I know that people love to throw around buzz words that illicit an immediate emotional response but I think people need to truly understand the power those words possess and recognize that, by using the word, they are not empowering their case. They are demonstrating a shocking lack of understanding of our world's history which immediately undermines their case as nothing more than the histrionics of a drama queen. Does this lawsuit have ground to stand on? Possibly. If Apple is treating their staff unfairly then a class action lawsuit is warranted. But, as soon as anyone associated with the case attached "slave" to their description of the situation, my immediate reaction because "attention whore seeking easy payday." If you're going to use an emotionally charged word, make certain it's relevant. In this case, it couldn't be less relevant if they tried. They may as well have simply likened Apple to Nazis while they were at it...
The company has now decided that it might be a good idea to encrypt the data in their systems.
NOW? They're NOW deciding that it might be a good idea to encrypt the data? Ok, I don't work in the industry and all but even I, as an uneducated outsider, knows that it's a good idea to encrypt that sort of data. Jebus... That should have been one of the first priorities in developing their systems and procedures...
While I know the urge to show why these fans' visions simply do not work is strong, I have to ask, why bother? What's to be gained? They won't change their minds. Educating them to the reasons for decisions that are made won't change the fact that they want to bitch and moan about something - ANYTHING. Also, they want to show off. They want to play in Photoshop with the images and have their friends ooh and aah about how much better their versions look when the reality is that a vast, vast, vast majority of people feel that Blizzard makes simply stunning games. I won't even get into the fact that the fan-altered versions look like crap and are way too dark because that's beside the point - I just don't understand why he spent any time or effort responding to this sort of thing. Nothing will change for having done it other than giving the fans versions an extra 15 minutes of fame...
While one could contend that "music industry", in this case, means "musicians", the traditional use of the phrase is in reference to the big labels behind the musicians. And they will never embrace piracy even if it does mean their artists become more popular and sell out stadiums on a regular basis - labels make little from concerts. There's a reason why many bands tour constantly - that's their major cash cow. Now, for _musicians_, piracy is a good thing - if people are listening to your music, they are more likely to be a fan of your work and thus you call sell more of your t-shirts, stickers, concert tickets, etc., etc., etc. But, labels - "the music industry" - will never go for that. Because their business model is out-dated and they have failed to evolve for the new technological age. But that's their problem...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (not that anyone on/. needs permission for that...), but isn't this old news? Even old news by Slashdot standards?
All of those may be easy to implement but but just because it's easy doesn't make it good (perverted jokes to the contrary...). Those changes would be significant quality of life hits that would frustrate the average user who doesn't even know what Glider is and cause more problems than what they would solve.
Over their cell network, I don't think this is an unreasonable stance for them to take. Sure, it may be annoying for the.05% of users (or whatever miniscule percentage of people) who are affected by this, but this isn't about internet access for the home computer - it's about wireless internet access for a cell network. Sure, when our cell phones are much more advanced and p2p applications make sense I'll think they need to rethink their stance, but for now, it's pretty reasonable. imho.
Who do you think is going to see these clips on Youtube? Elderly ladies (who may be suffering from any number of issues that make them absent minded) or 14 year old twit pranksters? And I'm willing to bet the 400-ish erroneous calls they get a month, which are prompting them into action, are not dominated by addle-minded elderly who just don't understand what 999 is for... If they're threatening jail time and 5k fines, they're going after people abusing the system. So I'll stand by my "14 year old twit" statement.
These 14 year old twits are looking for attention so the cops are giving them international exposure... That couldn't possibly backfire and have the exact opposite outcome... Seriously, if the cops can't understand the very simple and basic motivation of pranksters, what does that say for their ability to understand criminals?...
I'll ignore the obvious troll tone of your reply and instead simply point out it's clearly not as obvious as you think. Simply pay attention to many of the comments coming from Big Media regarding their drop in sales and whatnot - they have not yet clued into the fact that good product generates money while crap doesn't. But, hey, why point out the error in your thinking when you throw around fancy words like "vacuity"?
I'm just glad the summary had this added on: "You know what else helps have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie." I mean, seriously, the successful opening weekend probably had next-to-nothing with the "extra vigilance" and had everything to do with the fact that the movie is, top to bottom, fantastic. Make a good movie and people will pay to see it. Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science. But, of course, they'll tout the success of the movie and the "extra vigilance" as proof that piracy hurts their other movies which don't have similar record-breaking opening weeks. Never you mind that those movies aren't half as good as The Dark Knight - their success suffered because of those filthy pirates! sigh...
Innovation vs Confidence
on
Apple After Jobs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I would contend that Jobs isn't the source of innovation at Apple (yes, he is _a_ source, but not _the_ source, imho) so, yes, Apple can still be innovative without him. Jobs is, however, the source of confidence. He ensures that investors are confident in the choices Apple makes which allows them to proceed the way an innovative company needs to - the engineers are given the room to innovate the way they need and want to. The company is allowed to develop products at the right pace and in the right way and investors remain confident that they are doing "the right thing." Would that same confidence exist in his absence? Would investors be as willing to allow Apple to proceed the way it currently does? That's a more accurate question. In my opinion, at least.
Your cable tv provider is a cable tv provider and nothing more. Now, imagine they started offering channels of entertainment and selling advertising and generating revenue from those channels. Now, imagine they started degrading the quality of other channels (periodically "losing the signal", "getting poor reception", etc., etc., etc.) which "coincidentally" encourages people to watch their channels which seem to be free of the problems of those other channels.
See an obvious problem there?
This is what's happening with ISPs - they are providing access to the tubes. They are now providing content on those tubes. They are now degrading the service of other content providers (losing connections, poor speeds, etc., etc., etc.) thereby encouraging people to use their service(s) which happen to be free of those nasty problems other content providers suffer from.
This isn't business. It's anti-competitive manipulation of a market. In most countries (I'd guess all first world nations...), anti-competitive bullshit like this is illegal. Why are we allowing ISPs to do it?
ISPs need to be reminded that their job is to provide internet service. Once the lines between providing access to the tubes and providing content on those tubes blurred, things were doomed to go downhill.
This isn't about ISPs bending to the will of the various media associations - it's about ISPs trying to position themselves to deliver content and ensure _THEIR_ content is the content being delivered. ISPs should be prohibited from being in any business other than providing internet service because, in becoming content providers as well, they are increasingly acting in anti-competitive ways (if you think illegal p2p traffic is the only traffic they're manipulating, then you haven't been paying attention...).
Ummm...he was the one who led Apple into failure initially.
Really? I seem to recall him not being a part of the company as it slowly slid down the toilet. Hence the "when he came back" portion - he was off doing his own thing with NeXT. Between '85 and '97, he wasn't a part of Apple so I don't really see how it was he who led the company to failure... Or are you referring to the industry-wide sales slump in '84 which led to the power struggle that saw him leave Apple? Industry-wide is hardly his fault...
I'm SHOCKED to discover that people could learn something from a man who has completely and utterly turned Apple around from a company on its way to failure into a company that is flourishing and growing and showing no signs of slowing down any time soon.
SHOCKED, I tell you.
One may not agree with him. One may not like him. But, anyone who claims that there's nothing to learn from the man is an idiot.
Total petroleum power used for transportation in the US - about 28 Exajoules.
I assume that number would include 18-wheelers, trains, boats, planes, and other forms of mass transportation. Or is that value actually specifically "cars and trucks"?
This case belongs in civil court, not criminal. Let the dead girl's parents sue Lori Drew, prove their case, if possible, and collect monetary damages.
What monetary damages? Millions from a woman who probably has more debt than assets? While I agree the setting of precedent is kinda scary, I think the woman should be punished as a criminal in every way possible to punish her for directly driving a girl to suicide. Then again, I think what she did should be criminal - psychological harassment - but, I don't write the laws...
Ok, I'm Canadian so I could be very wrong, but it certainly seems that Citibank is regularly the target of hackers/phishers/scammers. I often get emails from Citibank asking me to update my account information (obviously, I don't have an account...) but other banks seem to be subject to similar attacks far less often. Were I American, methinks I'd be picking just about any bank other than Citibank...
Slashdot Mirror
I know that people love to throw around buzz words that illicit an immediate emotional response but I think people need to truly understand the power those words possess and recognize that, by using the word, they are not empowering their case. They are demonstrating a shocking lack of understanding of our world's history which immediately undermines their case as nothing more than the histrionics of a drama queen. Does this lawsuit have ground to stand on? Possibly. If Apple is treating their staff unfairly then a class action lawsuit is warranted. But, as soon as anyone associated with the case attached "slave" to their description of the situation, my immediate reaction because "attention whore seeking easy payday." If you're going to use an emotionally charged word, make certain it's relevant. In this case, it couldn't be less relevant if they tried. They may as well have simply likened Apple to Nazis while they were at it...
Lost for nine days? Found in the same office in which it was reported lost? How hard did they look for it? Talk about failing to build confidence...
The company has now decided that it might be a good idea to encrypt the data in their systems.
NOW? They're NOW deciding that it might be a good idea to encrypt the data? Ok, I don't work in the industry and all but even I, as an uneducated outsider, knows that it's a good idea to encrypt that sort of data. Jebus... That should have been one of the first priorities in developing their systems and procedures...
While I know the urge to show why these fans' visions simply do not work is strong, I have to ask, why bother? What's to be gained? They won't change their minds. Educating them to the reasons for decisions that are made won't change the fact that they want to bitch and moan about something - ANYTHING. Also, they want to show off. They want to play in Photoshop with the images and have their friends ooh and aah about how much better their versions look when the reality is that a vast, vast, vast majority of people feel that Blizzard makes simply stunning games. I won't even get into the fact that the fan-altered versions look like crap and are way too dark because that's beside the point - I just don't understand why he spent any time or effort responding to this sort of thing. Nothing will change for having done it other than giving the fans versions an extra 15 minutes of fame...
While one could contend that "music industry", in this case, means "musicians", the traditional use of the phrase is in reference to the big labels behind the musicians. And they will never embrace piracy even if it does mean their artists become more popular and sell out stadiums on a regular basis - labels make little from concerts. There's a reason why many bands tour constantly - that's their major cash cow. Now, for _musicians_, piracy is a good thing - if people are listening to your music, they are more likely to be a fan of your work and thus you call sell more of your t-shirts, stickers, concert tickets, etc., etc., etc. But, labels - "the music industry" - will never go for that. Because their business model is out-dated and they have failed to evolve for the new technological age. But that's their problem...
Was The Register hijacked by The Onion or something?... Surreal...
It is old news that has come around again. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/10/2249214
His ashes were apparently found, but this is the story I was remembering which is why I thought it was old news.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (not that anyone on /. needs permission for that...), but isn't this old news? Even old news by Slashdot standards?
All of those may be easy to implement but but just because it's easy doesn't make it good (perverted jokes to the contrary...). Those changes would be significant quality of life hits that would frustrate the average user who doesn't even know what Glider is and cause more problems than what they would solve.
Over their cell network, I don't think this is an unreasonable stance for them to take. Sure, it may be annoying for the .05% of users (or whatever miniscule percentage of people) who are affected by this, but this isn't about internet access for the home computer - it's about wireless internet access for a cell network. Sure, when our cell phones are much more advanced and p2p applications make sense I'll think they need to rethink their stance, but for now, it's pretty reasonable. imho.
Who do you think is going to see these clips on Youtube? Elderly ladies (who may be suffering from any number of issues that make them absent minded) or 14 year old twit pranksters? And I'm willing to bet the 400-ish erroneous calls they get a month, which are prompting them into action, are not dominated by addle-minded elderly who just don't understand what 999 is for... If they're threatening jail time and 5k fines, they're going after people abusing the system. So I'll stand by my "14 year old twit" statement.
These 14 year old twits are looking for attention so the cops are giving them international exposure... That couldn't possibly backfire and have the exact opposite outcome... Seriously, if the cops can't understand the very simple and basic motivation of pranksters, what does that say for their ability to understand criminals?...
Thank you Captain Obvious...
I'll ignore the obvious troll tone of your reply and instead simply point out it's clearly not as obvious as you think. Simply pay attention to many of the comments coming from Big Media regarding their drop in sales and whatnot - they have not yet clued into the fact that good product generates money while crap doesn't. But, hey, why point out the error in your thinking when you throw around fancy words like "vacuity"?
I'm just glad the summary had this added on: "You know what else helps have a big opening weekend? Making a good movie." I mean, seriously, the successful opening weekend probably had next-to-nothing with the "extra vigilance" and had everything to do with the fact that the movie is, top to bottom, fantastic. Make a good movie and people will pay to see it. Make good product and people will pay money for it. It's not rocket science. But, of course, they'll tout the success of the movie and the "extra vigilance" as proof that piracy hurts their other movies which don't have similar record-breaking opening weeks. Never you mind that those movies aren't half as good as The Dark Knight - their success suffered because of those filthy pirates! sigh...
I would contend that Jobs isn't the source of innovation at Apple (yes, he is _a_ source, but not _the_ source, imho) so, yes, Apple can still be innovative without him. Jobs is, however, the source of confidence. He ensures that investors are confident in the choices Apple makes which allows them to proceed the way an innovative company needs to - the engineers are given the room to innovate the way they need and want to. The company is allowed to develop products at the right pace and in the right way and investors remain confident that they are doing "the right thing." Would that same confidence exist in his absence? Would investors be as willing to allow Apple to proceed the way it currently does? That's a more accurate question. In my opinion, at least.
Your cable tv provider is a cable tv provider and nothing more. Now, imagine they started offering channels of entertainment and selling advertising and generating revenue from those channels. Now, imagine they started degrading the quality of other channels (periodically "losing the signal", "getting poor reception", etc., etc., etc.) which "coincidentally" encourages people to watch their channels which seem to be free of the problems of those other channels.
See an obvious problem there?
This is what's happening with ISPs - they are providing access to the tubes. They are now providing content on those tubes. They are now degrading the service of other content providers (losing connections, poor speeds, etc., etc., etc.) thereby encouraging people to use their service(s) which happen to be free of those nasty problems other content providers suffer from.
This isn't business. It's anti-competitive manipulation of a market. In most countries (I'd guess all first world nations...), anti-competitive bullshit like this is illegal. Why are we allowing ISPs to do it?
ISPs need to be reminded that their job is to provide internet service. Once the lines between providing access to the tubes and providing content on those tubes blurred, things were doomed to go downhill.
This isn't about ISPs bending to the will of the various media associations - it's about ISPs trying to position themselves to deliver content and ensure _THEIR_ content is the content being delivered. ISPs should be prohibited from being in any business other than providing internet service because, in becoming content providers as well, they are increasingly acting in anti-competitive ways (if you think illegal p2p traffic is the only traffic they're manipulating, then you haven't been paying attention...).
Yeah, because the summary was so interesting that I felt compelled to read the rest of the guy's thoughts. I think not.
"Check out this analysis on my blog and make up your own mind."
Translation: Visit my website to increase my ad impressions so I can make more money.
Ironic? I think so.
Ummm...he was the one who led Apple into failure initially.
Really? I seem to recall him not being a part of the company as it slowly slid down the toilet. Hence the "when he came back" portion - he was off doing his own thing with NeXT. Between '85 and '97, he wasn't a part of Apple so I don't really see how it was he who led the company to failure... Or are you referring to the industry-wide sales slump in '84 which led to the power struggle that saw him leave Apple? Industry-wide is hardly his fault...
I'm SHOCKED to discover that people could learn something from a man who has completely and utterly turned Apple around from a company on its way to failure into a company that is flourishing and growing and showing no signs of slowing down any time soon.
SHOCKED, I tell you.
One may not agree with him. One may not like him. But, anyone who claims that there's nothing to learn from the man is an idiot.
How did this development fly under the radar for over two months without anybody noticing?
;)
The answer is obvious - real geeks don't shop at Best Buy. We shop at Future Shop.
Total petroleum power used for transportation in the US - about 28 Exajoules.
I assume that number would include 18-wheelers, trains, boats, planes, and other forms of mass transportation. Or is that value actually specifically "cars and trucks"?
This case belongs in civil court, not criminal. Let the dead girl's parents sue Lori Drew, prove their case, if possible, and collect monetary damages.
What monetary damages? Millions from a woman who probably has more debt than assets? While I agree the setting of precedent is kinda scary, I think the woman should be punished as a criminal in every way possible to punish her for directly driving a girl to suicide. Then again, I think what she did should be criminal - psychological harassment - but, I don't write the laws...
Ok, I'm Canadian so I could be very wrong, but it certainly seems that Citibank is regularly the target of hackers/phishers/scammers. I often get emails from Citibank asking me to update my account information (obviously, I don't have an account...) but other banks seem to be subject to similar attacks far less often. Were I American, methinks I'd be picking just about any bank other than Citibank...