how much "more" does someone have to pay every single month for the Iphone that is hidden?
That is true, you would not necessarily stay in one role all of the time. Though I would classify sports casters, journalists, etc... as Content Aggregators. The reason I say that is because they are not generating their own content, but aggregating the specific research into a summarized form.
There content may not even BE valid, or may only be valid if you subscribe to a certain point of view or philosophy, but it is content aggregation none the less.
In the end the Content generators would be better classified as people who create things, and those who first comment on a subject or get the raw content that is generated.
Someone who makes a TV show would be a Content Generator, someone who looks at a satellite image and deduces some fact would be a content generator, or someone who develops a new way to view the stars would be a generator by virtue of the devices created.
I like your post, but if interested could you post a better description or maybe multiple classification? My post had just the highest level of what I felt to be a starting point, but each set might be broken up like you say. When we say "content" do we mean "The creators of Lost" or do we mean "Albert Einstein."
So that itself could be broken up into two groups.
But in the end I think this is where people are going from a simplistic term, all driven by computing and not some intrinsic intelligence on the subject.
I think it even creates less and less value for those who truly are knowledge generalist, and the most valuable people will be the smartest and brightest who can create new things.
Would a computer programmer be a content generator , content aggregator, or content consumer? Is developing code to solve a problem "generating" content, or not? in the example I gave someone who is a content consumer could write simple programs using only a minor subset of skills.
So now I have to think of examples how I would even fit someone into a content generator? Is that merely someone who is good at aggregating things with his own specific knowledge to give them meaning and context?
I have thought about this issue in depth, and what I think is going to happen is something very similar to Vernor Vinge's book Rainbows End.
People are going to be divided into 3 groups. Those who consumer information, those who can aggregate information, and those who create information.
The consumers of information will the general public, they will log into Google, type their search term, and get an answer. They will add nothing but their opinions on the information, problems they had with it, and any improvements that help them.
Then you will have the aggregators, these individuals will be professionals whose job it is to be able to find specific important information from a heap and make sense of it for consumers. If they do it in the private sphere they will be paid every time they produce the information. If they release their information to the public (IE on a forum or a blog) the information will lose its "value" as something to be known. They will be highly respected, and at times paid (through donations and doing the same kind of work for those looking for it for a "first" time).
Then you will have the actually smart people, these individuals will be consumers of the same data but will also be able to take that knowledge and create more knowledge. They may release it at a very high level, and to a small initial peer group, but will be very highly paid.
So who would fit into these groups?
The consumer of information would be regular consumer trying to find out what a specific error message on their computer is or what they can cook with some of the stuff they have in their fridge.
The second group, the aggregators, already work in the Googles, Lycos, and Database Marketing companies of the world where they take a vast amount of data, either from free or pay sources, and aggregate the results into something useful.
The Information Generators would be people that actually create knowledge, such as scientists, engineers finding real problems in unique systems, and even those that commission to have software made (though maybe not the programmers that generate it).
I will note that the above is not entirely thought through, but it seems intuitive on the surface, especially with those we see around us.
I have found kids who have problem doing math on paper, I tutored a girl who had problems doing math problems such as expanding X(X + 1) when they are in college.
But these people are making it because they are good and knowledgeable consumers of aggregated information. When they needed to get through a literature class, they just looked up and found what other people said about it using Google.
And is this all bad? Sure it is. Or maybe not! Who can tell?
Am I any better at solving a business problems because I can sit down for 5 minutes and come up with a solution than a person who has been trained through life to use Google and type a 3 word phrase that comes up with the same, or better, answer?
As a programmer I have seen myself become a consumer of information more and more, and less and less as a creator of information. I am finding that sometimes that spending an hour of thought on a specifically interesting programming problem is sometimes less good than simply finding a well known and accepted reference implementation by someone on the net.
How do I justify saying that I am a better employee because I could have done it without searching when the world is becoming more and more result oriented?
Your willing to pay nearly 100 for your bill, and you are ignoring the extra fees which can add mandatory 10-20 dollars to your bill.
If you have the kind of phone that can really take advantage of the high data stuff, you are getting into 7 dollars a month insurance fee's.
etc... etc... etc...
When all you should really have to pay is for phone and data services which SHOULD cost around 50 dollars, but instead costs 70 dollars because of 20 dollars mandatory fees applied.
If this stuff can convert any material, then they should convert weeds. Have the government let them clean out the green vine stuff that stifles forests and stuff in the south, and if they want they can mow my grass for free too, I won't even make them pay me.
Thats the solution. You have it from Creative's mouth. They purposefully are positioning themselves to cripple your hardware to make the actual cost of your card higher if you have Vista.
This is not a problem with Vista, it is a problem with Creative if they do that.
So, do not buy Creative sound cards and let them go out of business.
In 1999 my physics class students got together and created a web forum that was anonymous and we all worked on the physics problems from the various tests.
Unfortunately for many students they did not actually learn the material, and many failed the tests, thus drive the curve for those who could answer the questions, meaning a lot of people got better grades than they would have otherwise.
The physics prof. found the page out, and would comment on it, but since no one could be found who had actually started the page and the forum didnt track anything, people would just post answers.
The last test in the class was crazy hard because it did not use any of the study examples that people had posted answers to on the forum.
Heheh sure sure sure. My friends and I have studied how to game the system, especially in hardcore Headquarters mode where you can force the respawn of the enemy team if you have 3 players working together to do so.
You get 3 kills, then 5 kills (which is pretty easy to do if all your doing is Dming in Headquarters) then you call in an airstrike which usually gets 5-6 kills because your using your buddies to pull a UAV.
Then, it becomes a string of helicopters a string of airstrikes, over and over and over.
It is not that helicopters are _bad_ per se, but because they allow momentum in most of the game types that is nearly impossible to turn around. This is also related to spawn camping, which is essentially the root problem. If you can figure out where the enemy is spawning, you just camp outside of it. and BAM game over.
When I die in COD 4 while defending an objective, or simply beat out by someone more clever/luckier than I am when running the map, it is fine. Especially if the death is in a last ditch effort against a group of players while defending in Headquarters or Domination.
What gets me angry, cursing and fuming, is dieing pointlessly to helicopters, martyrdom and other elements which detract from skillful play. I also dislike dieing after spawning with my back to someone pointing a gun to my head, or dieing from a grenade that landed right where I was spawning.
So I think it really comes down to what kind of "death" it is.
Actually the book Empire (I think thats the name) by Arthur C Clarke actually involved humans from earth mining Titan, the earth would send empty pods at Titan, and the people on Titan (miners) would send the pods back full of fuel.
14 year round trip, but once the "stream" of fuel pods starts coming it becomes a steady source of fuel.
When I go to live leak and I look at videos on live leak and I see the terrorists getting happy when they have videos blowing up our little robots (now i know there are a lot of vids of them blowing up hum vees too) I am happy that that was not a humvee.
The best class would be a hybrid class where they get people wanting to major in business together with students in CS and they do a god damned project together.
I was very good at college programming courses, only to get tossed into the "real" world where everyone does projects doing things that no one even approached having to do in an honest to God working environment.
My ability to write a house emulator using X10 using Python on Linux was a FUN project but had no real world applicability.
What should be done is get a group of business majors who approach their IT department from the point of view of their "client" their "Client" being the business classes instructor who never talks to IT directly except through scheduled phone calls.
The business majors spend a period of time getting project requirements together, and during this period of time technology on how to approach the known problem is taught in the class on the IT side(takes first half of the semester), as well as meetings with the business group (possibly last 20 minutes of every class) to soften the overall proposal, discuss layouts, designs, feasibility etc...
Then the second half of the semester the functional requirements and implementation stage for the program done by IT while the business group sets up meetings with the client when requested as well creating documentation of the work and trying to stop scope creep.
If done right you could implement the completely dysfunctional work environment that people have to work in every day, and get a product that meets most of the requirements out the door by the deadline. The teachers would grade on work done, how close to requirements it met, then grade on the following basis.
The "client" (business teachers) score would mean 20% of the overall grade of the IT group after reviewing performance reviews from the business students and IT documentation created for him to see, and 80% of the business students based on their performance and responsibilities, and IT instructor would give 80% for the IT students based on their code, cleanliness and following of some standard, and 20 % on reviews by the IT students and documentation provided to the IT students.
This way both groups "grade" each other.
Another good class (say part 2 of this thinking) would be having the students do a series of "real" upgrades and code management of legacy systems that people want to add features too.
if they could pass both of those then they are ready for the regular grind of work.
How do you quantify damage? The company I work for have had similar issues happen when we looked for names descriptive of our client relationship (IE something like BuzzCompanyClientCompanyB2Bportal.com) getting snatched up minutes later when we went to check for availability. This of course means we either pay the exorbitant price to get the domain or choose another one and buy it immediately.
This idea has been explored in Science fiction a lot, I remember one outer limits where the people considered others of their social group "retarded" for not being able to order ahead electronically.
Also, don't the Japanese already do this with their cell phone technology? Does Japanese prior art count?
Just thought of this. This would be a wicked interface, and much more natural, for someone piloting a drone helicopter or even robotic vehicle.
If you had several monitors, this could be used to make them feel as if they were an actual "pilots seat" of a vehicle giving perfect perspective to the "pilot" because they know where the head is oriented and each monitor could produce the proper peripheral and image views for the "pilot"
It would take a little tricky camera work for the robotic vehicle, but I am sure gratuitous funding could solve those problems.
Holy shit that was awesome, why is this guy not employed somewhere they can give hive lots of money? If I were in a gaming department for the next XBOX360 flight game or something, I would hire this dude and give him as much money as he needed to make potential customers feel as if they were inside a frigging airplane lol man that was sweet looking.
Your thinking too small. At a small level without patent protection this is true. in a world of patent protection and large seed investment for one company, then the free market moves toward monopoly. Microsoft would own nearly every single computer market if it was unregulated and did not have to at least pretend to be competitive.
Another example is energy, oil companies are so large that if someone enters the market that can produce the product as well, the oil company can simply buy out the new product, thus maintaining their monopoly.
It would be foolish for new company A to "fight" against say exonn mobile even if they could produce energy at 1 cent per 1 dollar (100 times cheaper) than Exonn Mobile if Exonn Mobile offered to buy them for the equivalent of 10 years of profit. then, having a monopoly Exonn mobile simply raises the price to 50 cents per dollar it costs them to currently make energy, and make back their costs for the company in 5 years and can actually do it faster if they have the resources to produce it faster. Company A could never get the seed money Exonn had to compete at the same level, but now the consumer which would have benefited from competitive growth (slower growth against multiple competitors for company A product as it would have been getting cheaper and cheaper) is now screwed out of 49 cents a dollar they could have saved otherwise.
Even large aircraft industry works like this, if it was not for government subsidy (non freemarket influences) we would still have the monopoly power of the major carriers since the cost of entry is so high.
There are a LOT of reasons for this, but as long as demand remains for a product and someone reaches some tipping point (IE nation wide like time warner) then they win.
What is not seen by the poster your replied to is the fact that in this case there was regulation, and this regulation removed the middleman allowing monopoly at an increased pace.
The Free Market creates kings, as someone eventually reaches the tipping point where they can use the excess to drive others from the market, and as long as something else with explosive growth and easy entry does not jump into the market to dominate it, or someone from a competing market that is worth more does not enter the market at high expense, they will stay king.
Isn't the OLPC supposed to address the root problem that the local individuals have low education and skills and the only skill that they do have (farming) is moot because of a lack of natural resources?
He is just less clever than he could have been that is all.
You could probably make this a flat surface representation where the wii not be on your television but below your hand which rests on glass. There are some interface issues that have to be taken into account as controlling something like windows does not work in this situation, but if you had an apple iphone like interface it would work great.
Slashdot Mirror
well said
Question for you, what are the "extra" costs.
Right now I have a high end data phone for Sprint and with the "extra" costs (BS shit like paying for university wireless coverage? WTF?) I am paying 64 bucks a month for a shittier plan than the IPHONE.
So how much "more" does someone have to pay every single month for the Iphone that is hidden?
That is true, you would not necessarily stay in one role all of the time. Though I would classify sports casters, journalists, etc... as Content Aggregators. The reason I say that is because they are not generating their own content, but aggregating the specific research into a summarized form.
There content may not even BE valid, or may only be valid if you subscribe to a certain point of view or philosophy, but it is content aggregation none the less.
In the end the Content generators would be better classified as people who create things, and those who first comment on a subject or get the raw content that is generated.
Someone who makes a TV show would be a Content Generator, someone who looks at a satellite image and deduces some fact would be a content generator, or someone who develops a new way to view the stars would be a generator by virtue of the devices created.
I like your post, but if interested could you post a better description or maybe multiple classification? My post had just the highest level of what I felt to be a starting point, but each set might be broken up like you say. When we say "content" do we mean "The creators of Lost" or do we mean "Albert Einstein."
So that itself could be broken up into two groups.
But in the end I think this is where people are going from a simplistic term, all driven by computing and not some intrinsic intelligence on the subject.
I think it even creates less and less value for those who truly are knowledge generalist, and the most valuable people will be the smartest and brightest who can create new things.
Would a computer programmer be a content generator , content aggregator, or content consumer? Is developing code to solve a problem "generating" content, or not? in the example I gave someone who is a content consumer could write simple programs using only a minor subset of skills.
So now I have to think of examples how I would even fit someone into a content generator? Is that merely someone who is good at aggregating things with his own specific knowledge to give them meaning and context?
I have thought about this issue in depth, and what I think is going to happen is something very similar to Vernor Vinge's book Rainbows End.
People are going to be divided into 3 groups. Those who consumer information, those who can aggregate information, and those who create information.
The consumers of information will the general public, they will log into Google, type their search term, and get an answer. They will add nothing but their opinions on the information, problems they had with it, and any improvements that help them.
Then you will have the aggregators, these individuals will be professionals whose job it is to be able to find specific important information from a heap and make sense of it for consumers. If they do it in the private sphere they will be paid every time they produce the information. If they release their information to the public (IE on a forum or a blog) the information will lose its "value" as something to be known. They will be highly respected, and at times paid (through donations and doing the same kind of work for those looking for it for a "first" time).
Then you will have the actually smart people, these individuals will be consumers of the same data but will also be able to take that knowledge and create more knowledge. They may release it at a very high level, and to a small initial peer group, but will be very highly paid.
So who would fit into these groups?
The consumer of information would be regular consumer trying to find out what a specific error message on their computer is or what they can cook with some of the stuff they have in their fridge.
The second group, the aggregators, already work in the Googles, Lycos, and Database Marketing companies of the world where they take a vast amount of data, either from free or pay sources, and aggregate the results into something useful.
The Information Generators would be people that actually create knowledge, such as scientists, engineers finding real problems in unique systems, and even those that commission to have software made (though maybe not the programmers that generate it).
I will note that the above is not entirely thought through, but it seems intuitive on the surface, especially with those we see around us.
I have found kids who have problem doing math on paper, I tutored a girl who had problems doing math problems such as expanding X(X + 1) when they are in college.
But these people are making it because they are good and knowledgeable consumers of aggregated information. When they needed to get through a literature class, they just looked up and found what other people said about it using Google.
And is this all bad? Sure it is. Or maybe not! Who can tell?
Am I any better at solving a business problems because I can sit down for 5 minutes and come up with a solution than a person who has been trained through life to use Google and type a 3 word phrase that comes up with the same, or better, answer?
As a programmer I have seen myself become a consumer of information more and more, and less and less as a creator of information. I am finding that sometimes that spending an hour of thought on a specifically interesting programming problem is sometimes less good than simply finding a well known and accepted reference implementation by someone on the net.
How do I justify saying that I am a better employee because I could have done it without searching when the world is becoming more and more result oriented?
Just a thought. Hope for comments and criticisms!
Your willing to pay nearly 100 for your bill, and you are ignoring the extra fees which can add mandatory 10-20 dollars to your bill.
If you have the kind of phone that can really take advantage of the high data stuff, you are getting into 7 dollars a month insurance fee's.
etc... etc... etc...
When all you should really have to pay is for phone and data services which SHOULD cost around 50 dollars, but instead costs 70 dollars because of 20 dollars mandatory fees applied.
If this stuff can convert any material, then they should convert weeds. Have the government let them clean out the green vine stuff that stifles forests and stuff in the south, and if they want they can mow my grass for free too, I won't even make them pay me.
So this is how the Axolotl tanks began.
Thats the solution. You have it from Creative's mouth. They purposefully are positioning themselves to cripple your hardware to make the actual cost of your card higher if you have Vista.
This is not a problem with Vista, it is a problem with Creative if they do that.
So, do not buy Creative sound cards and let them go out of business.
In 1999 my physics class students got together and created a web forum that was anonymous and we all worked on the physics problems from the various tests.
Unfortunately for many students they did not actually learn the material, and many failed the tests, thus drive the curve for those who could answer the questions, meaning a lot of people got better grades than they would have otherwise.
The physics prof. found the page out, and would comment on it, but since no one could be found who had actually started the page and the forum didnt track anything, people would just post answers.
The last test in the class was crazy hard because it did not use any of the study examples that people had posted answers to on the forum.
Heheh sure sure sure. My friends and I have studied how to game the system, especially in hardcore Headquarters mode where you can force the respawn of the enemy team if you have 3 players working together to do so.
You get 3 kills, then 5 kills (which is pretty easy to do if all your doing is Dming in Headquarters) then you call in an airstrike which usually gets 5-6 kills because your using your buddies to pull a UAV.
Then, it becomes a string of helicopters a string of airstrikes, over and over and over.
It is not that helicopters are _bad_ per se, but because they allow momentum in most of the game types that is nearly impossible to turn around. This is also related to spawn camping, which is essentially the root problem. If you can figure out where the enemy is spawning, you just camp outside of it. and BAM game over.
When I die in COD 4 while defending an objective, or simply beat out by someone more clever/luckier than I am when running the map, it is fine. Especially if the death is in a last ditch effort against a group of players while defending in Headquarters or Domination.
What gets me angry, cursing and fuming, is dieing pointlessly to helicopters, martyrdom and other elements which detract from skillful play. I also dislike dieing after spawning with my back to someone pointing a gun to my head, or dieing from a grenade that landed right where I was spawning.
So I think it really comes down to what kind of "death" it is.
Actually the book Empire (I think thats the name) by Arthur C Clarke actually involved humans from earth mining Titan, the earth would send empty pods at Titan, and the people on Titan (miners) would send the pods back full of fuel.
14 year round trip, but once the "stream" of fuel pods starts coming it becomes a steady source of fuel.
Actually spyware does this all the time, so I am not sure you did not just point out prior art with your phishing example.
When I go to live leak and I look at videos on live leak and I see the terrorists getting happy when they have videos blowing up our little robots (now i know there are a lot of vids of them blowing up hum vees too) I am happy that that was not a humvee.
Sir, I could not come to work today as the fee to use the road was higher than my daily pay + gas.
Because they are the lucky ones. You do not tell a kid he can keep sticking his head in the guillotine just because it hasnt fallen on him.
The idea is to punish before someone gets killed to deter further reckless behavior.
The best class would be a hybrid class where they get people wanting to major in business together with students in CS and they do a god damned project together.
I was very good at college programming courses, only to get tossed into the "real" world where everyone does projects doing things that no one even approached having to do in an honest to God working environment.
My ability to write a house emulator using X10 using Python on Linux was a FUN project but had no real world applicability.
What should be done is get a group of business majors who approach their IT department from the point of view of their "client" their "Client" being the business classes instructor who never talks to IT directly except through scheduled phone calls.
The business majors spend a period of time getting project requirements together, and during this period of time technology on how to approach the known problem is taught in the class on the IT side(takes first half of the semester), as well as meetings with the business group (possibly last 20 minutes of every class) to soften the overall proposal, discuss layouts, designs, feasibility etc...
Then the second half of the semester the functional requirements and implementation stage for the program done by IT while the business group sets up meetings with the client when requested as well creating documentation of the work and trying to stop scope creep.
If done right you could implement the completely dysfunctional work environment that people have to work in every day, and get a product that meets most of the requirements out the door by the deadline. The teachers would grade on work done, how close to requirements it met, then grade on the following basis.
The "client" (business teachers) score would mean 20% of the overall grade of the IT group after reviewing performance reviews from the business students and IT documentation created for him to see, and 80% of the business students based on their performance and responsibilities, and IT instructor would give 80% for the IT students based on their code, cleanliness and following of some standard, and 20 % on reviews by the IT students and documentation provided to the IT students.
This way both groups "grade" each other.
Another good class (say part 2 of this thinking) would be having the students do a series of "real" upgrades and code management of legacy systems that people want to add features too.
if they could pass both of those then they are ready for the regular grind of work.
How do you quantify damage? The company I work for have had similar issues happen when we looked for names descriptive of our client relationship (IE something like BuzzCompanyClientCompanyB2Bportal.com) getting snatched up minutes later when we went to check for availability. This of course means we either pay the exorbitant price to get the domain or choose another one and buy it immediately.
This idea has been explored in Science fiction a lot, I remember one outer limits where the people considered others of their social group "retarded" for not being able to order ahead electronically.
Also, don't the Japanese already do this with their cell phone technology? Does Japanese prior art count?
Just thought of this. This would be a wicked interface, and much more natural, for someone piloting a drone helicopter or even robotic vehicle.
If you had several monitors, this could be used to make them feel as if they were an actual "pilots seat" of a vehicle giving perfect perspective to the "pilot" because they know where the head is oriented and each monitor could produce the proper peripheral and image views for the "pilot"
It would take a little tricky camera work for the robotic vehicle, but I am sure gratuitous funding could solve those problems.
Holy shit that was awesome, why is this guy not employed somewhere they can give hive lots of money? If I were in a gaming department for the next XBOX360 flight game or something, I would hire this dude and give him as much money as he needed to make potential customers feel as if they were inside a frigging airplane lol man that was sweet looking.
Your thinking too small. At a small level without patent protection this is true. in a world of patent protection and large seed investment for one company, then the free market moves toward monopoly. Microsoft would own nearly every single computer market if it was unregulated and did not have to at least pretend to be competitive.
Another example is energy, oil companies are so large that if someone enters the market that can produce the product as well, the oil company can simply buy out the new product, thus maintaining their monopoly.
It would be foolish for new company A to "fight" against say exonn mobile even if they could produce energy at 1 cent per 1 dollar (100 times cheaper) than Exonn Mobile if Exonn Mobile offered to buy them for the equivalent of 10 years of profit. then, having a monopoly Exonn mobile simply raises the price to 50 cents per dollar it costs them to currently make energy, and make back their costs for the company in 5 years and can actually do it faster if they have the resources to produce it faster. Company A could never get the seed money Exonn had to compete at the same level, but now the consumer which would have benefited from competitive growth (slower growth against multiple competitors for company A product as it would have been getting cheaper and cheaper) is now screwed out of 49 cents a dollar they could have saved otherwise.
Even large aircraft industry works like this, if it was not for government subsidy (non freemarket influences) we would still have the monopoly power of the major carriers since the cost of entry is so high.
There are a LOT of reasons for this, but as long as demand remains for a product and someone reaches some tipping point (IE nation wide like time warner) then they win.
What is not seen by the poster your replied to is the fact that in this case there was regulation, and this regulation removed the middleman allowing monopoly at an increased pace.
The Free Market creates kings, as someone eventually reaches the tipping point where they can use the excess to drive others from the market, and as long as something else with explosive growth and easy entry does not jump into the market to dominate it, or someone from a competing market that is worth more does not enter the market at high expense, they will stay king.
"The whim of others to harm you" I will have to remember that.
Isn't the OLPC supposed to address the root problem that the local individuals have low education and skills and the only skill that they do have (farming) is moot because of a lack of natural resources?
He is just less clever than he could have been that is all.
You could probably make this a flat surface representation where the wii not be on your television but below your hand which rests on glass. There are some interface issues that have to be taken into account as controlling something like windows does not work in this situation, but if you had an apple iphone like interface it would work great.