"...but it's certainly possible that the kind of brain that can handle multiple channels of information is also the kind of brain that earns A's."
It's also certainly possible that the kind of brain that THINKS it can handle multiple channels of information is also the kind of brain that can't.
Since none of them have your full attention, doing four things all at once makes the odds pretty good that all you're doing is screwing up four things at once.
Of course, I expect plenty of people here are going to tell me they're experts in this regard... much like the "90% of all drivers think they're above average" statistic.
Yes, but that could be as little as a couple of days of an engineer's time on a device that will be used by a million people... and may, in all likelyhood, still be drawing power next year, and the year after that, and...
"People are going to buy it more if it's cheaper..."
Correction: Some people (fans, etc.) will buy it at almost any price. So the question is, will you sell enough additional units at a lower price to make up the difference if you start off by selling it on the cheap?
Or can you sell it high at first, and then lower the price and still collect the difference in numbers? (In which case you've increased income, as the initial buyers have paid more.)
Third, by the time you factor in demographics, music likes/dislikes, and so on, the market for a given work is finite. (Some people never buy music, never buy country or rap, etc.) So you can reach a point where lowering the price will not generate an appreciable increase in numbers, because there's no one available or interested in buying it.
So all the "one cheap price for all" model effectively does is lose money.
So your comment, while "common" knowledge, is in fact incorrect.
So continue your curve. At $0.49, you may pick some experimenters who aren't fans, but will try anything. However, the bulk of your distrbution curve was exhausted at $0.79, so those numbers range from slim to none. Had you jumped from $0.99 to $0.49 directly, you would have lost sales dollars, as the increase in numbers was way too small to compensate for the lower price. (1000*0.79 + 100*0.49=$838.00 vs. 1100*0.49=$539.00)
Look at it another way, and you start with the total population, then you subtract out non-applicable demographics, people who never buy music anyway, people who never buy a given type of music (country, rap), those whose demographic is too expensive to reach, and so on. In the vast majority of cases you'll find that the market for that particular music is finite, as all of those other people will never buy it at any price.
So in the first case, lower prices don't always generate more sale dollars, and in the second, lower prices don't always increase demand.
"Do you put more icons on the screen to increase it's availability to download?"
Actually, there is an interesting point in this, in that there's a distinct limit on the amount of advertising space available to promote music. In addition to physical space (page layout, banners, etc.), there's also a limit to the number of eyeballs (page views) available to see them.
So while the number of copies that can be delivered is effectively unlimited, there is a distinct limit to the amount of music that can be promoted at any point in time.
So if you're buying banners and ad space to promote newer music, that music does, in effect, "cost" more.
Your assumption is that, by lowering prices, more people will buy. However, the number of people in a given market is finite, and as such that rule doesn't always hold. If only N number of people are interested in band B's music at any price, then lowering the price will not increase N.
You may be in the middle of a curve where decreasing prices will increase volume, but due to the finite nature of N, there may not be sufficient demand to recoup the difference.
"Economics 101 says that when monopolies dominate a market, prices go up."
How can monopolies [plural] dominate a market? If there's more than one, it's hardly a monopoly. And if that's what you learned in your Economics 101 class, I'd seek a refund.
BTW, iTMS is hardly a monopoly, as the vast majority of the content available there is readily available elsewhere. I'd suggest you reread that definition again...
Contextual toolbars have been appearing in mainstream applications like Photoshop CS for several years now. Showing only the options the select or pen tool needs and hiding the others is a MAJOR advance in usability, as it hides non-applicable actions and reduces visual complexity.
If you've ever used such, you'd realize that the context changes involved are highly consistent, intuitive, and in doing so it maximizes the amount of screen real estate available for, you know, the actual task you're working on.
Somebody, please, mod the above UI "expert" down. It's another rant, nothing more.
"Until you find out you were given the wrong gateway IP address, then you get to spend hours figuring out where the configuration actually is so you can change it."
Huh? In Network Connections / NIC in question / TCP/IP Settings. That took hours?
And just for kicks, in OS X it's System Prefs / Network / TCP/IP. (Just so you don't spend "hours" there, should the need ever arise.) Point being that anyone in charge of actually setting up this stuff knows where to find 'em.
Just like a skilled *nix guy can tell me which damned text configuration parameter I need to add to which damned config file and what damned directory it's in... *grin*
"There's a standard size for body text in web browsers for a reason."
Actually, there's a default size for body text in web browers. But as almost every web browser in existence uses different default sizes for text, headings, and spacing, there is no cross-browser cross-platform "standard".
"...because heirarchies offer quite a bit of utility..."
This is true, however, the way that statement is worded gives a hint to part of the problem. Hierarchies (plural) do offer quite a bit of ulitity. The problem is that, at the moment, in most systems a given file can exist in only one hierarchy.
Shortcuts exist, but are hard to use, as you have to find the file and drag links to it elsewhere.
Desktop search is great, but often needs metadata as all too often we lack context. And how many people take the extra step to apply metadata and/or keywords to documents?
"...we will steganographically hide mp3's in the typos."
Don't suppose you've considered what that does to throughput? Is taking all day to download a song that's available for a buck really worth the trouble? How many people are going to think so?
You don't get off that easily. Encrypted/garbage HTML is a pattern in and as of itself.
Continually up/downloading multi-megabytes of data is a pattern. Streaming those bytes in from and out to a plethora of sources is another pattern. Connection protocols can be examined and tracked. End-points can be tracked. Large SSL downloads are atypical. Large non-SSL downloads can be examined. Downloading web pages that aren't web pages is atypical. Downloading images that aren't images is atypical. Blocks of addresses owned by ISPs can be scrutinized. Unknown IPs (not-/., not-Wired, not-Amazon) can be scrutinized. HTTP requests to accounts that aren't supposed to have web services on them can be dropped. Noise and continuous flow systems will run afoul of bandwidth limiters and account limits.
Sorry, but if you want to download an 800MB rip of the newest movie, you have to get 800MB worth of data from somewhere and have it arrive at your doorstep.
And second, it doesn't matter what happens in the rest of the world, if your ISP is watching YOUR traffic for infringement.
Because, oh genuis one, it doesn't do any good. Continually downloading megabytes of data is a pattern. Streaming those bytes in from a plethora of sources is another pattern. Connection protocols can be examined and tracked. End-points can be tracked. Large SSL downloads are atypical. Large non-SSL downloads can be examined. Downloading web pages that aren't web pages is atypical. Downloading images that aren't images is atypical. Blocks of addresses owned by ISPs can be scrutinized. Unknown IPs (not-/., not-Wired, not-Amazon) can be scrutinized. Web services on accounts that aren't supposed to have web services on them can be dropped. Noise and continuous flow systems will run afoul of bandwidth limiters and account limits.
Sorry, but if you want to download an 800MB rip of the newest movie, you have to have at least 800MB worth of data arriving at your doorstep...
"...means it cannot be shutdown with the legal pressure of a single company attacking another."
Like, say, legally telling a large ISP to detect and kill the traffic running over its backbones?
Repeat after me. The internet is not anonymous. Traffic, traffic patterns, protocols, and content can and will be tracked. BT will be legally shut down once they analyze the numbers and determine that only 5% of its traffic consists of those "legitimate" linux distros.
'Course hackers, cause they think they're so smart, will counter with another protocol... while will suffer the same fate. Soon a blanket order covering all illegitimate P2P use will be put into effect and enforced by ISPs, shutting down access and bouncing people off the net when they see it pop up.
Downloading and owning said software will also be illegal. College nets will be monitored, because not to do so will endanger federal grant money, as well as getting the school kicked off the backbone if they don't.
Watch. We're well into the first phase.
All because a bunch of jerks were too cheap to pay for the music they actually wanted to listen to...
Have you seen the nice selection of apps that ship with OSX? Jobs could also put iLife on it, as well as OpenOffice.
And I'm REALLY tired of hearing the, "they can not only learn about what makes a computer work" line. From what I gather, the vast majority of the people to whom this system would be given/sold will be doing homework (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic) and will not be busy trying to recompile their kernels and/or device drivers.
They don't NEED a system that requires a platoon of Unix uber-geeks to configure and maintain it.
"...noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with."
So they declined a world-class OS with commercially available software because the designers (who are not the intended users) wanted something they could tinker with. Makes sense to me....
Slashdot Mirror
The battery backup system is good for 24 hours. Better hope that Jack Bauer finds it in time...
Should read The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James Hogan. Sometimes kneecapping it isn't as easy as you think...
Something I've not seen mentioned anywhere (even on MS's site) and thought I'd ask: does the xbox 2 has the ability to play xbox 1 games?
It's also certainly possible that the kind of brain that THINKS it can handle multiple channels of information is also the kind of brain that can't.
Since none of them have your full attention, doing four things all at once makes the odds pretty good that all you're doing is screwing up four things at once.
Of course, I expect plenty of people here are going to tell me they're experts in this regard... much like the "90% of all drivers think they're above average" statistic.
I'm now waiting for back-to-back...
Yes, but that could be as little as a couple of days of an engineer's time on a device that will be used by a million people... and may, in all likelyhood, still be drawing power next year, and the year after that, and...
Correction: Some people (fans, etc.) will buy it at almost any price. So the question is, will you sell enough additional units at a lower price to make up the difference if you start off by selling it on the cheap?
Or can you sell it high at first, and then lower the price and still collect the difference in numbers? (In which case you've increased income, as the initial buyers have paid more.)
Third, by the time you factor in demographics, music likes/dislikes, and so on, the market for a given work is finite. (Some people never buy music, never buy country or rap, etc.) So you can reach a point where lowering the price will not generate an appreciable increase in numbers, because there's no one available or interested in buying it.
So all the "one cheap price for all" model effectively does is lose money.
So your comment, while "common" knowledge, is in fact incorrect.
Look at it another way, and you start with the total population, then you subtract out non-applicable demographics, people who never buy music anyway, people who never buy a given type of music (country, rap), those whose demographic is too expensive to reach, and so on. In the vast majority of cases you'll find that the market for that particular music is finite, as all of those other people will never buy it at any price.
So in the first case, lower prices don't always generate more sale dollars, and in the second, lower prices don't always increase demand.
Actually, there is an interesting point in this, in that there's a distinct limit on the amount of advertising space available to promote music. In addition to physical space (page layout, banners, etc.), there's also a limit to the number of eyeballs (page views) available to see them.
So while the number of copies that can be delivered is effectively unlimited, there is a distinct limit to the amount of music that can be promoted at any point in time.
So if you're buying banners and ad space to promote newer music, that music does, in effect, "cost" more.
You may be in the middle of a curve where decreasing prices will increase volume, but due to the finite nature of N, there may not be sufficient demand to recoup the difference.
In other words, you gave money away.
How can monopolies [plural] dominate a market? If there's more than one, it's hardly a monopoly. And if that's what you learned in your Economics 101 class, I'd seek a refund.
BTW, iTMS is hardly a monopoly, as the vast majority of the content available there is readily available elsewhere. I'd suggest you reread that definition again...
Contextual toolbars have been appearing in mainstream applications like Photoshop CS for several years now. Showing only the options the select or pen tool needs and hiding the others is a MAJOR advance in usability, as it hides non-applicable actions and reduces visual complexity.
If you've ever used such, you'd realize that the context changes involved are highly consistent, intuitive, and in doing so it maximizes the amount of screen real estate available for, you know, the actual task you're working on.
Somebody, please, mod the above UI "expert" down. It's another rant, nothing more.
I was wondering who'd be the first to find a negative spin in this. Congratulations.
Do I wish there was no DRM? Certainly. I also wish there was no NEED for DRM. Unfortunately, those two viewpoints are not easily reconciled.
Huh? In Network Connections / NIC in question / TCP/IP Settings. That took hours?
And just for kicks, in OS X it's System Prefs / Network / TCP/IP. (Just so you don't spend "hours" there, should the need ever arise.) Point being that anyone in charge of actually setting up this stuff knows where to find 'em.
Just like a skilled *nix guy can tell me which damned text configuration parameter I need to add to which damned config file and what damned directory it's in... *grin*
Actually, there's a default size for body text in web browers. But as almost every web browser in existence uses different default sizes for text, headings, and spacing, there is no cross-browser cross-platform "standard".
This is true, however, the way that statement is worded gives a hint to part of the problem. Hierarchies (plural) do offer quite a bit of ulitity. The problem is that, at the moment, in most systems a given file can exist in only one hierarchy.
Shortcuts exist, but are hard to use, as you have to find the file and drag links to it elsewhere.
Desktop search is great, but often needs metadata as all too often we lack context. And how many people take the extra step to apply metadata and/or keywords to documents?
Don't suppose you've considered what that does to throughput? Is taking all day to download a song that's available for a buck really worth the trouble? How many people are going to think so?
Continually up/downloading multi-megabytes of data is a pattern. Streaming those bytes in from and out to a plethora of sources is another pattern. Connection protocols can be examined and tracked. End-points can be tracked. Large SSL downloads are atypical. Large non-SSL downloads can be examined. Downloading web pages that aren't web pages is atypical. Downloading images that aren't images is atypical. Blocks of addresses owned by ISPs can be scrutinized. Unknown IPs (not-/., not-Wired, not-Amazon) can be scrutinized. HTTP requests to accounts that aren't supposed to have web services on them can be dropped. Noise and continuous flow systems will run afoul of bandwidth limiters and account limits.
Sorry, but if you want to download an 800MB rip of the newest movie, you have to get 800MB worth of data from somewhere and have it arrive at your doorstep.
And second, it doesn't matter what happens in the rest of the world, if your ISP is watching YOUR traffic for infringement.
Sorry, but if you want to download an 800MB rip of the newest movie, you have to have at least 800MB worth of data arriving at your doorstep...
Half-again the size of the US doesn't do it for you? Try the CIA World factbook...
Like, say, legally telling a large ISP to detect and kill the traffic running over its backbones?
Repeat after me. The internet is not anonymous. Traffic, traffic patterns, protocols, and content can and will be tracked. BT will be legally shut down once they analyze the numbers and determine that only 5% of its traffic consists of those "legitimate" linux distros.
'Course hackers, cause they think they're so smart, will counter with another protocol... while will suffer the same fate. Soon a blanket order covering all illegitimate P2P use will be put into effect and enforced by ISPs, shutting down access and bouncing people off the net when they see it pop up.
Downloading and owning said software will also be illegal. College nets will be monitored, because not to do so will endanger federal grant money, as well as getting the school kicked off the backbone if they don't.
Watch. We're well into the first phase.
All because a bunch of jerks were too cheap to pay for the music they actually wanted to listen to...
And I'm REALLY tired of hearing the, "they can not only learn about what makes a computer work" line. From what I gather, the vast majority of the people to whom this system would be given/sold will be doing homework (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic) and will not be busy trying to recompile their kernels and/or device drivers.
They don't NEED a system that requires a platoon of Unix uber-geeks to configure and maintain it.
Uh, how about kids who are actually using the notebooks to get their homework done... and not needing to FIX their linux installs at all!
So they declined a world-class OS with commercially available software because the designers (who are not the intended users) wanted something they could tinker with. Makes sense to me....