You could turn a heterosexual into a homosexual and back into a heterosexual against their will by laying down situations and forcing a sexual response from them if you were immoral and ruthless enough to choose to do so. Read some of the horror stories out there about how women abducted by those in the sex trade are programmed some time.
So if a woman can be "programmed" into enjoying prostitution, then prostitution is a choice? Or if a suspect can be beaten into confessing, the confession is a choice?
Sorry, in the world I'm familiar with, such actions are not considered "choices", at least by a court of law.
Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault. Assault that SAME person with a slightly different, similarly stupid motivation (skin tone, religous jewelry, presumed or acknowledged sexual orientation) and suddenly it's a "hate crime" with far more severe consequences.
That's not really different in principle than classifying homicide into murder and manslaughter, and then each into various degrees. For whatever reason, premeditated killings receive a harsher sentence than accidental or self-defense killings. Knowingly killing a police officer can similarly carry a much harsher penalty. Intention has always mattered.
If the laws try to be too exact, they end up spelling out exactly where the loop-holes are. An interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.
Precise laws with loopholes are far better than vague laws that nobody knows how to comply with. "Love your neighbor", for example, forms the basis of Christian faith, but would be a terrible civil law despite not having any loopholes.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Microsoft having undocumented (call them secret if you want) APIs.
Like many things, it depends on the intention for keeping it secret. Sometimes it's because things aren't stable enough to document. Sometimes it's because your documentation team is understaffed and can't get to it yet. Sometimes it's an illegal abuse of monopoly to give your companion products an unfair advantage.
Apple have already come up with a perfect way of handling large groups of windows on one screen; it's called expose.
Apple is composed of some very smart people, but Exposé is not at all the "perfect" way to handle large numbers of Windows. Having a second monitor - which MacOS supports very well - is usually better for users with no space or cost constraints.
For me, the most important thing to remember about UML, and other methodologies, is this: They are tools to be used, not rules to be followed. Too many PHBs (and colleagues) don't seem to understand this.
Sure. My problem is that people who are not yet UML experts decide to break the rules, without necessarily understanding why the rules were in place, and obviously unable to foresee the problems that breaking such a rule might bring in the future.
If a few lines of text on a scrap of paper, or an ad-hoc diagram you've just invented, will communicate better
How do you know, first of all, that there isn't already a standard notation for what you're trying to describe? Secondly, how do you know your method is better?
In other words, I agree with your advice, to the extent that experts should not be bound by rules. The problem is that far too many people think they are experts. Worse, real experts don't need this particular advice from Slashdot.
You certainly cited a good example in Flash and SVG. However, you will also find various examples of people violating de jure standards and regretting them later. For example, many C programmers assumed that the 'int' data type was going to be 16 bits forever, although the C Standard never guaranteed it. Others assumed that the CPU was little-endian, so now they can't easily port to the Macintosh.
The only limiting factor of the G4 today is the memory bus
That's a bit misleading. The clock speed topping out at 1.67 GHz is a problem as well. Yes, I'm well aware of the myth, but the G4 topped out at 867 MHz on the Quicksilver Power Mac in July 2001. By June of 2003, the final G4 Power Mac only hit 1.42 GHz. A 64% gain over two years is well behind the competition.
The Powerbook did a little better. The January 2001 Powerbook topped out at 500 MHz, while the January 2003 Powerbook hit 1 GHz, and the April 2004 Powerbook hit 1.5 GHz. A year later, however, the fastest Powerbook stands at 1.67 GHz. So, from doubling in two years, to a 50% gain in 15 months, to an 11% gain in about a year. Do you see the problem?
Look at it this way. Cars used to be really slow, and you had to hand-crank them. They got faster and faster and more practical with each decade. Now you could build a car that could go 500mph, but nobody needs it except race car drivers. The only thing that's really changed with cars is more efficient fuel consumption and various niceties like stereo systems and computer navigation.
Human response times are a key limitation here. All except the most highly trained drivers are not likely to be able to drive a 500 mph car safely. Similarly, jet fighter designers have realized that a limiting factor in the aircraft's aerobatic performance is the human in the cockpit.
Similar limitations exist in computer technology. We (the general public) are unlikely to need more than 1200 dpi in a video display, because any more is likely indistinguishable. We are unlikely to need animations of more than a certain fps, or mice of more than a certain resolution, or keyboards that require more than ten fingers. However, many of those limits have not yet been reached. There's no real reason why people won't want (ignoring whether they can afford it) their video displays to have laser printer resolutions, and such a video display is going to take some power to drive.
There are limits that we have hit. For probably 99% of the people, a good computer chess game running on a contemporary PC is as good as unbeatable. However, there are still many tasks that are short of instantaneous. My email program slows down once in a while for some reason. People who need to process video, render graphics, or compile code obviously have to wait for their computers.
I think computers have hit that plateau.
Computers have hit a plateau. That doesn't mean the next killer application that would require all that power and more isn't just around the corner.
The problem with modern corporations is that it isn't enough to be profitable. It has to be maximally profitable. In other words, given the finite 24 hours in a day (and even fewer hours when most people watch TV), if they aren't putting on the most profitable dozen or two of shows, they're "losing money".
Want to save your favorite show? Buy everything that advertises during that timeslot.
Also add a $30 keyboard, $14 mouse, and $170 monitor, since Apple doesn't provide any of those in the $500 price they tout all over.
I never said otherwise, and I haven't seen Apple say otherwise, either. But, if you want to compare it to a $500 Dell, it's more like a $7 keyboard and a $3 mouse (I looked up the cheapest USB ones on pricewatch). The monitor we'd be talking about would be a "15-inch flat panel", which is probably more of $140 than $170. So, if you can't reuse any peripherals, the Mac Mini is a $410 computer, plus $240 of software. The Dell is about a $400 computer, plus about $100 of software.
Obviously, anybody may judge for themselves that the Apple software are not worth $240 to them. That's an entirely separate question. My point is that it's unfair to assume the software to be equal in value, which many people here seem to do, when comparing Apples to Dells.
The problem is that Apple is selling a computer system, made up of hardware and software. Comparing Apple computers to a Dell PC (which is comprised mainly of hardware) is as silly as comparing it to a Windows installation CD.
Yes, a Dell PC might have a lower price tag, but you'll have to use Windows. Or if you don't want to, you'll have to spend the time installing Linux. You can look at the $500 Mac Mini as a $260 computer with a $130 OS, $50 iLife suite, and $60 Quicken. (You should do similar math for the sub-$500 Dell boxes, which by my quick research comes with more hardware, but with XP Home and WordPerfect only.)
The point is, just because Apple refuses to sell its hardware and software separately doesn't mean it's fair to compare its computer systems against either basically a hardware-only price or a software-only price. If you don't want both Apple hardware and software, generally you shouldn't buy Apple at all, because the hardware-only solutions from Dell are likely to always be cheaper.
Oh I totally agree. But the fact that I was never given a chance...
Indeed. The hiring process at many companies is entirely messed up. One problem is a legion of morons who apply to every job opening whether they are even remotely qualified or not. Another is that hiring managers are often overworked with other tasks, so they can only spend a fraction of their time sifting through candidate resumes.
The unfortunate result is basically that you need a referral to even get an interview.
I have companies like IBM, Sony, BitMover, etc... using my software and yet I'm unfit to work for them.
Just to play devil's advocate, the fact that one is able to write other useful software doesn't mean that one can be told to write useful software in a corporate environment. For example, such a person may only be productive when working on something he or she really likes, as in a hobby.
So I told him about the low cost version of photoshop (stripped down a bit). He looked at it and his response was that important features are missing from it. I told him he does not need those features, and his response was what if I do.
For some bundled versions of Photoshop Elements, Adobe provides discounted upgrades to Photoshop where your total expense is less than the sum of the two. I think Adobe should provide an upgrade at the price difference between the two for all versions of Elements.
Apple gets this right. Final Cut Express is $300, while Final Cut Pro is $1000. They also sell an Express-to-Pro upgrade for $700. This means that you can't buy Express and upgrade to Pro for any cheaper, but it does mean that if you later realized you needed the Pro version, the mistake wouldn't cost you money.
However, if your father was willing to consider piracy, then what he really wants is $650 software for $50. That can't be helped.
The problem is that a lot of good work doesn't talk at all. If you only watch the highlights of a football (as in soccer) game, you'll likely see over and over again that the goalkeepers weren't able to catch the incoming balls. You won't ever realize how many they've caught.
That doesn't mean you become a prima donna, or backstab a colleague. It means that you often still need to let people (particularly your boss) know what you've been doing. Running a server farm, for example, isn't as obviously productive as assembling cars where you can just count the cars rolling off the line.
the fact is that people should use their common sense.
It's always prudent to read the fine print, but do you really want to blame the people who didn't? Do you read every last line of the EULA that you agree to, especially if the first line said "GNU General Public License"?
If not, then I think we should require honesty of corporations and void their contracts or EULAs when they lie about it.
The question is the same. If you want the legal right to buy dynamite without restrictions, then you'll be asked why you need them. Some countries guarantee their citizenry the right to bear arms, but there are limits to those arms as well.
Why do you need P2P? If it's as useful otherwise as a pillow, book, wire, microwave, lightbulb, CD spindle, or screwdriver, then you'll have a good point in court. Also, consider that while you can kill people with all those things, you are far more likely to succeed with a knife or a gun or even a bat. Can P2P show that, for example, people generally prefer to violate copyright in another way?
The problem that P2P is facing legally is that it is the primary tool for copyright violation, and that its non-infringing uses are small. Unless you face those facts and change one or both of them, you'll be arguing like a man who wants to buy dynamite but can't really say why he wants it: interesting, but not compelling.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that governments should prosecute illegal acts, not the tools that enable such acts, much less the toolmakers. But I'm talking about winning a court case here, not just a philosophical argument.
P2P is like the the kitchen knife: You can use it to cook or you can use it to kill people, but just because you can kill people doesn't mean we should prohibit everyone from using a knife to cook.
That analogy only goes so far. Dynamite, for example, can be used in construction or mining, but can also be used to blow people up. In most or all countries, explosives are legal but highly regulated.
I'm not saying that your kitchen knife analogy is invalid, just that the principle you extrapolate from it is overly broad. There are many things that governments regulate tightly, or even ban entirely (uranium, for example) from private hands, not just because they can be used to kill people, but because common people don't have a plausible need for them. The density of uranium probably makes it an excellent paperweight, but that's unlikely to convince a court to make the government sell you some.
In other words, the debate should be about the potential for harm (let's not pretend that P2P isn't used for copyright infringement) and the potential good. You can consider technology to be "pure" and agenda-free if you want an intellectual discussion, but if you want to win a court case you'll probably need to come up with significant non-infringing uses for it.
I'm sure if some Google employee came up with some great idea that he spent his 20% free time on, and Google made an assload of money on it, they would give that employee a cut. NOT!
How would you know? Do you have an example?
It only takes one shining example of Google screwing an employee in the way you describe (make a bundle off his or her invention but giving the inventor only a pat on the back) before people stop using this 20% "free time" on anything worthwhile.
The point of language is to communicate. Not to be "eloquent" or other such garbage.
Tell that to your potential employer when you submit your next resume.
There's a time and place for everything. Using big words at informal gatherings or your blog might be inappropriate, but so is misspelling words in a business letter or resume. Once in a while it does matter, and when it does you need to be able to wield the language impressively.
How did people know they wanted to buy products that didn't exist and were a radical departure from what was not only the current norm but historically hadn't existed?
A successful business either builds something that, upon announcement, everybody realizes they want to buy, or builds something that everybody clearly already wants to buy. In Apple's case, the original iMac and iPod are more of the former, while the Mac Mini, iPod Shuffle, and the yet-to-be-seen G5 PowerBook are more of the latter. Either way, Steve Jobs is successful mainly because he can identify both very well, not mainly because he's a dictatorial eccentric.
I never even hinted that knowing what people want to actually buy (either before or after they realize it) is easy in any way. Your fanaticism is blinding you to what is already a praise that simply hasn't reached the level of worship. Yes, Jobs is a visionary, but there are plenty of visionaries in this industry who make no money at all.
Re:What will Apple do next?
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
0. He's often right.
Do you imagine for a second that a public company would tolerate a CEO who "does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and when he does, he makes you want it too, regardless of the reality of the situation" if he wasn't making them as much money as they've ever seen?
Now, leaving everything in the hands of such a person is inherently risky. They are capable of great success because they can brush aside all opposition, but they are also capable of spectacular failures for the same reason. But Steve Jobs is a success today mainly because he made Apple build and sell what people want to buy.
Hmmm...where do you live? I pay a flat fee monthly...for unlimited nights and weekends...free long distance...and like 500 or so minutes during peak hours.
Price is a major factor in third world countries, where your ~$30 flat rate plan is generally unaffordable by even white collar professionals. If the person you call also needs to pay for airtime, then calling them is even a form of imposition. (Many things are cheaper in the third world, but a lot of the equipment has to be imported, and telecoms carriers are greedy.)
Where price is less of a concern, there are many people who use public transportation outside the US. This means they have more time to use their phones, but also are constrained by politeness to remain quiet.
With most providers, voice calls are a lot more expensive than SMS. In many countries, this price difference is significant enough to suffer the relative inconvenience. Messaging also has the somewhat unintended feature of being quiet to send, so it's more polite to use in public.
Slashdot Mirror
So if a woman can be "programmed" into enjoying prostitution, then prostitution is a choice? Or if a suspect can be beaten into confessing, the confession is a choice?
Sorry, in the world I'm familiar with, such actions are not considered "choices", at least by a court of law.
That's not really different in principle than classifying homicide into murder and manslaughter, and then each into various degrees. For whatever reason, premeditated killings receive a harsher sentence than accidental or self-defense killings. Knowingly killing a police officer can similarly carry a much harsher penalty. Intention has always mattered.
Precise laws with loopholes are far better than vague laws that nobody knows how to comply with. "Love your neighbor", for example, forms the basis of Christian faith, but would be a terrible civil law despite not having any loopholes.
Like many things, it depends on the intention for keeping it secret. Sometimes it's because things aren't stable enough to document. Sometimes it's because your documentation team is understaffed and can't get to it yet. Sometimes it's an illegal abuse of monopoly to give your companion products an unfair advantage.
Apple is composed of some very smart people, but Exposé is not at all the "perfect" way to handle large numbers of Windows. Having a second monitor - which MacOS supports very well - is usually better for users with no space or cost constraints.
Sure. My problem is that people who are not yet UML experts decide to break the rules, without necessarily understanding why the rules were in place, and obviously unable to foresee the problems that breaking such a rule might bring in the future.
If a few lines of text on a scrap of paper, or an ad-hoc diagram you've just invented, will communicate better
How do you know, first of all, that there isn't already a standard notation for what you're trying to describe? Secondly, how do you know your method is better?
In other words, I agree with your advice, to the extent that experts should not be bound by rules. The problem is that far too many people think they are experts. Worse, real experts don't need this particular advice from Slashdot.
You certainly cited a good example in Flash and SVG. However, you will also find various examples of people violating de jure standards and regretting them later. For example, many C programmers assumed that the 'int' data type was going to be 16 bits forever, although the C Standard never guaranteed it. Others assumed that the CPU was little-endian, so now they can't easily port to the Macintosh.
That's a bit misleading. The clock speed topping out at 1.67 GHz is a problem as well. Yes, I'm well aware of the myth, but the G4 topped out at 867 MHz on the Quicksilver Power Mac in July 2001. By June of 2003, the final G4 Power Mac only hit 1.42 GHz. A 64% gain over two years is well behind the competition.
The Powerbook did a little better. The January 2001 Powerbook topped out at 500 MHz, while the January 2003 Powerbook hit 1 GHz, and the April 2004 Powerbook hit 1.5 GHz. A year later, however, the fastest Powerbook stands at 1.67 GHz. So, from doubling in two years, to a 50% gain in 15 months, to an 11% gain in about a year. Do you see the problem?
Human response times are a key limitation here. All except the most highly trained drivers are not likely to be able to drive a 500 mph car safely. Similarly, jet fighter designers have realized that a limiting factor in the aircraft's aerobatic performance is the human in the cockpit.
Similar limitations exist in computer technology. We (the general public) are unlikely to need more than 1200 dpi in a video display, because any more is likely indistinguishable. We are unlikely to need animations of more than a certain fps, or mice of more than a certain resolution, or keyboards that require more than ten fingers. However, many of those limits have not yet been reached. There's no real reason why people won't want (ignoring whether they can afford it) their video displays to have laser printer resolutions, and such a video display is going to take some power to drive.
There are limits that we have hit. For probably 99% of the people, a good computer chess game running on a contemporary PC is as good as unbeatable. However, there are still many tasks that are short of instantaneous. My email program slows down once in a while for some reason. People who need to process video, render graphics, or compile code obviously have to wait for their computers.
I think computers have hit that plateau.
Computers have hit a plateau. That doesn't mean the next killer application that would require all that power and more isn't just around the corner.
Want to save your favorite show? Buy everything that advertises during that timeslot.
I never said otherwise, and I haven't seen Apple say otherwise, either. But, if you want to compare it to a $500 Dell, it's more like a $7 keyboard and a $3 mouse (I looked up the cheapest USB ones on pricewatch). The monitor we'd be talking about would be a "15-inch flat panel", which is probably more of $140 than $170. So, if you can't reuse any peripherals, the Mac Mini is a $410 computer, plus $240 of software. The Dell is about a $400 computer, plus about $100 of software.
Obviously, anybody may judge for themselves that the Apple software are not worth $240 to them. That's an entirely separate question. My point is that it's unfair to assume the software to be equal in value, which many people here seem to do, when comparing Apples to Dells.
Yes, a Dell PC might have a lower price tag, but you'll have to use Windows. Or if you don't want to, you'll have to spend the time installing Linux. You can look at the $500 Mac Mini as a $260 computer with a $130 OS, $50 iLife suite, and $60 Quicken. (You should do similar math for the sub-$500 Dell boxes, which by my quick research comes with more hardware, but with XP Home and WordPerfect only.)
The point is, just because Apple refuses to sell its hardware and software separately doesn't mean it's fair to compare its computer systems against either basically a hardware-only price or a software-only price. If you don't want both Apple hardware and software, generally you shouldn't buy Apple at all, because the hardware-only solutions from Dell are likely to always be cheaper.
Indeed. The hiring process at many companies is entirely messed up. One problem is a legion of morons who apply to every job opening whether they are even remotely qualified or not. Another is that hiring managers are often overworked with other tasks, so they can only spend a fraction of their time sifting through candidate resumes.
The unfortunate result is basically that you need a referral to even get an interview.
Just to play devil's advocate, the fact that one is able to write other useful software doesn't mean that one can be told to write useful software in a corporate environment. For example, such a person may only be productive when working on something he or she really likes, as in a hobby.
For some bundled versions of Photoshop Elements, Adobe provides discounted upgrades to Photoshop where your total expense is less than the sum of the two. I think Adobe should provide an upgrade at the price difference between the two for all versions of Elements.
Apple gets this right. Final Cut Express is $300, while Final Cut Pro is $1000. They also sell an Express-to-Pro upgrade for $700. This means that you can't buy Express and upgrade to Pro for any cheaper, but it does mean that if you later realized you needed the Pro version, the mistake wouldn't cost you money.
However, if your father was willing to consider piracy, then what he really wants is $650 software for $50. That can't be helped.
The problem is that a lot of good work doesn't talk at all. If you only watch the highlights of a football (as in soccer) game, you'll likely see over and over again that the goalkeepers weren't able to catch the incoming balls. You won't ever realize how many they've caught.
That doesn't mean you become a prima donna, or backstab a colleague. It means that you often still need to let people (particularly your boss) know what you've been doing. Running a server farm, for example, isn't as obviously productive as assembling cars where you can just count the cars rolling off the line.
It's always prudent to read the fine print, but do you really want to blame the people who didn't? Do you read every last line of the EULA that you agree to, especially if the first line said "GNU General Public License"?
If not, then I think we should require honesty of corporations and void their contracts or EULAs when they lie about it.
Why do you need P2P? If it's as useful otherwise as a pillow, book, wire, microwave, lightbulb, CD spindle, or screwdriver, then you'll have a good point in court. Also, consider that while you can kill people with all those things, you are far more likely to succeed with a knife or a gun or even a bat. Can P2P show that, for example, people generally prefer to violate copyright in another way?
The problem that P2P is facing legally is that it is the primary tool for copyright violation, and that its non-infringing uses are small. Unless you face those facts and change one or both of them, you'll be arguing like a man who wants to buy dynamite but can't really say why he wants it: interesting, but not compelling.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that governments should prosecute illegal acts, not the tools that enable such acts, much less the toolmakers. But I'm talking about winning a court case here, not just a philosophical argument.
That analogy only goes so far. Dynamite, for example, can be used in construction or mining, but can also be used to blow people up. In most or all countries, explosives are legal but highly regulated.
I'm not saying that your kitchen knife analogy is invalid, just that the principle you extrapolate from it is overly broad. There are many things that governments regulate tightly, or even ban entirely (uranium, for example) from private hands, not just because they can be used to kill people, but because common people don't have a plausible need for them. The density of uranium probably makes it an excellent paperweight, but that's unlikely to convince a court to make the government sell you some.
In other words, the debate should be about the potential for harm (let's not pretend that P2P isn't used for copyright infringement) and the potential good. You can consider technology to be "pure" and agenda-free if you want an intellectual discussion, but if you want to win a court case you'll probably need to come up with significant non-infringing uses for it.
How would you know? Do you have an example?
It only takes one shining example of Google screwing an employee in the way you describe (make a bundle off his or her invention but giving the inventor only a pat on the back) before people stop using this 20% "free time" on anything worthwhile.
Tell that to your potential employer when you submit your next resume.
There's a time and place for everything. Using big words at informal gatherings or your blog might be inappropriate, but so is misspelling words in a business letter or resume. Once in a while it does matter, and when it does you need to be able to wield the language impressively.
A successful business either builds something that, upon announcement, everybody realizes they want to buy, or builds something that everybody clearly already wants to buy. In Apple's case, the original iMac and iPod are more of the former, while the Mac Mini, iPod Shuffle, and the yet-to-be-seen G5 PowerBook are more of the latter. Either way, Steve Jobs is successful mainly because he can identify both very well, not mainly because he's a dictatorial eccentric.
I never even hinted that knowing what people want to actually buy (either before or after they realize it) is easy in any way. Your fanaticism is blinding you to what is already a praise that simply hasn't reached the level of worship. Yes, Jobs is a visionary, but there are plenty of visionaries in this industry who make no money at all.
Do you imagine for a second that a public company would tolerate a CEO who "does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and when he does, he makes you want it too, regardless of the reality of the situation" if he wasn't making them as much money as they've ever seen?
Now, leaving everything in the hands of such a person is inherently risky. They are capable of great success because they can brush aside all opposition, but they are also capable of spectacular failures for the same reason. But Steve Jobs is a success today mainly because he made Apple build and sell what people want to buy.
Price is a major factor in third world countries, where your ~$30 flat rate plan is generally unaffordable by even white collar professionals. If the person you call also needs to pay for airtime, then calling them is even a form of imposition. (Many things are cheaper in the third world, but a lot of the equipment has to be imported, and telecoms carriers are greedy.)
Where price is less of a concern, there are many people who use public transportation outside the US. This means they have more time to use their phones, but also are constrained by politeness to remain quiet.
With most providers, voice calls are a lot more expensive than SMS. In many countries, this price difference is significant enough to suffer the relative inconvenience. Messaging also has the somewhat unintended feature of being quiet to send, so it's more polite to use in public.