NDA is really no big deal. Anything you bring to the table is still yours.
It really depends on the context of the situation and it also depends on how the NDA is worded.
When someone lacks an NDA, on the other hand, I tend to think they are not very serious.
Then, you're probably a business person, not an actual developer.
As a developer, I only really need to know that you're building the next FourSquare, or the next Twitter. You don't need to tell me your secret sauce (in fact, it would be better if you didn't tell me that part).
And if you do really need to get down to that level of detail, and need to get some detailed specific advice directly related to your secret sauce, be prepared to put some money on the line before expecting me to sign anything. Because as a developer, I find that it's usually the people that are looking for free technical advice that ask you to sign an NDA.
However, since Australians already pay per-gigabyte (either through a cap or pre-paid) perhaps the easiest and best solution for all concerned is to whack on a modest per-GB tariff, similar to the Canadian levy on blank media, to be paid back to content producers.
So then you'd be making internet teleconferencing pay the content industry for the next 100 years to come.
What resolution does it stream in? In any case, it seems that the Tivo is rather the exception rather than the rule in this case.
For me even with my cheap laptop or a cheap older PC, and on the cheapest slowest DSL plan, Netflix has always worked for me (as long as someone else in my family isn't streaming something else at the same time).
NoDaddy.com also used to carry criticism of GoDaddy, but then GoDaddy made NoDaddy's web admin an offer he couldn't refuse, and suddenly there was no where to post criticism of either. Does anyone know of a new site to post criticism of ICANN besides slashdot?
Why don't you create one? What you're describing sounds like a profitable business model.
The only risk would be if GoDaddy went belly up before you ever got a chance to get on their radar.
Two of the victims parents sued the school for not notifying the student body earlier to warn them that the domestic violence case they had contained earlier that morning would erupt into the worst school shooting in US history, and won.
No, that's a over-simplification of what happened. There were several issues.
The campus police department didn't have the authority, nor the mechanism to directly issue an emergency alert to the student body telling them "to stay inside and lock their doors because a shooter was on the loose", so even when they knew what was happening, which took a very long while in itself, they still couldn't notify the entire school without going first through an outdated manual and a barrage of school officials that acted as the gatekeepers to that system.
I have a book in the iBookstore. I set the price on it. Apple sells it for that price and gives me 70%. I have the same book in the other bookstores. I have no control over the price. They give me what they want, which is half of what Apple gives me.
And never mind that if those other bookstores try to sell your ebooks on the iPhones/iPads, they also have to give 30% to Apple.
This entire case is a crock of bullshit. When two black teens set a white kid on fire, a clear hate crime, it hardly gets a column in the local news.
May be, it's because the cops didn't start defending the two kids who did this to him, just like the sheriff did with Zimmerman.
Also, the fact that he was told "white boy" by his assaillants didn't come out until a couple of days later (according to the mom herself). The victim had already been interviewed by the police and the mom had already made her statements to the press, but it's only a few days later in the hospital room that the kid told his mother that they had said "white boy".
But when a hispanic guy kills a black teen it garnishes national media attention?
The guy wasn't just hispanic. He was the son of a former judge. He was hoping to become a police officer himself. And the sheriff clearly knew him and liked him already. That's at least one of the reasons the Sheriff jumped in to defend Zimmerman right away.
Did Obama come out and say "If I had a son, he'd look like Coon"?
Why would Obama need to intervene? Third parties should only intervene when the local police isn't doing its job. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that the police isn't doing its job in this case?
Will people pay for supposed "privacy"? Sure, a few would but absolutely not everyone.
Some businesses may be willing to pay for this kind of privacy.
After all, if the system is better at protecting the privacy of a customer from the US government, it may also be better at protecting such information from hackers, disgruntled employees, and/or corporate espionage.
Now, I'm not saying this kind of service will have many customers, but I could certainly envision a number of businesses be willing to pay a very high premium for this kind of added security layer (assuming this new ISP does a good job of it of course, which still remains to be seen).
The application details are a formality. The 30+million users are the product.
Not just that. The Facebook IPO stock is also the product.
And buying Instagram (for mostly what amounts to a stock swap) just before an IPO isn't as uncommon as you might think. Companies have been known to hire thousands of people for no other reason than trying to swell their headcount and ask for as much capitalization as possible for their IPO.
Any ideas on business models that would allow me to open source while guaranteeing I can feed myself?
There are no business models, either proprietary or open source, that will guarantee that you can feed yourself.
Also it sounds like you've already written the software and that you're just now trying to think of the business model for it. You've done it all backwards. This is not to say, that I haven't done the same thing myself, but I'm just trying to point out how wrong headed your way (and my way) really are in the real business world.
Also, you don't mention your competition, or anything about what your software does? What do you want from us that you couldn't already have found on your own through Wikipedia? The most important part, the competitive environment you're going to be in, is going to be crucial to the kind of business model you can sustain, and you haven't really told us anything about that part.
Just to give you another way to think about the problem, sometimes, some proprietary solutions can not make any headway in the marketplace (and can not feed their developers) when there is already an entrenched competing open source solution or an entrenched competing proprietary solution already out there (that is already considered good enough by customers). So if you're coming from behind (presumably without any funding compared to your existing/future competitors) your best bet may be to do something drastically different from them, and whether that drastic difference is going open source, or going proprietary, or doing something completely weird, it's anyone's guess whether any of those decisions will actually succeed, but those decisions and their successes/failures will largely depend on what your software/service does and the kind of competitive atmosphere that software/service is going to be in.
Sigh. Every one of these initiatives fail because people assume access to technology will make people more educated, and education leads to a better life.
Who even said that? This Intel initiative is about selling more Intel chips, not about educating kids (although, I'm sure they don't mind the tax write-offs of pretending to be like a charity).
If Intel could start selling their chips as expensive paper weights, or as expensive ornamental pendants, they'd formulate goals that are as equally far-reaching and unattainable. This is what's called "big picture" thinking. This is what the CEOs get the big bucks for.
Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures.
What I'm incredulous about is the fact that Apple users spend an average of more than $600 on apps & markup.
No, no. That's not what the article says. You're jumping to your own conclusions.
The fact is, when an app is sold on the Google Market, a commission of 30 percent is given to the carrier (and only 2 percent is given to Google as a transaction cost assuming Google Checkout is used in the transaction). That's right, the commission is usually 32 percent (unless the carrier does its own billing). Of course, this number doesn't tell the entire story (but right now, I'm just trying to keep my response as short as possible).
In the case of the Apple app store however, the carriers do not get a dime of commission from it, and the entire 30 percents goes to Apple. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply that this 30 percent means a lot to Apple, Apple makes way more profits from selling the actual hardware of iPhones/iPads.
Basically, right now Google is the one who's subsidizing the carriers. And it's not doing it out of the kindness of its own heart. A few years ago, Google knew that the mobile space was going to overtake the desktop/laptop space (for various reasons, this had already happened for Google queries in South Africa and Indonesia, even without the iPhone). And for Google who's sole source of revenue is basically web advertising, this 'android' strategy is entirely about trying to survive the transition to mobile advertisements (which is sure to eclipse traditional web advertisements usually seen through desktops/laptops).
Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
Wanting to get paid for your work is not greed.
I was just trying to point out that "greed" is a label we reserve for others, not ourselves.
And whether or not payment was deserved or not, I do not know, I do not know the back-story, I just find it odd that the poster (I was replying to) told his ex-partner that someone always gets greedy. Greedy people (myself included) always think that others are greedy. It's a self-justification they give to themselves for taking from others.
And accusing someone of greed is by no means proof that the person making the accusation is not greedy himself or herself.
Does this mean that karma will catch up with this idiot too?
Not necessarily. In your case, her victims would have to prove that they lost money as a result. Did they?
In this case of Steele vs. Bell, I know that everyone is making light of the amount of money he won, but this guy Bell really didn't have any problem proving that he was already making $150,000 selling his paintings in just a few of months, so the amount he was awarded is probably just a very conservative estimate of what he could have earned if she had not prevented him from appearing at an art show, and blocked the online promotion of his movie showcasing his story.
I come out of the film industry and my saying is "some one always gets greedy". I told this to my expartner on my last film and he claimed that wasn't the case. Just to prove my point he stole the film literally from my home and to this day it's gone unfinished and is effectively worthless.
It sounds like you *both* got greedy, otherwise one of you would have just given the right to the other to keep on working on the film and publish it (promising not to sue him/her).
Not that there is anything wrong with that, greed is actually a very natural and understandable human emotion under some circumstances.
The thing is, going to Tech conferences is not boring for slashdot editors, you get into conferences for free, you get VIP treatment that's usually reserved for reporters/Hollywood actors, and you get free samples of review hardware (that they seldom ask you to return).
So it's no wonder that you guys want to build a video.slashdot.org
And whether you got paid in cash, got paid in hardware, or will get paid in the future with free stuff, or even never get paid with anything for the particular Plantronics story. That doesn't really matter. The fact is that out of all your slashdot readers, the best equipped to supply you with fresh video content (that doesn't come from a cheap webcam) are the PR folks and the PR consultants.
And that by creating a section such as video.slashdot.org, you're only forcing yourself to come up with more and more video content, when in fact you should be raising your standards instead, and accepting less and less videos -- because clearly the quality of your content is what's at stake here -- not the particular format you give to us in.
Also, please stop saying "We hear You Loud and Clear", when clearly you're trying to side-step the fact that PR folks have been taking advantage of your system. That makes your message appear even more disingenuous than it already is.
May be, this will help feed your egos and pretend that slashdot can be the next google/youtube, but realize that this is not the way most people browse your site. We couldn't care less about the format. We care about the actual content first and foremost (be that content be normal text, or video format, or both).
And forcing yourself to have a video section will only force yourself to fill that section with something -- anything!!! And once again, the first people that are going to jump on that bandwagon are the PR folks and the PR consultants because they're already used to producing videos and it's going to be a much easier section for them to get into so it's going to be a no-brainer for them.
Yes, the actual story is that the police didn't do their jobs, but that's certainly not anything new and it's certainly not the only story.
Another underlying story here is that given a big enough sample size, it's highly probable to find someone who's going to be a doppelgänger of the person you're looking for. This goes for a search on looks, partial fingerprints, or even partial dna.
Historically, this hasn't been much of a problem, but as technology advances -- getting larger and larger samples sizes of data is becoming easier and easier even for the average police man, so this kind of problem is only going to grow and grow as time goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
NDA is really no big deal. Anything you bring to the table is still yours.
It really depends on the context of the situation and it also depends on how the NDA is worded.
When someone lacks an NDA, on the other hand, I tend to think they are not very serious.
Then, you're probably a business person, not an actual developer.
As a developer, I only really need to know that you're building the next FourSquare, or the next Twitter. You don't need to tell me your secret sauce (in fact, it would be better if you didn't tell me that part).
And if you do really need to get down to that level of detail, and need to get some detailed specific advice directly related to your secret sauce, be prepared to put some money on the line before expecting me to sign anything. Because as a developer, I find that it's usually the people that are looking for free technical advice that ask you to sign an NDA.
and yet, most VCs won't sign an NDA.
However, since Australians already pay per-gigabyte (either through a cap or pre-paid) perhaps the easiest and best solution for all concerned is to whack on a modest per-GB tariff, similar to the Canadian levy on blank media, to be paid back to content producers.
So then you'd be making internet teleconferencing pay the content industry for the next 100 years to come.
What resolution does it stream in? In any case, it seems that the Tivo is rather the exception rather than the rule in this case.
For me even with my cheap laptop or a cheap older PC, and on the cheapest slowest DSL plan, Netflix has always worked for me (as long as someone else in my family isn't streaming something else at the same time).
That's because the malware on you home PC has only gotten more judicious at using resources and better at running in stealth mode.
NoDaddy.com also used to carry criticism of GoDaddy, but then GoDaddy made NoDaddy's web admin an offer he couldn't refuse, and suddenly there was no where to post criticism of either. Does anyone know of a new site to post criticism of ICANN besides slashdot?
Why don't you create one? What you're describing sounds like a profitable business model.
The only risk would be if GoDaddy went belly up before you ever got a chance to get on their radar.
The charge is entirely unconstitutional.
Hopefully, this sentence carries more weight in India than it does in the US.
Two of the victims parents sued the school for not notifying the student body earlier to warn them that the domestic violence case they had contained earlier that morning would erupt into the worst school shooting in US history, and won.
No, that's a over-simplification of what happened. There were several issues.
The campus police department didn't have the authority, nor the mechanism to directly issue an emergency alert to the student body telling them "to stay inside and lock their doors because a shooter was on the loose", so even when they knew what was happening, which took a very long while in itself, they still couldn't notify the entire school without going first through an outdated manual and a barrage of school officials that acted as the gatekeepers to that system.
I have a book in the iBookstore. I set the price on it. Apple sells it for that price and gives me 70%. I have the same book in the other bookstores. I have no control over the price. They give me what they want, which is half of what Apple gives me.
And never mind that if those other bookstores try to sell your ebooks on the iPhones/iPads, they also have to give 30% to Apple.
and/or it could also be a marketing/pr move for a web site that predominantly markets to women in the first place.
This entire case is a crock of bullshit. When two black teens set a white kid on fire, a clear hate crime, it hardly gets a column in the local news.
May be, it's because the cops didn't start defending the two kids who did this to him, just like the sheriff did with Zimmerman.
Also, the fact that he was told "white boy" by his assaillants didn't come out until a couple of days later (according to the mom herself). The victim had already been interviewed by the police and the mom had already made her statements to the press, but it's only a few days later in the hospital room that the kid told his mother that they had said "white boy".
But when a hispanic guy kills a black teen it garnishes national media attention?
The guy wasn't just hispanic. He was the son of a former judge. He was hoping to become a police officer himself. And the sheriff clearly knew him and liked him already. That's at least one of the reasons the Sheriff jumped in to defend Zimmerman right away.
Did Obama come out and say "If I had a son, he'd look like Coon"?
Why would Obama need to intervene? Third parties should only intervene when the local police isn't doing its job. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that the police isn't doing its job in this case?
Will people pay for supposed "privacy"? Sure, a few would but absolutely not everyone.
Some businesses may be willing to pay for this kind of privacy.
After all, if the system is better at protecting the privacy of a customer from the US government, it may also be better at protecting such information from hackers, disgruntled employees, and/or corporate espionage.
Now, I'm not saying this kind of service will have many customers, but I could certainly envision a number of businesses be willing to pay a very high premium for this kind of added security layer (assuming this new ISP does a good job of it of course, which still remains to be seen).
The application details are a formality. The 30+million users are the product.
Not just that. The Facebook IPO stock is also the product.
And buying Instagram (for mostly what amounts to a stock swap) just before an IPO isn't as uncommon as you might think. Companies have been known to hire thousands of people for no other reason than trying to swell their headcount and ask for as much capitalization as possible for their IPO.
(after writing all this I now sit and ponder if I were trolled...)
Let's see. You have 549 posts under your user name. He has 1 under his.
And the guy bothered to register a user name, when anybody else would have just posted as an "Anonymous Coward".
Any ideas on business models that would allow me to open source while guaranteeing I can feed myself?
There are no business models, either proprietary or open source, that will guarantee that you can feed yourself.
Also it sounds like you've already written the software and that you're just now trying to think of the business model for it. You've done it all backwards. This is not to say, that I haven't done the same thing myself, but I'm just trying to point out how wrong headed your way (and my way) really are in the real business world.
Also, you don't mention your competition, or anything about what your software does? What do you want from us that you couldn't already have found on your own through Wikipedia? The most important part, the competitive environment you're going to be in, is going to be crucial to the kind of business model you can sustain, and you haven't really told us anything about that part.
Just to give you another way to think about the problem, sometimes, some proprietary solutions can not make any headway in the marketplace (and can not feed their developers) when there is already an entrenched competing open source solution or an entrenched competing proprietary solution already out there (that is already considered good enough by customers). So if you're coming from behind (presumably without any funding compared to your existing/future competitors) your best bet may be to do something drastically different from them, and whether that drastic difference is going open source, or going proprietary, or doing something completely weird, it's anyone's guess whether any of those decisions will actually succeed, but those decisions and their successes/failures will largely depend on what your software/service does and the kind of competitive atmosphere that software/service is going to be in.
Sigh. Every one of these initiatives fail because people assume access to technology will make people more educated, and education leads to a better life.
Who even said that? This Intel initiative is about selling more Intel chips, not about educating kids (although, I'm sure they don't mind the tax write-offs of pretending to be like a charity).
If Intel could start selling their chips as expensive paper weights, or as expensive ornamental pendants, they'd formulate goals that are as equally far-reaching and unattainable. This is what's called "big picture" thinking. This is what the CEOs get the big bucks for.
Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures.
I think he was talking about these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/nyregion/liberty-statue-in-las-vegas-stands-among-many-replicas.html
http://3dpariseiffeltower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Eiffel-Tower-In-Las-Vegas.jpg
http://www.finehomeslv.com/blog/project-city-center-las-vegas-towers-resemble-leaning-tower-of-pisa/ (there is actually no Pisa Tower replica in Las Vegas, it's more of a leaning high-rise)
What I'm incredulous about is the fact that Apple users spend an average of more than $600 on apps & markup.
No, no. That's not what the article says. You're jumping to your own conclusions.
The fact is, when an app is sold on the Google Market, a commission of 30 percent is given to the carrier (and only 2 percent is given to Google as a transaction cost assuming Google Checkout is used in the transaction). That's right, the commission is usually 32 percent (unless the carrier does its own billing). Of course, this number doesn't tell the entire story (but right now, I'm just trying to keep my response as short as possible).
In the case of the Apple app store however, the carriers do not get a dime of commission from it, and the entire 30 percents goes to Apple. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply that this 30 percent means a lot to Apple, Apple makes way more profits from selling the actual hardware of iPhones/iPads.
Basically, right now Google is the one who's subsidizing the carriers. And it's not doing it out of the kindness of its own heart. A few years ago, Google knew that the mobile space was going to overtake the desktop/laptop space (for various reasons, this had already happened for Google queries in South Africa and Indonesia, even without the iPhone). And for Google who's sole source of revenue is basically web advertising, this 'android' strategy is entirely about trying to survive the transition to mobile advertisements (which is sure to eclipse traditional web advertisements usually seen through desktops/laptops).
Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
Wanting to get paid for your work is not greed.
I was just trying to point out that "greed" is a label we reserve for others, not ourselves.
And whether or not payment was deserved or not, I do not know, I do not know the back-story, I just find it odd that the poster (I was replying to) told his ex-partner that someone always gets greedy. Greedy people (myself included) always think that others are greedy. It's a self-justification they give to themselves for taking from others.
And accusing someone of greed is by no means proof that the person making the accusation is not greedy himself or herself.
Does this mean that karma will catch up with this idiot too?
Not necessarily. In your case, her victims would have to prove that they lost money as a result. Did they?
In this case of Steele vs. Bell, I know that everyone is making light of the amount of money he won, but this guy Bell really didn't have any problem proving that he was already making $150,000 selling his paintings in just a few of months, so the amount he was awarded is probably just a very conservative estimate of what he could have earned if she had not prevented him from appearing at an art show, and blocked the online promotion of his movie showcasing his story.
Tanya, is that you??
I come out of the film industry and my saying is "some one always gets greedy". I told this to my expartner on my last film and he claimed that wasn't the case. Just to prove my point he stole the film literally from my home and to this day it's gone unfinished and is effectively worthless.
It sounds like you *both* got greedy, otherwise one of you would have just given the right to the other to keep on working on the film and publish it (promising not to sue him/her).
Not that there is anything wrong with that, greed is actually a very natural and understandable human emotion under some circumstances.
The thing is, going to Tech conferences is not boring for slashdot editors, you get into conferences for free, you get VIP treatment that's usually reserved for reporters/Hollywood actors, and you get free samples of review hardware (that they seldom ask you to return).
So it's no wonder that you guys want to build a video.slashdot.org
And whether you got paid in cash, got paid in hardware, or will get paid in the future with free stuff, or even never get paid with anything for the particular Plantronics story. That doesn't really matter. The fact is that out of all your slashdot readers, the best equipped to supply you with fresh video content (that doesn't come from a cheap webcam) are the PR folks and the PR consultants.
And that by creating a section such as video.slashdot.org, you're only forcing yourself to come up with more and more video content, when in fact you should be raising your standards instead, and accepting less and less videos -- because clearly the quality of your content is what's at stake here -- not the particular format you give to us in.
Also, please stop saying "We hear You Loud and Clear", when clearly you're trying to side-step the fact that PR folks have been taking advantage of your system. That makes your message appear even more disingenuous than it already is.
In any case, please focus on the content, not the format. And yes, you can certainly start subdividing slashdot by format:
http://video.slashdot.org/
http://mp3.slashdot.org/
http://acc.slashdot.org/
http://book.slashdot.org/
http://images.slashdot.org/
http://ascii.slashdot.org/
May be, this will help feed your egos and pretend that slashdot can be the next google/youtube, but realize that this is not the way most people browse your site. We couldn't care less about the format. We care about the actual content first and foremost (be that content be normal text, or video format, or both).
And forcing yourself to have a video section will only force yourself to fill that section with something -- anything!!! And once again, the first people that are going to jump on that bandwagon are the PR folks and the PR consultants because they're already used to producing videos and it's going to be a much easier section for them to get into so it's going to be a no-brainer for them.
Yes, the actual story is that the police didn't do their jobs, but that's certainly not anything new and it's certainly not the only story.
Another underlying story here is that given a big enough sample size, it's highly probable to find someone who's going to be a doppelgänger of the person you're looking for. This goes for a search on looks, partial fingerprints, or even partial dna.
Historically, this hasn't been much of a problem, but as technology advances -- getting larger and larger samples sizes of data is becoming easier and easier even for the average police man, so this kind of problem is only going to grow and grow as time goes on.