I realize there's a group of folks who believe the Founding Fathers were never wrong and can never be questioned, but consider this: Those Founding Fathers would be ashamed to see intelligent officials (like Supreme Court Justices) that refuse to use their own capable minds to decide if something needs a fresh interpretation for a specific time and place.
I agree with listening to the Founding Fathers. When officials in a country far away could not adequately represent their needs due to lack of knowledge of what said needs were, they decided to separate and govern themselves. I would imagine they'd agree that men who made governing decisions two and a half centuries prior to now might be lacking in knowledge of all current circumstances and thus would be poor representatives in certain judgments. They did a damn good job for the majority of judgments, but they sure did not have the prescience needed to have all the answers for every potential judgment that would come around.
Facebook is useful, it's just not *as useful or essential* as the media hype has made out.
There are a few game creators that would argue over the essential portion of that argument. And it's worth remembering how much money those games have made to date in addition to how much time people play them.
Remember, just because HBO has the right, i.e. the legal authority, to control the distribution of the work, that doesn't make them right, i.e. morally justified, to do so.
The implication here is that HBO owes everyone something (the content). That's a lot of nonsense. Being that it is a lot of nonsense, any "moral" discussion already went out the window.
They've produced a show for their subscribers, nothing more. If you have to no desire to be their subscriber, you are not entitled to anything. Just because something is produced does not mean it automatically grants everyone the right to said thing.
2 - Will pay for entertainment covered in entertainment services.
3 - Will not buy a stack of unmarked programming, with payments continuing indefinitely into the future.
#3 implies that you will not do #2 if #2's service agreement requires it.
While I certainly agree that Facebook is probably past its prime (and I think the end will come someday, although I think it'll last more than 5 years), you underestimate people's allegiance to Facebook. This isn't myspace. One of the massive user migrations to Facebook came when FB opened the doors to non-college members. That's a major point in why myspace took a hit; once the gated community opened up to the public, the riff-raff got in and ditched their previous social network.
Google+ is not taking Facebook down. While I like G+, it's fate lies more in the Twitter-type crowd than your general Facebook user. No, the current example you are looking for is Pinterest, and the problem there is that Facebook can match Pinterest at its own game. FB might bleed some users, but certainly not in the hundreds of millions.
Folks want to believe Facebook will fail simply because they want Facebook to fail. It's a stronger model than that though, led by a guy who will make shady moves to ensure success. They aren't going away just because some fickle internet folks think trends are moving elsewhere.
I think your memory betrays you. At the time myspace was taking off, there were numerous competitors in the social media marketplace (FB not far behind). How many competitors are there currently that can comparatively match Facebook right now?
Sorry folks, but the myspace argument just isn't there right now.
Because there's no indication that Facebook is falling apart and no major competitor out there to kick their ass? Even Google isn't making a dent in Facebook's ability to further integrate into the rest of the web.
Ok, so let's follow up to get an actual reason for your hypothesis:
What massive internal mistakes do you see Facebook making right now that would imply a similar falloff to myspace's collapse?
Who is the main competitor you see beating Facebook? myspace didn't just fail of its own accord, it couldn't compete in the social marketplace as well as Facebook. Without someone sitting in the shadows to beat Facebook at its own game, your entire argument currently speculates that Facebook will lose just by virtue of it falling on its face. That's a stretch at best.
I think you missed my point. Often enough, new proposed standards are implemented, tested, and accepted/rejected long before the standards are considered viable for the final proposal. A five year discussion might work for a proposal committee, but practical application moves on while they sit around and chew the fat on accepted details across the various platforms.
The moment all vendors agree is the moment the standard is done.
And since that process applies to every damn detail in the standard, it is no wonder that they all just implement experimental ideas immediately rather than wait for the standard to be completed. Consensus takes forever.
Get the standard done. Browser vendors are not going to wait 20 years for you to make up your mind. The digital world moves too fast for policy to take too long. Proposed ideas are going through vigorous testing in the real world long before a finalized plan for that idea is set.
Before you make that claim, are you going to drink your own medicine and present us with some evidence? Have you conducted long-term studies that show that prayer is useless?
That's easy. Two football teams pray to win. Only one does. Obviously prayer had nothing to do with the result.
Minor nitpick: If they were "dumb pipes" they wouldn't have to subsidize the cost of the iPhone. You'd pay full price for it and obtain service without a contract.
So I could potentially look for better service deals and prices, especially focusing on who may provide better coverage in my area, all the while I pay 800 bucks instead of 200 for my phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Constitutionalist.
In this case, Constitutionalist = moron.
I realize there's a group of folks who believe the Founding Fathers were never wrong and can never be questioned, but consider this: Those Founding Fathers would be ashamed to see intelligent officials (like Supreme Court Justices) that refuse to use their own capable minds to decide if something needs a fresh interpretation for a specific time and place.
I agree with listening to the Founding Fathers. When officials in a country far away could not adequately represent their needs due to lack of knowledge of what said needs were, they decided to separate and govern themselves. I would imagine they'd agree that men who made governing decisions two and a half centuries prior to now might be lacking in knowledge of all current circumstances and thus would be poor representatives in certain judgments. They did a damn good job for the majority of judgments, but they sure did not have the prescience needed to have all the answers for every potential judgment that would come around.
Like we haven't had porn and games since Ugg and his brother scrawled dirty pictures on the cave wall and played "hit the target with this rock."
This is as bad as the patent office. "But this is different! It's on a COMPUTER!!!"
Brilliant!
Facebook is useful, it's just not *as useful or essential* as the media hype has made out.
There are a few game creators that would argue over the essential portion of that argument. And it's worth remembering how much money those games have made to date in addition to how much time people play them.
Specifically, their mobile app sucks. That'll drive people back to the full site. Or so they hope.
So your irrelevant podcast is on the same level as mainstream media? Hey, at least you've made it!
How I miss that show now :(
Remember, just because HBO has the right, i.e. the legal authority, to control the distribution of the work, that doesn't make them right, i.e. morally justified, to do so.
The implication here is that HBO owes everyone something (the content). That's a lot of nonsense. Being that it is a lot of nonsense, any "moral" discussion already went out the window.
They've produced a show for their subscribers, nothing more. If you have to no desire to be their subscriber, you are not entitled to anything. Just because something is produced does not mean it automatically grants everyone the right to said thing.
2 - Will pay for entertainment covered in entertainment services. 3 - Will not buy a stack of unmarked programming, with payments continuing indefinitely into the future.
#3 implies that you will not do #2 if #2's service agreement requires it.
While I certainly agree that Facebook is probably past its prime (and I think the end will come someday, although I think it'll last more than 5 years), you underestimate people's allegiance to Facebook. This isn't myspace. One of the massive user migrations to Facebook came when FB opened the doors to non-college members. That's a major point in why myspace took a hit; once the gated community opened up to the public, the riff-raff got in and ditched their previous social network.
Google+ is not taking Facebook down. While I like G+, it's fate lies more in the Twitter-type crowd than your general Facebook user. No, the current example you are looking for is Pinterest, and the problem there is that Facebook can match Pinterest at its own game. FB might bleed some users, but certainly not in the hundreds of millions.
Folks want to believe Facebook will fail simply because they want Facebook to fail. It's a stronger model than that though, led by a guy who will make shady moves to ensure success. They aren't going away just because some fickle internet folks think trends are moving elsewhere.
I think your memory betrays you. At the time myspace was taking off, there were numerous competitors in the social media marketplace (FB not far behind). How many competitors are there currently that can comparatively match Facebook right now?
Sorry folks, but the myspace argument just isn't there right now.
Because there's no indication that Facebook is falling apart and no major competitor out there to kick their ass? Even Google isn't making a dent in Facebook's ability to further integrate into the rest of the web.
Ok, so let's follow up to get an actual reason for your hypothesis:
What massive internal mistakes do you see Facebook making right now that would imply a similar falloff to myspace's collapse?
Who is the main competitor you see beating Facebook? myspace didn't just fail of its own accord, it couldn't compete in the social marketplace as well as Facebook. Without someone sitting in the shadows to beat Facebook at its own game, your entire argument currently speculates that Facebook will lose just by virtue of it falling on its face. That's a stretch at best.
1) Anyone who puts most of their retirement in one company is a fool.
2) Did you really just compare myspace to Facebook and imply Facebook will go the same route? That's laughable for the foreseeable future.
Glad to see someone brought this up.
The online world is not moving fast at all.
I think you missed my point. Often enough, new proposed standards are implemented, tested, and accepted/rejected long before the standards are considered viable for the final proposal. A five year discussion might work for a proposal committee, but practical application moves on while they sit around and chew the fat on accepted details across the various platforms.
The moment all vendors agree is the moment the standard is done.
And since that process applies to every damn detail in the standard, it is no wonder that they all just implement experimental ideas immediately rather than wait for the standard to be completed. Consensus takes forever.
Get the standard done. Browser vendors are not going to wait 20 years for you to make up your mind. The digital world moves too fast for policy to take too long. Proposed ideas are going through vigorous testing in the real world long before a finalized plan for that idea is set.
WHat I wanted to know is who is buying $200 headphones from a vending machine in a train station.
The kind of person that buys $200 headphones from a Big Box retailer instead of wisely shopping for them from a headphone retailer online.
Blah, totally botched my thought there since I just repeated your point. Nevermind me. Late afternoon crash has taking its toll.
I'd say they advertise because they don't see Firefox as the competition; they see IE as the competition.
So Orson Scott Card's alternate pen name is Jackie Treehorn? Good thing he didn't illustrate Ender's Game...
You get the piece of mind of knowing that you didn't pirate the content. Satisfying, is it not?
Before you make that claim, are you going to drink your own medicine and present us with some evidence? Have you conducted long-term studies that show that prayer is useless?
That's easy. Two football teams pray to win. Only one does. Obviously prayer had nothing to do with the result.
I presume those would be aimed at the Beats by Dre crowd, not the audiophile crowd.
Minor nitpick: If they were "dumb pipes" they wouldn't have to subsidize the cost of the iPhone. You'd pay full price for it and obtain service without a contract.
So I could potentially look for better service deals and prices, especially focusing on who may provide better coverage in my area, all the while I pay 800 bucks instead of 200 for my phone?
SOLD!