in all facets...data travels faster, what was text is now video, 'mobile', cpu speeds are exponetially higher...
which means *we can do more*
my example is Goldman/Sach's style high speed trading...they use Erlang to make trades litterally as fast as the wires can transmit the data and exploit latencies for $$$...were talking microseconds...
that means a market changing scale of trading (profit) in a non-human readable timeframe...
that is different
I surely agree that somewhere in the comparison between the original '.com bubble' and now you can say, "it's all the same...it's all just X"
TFA lists out 5 differences that I think are *very insightful*
Silicon Valley experiences painful and periodic catharses because, despite the wondrousness of its A/B testing and habit-forming products, its leaders have consistently failed to grasp some basic human truths. One, that we prefer our private sphere to stay private. Two, that we vote with our feet to abandon just as quickly as we do to subscribe. Three, that when all’s said and done, we’d prefer to supply cash up front and enter into an honest relationship with manufacturers and service providers, rather than be pushed digital drugs and pay for them later with privacy compromises. Four, that we have nothing in common with the self-regarding Californian startup culture that claims to be “changing the world” while delivering little besides personalized advertising delivery networks. And five, that we see behind the curtain and we know how shallow, disingenuous and exploitative this culture is.
Now, if you said that 1 & 3 were as true in 1890 as in 1990 I would agree...still comparitively now might be stronger
#2 is a hardcore truth that could make someone a billion dollars...the sheer ease at which a person can switch social networks or copy and share music is a technical advancement that fundamentally alters the economic factors in consumer decisions...a 'game changer' as they say
one billion users could leave facebook with 4 clicks of a mouse in a day (if you had good IT guys running your servers;)
IBM never had to *consider* a mass exodus of subscribers in such a fasion
#4 & 5 go together and represent valuable 'case study' data...you can't know if Silicon Valley guys are truly 'tech' unless you talk to them, look over their shoulder, etc...a Shaun Parker can make himself out to be a Shaun Fanning easily...
heh, it's sort of like when Oliva Munn was on that Gamer show...the controversy over whether she was really a 'gamer' or just a hottie bimbo...I always said I assume the latter until I play her in SFII turbo *myself*
So yeah, it's different...and IMHO, for the 5 reasons in TFA, I think that difference is significant
the differences between The Bay 25 year ago and Denver 25 years ago are much greater than they are now, at least as far as "tech-start-upiness" goes.
I went to grad school at CU-Boulder around 2006 and have done government contracted research.
You break down the differences well, and your point about the plethora of young, hip urban professionals in the Front Range is right on...however when trying to divinate what makes a city a 'startup hub' the conversation starts and ends with money
In California, you could be in a coffee shop loudly yammering about your *next big idea* to your friend and have a Billionaire who is bored and looking to invest in something 'disruptive' overhear you...this is how things start...chance encounters of likeminded folk...
Or at a party you meet some rich-ass movie producer's kid who is ugly but smart and wants to make a name for themselves outside of the entertainment industry...
Or...or...
It's the scale...one conversation could mean 7 figures
The odds of that happening in Boulder/Denver are just nowhere near Silicon Valley. Sure lots of SoCal trustafarians go to CU-Boulder, but its still small comparitively and undergrad stoners (who are awesome) are not the capitalist-go-getter types.
also: NASA and NIST have major presence in Boulder...i think Deep Impact control was in Boulder?
the Boulder tech sector is mini, but it exists...it's alot of little ad-on companies that have one institutional client (usually military)
technically, if two GIS PhD's take their geospatial mapping program they developed for their thesis and then use their connections from their academic program to basically implement their thesis project into some government project...
technically, that's a "startup" but I don't think it applies in this context...
because of things like facebook, people think of a "startup" as a small new company planning to become big that provides a product or service they would use
many "startups" are not that...they are just an extention of academia into the government contracting sector
even Microsoft started that way...the military wanted a computer on every desk, and IBM was the contractor...IBM needed to find some company that would shut up and follow orders...enter Bill Gates...
it was the money from that contract that made M$ successful...sure it's a 'startup' and no one would turn down those riches...but in analyzing 'what's wrong with startup culture' we have to make sure we know what we mean
Now personally, I'm okay with Syrians just as long as they are willing to listen to non-Syrian views
word me too...this whole mess started as an outgrowth of the Arab Spring.
Egypt and Syria are getting the 'divide and conquer' treatment from the global Oil Oligarchs. It's just like Iran in '79.
Here's what they do: Take the (IMHO inevitable) progressive democratic revolution in a country ruled by an aristocrat installed by foreign oligarchs...
Now, find an extremist group that is local and non-progressive...
Then, turn them against the progressive rebels, enflame, maybe hire some hacker/thugs to make up some 'internet army' to cause trouble and confusion...
Bam...
There's how the Iranian Revolution, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria now got turned into a conflict between "conservatives" and "liberals"...
Status quo is maintained...which is all the Oil Oligarchs ever wanted in the first place...
Syrians are our friends. They want to be humans and exist just like us. They want the freedom of self-determination w/o some asshole dictating shit and controlling society for personal gain. I think we should help them.
This is false flag (real Syrians wouldn't think to hack 'the onion'...seriously), but you've got the wrong culprits.
These are *Western* hackers-for-hire...could be Canadian, US, Mexican, French, Russian, Philippino...whoever is willing to do these attacks for money!
'the US' is us...as in we Americans here...'the US' could mean our Federal gov't or it could mean a company based here, or the American population...depends on the contex
if the "Syrian Electronic Army" is somehow connected to the CIA, FBI, NSA, WTF, etc....well they are **criminals**
if Obama is behind it then **he** is a criminal (I don't think so at all, but I know someone will respond saying I work for the White House)...
we know that the oil industry used the CIA to manipulate the region...it was a CIA operation, on CIA letterhead, but it was not legal...it was wrong
but you're a fool if you stop there...the CIA was just a tool for international Oligarchs...that's who's behind this....people with a financial stake in the Oil revenue that runs through Syria
BP...British Petroleum...they're the origin of this shit
its reductive and just derails the discussion to blast out "bah it was false flag...CIA...Obama is behind it!" whenever we see evidence of shennanigans
This is about century-old revenue streams and the wealthy interneational families they enrich....**when used as intended** the American system of government is a force to challenge this Oligarchy
"Fuck you if you don't like our product. You have to buy it anyway." Unfortunately, they are still kind of in that position
Howso? I don't see them in that position at all.
A person or business can set themselves up with the best of technology *without ever using a Microsoft product*...Can you name one significant area where that isn't true?
Sure, pre-Intel/Mac days for some database stuff a Windows machine is the only thing that made sense, but those days are long gone.
I think M$ is dead...watch closely and observe. This is what it looks like when a giant tech company fails.
how about take the exact same product and make it cheaper (via biz structure)......There isn't a lot of innovation coming out of China at the moment
there we go...that's an answer, thank you
so, a 'cheap knock-off' would be fully non-innovative? fair?
if yes, then you really just proved my point for me. at some point it is about the quality of the product in your definition. that means you agree with my contention that X microsoft product would *not* be innovative if it met certain criteria related to other products on the market (the things that make it a 'cheap knock off').
the only difference is, as I said a few posts ago, your own personal notions of where that line is...
as far as this discussion goes you can call it a stalemate if that makes you feel better...M$ is *not* an innovator in any way and to use a reductive definition, as you do, only causes confusion and bad choices in the marketplace...when you use reductive definitions it becomes anarchy and hype rules the day
innovation is a complex concept...it seems you aren't comfortable with that complexity...the survival of our industrial demands we draw a line between true 'innovation' and standard business growth tactics.
if no, then I really do not understand your concept of innovation. please state it in a different way perhaps?
M$ doesn't get credit for innovation done **in spite of** it's corporate policy and behavior!!!
Of course they do. It is what it is, and opinions (however justified) about their (mis)management shouldn't change that.
Ok...ok...ok then...
What can a tech company do that makes profit that is **not** innovation in your definition?
It appears that, by your definition, a business could say copy an innovative OS from a competitor, slap a new name on it and it is, by your definition, "innovation"...if it sells.
So define this in the negative for me: What can a tech company do that is **not** innovation if a new product makes a profit?
yo, thanks for the response...I appreciate your experience...I don't really 'disagree' with anything you said, but I think our point of contention is the definition of 'innovation'
You listed these:
* since they approached it as a software company, they made the development tools, APIs, and dev process MUCH easier to work with (if you want to debate me on this, note I have developed for 360, PS3, and have a PS4 and XBOne in the office now - I don't need to hear second hand opinions). Ironically this is not so much an issue with the latest gen, there are some things about Sony's dev env I like better now)
* they really pushed online console gameplay and community/friends/etc - whatever you think about its monthly fees, XBox Live is hugely successful and popular... they have in fact done a pretty good job on party chat, game matchmaking/invites, sharing, etc.
* also XBox Live related, they really pushed DLC into the mainstream - and it's paid off, it's made XBLive a lot of money over the last few years
* Kinect, while still flawed in many ways, was definitely innovative - in fact, as an almost stunning move on MS's part (given how bad they are at this usually), they actually took something interesting being developed in their MS Research group and productized it. And now with XBOne they have fixed many of the issues - the new Kinect does some crazy cool things, I'm looking forward to some GOOD apps that use it, not the crap that was made for XB 360 Kinect.
* We'll have to see how it works out, but they have really bet a lot of the XBOne's success on it being a complete entertainment hub in the living room. Like you said, innovation != profit - in this case we'll see if their bet pays off.
I can categorize your 'innovations' into two industry-standard, essential, run-of-the-mill, first year undergrad-level **business operations**
1. making technology systems more interoperable (your points 1 and 5) 2. marketing (your points 2 and 3)
What I'm saying is, what you call 'innovation' is actually the same stuff businesses do as a standard method of operation.
It's not at all, in any way, problem solving by adapting new ideas or approaches.
Language is the pitfall! Just because some CEO guy makes a speech and says "We're going to approach gaming like a **software company**" and then do the same thing everyone else in American business always does...bottleneck features to lock down users...and collect private data for marketing.
My definition of 'innovation' isn't too strict either. I allow for marketing to be 'innovative'...my example is how Steve Jobs used his clout from his success at Pixar to finally convince the RIAA to sell music online. Forget the iPod...
THAT was innovative marketing...it solved a problem (dumbass out of touch RIAA) with a new approach...using Jobs' star power to overwhelm their misgivings about piracy.
Now, your point #4, Kinex...I can allow it. I'm sure that the dev team had to do some innovative thinking to make such a complex system work so smoothly.
The **concept** is not new!!! Power Glove!!!
However, I acknowledge the innovations needed in the engineering to make it happen.
That's a credit to those individual team members...who was probably having to fight against the grain to make some of their improvements.
If you read the stories of former M$'ers, they often describe just such a scenario.
M$ doesn't get credit for innovation done **in spite of** it's corporate policy and behavior!!!
Clear is good for this kind of stuff, but they can't help you carry the cell phone call load.
At Occupy Portland camp they were passing around CLEAR usb antennas and getting really good speeds....good enough for lots of video livestreaming.
As I've seen above, calling your local provider to get temporary 3G towers is the way to go...it might take some paperwork and bullshit but for Hempfest you need to tackle the problem at that scale.
it was a year ago that they headed toward the computer to post this.it was a year ago that they headed toward the computer to post this.
I get mod status sometimes and it was just/.'s natural submission bin churn rate. Question could have been asked a week in advance and not made it through the bin. Especially if it's his first submission.
Yes, this part of your comment elicited my response:
Meaning they are a major pot head
Marijuana does not cause 'laziness'...Indica-dominant strains can cause lethargy. Sativa-dominant strains have the opposite effect! They cause high alterness and physical activity.
Indica strains grow faster, yield more sellable plant matter, and smells less while growing...all factors that make them much better for bootleg growers. That's one big reason why most weed smoked in the USA is Indica-dominant.
So, no the idea that 'weed smokers are lazy' is an urban legend somewhat grounded in the production bottleneck caused by Marijuana prohibition.
Here in Oregon, we enjoy the ability to medicate with strains such as Jack Herer, specifically formulated to be smoked during the daytime to get physical or mental work done and be more alert.
Let's talk about users of Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor and other pharmaceutical drugs, though...that's an area where drug abuse certainly will lead to lethargy.
the only area of the company right now where they are really letting people innovate
Parent makes a great point, and your Xbox exception is interesting but I must disagree with the notion that Microsoft has 'innovated' with Xbox.
Profitable, yes. Fun to play, yes. 'Innovation'....no.
Overall, M$ made Xbox the same way they got Windows and DOS...they copied something successful and Wal-Mart-ized it, using their market share as leverage.
Xbox came along at a time when the speed wars of the 80s and 90s were plateauing, product differentiation decreased, the demand for games to be easier to develop across platforms was getting hard to ignore.
People like EA didn't want to have a different Dev team for each box for each yearly version of Madden. The differences between consoles were dwindling.
Also: gamers were aging.
In this context, any functional competitive box could enter the market. If it sold, EA and the like would eventually be **begging** to make a game for it. It's more units for EA and other game publishers to sell. No real major R&D was necessary, as the processing power needed for a 'next gen' game platform was on par with what you were seeing advertised at Best Buy in a desktop PC. Gamers were familiar with M$, aging out of Nintendo (always the lovable outlier!), and bored with Playstation.
Credit M$ for seeing an opportunity to expand into a new market and jumping on it...but still, not 'innovation' just following the pack.
So all in all I have to say GP's point stands about M$...they of course have 'innovated' but it's at a smaller level.
IMHO, say what you want, but the.wma format was a great next step in music compression...of course M$ ruined it by trying to make it proprietary and lock it down, but.wma sounded great and the files were small.
Also, the High Capacity Color Barcode is cooler than QR Codes...but again...of course...it didn't catch on b/c M$ locks it down.
So I'm a M$ hater as much as the next, but they did have some good people working on a few good projects. That's where the 'innovation' happened. Deep down in the woodwork.
Profit != Innovation
Both are good, but you won't get either if you don't know the difference!!!
Speaking of insecure dictators...China is no one's answer. It is one big problem. China's leaders understand this...population, pollution, growth, carrying capacity, etc
I know China was big in the popular literature (Friedman in his NYtimes Editorials loved talking about it) as the 'next big thing' but really conquering China is done via making a good product.
Sure you need region-specific marketing but "China" is not a strategy...unless you are Goldman Sachs.
This isn't market manipulation, this is technology. China is just a factor in the production/distribution/sales equation.
From a business point of view, making the best product and rewarding your stakeholders is where the 'growth potential' is for Microsoft.
basically M$ would have to change most of the things they have chosen to define themselves with...they'd have to basically eat Linux and become some Microsoft/Linux hybrid that is interoperable and respects user privacy.
they'd have to fully reimagine their entire business model and definition of 'success' from a statistical and social standpoint, and be willing to get rid of virtually any personnel or project or business mode of operation...
In my mind that's not actually asking alot...it's the same stuff anyone would have to do in order for Microsoft to "Catch Up"
You can call it 'catching up' or 'Bayesian business model' or 'just common sense business' or 'making money' or 'making products people want' but in the end the solution is the same.
just sentenced a whistleblower working with the press to 35 years of hard time
Look, I'm copying some relevant parts from my original post:
If journalists release secret info, they can be subpoenaed to reveal their source. IF THEY REFUSE...the journalist can be jailed ONLY a short period of time, never more than 6-9 months as a 'coercive tactic'...but the gov't HAS TO LET THEM GO if they still don't talk!!!
This process is something every college journalism major learns.
it's about *codified legal protection*
The US has the strongest laws on the books, with a process that allows someone to **release top secret information** without being charged with a crime. The news entity that *reports* can be only temporarily detained and again it's not a crime to report it.
Also (I mentioned this before too with quotation from Guardian editor), the US forbids prior restraint...something England does not enjoy.
I read the links to those questionaires...I understand that 150 journalists surveyed about their attitudes of press freedom ranked the US lower...that isn't evidence that helps your contention in any way.
I'm saying "Mexican Coke has cane sugar not high-fructose corn syrup" and your rebuttal is, "Wrong! Surveys show people choose Pepsi over Coke 2 to 1 in a head to head blind survey...BAM I win"
AC...look...you're dragging a Red Herring across the trail when you argue against my phrase "The US has **the most journalistic freedom in the world**"...the tactic you're using is to isolate one fuzzy area and create controversy to avoid the other evidence.
Beyond all I've said, the fact that when the Guardian editors were put in this situation, in the real world just recently, they obviously listened to alot of legal advice from some very good lawyers. It is safe to assume they are aware of how journalistic protections compare globally.
They chose the USA. They stated **explicity** why: our codified legal protections are the best in the world...I linked and quoted them above.
As far as Manning goes...after he was caught, tell me what could anyone have done? Are you suggesting Obama by fiat declare that Manning be released? Is that really your contention? If not, what then?
You must answer because you only presented half an argument.
Brad Lee/Chelsea Manning's fate was a legal certainty.
I agree with you, that 35 years is too much...I said s/he should have gotten time served (originally I was in favor of charging him with misdemeanors).
But these are **legal minutia**....yes it matters, but there is no alternative. Obama could not have directly intervened once he was caught without alienating moderates and the military.
Obama could have freed Manning technically, but it would have cost him the election.
Seriously, can you imagine the Fox News headlines "Obama lets terrorist go free"
It would have alienated a sizable portion of his own cabinet as well.
It may not be news to a lot of veteran computer folks.....It is news to the general public though......Now it's a FACT instead of just a well accepted assumption.
It was **fact** the moment the Bush administration signed the Patriot Act!
I won't argue with you about what 'the public wanted to know' and when...it's a troll-trap, look at the AC comments below...the fact is people have been **screaming their fool heads off about the Patriot Act** and surveillance since it was signed.
Bush's critics were consistent all the way through.
In 2006, the article I linked above, reported that "The NSA has massive database of American's phone calls"
You need to learn something about the news industry right now. I used to be a Republican believe it or not, and I had a promising career in broadcasting at a Fox affiliate in Iowa around 2001. I have worked in a newsroom, so I know what I'm about to tell you from experience:
The editorial function in news, essentially the 'brain' of the newsroom, has been systematically destroyed by bean counters and marketers (and some illuminati types re: News of the World scandal) in a desire to control human behavior through the media. Sure sales is persuasion, but it's like they're slipping us a date-rape drug with modern marketing and news.
THAT...that one factor more than all the others...the rise of mainstream national news networks that function as PR and Propaganda arms of a political interest while claiming to be 'news'...it ruined an industry.
The death of the news editor is why CNN is so awful. It's why, in 2006 when anonymous sources leaked that "The NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" no one had the balls to **challenge the Bush administration**
I hope this clears things up for you. I think you are coming from a genuine place but as a person who's worked in print and TV news it's obvious you don't know how it works.
We should have had a 'national conversation' about this shit in 2001...the mainstream media guides the 'national conversation'...not until after Bush did these stories get any traction...what does that say about the mainstream media and Obama?
First, the Guardian editor did indeed say that they were coming to the United States for it's 1st Amendment protection...it's right there in my post.
It is because of the laws of the nation not any one publication. Re-read it. Go on. Maybe click the link too and read the whole thing.
Second....
one might give more weight to the results of polls among a large number of journalists around the planet, rather than the opinion of this single guy -- Guardian editor or not.
Wrong AGAIN.
The questionaire was of **attitudes** of survey respondents. That kind of data is VERY LIMITED in the conclusions you can draw. It's like asking 1000 people if they are hungry.
The Guardian editor...well HIS ASS IS ON THE LINE and he's in a better position to know the legal specifics.
You're comparing apples and oranges because you think it proves some kind of greater point about Snowden.
Face it, the Guardian editor...the Guardian's lawyers...they were looking at **LAW CODE**
That survey is asks **opinions** of everyday writers about political moods.
This is pointless because you're obviously trolling...
It was to the 'criticism' section of parent's wiki link.
This is what it says:
In 2007 John Rosenthal argued that RWB showed a bias in favor of European countries.[76]
Later, the words 'United States' are typed...they are in the paragraph, technically, but the criticism is mostly about France.
You're both trolling and I think I know why...it might have something to do with the fact that your rebuttals don't mention the main point of my original post.
First, your post is full of 'perhaps' and 'probably' and 'likely' and....'conjecture'...
But I'll address this:
he knew he'd be likely to be discovered even if his identity was never revealed
So, let's look at your argument:
Snowden went public because if he tried to release anonymously his identity might become public.
By that logic, I should run every red light b/c if I tried to stop I might cause an accident.
He could have released anonymously AND moved to Russia. Or France. Or West Virginia.
Or not moved at all and relied on the professionalism of The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald to protect him....
And about how he would have 'likely' gotten caught, literally *thousands* of techs at Booz Allen had his access, they would have had no clue...most of it was powerpoints anyway. Even with his name revealed the Feds still don't know all he took!!!
I followed your link, and it was to a wikipedia article about a questionaire...
I can see it...they probably used a 7-point Likert Scale.
Look, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The Guardian editor *himself* contradicts you and the questionaire you linked to...he chose the *UNITED STATES* and his given reason was that it's legal protection is the strongest.
End of story.
Their lawyers looked at all the countries on that list and chose the US.
You're arguing with a questionaire, i'm saying what has happened.
it was probably intentional not to go out of their way to protect him
I agree...and I think you are being overly fair to the Guardian and Greenwald. They could have done this completely differently and Snowden would still have his job and hot 'girlfriend'...
Anonymous source.
IMHO, Greenwald and the Guardian led Snowden around like a sheep, taking advantage of his internal motivations for releasing the info.
The truth is, Snowden's info isn't actually revealing of any *new* info, only operational details of already-reported on programs...and seriously it's common knowledge that the Feds could spy on us via the Patriot Act.
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
He broke the law technically, revealing info that was Top Secret, but it's not exactly "news"....unless you muckrake and take advantage of the fact that most journalists never understood what the Patriot Act allows.
It's all hype...we definitely could have had a "national conversation about privacy and surveillance" without all this flap!
Journalists in America are protected by the first amendment which guarantees free speech and in practice prevents the state seeking pre-publication injunctions or "prior restraint"
Not only that, in the US, journalists may use **anonymous sources**...they risk their reputation and job, and it has to be cleared by their editors, but it is done routinely (ex: Deep Throat).
If journalists release secret info, they can be subpoenaed to reveal their source. IF THEY REFUSE...the journalist can be jailed ONLY a short period of time, never more than 6-9 months as a 'coercive tactic'...but the gov't HAS TO LET THEM GO if they still don't talk!!!
This process is something every college journalism major learns.
Glenn Greenwald is using Snowden to further his career...the way he's shopping Snowden interviews around proves it.
The Guardian could have done this **completely differently** and Snowden would still have his job, and Greenwald would have a book deal and a ton of street cred...
Slashdot Mirror
is scale
in all facets...data travels faster, what was text is now video, 'mobile', cpu speeds are exponetially higher...
which means *we can do more*
my example is Goldman/Sach's style high speed trading...they use Erlang to make trades litterally as fast as the wires can transmit the data and exploit latencies for $$$...were talking microseconds...
that means a market changing scale of trading (profit) in a non-human readable timeframe...
that is different
I surely agree that somewhere in the comparison between the original '.com bubble' and now you can say, "it's all the same...it's all just X"
TFA lists out 5 differences that I think are *very insightful*
Now, if you said that 1 & 3 were as true in 1890 as in 1990 I would agree...still comparitively now might be stronger
#2 is a hardcore truth that could make someone a billion dollars...the sheer ease at which a person can switch social networks or copy and share music is a technical advancement that fundamentally alters the economic factors in consumer decisions...a 'game changer' as they say
one billion users could leave facebook with 4 clicks of a mouse in a day (if you had good IT guys running your servers ;)
IBM never had to *consider* a mass exodus of subscribers in such a fasion
#4 & 5 go together and represent valuable 'case study' data...you can't know if Silicon Valley guys are truly 'tech' unless you talk to them, look over their shoulder, etc...a Shaun Parker can make himself out to be a Shaun Fanning easily...
heh, it's sort of like when Oliva Munn was on that Gamer show...the controversy over whether she was really a 'gamer' or just a hottie bimbo...I always said I assume the latter until I play her in SFII turbo *myself*
So yeah, it's different...and IMHO, for the 5 reasons in TFA, I think that difference is significant
I went to grad school at CU-Boulder around 2006 and have done government contracted research.
You break down the differences well, and your point about the plethora of young, hip urban professionals in the Front Range is right on...however when trying to divinate what makes a city a 'startup hub' the conversation starts and ends with money
In California, you could be in a coffee shop loudly yammering about your *next big idea* to your friend and have a Billionaire who is bored and looking to invest in something 'disruptive' overhear you...this is how things start...chance encounters of likeminded folk...
Or at a party you meet some rich-ass movie producer's kid who is ugly but smart and wants to make a name for themselves outside of the entertainment industry...
Or...or...
It's the scale...one conversation could mean 7 figures
The odds of that happening in Boulder/Denver are just nowhere near Silicon Valley. Sure lots of SoCal trustafarians go to CU-Boulder, but its still small comparitively and undergrad stoners (who are awesome) are not the capitalist-go-getter types.
Follow the money!
also: NASA and NIST have major presence in Boulder...i think Deep Impact control was in Boulder?
the Boulder tech sector is mini, but it exists...it's alot of little ad-on companies that have one institutional client (usually military)
technically, if two GIS PhD's take their geospatial mapping program they developed for their thesis and then use their connections from their academic program to basically implement their thesis project into some government project...
technically, that's a "startup" but I don't think it applies in this context...
because of things like facebook, people think of a "startup" as a small new company planning to become big that provides a product or service they would use
many "startups" are not that...they are just an extention of academia into the government contracting sector
even Microsoft started that way...the military wanted a computer on every desk, and IBM was the contractor...IBM needed to find some company that would shut up and follow orders...enter Bill Gates...
it was the money from that contract that made M$ successful...sure it's a 'startup' and no one would turn down those riches...but in analyzing 'what's wrong with startup culture' we have to make sure we know what we mean
I live in the U.S.A. I want those things too. Who can I get to help *me*?
look man, i feel you...but even the most down and out American has opportunities for advancement that no Syrian has...
the answer for who is going to help you is *yourself*...it's our burden for being so rich
the thing to learn is, by helping Syrians have freedom of self determination we promote the same for ourselves
we help ourselves by helping the Syrians
oh my goodness...guys...you *have* to look up 'pleasure delaying'
seriously, how many times can you bust a nut or get high?
without some sort of way to 'recharge' or have self-reflection the 'highs' of ecstasy actually are just a flat line
call it 'self-reflection' or some other word of 'guilt' has too much baggage as a term for you
the idea is it is part of a cycle in a feedback loop
see, this is nice...i like it...it's a classic feedback loop of human society
free sex = more humans
free drugs = more sex
free religion = more drugs
lust->ecstasy->guilt
why not...it's in all the religions of the region anyway
interesting comment...
word me too...this whole mess started as an outgrowth of the Arab Spring.
Egypt and Syria are getting the 'divide and conquer' treatment from the global Oil Oligarchs. It's just like Iran in '79.
Here's what they do: Take the (IMHO inevitable) progressive democratic revolution in a country ruled by an aristocrat installed by foreign oligarchs...
Now, find an extremist group that is local and non-progressive...
Then, turn them against the progressive rebels, enflame, maybe hire some hacker/thugs to make up some 'internet army' to cause trouble and confusion...
Bam...
There's how the Iranian Revolution, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria now got turned into a conflict between "conservatives" and "liberals"...
Status quo is maintained...which is all the Oil Oligarchs ever wanted in the first place...
Syrians are our friends. They want to be humans and exist just like us. They want the freedom of self-determination w/o some asshole dictating shit and controlling society for personal gain. I think we should help them.
This is false flag (real Syrians wouldn't think to hack 'the onion'...seriously), but you've got the wrong culprits.
These are *Western* hackers-for-hire...could be Canadian, US, Mexican, French, Russian, Philippino...whoever is willing to do these attacks for money!
'the US' is us...as in we Americans here...'the US' could mean our Federal gov't or it could mean a company based here, or the American population...depends on the contex
if the "Syrian Electronic Army" is somehow connected to the CIA, FBI, NSA, WTF, etc....well they are **criminals**
if Obama is behind it then **he** is a criminal (I don't think so at all, but I know someone will respond saying I work for the White House)...
we know that the oil industry used the CIA to manipulate the region...it was a CIA operation, on CIA letterhead, but it was not legal...it was wrong
but you're a fool if you stop there...the CIA was just a tool for international Oligarchs...that's who's behind this....people with a financial stake in the Oil revenue that runs through Syria
BP...British Petroleum...they're the origin of this shit
its reductive and just derails the discussion to blast out "bah it was false flag...CIA...Obama is behind it!" whenever we see evidence of shennanigans
This is about century-old revenue streams and the wealthy interneational families they enrich....**when used as intended** the American system of government is a force to challenge this Oligarchy
Howso? I don't see them in that position at all.
A person or business can set themselves up with the best of technology *without ever using a Microsoft product*...Can you name one significant area where that isn't true?
Sure, pre-Intel/Mac days for some database stuff a Windows machine is the only thing that made sense, but those days are long gone.
I think M$ is dead...watch closely and observe. This is what it looks like when a giant tech company fails.
how about take the exact same product and make it cheaper (via biz structure)......There isn't a lot of innovation coming out of China at the moment
there we go...that's an answer, thank you
so, a 'cheap knock-off' would be fully non-innovative? fair?
if yes, then you really just proved my point for me. at some point it is about the quality of the product in your definition. that means you agree with my contention that X microsoft product would *not* be innovative if it met certain criteria related to other products on the market (the things that make it a 'cheap knock off').
the only difference is, as I said a few posts ago, your own personal notions of where that line is...
as far as this discussion goes you can call it a stalemate if that makes you feel better...M$ is *not* an innovator in any way and to use a reductive definition, as you do, only causes confusion and bad choices in the marketplace...when you use reductive definitions it becomes anarchy and hype rules the day
innovation is a complex concept...it seems you aren't comfortable with that complexity...the survival of our industrial demands we draw a line between true 'innovation' and standard business growth tactics.
if no, then I really do not understand your concept of innovation. please state it in a different way perhaps?
M$ doesn't get credit for innovation done **in spite of** it's corporate policy and behavior!!!
Of course they do. It is what it is, and opinions (however justified) about their (mis)management shouldn't change that.
Ok...ok...ok then...
What can a tech company do that makes profit that is **not** innovation in your definition?
It appears that, by your definition, a business could say copy an innovative OS from a competitor, slap a new name on it and it is, by your definition, "innovation"...if it sells.
So define this in the negative for me: What can a tech company do that is **not** innovation if a new product makes a profit?
yo, thanks for the response...I appreciate your experience...I don't really 'disagree' with anything you said, but I think our point of contention is the definition of 'innovation'
You listed these:
I can categorize your 'innovations' into two industry-standard, essential, run-of-the-mill, first year undergrad-level **business operations**
1. making technology systems more interoperable (your points 1 and 5)
2. marketing (your points 2 and 3)
What I'm saying is, what you call 'innovation' is actually the same stuff businesses do as a standard method of operation.
It's not at all, in any way, problem solving by adapting new ideas or approaches.
Language is the pitfall! Just because some CEO guy makes a speech and says "We're going to approach gaming like a **software company**" and then do the same thing everyone else in American business always does...bottleneck features to lock down users...and collect private data for marketing.
My definition of 'innovation' isn't too strict either. I allow for marketing to be 'innovative'...my example is how Steve Jobs used his clout from his success at Pixar to finally convince the RIAA to sell music online. Forget the iPod...
THAT was innovative marketing...it solved a problem (dumbass out of touch RIAA) with a new approach...using Jobs' star power to overwhelm their misgivings about piracy.
Now, your point #4, Kinex...I can allow it. I'm sure that the dev team had to do some innovative thinking to make such a complex system work so smoothly.
The **concept** is not new!!! Power Glove!!!
However, I acknowledge the innovations needed in the engineering to make it happen.
That's a credit to those individual team members...who was probably having to fight against the grain to make some of their improvements.
If you read the stories of former M$'ers, they often describe just such a scenario.
M$ doesn't get credit for innovation done **in spite of** it's corporate policy and behavior!!!
which kinds?
many strains are Indica-dominant hybrids as well
Clear is good for this kind of stuff, but they can't help you carry the cell phone call load.
At Occupy Portland camp they were passing around CLEAR usb antennas and getting really good speeds....good enough for lots of video livestreaming.
As I've seen above, calling your local provider to get temporary 3G towers is the way to go...it might take some paperwork and bullshit but for Hempfest you need to tackle the problem at that scale.
I get mod status sometimes and it was just /.'s natural submission bin churn rate. Question could have been asked a week in advance and not made it through the bin. Especially if it's his first submission.
Yes, this part of your comment elicited my response:
Marijuana does not cause 'laziness'...Indica-dominant strains can cause lethargy. Sativa-dominant strains have the opposite effect! They cause high alterness and physical activity.
Indica strains grow faster, yield more sellable plant matter, and smells less while growing...all factors that make them much better for bootleg growers. That's one big reason why most weed smoked in the USA is Indica-dominant.
So, no the idea that 'weed smokers are lazy' is an urban legend somewhat grounded in the production bottleneck caused by Marijuana prohibition.
Here in Oregon, we enjoy the ability to medicate with strains such as Jack Herer, specifically formulated to be smoked during the daytime to get physical or mental work done and be more alert.
Let's talk about users of Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor and other pharmaceutical drugs, though...that's an area where drug abuse certainly will lead to lethargy.
Parent makes a great point, and your Xbox exception is interesting but I must disagree with the notion that Microsoft has 'innovated' with Xbox.
Profitable, yes. Fun to play, yes. 'Innovation'....no.
Overall, M$ made Xbox the same way they got Windows and DOS...they copied something successful and Wal-Mart-ized it, using their market share as leverage.
Xbox came along at a time when the speed wars of the 80s and 90s were plateauing, product differentiation decreased, the demand for games to be easier to develop across platforms was getting hard to ignore.
People like EA didn't want to have a different Dev team for each box for each yearly version of Madden. The differences between consoles were dwindling.
Also: gamers were aging.
In this context, any functional competitive box could enter the market. If it sold, EA and the like would eventually be **begging** to make a game for it. It's more units for EA and other game publishers to sell. No real major R&D was necessary, as the processing power needed for a 'next gen' game platform was on par with what you were seeing advertised at Best Buy in a desktop PC. Gamers were familiar with M$, aging out of Nintendo (always the lovable outlier!), and bored with Playstation.
Credit M$ for seeing an opportunity to expand into a new market and jumping on it...but still, not 'innovation' just following the pack.
So all in all I have to say GP's point stands about M$...they of course have 'innovated' but it's at a smaller level.
IMHO, say what you want, but the .wma format was a great next step in music compression...of course M$ ruined it by trying to make it proprietary and lock it down, but .wma sounded great and the files were small.
Also, the High Capacity Color Barcode is cooler than QR Codes...but again...of course...it didn't catch on b/c M$ locks it down.
So I'm a M$ hater as much as the next, but they did have some good people working on a few good projects. That's where the 'innovation' happened. Deep down in the woodwork.
Profit != Innovation
Both are good, but you won't get either if you don't know the difference!!!
Speaking of insecure dictators...China is no one's answer. It is one big problem. China's leaders understand this...population, pollution, growth, carrying capacity, etc
I know China was big in the popular literature (Friedman in his NYtimes Editorials loved talking about it) as the 'next big thing' but really conquering China is done via making a good product.
Sure you need region-specific marketing but "China" is not a strategy...unless you are Goldman Sachs.
This isn't market manipulation, this is technology. China is just a factor in the production/distribution/sales equation.
From a business point of view, making the best product and rewarding your stakeholders is where the 'growth potential' is for Microsoft.
basically M$ would have to change most of the things they have chosen to define themselves with...they'd have to basically eat Linux and become some Microsoft/Linux hybrid that is interoperable and respects user privacy.
they'd have to fully reimagine their entire business model and definition of 'success' from a statistical and social standpoint, and be willing to get rid of virtually any personnel or project or business mode of operation...
In my mind that's not actually asking alot...it's the same stuff anyone would have to do in order for Microsoft to "Catch Up"
You can call it 'catching up' or 'Bayesian business model' or 'just common sense business' or 'making money' or 'making products people want' but in the end the solution is the same.
Microsoft just has to be willing to do it.
Look, I'm copying some relevant parts from my original post:
it's about *codified legal protection*
The US has the strongest laws on the books, with a process that allows someone to **release top secret information** without being charged with a crime. The news entity that *reports* can be only temporarily detained and again it's not a crime to report it.
Also (I mentioned this before too with quotation from Guardian editor), the US forbids prior restraint...something England does not enjoy.
I read the links to those questionaires...I understand that 150 journalists surveyed about their attitudes of press freedom ranked the US lower...that isn't evidence that helps your contention in any way.
I'm saying "Mexican Coke has cane sugar not high-fructose corn syrup" and your rebuttal is, "Wrong! Surveys show people choose Pepsi over Coke 2 to 1 in a head to head blind survey...BAM I win"
AC...look...you're dragging a Red Herring across the trail when you argue against my phrase "The US has **the most journalistic freedom in the world**"...the tactic you're using is to isolate one fuzzy area and create controversy to avoid the other evidence.
Beyond all I've said, the fact that when the Guardian editors were put in this situation, in the real world just recently, they obviously listened to alot of legal advice from some very good lawyers. It is safe to assume they are aware of how journalistic protections compare globally.
They chose the USA. They stated **explicity** why: our codified legal protections are the best in the world...I linked and quoted them above.
As far as Manning goes...after he was caught, tell me what could anyone have done? Are you suggesting Obama by fiat declare that Manning be released? Is that really your contention? If not, what then?
You must answer because you only presented half an argument.
Brad Lee/Chelsea Manning's fate was a legal certainty.
I agree with you, that 35 years is too much...I said s/he should have gotten time served (originally I was in favor of charging him with misdemeanors).
But these are **legal minutia**....yes it matters, but there is no alternative. Obama could not have directly intervened once he was caught without alienating moderates and the military.
Obama could have freed Manning technically, but it would have cost him the election.
Seriously, can you imagine the Fox News headlines "Obama lets terrorist go free"
It would have alienated a sizable portion of his own cabinet as well.
Nope...
It may not be news to a lot of veteran computer folks.....It is news to the general public though......Now it's a FACT instead of just a well accepted assumption.
It was **fact** the moment the Bush administration signed the Patriot Act!
Patriot Act. That's where this next level of surveillance started and progressed from there.
I won't argue with you about what 'the public wanted to know' and when...it's a troll-trap, look at the AC comments below...the fact is people have been **screaming their fool heads off about the Patriot Act** and surveillance since it was signed.
Bush's critics were consistent all the way through.
In 2006, the article I linked above, reported that "The NSA has massive database of American's phone calls"
You need to learn something about the news industry right now. I used to be a Republican believe it or not, and I had a promising career in broadcasting at a Fox affiliate in Iowa around 2001. I have worked in a newsroom, so I know what I'm about to tell you from experience:
The editorial function in news, essentially the 'brain' of the newsroom, has been systematically destroyed by bean counters and marketers (and some illuminati types re: News of the World scandal) in a desire to control human behavior through the media. Sure sales is persuasion, but it's like they're slipping us a date-rape drug with modern marketing and news.
THAT...that one factor more than all the others...the rise of mainstream national news networks that function as PR and Propaganda arms of a political interest while claiming to be 'news'...it ruined an industry.
The death of the news editor is why CNN is so awful. It's why, in 2006 when anonymous sources leaked that "The NSA has massive database of American's phone calls" no one had the balls to **challenge the Bush administration**
I hope this clears things up for you. I think you are coming from a genuine place but as a person who's worked in print and TV news it's obvious you don't know how it works.
We should have had a 'national conversation' about this shit in 2001...the mainstream media guides the 'national conversation'...not until after Bush did these stories get any traction...what does that say about the mainstream media and Obama?
First, the Guardian editor did indeed say that they were coming to the United States for it's 1st Amendment protection...it's right there in my post.
It is because of the laws of the nation not any one publication. Re-read it. Go on. Maybe click the link too and read the whole thing.
Second....
Wrong AGAIN.
The questionaire was of **attitudes** of survey respondents. That kind of data is VERY LIMITED in the conclusions you can draw. It's like asking 1000 people if they are hungry.
The Guardian editor...well HIS ASS IS ON THE LINE and he's in a better position to know the legal specifics.
You're comparing apples and oranges because you think it proves some kind of greater point about Snowden.
Face it, the Guardian editor...the Guardian's lawyers...they were looking at **LAW CODE**
That survey is asks **opinions** of everyday writers about political moods.
This is pointless because you're obviously trolling...
I followed your link as well...
It was to the 'criticism' section of parent's wiki link.
This is what it says:
Later, the words 'United States' are typed...they are in the paragraph, technically, but the criticism is mostly about France.
You're both trolling and I think I know why...it might have something to do with the fact that your rebuttals don't mention the main point of my original post.
First, your post is full of 'perhaps' and 'probably' and 'likely' and ....'conjecture'...
But I'll address this:
So, let's look at your argument:
Snowden went public because if he tried to release anonymously his identity might become public.
By that logic, I should run every red light b/c if I tried to stop I might cause an accident.
He could have released anonymously AND moved to Russia. Or France. Or West Virginia.
Or not moved at all and relied on the professionalism of The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald to protect him....
And about how he would have 'likely' gotten caught, literally *thousands* of techs at Booz Allen had his access, they would have had no clue...most of it was powerpoints anyway. Even with his name revealed the Feds still don't know all he took!!!
I followed your link, and it was to a wikipedia article about a questionaire...
I can see it...they probably used a 7-point Likert Scale.
Look, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The Guardian editor *himself* contradicts you and the questionaire you linked to...he chose the *UNITED STATES* and his given reason was that it's legal protection is the strongest.
End of story.
Their lawyers looked at all the countries on that list and chose the US.
You're arguing with a questionaire, i'm saying what has happened.
I agree...and I think you are being overly fair to the Guardian and Greenwald. They could have done this completely differently and Snowden would still have his job and hot 'girlfriend'...
Anonymous source.
IMHO, Greenwald and the Guardian led Snowden around like a sheep, taking advantage of his internal motivations for releasing the info.
The truth is, Snowden's info isn't actually revealing of any *new* info, only operational details of already-reported on programs...and seriously it's common knowledge that the Feds could spy on us via the Patriot Act.
Read it for yourself, from USA Today in 2006:
He broke the law technically, revealing info that was Top Secret, but it's not exactly "news"....unless you muckrake and take advantage of the fact that most journalists never understood what the Patriot Act allows.
It's all hype...we definitely could have had a "national conversation about privacy and surveillance" without all this flap!
TFA (& everyone else it seems) misses a key option: release anonymously using US First Amendment protection.
The US has **the most journalistic freedom in the world**
Accept it...in fact, the Guardian is working with NY Times to release future Snowden info *precisely* because the US has the 1st Amendment. From The Guardian's editor:
Not only that, in the US, journalists may use **anonymous sources**...they risk their reputation and job, and it has to be cleared by their editors, but it is done routinely (ex: Deep Throat).
If journalists release secret info, they can be subpoenaed to reveal their source. IF THEY REFUSE...the journalist can be jailed ONLY a short period of time, never more than 6-9 months as a 'coercive tactic'...but the gov't HAS TO LET THEM GO if they still don't talk!!!
This process is something every college journalism major learns.
Glenn Greenwald is using Snowden to further his career...the way he's shopping Snowden interviews around proves it.
The Guardian could have done this **completely differently** and Snowden would still have his job, and Greenwald would have a book deal and a ton of street cred...