Anybody who actually read that patent (obligatory of course not, this is slashdot) can see that the article has it totally wrong. First of all, Amazon -would- be stupid to patent what the article claims. It would be very bad for business, and whatever you may think of Amazon, they are extremely good at business. This patent describes a system for determining how to fulfill an order (not just in terms of when to ship, but also, where to ship from, how to ship, etc) based on a multitude of factors. These factors include future orders, but those future orders refer to the expectation of future orders for all customers. Statistics 101 (Amazon surely knows this): the future orders of one specific customer are very hard to model, but the future orders of all customers are pretty easy to model. The point is to optimize the fulfillment process for all customers. Yes, it -could- be possible for them to use these techniques to target specific customers, but I would think it much more likely that they would use this in the favor of new customers they are trying to hook, rather than older established customers. Netflix, anyone?
How can anybody here think they deserve to waste space by posting an opinion on something they haven't even taken the time to check out?
Yes. The money which is no longer available was prize money, as well as milestone prizes for the track B teams. The difference between track A and track B is that track A gives all its technology to the government at the end (in exchange for $1 million of development money), and track B has no such obligation. The track A funds (contracts rather than prizes) are still fully intact, so all of the track A teams are still in it. What's been cut out is the incentive for track B teams to enter. These are the teams that are NOT giving technology directly to the government, and are using the race as a vehicle for development of technology that can truly benefit the world in ways other than making robot death jeeps. Say, for example, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in traffic accidents every year.
So yes, I would much rather see a portion of the DoD's budget spent encouraging development of revolutionary safety technology for civilian drivers rather than a big contract to a traditional defense contractor for something that directly kills people. (Keep in mind, the funds were not -cut-, DARPA's authority to use them for prizes was simply removed.)
Five years ago I might not have had a problem with a company trying to build a database like this. Free market - find what you will and whatnot. But unfortunately, I think any responsible company has to look at today's political climate, and consider the question: given an over-reaching, probably unconsitutional, and completely illegal, but well-enforced subpoena by the government, how much damage could our data do in the wrong hands? Are we prepared to fight such an action all the way to the supreme court if it comes to that? And what if the supreme court makes a corrupt decision? Sad, really.
I was one of a few people who gave presentations to some prospective CS undergrads a couple weeks ago. The dean of our program pointed out some interesting facts, which I hadn't really been aware of:
Outsourcing is not draining CS jobs. The number of CS jobs compared to the height of the dot-com boom is actually up.
Because people are paying too much attention to CNN and other media hype about outsourcing, enrollment in CS programs is substantially down. The high enrollments that came in the late 90's have been followed by a reactionary swing in the other direction.
Put these pieces together and you'll realize that this may very well be one of the best times in history to get into this field. Good luck.
If you don't pay for something then you've stolen it (excluding having it gifted to you).
Really? So I've stolen the copy of firefox in which I'm typing this message? I didn't pay to read your comment (thankfully) - did I steal it? How about the air that I'm breathing? Stolen too. Surely my genetic code must be stolen from the corporation which rightfully owns it - I certainly didn't pay for it.
The point I'm trying to make is not that it's ok to steal music - under our current laws, getting commercial music for free is in fact illegal (copyright infringement is not actually the same thing as theft, but I really don't think we need to split that hair) - the problem that I have with what you say is that you just automatically spew this statement that has so many assumptions built into it. At the risk of sounding like a whacko, that's exactly what they want you to think, man!
You say getting anything for free is illegal? Not true! Your statement is a bit more all-inclusive than what the RIAA regularly spouts, but it indicates that these sorts of tactics are seeping into people's minds. They really want you to think that getting music for free is illegal. Also not true! There is plenty of free music. I was in a band in college and all our music was free! (Admittedly, people may in fact have paid NOT to hear us, but that's beside the point). Did Bach have a copyright system and enforcement cartel?
Sure you can argue that something worthwhile is worth paying for, and most people would agree in many cases. But you can't just say free is wrong.
Way to go. You've picked apart, line-by-line, a lot of hyperbole and metaphor. Just to make this clear, the "shark" is actually the RIAA. When people talk about sharks in a context like this, they mean to bring up the images of a scary, ruthless predator. This is not really how all sharks actually are. I don't think she's actually going to "knock on the glass to the near-cracking point."
Also, she's implying that she's a veggie because she's kind to animals, not the other way around.
The woman with the hair dye is not her accuser, as you state. The RIAA is her accuser (corporations = people in court). The woman is a representative of her accuser, and it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that she is a moron. The specific sentence you quote is in fact an appeal to those components of the RIAA which are not moronic - the author is assuming they exist and hence admitting the likelihood that this particular representative does not represent the intelligence level of her actual accuser.
The point of this story, which parent ignores, was the absolutely bizzare quote about how people should drop out of college to pay their settlements. I find it bizzare for two reasons:
It's completely disgusting that any representative of the RIAA would suggest that. That's just wrong, for reasons that other posters have certainly pointed out.
Why that's even remotely necessary in this case is beyond me. $3750 is pretty reasonable, even for a college student. Yeah, it hurts, but it's supposed to. I disagree with the tactics, the concept of the RIAA in general, and the copyright system, but given the situation, that's not that bad. It certainly wouldn't necessitate dropping out of school. The author of the article is right to try every possible angle to negotiate, but can she really say with a straight face that dropping out is even under consideration? Unlikely. If the RIAA rep really did bring it up, it goes a long way in comfirming author's assertion that rep is a moron.
How parent got modded insightful is a mystery; the "insightful" poster seems to be reading at about a third grade level.
Pocket PC has its own annoyances, but amazingly, it's one Microsoft product that does less arbitrary intervention on the user's behalf than the competition. Better yet, many ipaq's can be flashed with linux, and the Sharp handhelds, which are unfortunately no longer being sold in the US, run linux out of the box. As for the file transfer on an SD card thing, just get a cheap USB2 SD reader/writer. Way faster than transferring using the palm, and only like $10. There are a couple software products for PalmOS that will let you transfer files directly, or use it as a card reader for the SD card. I think FileZ is one of them, but there are others.
I think there's a very specific reason why the flash is there, and why it hasn't been talked about and may not be in future versions - the GPRS update.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who actually read that patent (obligatory of course not, this is slashdot) can see that the article has it totally wrong. First of all, Amazon -would- be stupid to patent what the article claims. It would be very bad for business, and whatever you may think of Amazon, they are extremely good at business. This patent describes a system for determining how to fulfill an order (not just in terms of when to ship, but also, where to ship from, how to ship, etc) based on a multitude of factors. These factors include future orders, but those future orders refer to the expectation of future orders for all customers. Statistics 101 (Amazon surely knows this): the future orders of one specific customer are very hard to model, but the future orders of all customers are pretty easy to model. The point is to optimize the fulfillment process for all customers. Yes, it -could- be possible for them to use these techniques to target specific customers, but I would think it much more likely that they would use this in the favor of new customers they are trying to hook, rather than older established customers. Netflix, anyone?
How can anybody here think they deserve to waste space by posting an opinion on something they haven't even taken the time to check out?
Yes. The money which is no longer available was prize money, as well as milestone prizes for the track B teams. The difference between track A and track B is that track A gives all its technology to the government at the end (in exchange for $1 million of development money), and track B has no such obligation. The track A funds (contracts rather than prizes) are still fully intact, so all of the track A teams are still in it. What's been cut out is the incentive for track B teams to enter. These are the teams that are NOT giving technology directly to the government, and are using the race as a vehicle for development of technology that can truly benefit the world in ways other than making robot death jeeps. Say, for example, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in traffic accidents every year.
So yes, I would much rather see a portion of the DoD's budget spent encouraging development of revolutionary safety technology for civilian drivers rather than a big contract to a traditional defense contractor for something that directly kills people. (Keep in mind, the funds were not -cut-, DARPA's authority to use them for prizes was simply removed.)
And the politicians adapting their statements to actually be true would be a bad thing why?
Q: What's the difference between an aggressive dom and Jason Fortuny?
A: One's a sick pervert who gets off on abusing other people to make himself feel better. The other's just into a little bondage.
Five years ago I might not have had a problem with a company trying to build a database like this. Free market - find what you will and whatnot. But unfortunately, I think any responsible company has to look at today's political climate, and consider the question: given an over-reaching, probably unconsitutional, and completely illegal, but well-enforced subpoena by the government, how much damage could our data do in the wrong hands? Are we prepared to fight such an action all the way to the supreme court if it comes to that? And what if the supreme court makes a corrupt decision? Sad, really.
Put these pieces together and you'll realize that this may very well be one of the best times in history to get into this field. Good luck.
Who cares how many posts they submit? If too many are actually approved, then we have a problem with the mods, not with the WSJ.
Really? So I've stolen the copy of firefox in which I'm typing this message? I didn't pay to read your comment (thankfully) - did I steal it? How about the air that I'm breathing? Stolen too. Surely my genetic code must be stolen from the corporation which rightfully owns it - I certainly didn't pay for it.
The point I'm trying to make is not that it's ok to steal music - under our current laws, getting commercial music for free is in fact illegal (copyright infringement is not actually the same thing as theft, but I really don't think we need to split that hair) - the problem that I have with what you say is that you just automatically spew this statement that has so many assumptions built into it. At the risk of sounding like a whacko, that's exactly what they want you to think, man!
You say getting anything for free is illegal? Not true! Your statement is a bit more all-inclusive than what the RIAA regularly spouts, but it indicates that these sorts of tactics are seeping into people's minds. They really want you to think that getting music for free is illegal. Also not true! There is plenty of free music. I was in a band in college and all our music was free! (Admittedly, people may in fact have paid NOT to hear us, but that's beside the point). Did Bach have a copyright system and enforcement cartel?
Sure you can argue that something worthwhile is worth paying for, and most people would agree in many cases. But you can't just say free is wrong.
Also, she's implying that she's a veggie because she's kind to animals, not the other way around.
The woman with the hair dye is not her accuser, as you state. The RIAA is her accuser (corporations = people in court). The woman is a representative of her accuser, and it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that she is a moron. The specific sentence you quote is in fact an appeal to those components of the RIAA which are not moronic - the author is assuming they exist and hence admitting the likelihood that this particular representative does not represent the intelligence level of her actual accuser.
The point of this story, which parent ignores, was the absolutely bizzare quote about how people should drop out of college to pay their settlements. I find it bizzare for two reasons:
How parent got modded insightful is a mystery; the "insightful" poster seems to be reading at about a third grade level.
Pocket PC has its own annoyances, but amazingly, it's one Microsoft product that does less arbitrary intervention on the user's behalf than the competition. Better yet, many ipaq's can be flashed with linux, and the Sharp handhelds, which are unfortunately no longer being sold in the US, run linux out of the box. As for the file transfer on an SD card thing, just get a cheap USB2 SD reader/writer. Way faster than transferring using the palm, and only like $10. There are a couple software products for PalmOS that will let you transfer files directly, or use it as a card reader for the SD card. I think FileZ is one of them, but there are others.
I think there's a very specific reason why the flash is there, and why it hasn't been talked about and may not be in future versions - the GPRS update.
Yeah, it's a nice compact little box... But they're pulling in a phat few g's on each box. I'll build my own, thank you very much.