Talent is expensive, sure, but it need not be nearly as expensive as it has become. The budget of a modern blockbuster is not a necessity for talent, it's a by-product of the current industry and its vast barriers to entry. In all but the most exceptional circumstance you certainly need some money, but there's a vast gulf between that and the tens of millions that most major productions burn through. By democratising the marketing and distribution, as well as radically reducing the barrier to entry in terms of equipment costs, modern tech allows talented people to produce a respectable 'amateur quality' film for next to nothing, or one that can stand up against the big guys for tens or hundreds of thousands. Primer is a superb (if somewhat extreme) example - a good story, well told and excellently put together on $7,000. Sure, the particular narrative lent itself well to the low budget, and it was absolutely a product of obsession, but it demonstrates the point.
More generally, damn good actors, directors, writers, producers, etc. are far more likely to be able to get something out there and be judged on their merits, maybe make a decent living wage, rather than a few making hundreds of millions and the rest fading into obscurity.
I was just about to say exactly that. The very first video on an article about how new creation and distribution technologies are changing the game, no less.
Admittedly not nearly as bad as outright region restriction, since in this case the full version is still only a click away, but perhaps an unfortunate sign of restrictive 'old world' thinking.
The modern idea that most of those should be put off at any cost merely prolongs the squabbles.
Thing is, there's a very real reason for that idea - technology has rendered the stakes of modern warfare much greater than they could possibly be in the past. If things remain 'contained', the death toll can be enormous. If things get beyond control (as much as one can have control in a war), there is a non-zero chance of total global catastrophe.
It's like asking why people don't have duels any more, and then handing them each an assault rifle in a crowded park and telling them to go for it.
Unless both sides agree to voluntarily limit the 'terms' of their war (beyond the limits already outlined by the Geneva convention), the stakes are too high. If both sides do agree to limitation, you've just set up a classic prisoner's dilemma.
Tax free or not, it seems a less than brilliant prize; not that I'd be complaining if they gave me a voucher that's pretty much worth all the music and video I can eat for a decently long time, but for the relative pittance that it's worth to a company like Apple they would have been much kinder to give out a voucher that could be used for hardware too.
A couple of shiny new MacBooks, an iPhone for everyone in the family, and enough left for an Apple TV, a 30" display or two, and a handful of iPads is a pretty serious prize, whether to keep or to eBay - more or less unlimited access to the iTunes store, while still something I'd like, would be a far less exciting prospect.
They had the choice of obeying China's laws or being shut down, and they were shut down. I see where you're coming from, but it's not like they wilfully tried to continue running while breaking the law, or attempted to hide what they were doing - they were open about their position, and China responded. To say they were ignoring the laws implies (to me, at least) that they were trying to get away with doing so, rather than making a direct and public stand. Agree with it or not, that's the difference between crime and civil disobedience.
Most people seem to have decided the CEO position will pass to Tim Cook, not that I know enough to comment on his credentials. I do know what you mean about 'business guys' having the potential to destroy what Apple currently is, though - like it or not, their formula is successful.
At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I wonder what the chances of the job going to Jony Ive are?
In which case I have no qualms about letting them waste their money. It's one thing to misunderstand or plain forget about a monthly outgoing (sure, in an ideal world one would keep a closer eye on things, but I can understand it), but if people are going to wilfully ignore the advice of those trying to help them then they can shovel the cash into a furnace for all I care.
The Witcher seems to exist in an AO version, but not on Steam. Indigo Prophecy Uncut is also AO, but also only on Steam in its cut M version.
I wasn't aware of that at all, but it is one of the oddest things I've heard in a long time. Steam is pretty much the archetypal example of a service aimed (predominantly) at men in their late-teens to late-twenties, and well under the radar of the 'morality' brigade. If anything it strikes me that self-censorship would be viewed negatively by their users, unlike most bricks-and-mortar retailers who want to maintain a family friendly image.
Absolutely agreed. That said, the regulations clearly aren't entirely logical - I forget when the first time I heard it was, but I tend to chuckle at the announcement that goes out after the plane hits the runway:
You may now turn on your cellphones while we taxi to the terminal. All other electronic devices must remain switched off until the cabin door is open.
With the realistic risk of catastrophic failure in a modern reactor (i.e. negligible) I'd be doubtful of whether the extra 'safety feature' of immersion is worth the associated difficulties.
Tape probably isn't worth the cost or effort for a personal system, even for old kit on craigslist. I'd stick with your first suggestion, two USB drives, keep one off site. It's also worth mentioning that you can get very cheap online storage - slow, and not something I'd trust as my only copy, but Dreamhost or Amazon S3 can easily handle many GBs for not much cash. For your money you get the advantage of worldwide access, extra geographic redundancy, and some level of backup assurance at the data centre too.
Of course, in an ideal, or even slightly less idiotic world, the employers might realise that everybody parties and that old picture of a prospective employee doing shots while wearing a toga in no way alters their ability to do the job now.
That would make an awful lot more sense. I was about to reply to your initial post pointing out that while it may be a poor idea from a technical standpoint, the fact is that 90% of the images wouldn't be cracked and stored, and thus it would prevent them from resurfacing embarrassingly a decade later. If you're trusting the outside service with your pictures anyway, though, they may as well just have a deletion date instead.
Of course, the truly sensible idea would be for users to be somewhat selective about what they upload, on the one hand, and for people in general to accept that we've all done stupid shit, someone will probably find out eventually, and everybody should just get over it, on the other.
Any suggestions on why the UK is the most expensive market, then? Even accounting for the rather excessive 20% VAT rate, the difference in price is about $45.
Once they start locking down general purpose computers,then we can talk.
I don't think the prospects are anything like as dire as the GP post suggests, but things aren't looking entirely rosy.
Take the iPad, for example. However much Apple want to classify it as a new device, it's still a tablet computer, and we had them running general purpose OS's for a good few years before its release.
Fair point, cheap outgoing calls are a decent reason to use a landline if one happens to be available, but probably not a specific reason to keep them around other than as internet conduits, since Skype does the job too.
It's a surprising disparity, at least to me. If I'd made an offhand guess I would have probably estimated $0.15 in bandwidth or maybe $0.60 in postage - only a factor of four. Not something that'll keep me up at night, sure, but a moderately interesting little bit of information.
Seems like half decent "News for Nerds" in my opinion.
I find that Gmail's javascript interface is less than accommodating of multiple concurrent tabs. Not totally broken, just not 100% functional; although I don't use Yahoo mail personally, I can see how tabs within the 'web app' interface (rather than within the browser) could be useful.
One could argue that MS funding really was provided with no strings, on the basis that MS are so confident in their superiority that they just want hard data to support that assumption. Not necessarily saying I agree, but it's a viable reason for why they would fund the study but actually want it to be valid and impartial.
In any case, most of the discussion here will be based on the summary as given context by the headline, which is very misleading.
What the research actually concluded was that the total cost of ownership can vary, sometimes open source is cheaper overall, but sometimes zero cost up-front is more than offset by training and support. They also point out that closed source software should be required to support open formats in order to prevent abuse of a dominant market position. Basically, exactly what any sensible open source advocate has been saying for years.
My one objection to most similar studies (although TFA doesn't say whether it's applicable here) is that switching from, say, MS Office 2003 to 2007 (a major interface change) is considered to take little or no training (a reasonable assumption for staff with moderate computer-literacy) but switching to OpenOffice is projected to incur significant retraining expenses (as well as the far more understandable costs of changing file formats and so on).
A cliche response, perhaps, but anecdote != data. I don't know anyone in the UK who doesn't have net access - they apparently exist, but I was very surprised to hear there were that many of them; I would have guessed maybe 500,000 rather than over 9 million.
Point is, maybe you're right, maybe 99.999999% of Scandinavian country residents do have net access, but you can't extrapolate that fact from only your personal experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Talent is expensive, sure, but it need not be nearly as expensive as it has become. The budget of a modern blockbuster is not a necessity for talent, it's a by-product of the current industry and its vast barriers to entry. In all but the most exceptional circumstance you certainly need some money, but there's a vast gulf between that and the tens of millions that most major productions burn through. By democratising the marketing and distribution, as well as radically reducing the barrier to entry in terms of equipment costs, modern tech allows talented people to produce a respectable 'amateur quality' film for next to nothing, or one that can stand up against the big guys for tens or hundreds of thousands. Primer is a superb (if somewhat extreme) example - a good story, well told and excellently put together on $7,000. Sure, the particular narrative lent itself well to the low budget, and it was absolutely a product of obsession, but it demonstrates the point.
More generally, damn good actors, directors, writers, producers, etc. are far more likely to be able to get something out there and be judged on their merits, maybe make a decent living wage, rather than a few making hundreds of millions and the rest fading into obscurity.
I was just about to say exactly that. The very first video on an article about how new creation and distribution technologies are changing the game, no less.
Admittedly not nearly as bad as outright region restriction, since in this case the full version is still only a click away, but perhaps an unfortunate sign of restrictive 'old world' thinking.
The modern idea that most of those should be put off at any cost merely prolongs the squabbles.
Thing is, there's a very real reason for that idea - technology has rendered the stakes of modern warfare much greater than they could possibly be in the past. If things remain 'contained', the death toll can be enormous. If things get beyond control (as much as one can have control in a war), there is a non-zero chance of total global catastrophe.
It's like asking why people don't have duels any more, and then handing them each an assault rifle in a crowded park and telling them to go for it.
Unless both sides agree to voluntarily limit the 'terms' of their war (beyond the limits already outlined by the Geneva convention), the stakes are too high. If both sides do agree to limitation, you've just set up a classic prisoner's dilemma.
I seem to recall that US citizens are taxed on income earned outside the US, so yes, the IRS can tax people in the UK.
That said, there's no mention of the winner being a US citizen, so it's probably a moot point in this case.
Tax free or not, it seems a less than brilliant prize; not that I'd be complaining if they gave me a voucher that's pretty much worth all the music and video I can eat for a decently long time, but for the relative pittance that it's worth to a company like Apple they would have been much kinder to give out a voucher that could be used for hardware too.
A couple of shiny new MacBooks, an iPhone for everyone in the family, and enough left for an Apple TV, a 30" display or two, and a handful of iPads is a pretty serious prize, whether to keep or to eBay - more or less unlimited access to the iTunes store, while still something I'd like, would be a far less exciting prospect.
Just to clarify after re-reading my post: I meant that Apple's current formula is successful, not the aforementioned 'business guys'.
They had the choice of obeying China's laws or being shut down, and they were shut down. I see where you're coming from, but it's not like they wilfully tried to continue running while breaking the law, or attempted to hide what they were doing - they were open about their position, and China responded. To say they were ignoring the laws implies (to me, at least) that they were trying to get away with doing so, rather than making a direct and public stand. Agree with it or not, that's the difference between crime and civil disobedience.
Most people seem to have decided the CEO position will pass to Tim Cook, not that I know enough to comment on his credentials. I do know what you mean about 'business guys' having the potential to destroy what Apple currently is, though - like it or not, their formula is successful.
At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I wonder what the chances of the job going to Jony Ive are?
So basically what they're saying is "Eric Schmidt is pro-evil".
In which case I have no qualms about letting them waste their money. It's one thing to misunderstand or plain forget about a monthly outgoing (sure, in an ideal world one would keep a closer eye on things, but I can understand it), but if people are going to wilfully ignore the advice of those trying to help them then they can shovel the cash into a furnace for all I care.
The Witcher seems to exist in an AO version, but not on Steam. Indigo Prophecy Uncut is also AO, but also only on Steam in its cut M version.
I wasn't aware of that at all, but it is one of the oddest things I've heard in a long time. Steam is pretty much the archetypal example of a service aimed (predominantly) at men in their late-teens to late-twenties, and well under the radar of the 'morality' brigade. If anything it strikes me that self-censorship would be viewed negatively by their users, unlike most bricks-and-mortar retailers who want to maintain a family friendly image.
This just seems implausible and ineffective on so many levels ...
Unfortunately that is often not sufficient to prevent a given DRM scheme from being implemented.
Especially when the screwdriver costs $2.35.
I'm guessing a lot of people would be grateful for a link, then.
Absolutely agreed. That said, the regulations clearly aren't entirely logical - I forget when the first time I heard it was, but I tend to chuckle at the announcement that goes out after the plane hits the runway:
You may now turn on your cellphones while we taxi to the terminal. All other electronic devices must remain switched off until the cabin door is open.
With the realistic risk of catastrophic failure in a modern reactor (i.e. negligible) I'd be doubtful of whether the extra 'safety feature' of immersion is worth the associated difficulties.
Tape probably isn't worth the cost or effort for a personal system, even for old kit on craigslist. I'd stick with your first suggestion, two USB drives, keep one off site. It's also worth mentioning that you can get very cheap online storage - slow, and not something I'd trust as my only copy, but Dreamhost or Amazon S3 can easily handle many GBs for not much cash. For your money you get the advantage of worldwide access, extra geographic redundancy, and some level of backup assurance at the data centre too.
Of course, in an ideal, or even slightly less idiotic world, the employers might realise that everybody parties and that old picture of a prospective employee doing shots while wearing a toga in no way alters their ability to do the job now.
That would make an awful lot more sense. I was about to reply to your initial post pointing out that while it may be a poor idea from a technical standpoint, the fact is that 90% of the images wouldn't be cracked and stored, and thus it would prevent them from resurfacing embarrassingly a decade later. If you're trusting the outside service with your pictures anyway, though, they may as well just have a deletion date instead.
Of course, the truly sensible idea would be for users to be somewhat selective about what they upload, on the one hand, and for people in general to accept that we've all done stupid shit, someone will probably find out eventually, and everybody should just get over it, on the other.
Any suggestions on why the UK is the most expensive market, then? Even accounting for the rather excessive 20% VAT rate, the difference in price is about $45.
Once they start locking down general purpose computers,then we can talk.
I don't think the prospects are anything like as dire as the GP post suggests, but things aren't looking entirely rosy.
Take the iPad, for example. However much Apple want to classify it as a new device, it's still a tablet computer, and we had them running general purpose OS's for a good few years before its release.
Fair point, cheap outgoing calls are a decent reason to use a landline if one happens to be available, but probably not a specific reason to keep them around other than as internet conduits, since Skype does the job too.
It's a surprising disparity, at least to me. If I'd made an offhand guess I would have probably estimated $0.15 in bandwidth or maybe $0.60 in postage - only a factor of four. Not something that'll keep me up at night, sure, but a moderately interesting little bit of information.
Seems like half decent "News for Nerds" in my opinion.
I find that Gmail's javascript interface is less than accommodating of multiple concurrent tabs. Not totally broken, just not 100% functional; although I don't use Yahoo mail personally, I can see how tabs within the 'web app' interface (rather than within the browser) could be useful.
One could argue that MS funding really was provided with no strings, on the basis that MS are so confident in their superiority that they just want hard data to support that assumption. Not necessarily saying I agree, but it's a viable reason for why they would fund the study but actually want it to be valid and impartial.
In any case, most of the discussion here will be based on the summary as given context by the headline, which is very misleading.
What the research actually concluded was that the total cost of ownership can vary, sometimes open source is cheaper overall, but sometimes zero cost up-front is more than offset by training and support. They also point out that closed source software should be required to support open formats in order to prevent abuse of a dominant market position. Basically, exactly what any sensible open source advocate has been saying for years.
My one objection to most similar studies (although TFA doesn't say whether it's applicable here) is that switching from, say, MS Office 2003 to 2007 (a major interface change) is considered to take little or no training (a reasonable assumption for staff with moderate computer-literacy) but switching to OpenOffice is projected to incur significant retraining expenses (as well as the far more understandable costs of changing file formats and so on).
A cliche response, perhaps, but anecdote != data. I don't know anyone in the UK who doesn't have net access - they apparently exist, but I was very surprised to hear there were that many of them; I would have guessed maybe 500,000 rather than over 9 million.
Point is, maybe you're right, maybe 99.999999% of Scandinavian country residents do have net access, but you can't extrapolate that fact from only your personal experience.